Bej Kerman

I want the physics and engineering challenges, not the boring logistical challenges. I don't care how Adventure mode is implemented, I'm not using it, simple as.

And? Why do you assume people only use sandbox because the other modes are badly designed?

That's a problem with how badly designed science is, not a merit of sandbox. Still going to use Sandbox regardless.

I can't believe that was almost a year ago. Man, I just want to play this game already. It'll be ready when it's ready.

I don't think a fear of messing up while in bad conditions should be reason for ridding the game of challenges like this. Reasons for not doing this should be technical, not difficulty related. Yes, but I would hate to have to "Time" launches, I just enjoy throwing rockets and flying them, having to change for a storm or something just seems like a bad idea, as @t_vsaid above, waether on other planets can do what it wants, that will add challenge, but when I'm just launching from kerbin, I don't want to have to scrub launches. What about the players that do enjoy launching in bad conditions? It's not like it'll destroy your rocket altogether, it would just serve as some kind of challenge to break the monotony. If you really can't launch in bad conditions, time warp for a few seconds - or practice with bad conditions, because the solution to a lack of skill is not avoiding challenges altogether.

It does, once an orbit.

Care to clarify? We can already accelerate time up to 100,000x in KSP 1 - focusing on a vessel going 458m/s below c (unlikely scenario) would cause the background to accelerate 500-600x. How is that any more "wild" than just accelerating time a smidge in KSP 1? I did some number crunching (which I failed to do before asserting things would break in the background, oops), and yeah, you can get to a very large fraction of c without your Lorentz factoring breaking 100,000, so from a gameplay perspective any alarms you set could pause the game in a fairly straightforward way and let you deal with it before returning to your relativistic ship (probably). But to reach a Lorentz factor of 100,000 your vessel would have to be going 99.999999995% of c, or just 15 millimeters/s below c. Reaching those speeds (or even even the c - 458m/s) by accelerating constantly in one direction at 1g would take years from the perspective of the traveler and decades or centuries from the perspective of an inertial observer. I won't comment on the technical feasibility of implementing a system that can handle time dilation. However, especially with cheats enabled (like infinite fuel), the devs wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of very high Lorentz factors, even though the vast majority of players would experience a more physically realistic max Lorentz factor on the order of 1.03 or less, like what whatsEJstandfor said. An added wrinkle to any implementation of relativistic physics that I don't think anyone has brought up before is length contraction; at high fractions of c that would be extremely jarring to players that have never visualized it before. In my limited experience it would also probably be more difficult to implement than a simple time dilation system since, after all, we already have time warp. I'm impressed with the level of detail you went into, kudos

Do you have a link for this?

It'd be interesting to see every stock planet get the overhaul treatment. Could be a separate, but almost identical, challenge

The flight model better surpass Ferram given how much work has already gone into the rest of the game. Aerodynamics should always be half the equation in a space sim.

I am a literal computer scientist and I can promise this is a harder problem than you think Ok, nice. It's still not even a problem in the first place though, so there's no reason to claim that it is. As I just said, KSP 1 already does arbitrary time warp for the transitions between warp factors. KSP 2 is its own game, I know, but KSP 2 will be coming from developers with more experience; this won't be a problem. It isn't a problem.

These are made-up problems. A. Computers do not have as much trouble with fractions as humans, and B. KSP already does "arbitrary fractional" time warp for the transitions between warp factors - especially low warp factors.

Care to clarify? We can already accelerate time up to 100,000x in KSP 1 - focusing on a vessel going 458m/s below c (unlikely scenario) would cause the background to accelerate 500-600x. How is that any more "wild" than just accelerating time a smidge in KSP 1?

You have to put it like that, trying to sound like a Star Trek captain, instead of just stating it in plain English? N-body only.

The point of Sandbox isn't to "do anything", it's to do things without having to also worry about funds and other arbitrary restrictions, worrying only about Delta-V, restrictions on size due to the physical scale of the building, and other such core (emphasis on core) challenges and restrictions. Money and resources is not a core restriction, it's a pointless leash to keep us from honing in our engineering and pilot skills. Having a box of LEGO is KSP and not having to worry about earning enough to use a larger piece is sandbox. You still have to think about how the weight is distributed and how you're going to move the completed set around - that doesn't mean we want to spend hours grinding arbitrary points to use the pieces we want. We find building vessels and figuring out problems fun, but not grinding petty contracts to spend on a slightly bigger booster. Please do think about what sandbox is actually about before telling us what we're thinking (I must stress this, we're not thinking "I can't wait to play sandbox to do anything - including launching a 5km long vessel from a ground VAB", that's what the cheats console is for; we're thinking "I can't wait to slowly construct a space station then design an interstellar vehicle and slowly figure out the challenges associated with that, all without worrying about being kept from doing the very core gameplay loops of KSP because I don't have enough points from doing mind-numbing and ultimately pointless contracts and missions that detract from the very meaning of KSP")

They weren't asking for "powered gliders", a word you brought up, they were asking for a feature to enhance the aerodynamic realism of the game.

If you're using Steam, verify the integrity of the game files via the properties panel.

As Pthigrivi referred to already in the original post, its not designed properly then if it is a "pointless leash" It does not matter in the least how it is implemented, career mode remains nothing more than a leash.

It's for players that don't like being put on pointless leashes. Not sure why that has to equate to being a newbie.

Please read the context and avoid to cherrypick me to fit me in your narrative. It doesn't matter what the context says, you called it a cheat (which it isn't).

Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

Well according to some books it can be done in less tha 7 days. Those books are, of course, wildly out of date and based on knowledge that no longer applies (no matter how many astronomers the churches try burning)

Because you say so? Read Ryaja's comment, games change and between the scope changes, COVID and possible overconfidence from either Intercept or Take Two, delays are to be expected.

3 delays. 4 years. That's reality. You were expecting it to take less time to semi-handcraft a universe and balance all the gameplay?

The preferred term for "when you understand but can't prove it" is called having incorrect beliefs with no basis in reality