Bej Kerman

I assume this challenge is aimed at very new players?

Asking someone who plays a "sandbox mode" whey they would want to do that is definitely missing the point of why a sandbox player plays sandbox. Also you are bold to assume the save files will be editable at all, or easy to do so. I was playing Devil's Advocate. The point is to show Pthigrivi that "just make it a sandbox using cheats" is a rather tedious alternative to just pressing the 'sandbox mode' button and flying about with my own goals.

Why would you? Even if you had a reason to do that, you could just edit it through the save file, which I believe gives you more choices than toggling it in-game. Right?

Like an options screen, instead of having to tediously add credits and resources? It's removing them in principle. It doesn't matter if it's a separate game or not, we have sandbox mode now and then we don't. You're picking apart the words used and missing the point. People want sandbox mode.

Pthigrivi, can you take a moment to consider how you'd feel if KSP 2 removed its career mode because a few players decided they didn't like other players being able to play with the restrictions they like in a game? That's only what you're suggesting, with career swapped for sandbox and restrictions swapped for freedom and choice. Some people just want to build a space station in their days off without having to worry too hard about money, resources and research points. Why you don't like the idea of players having a choice in how they play is beyond me.

Isn't that just sandbox mode with extra steps? Rather than having people put in a bunch of cheat codes, it'd be easier to just let them select sandbox mode when they start a new save. Honestly, yeah. Just have sandbox mode anyway and let players make the choice themselves if they want to be bound by pointless rules. Removing modes doesn't do anything but force players to play the way you like - and the way you like it isn't the way everyone else has to like. Force the player to finish the tutorials and a part of the game before unlocking sandbox mode. That's how other games do it. That only frustrates sandbox players coming from KSP 1 and players reinstalling KSP 2 after a hiatus. Forced tutorials are a massive pet peeve for many people. This is all based on assumptions. Just because you hate sandbox mode doesn't mean other players enjoy having to put cheats and mods into their game before they can just play the game setting their own goals. The reason KSP 1 took so long to get a career mode is because people felt just fine having a little game that didn't put them on a leash tightened by budget and tech tree mechanics. This is kind of what I was envisioning KSP 2's sandbox to be like - primary resources are unlimited, so just like in Cities Skylines, you can go crazy and spam things all over to kickstart your city (or colony) but you still need to manage it properly, make sure LS is working, make sure that your (admittedly infinite) resources are making their way to the right places, and so on. It is still a sandbox because you could theoretically jump-start a massive orbital colony and from there do pretty much anything that can be done in the game, which is the point of the sandbox, but at the same time it has structure. This is how KSP 1 always did things so I'm not sure why people suddenly see sandbox as a threat. Why do people need to care so hard about how other people like to play?

IIRC Nertea is doing modelling on KSP 2 now.

same. Ok, cool. You're in the MP discussion thread, so I can't really suggest much else than enjoy the MP discussions.

This is the second time you've suggested they add something that's already present in KSP 1.

I'm confident in saying KSP 2 multiplayer is 99% likely to be co-op.

Yes, obviously, but what advantage is there to reducing the in-game time spent going from place to place? That's what I mean. Never thought of an answer because I never seen the point in actively thinking about how the time in-game does not really matter in the real world. I just play along with the in-game clock, that's all.

Because it takes less in-game time.

No-one said that.

Renders the thread useless if we have to leave the thread to discuss it.

That doesn't mean everything else isn't procedural. The devs aren't going to handcraft anything smaller than a crater with millions of square kilometres of land to work with. Procedural generation is still involved with smaller scales. What is handcrafted on a larger scale is pretty much irrelevant because we won't be seeing caves the size of large craters - we're discussing reasonably sized craters. And I'm still not convinced that it's possible to integrate individual objects into the terrain seamlessly.

Except that's not what I said, at all. Look at what Aziz said. I'm saying trying to procedurally integrate caves into procedural terrain. despite being a separate entity from the planet. will not look good.

There's just literally no way that's going to look good.

KSP 1's Tylo cave is an object and not a part of the terrain, and it looks as ugly as you'd expect it to look. So I'm not sure why that would sound like a good solution for KSP 2.

"no caves" is a big jump from "little gameplay". Even if you're right about a few obscure quotes confirming a massive gameplay feature that would require building and rendering planets in an entirely different way, it's nothing to be upset over if we don't get caves.

Does it need to be complicated? Maneuver nodes don't have to work any different from KSP 1, just highlight the bits in which thrust is applied using a different colour. No arrows, no complicated UI elements, it's just an additional bit of physics to take into account. Remember that KSP 1 already has constant burns, even if not accounted for in the UI. Maneuver nodes still worked without all this overcomplication. The trajectory UI element only needs to be adjusted to show the flight path curving into the new orbit as opposed to reflecting an impulse maneuver, maneuvers can work exactly as they've always done. Yes, then again our targets will be hundreds of millions (if not billions) of kilometers in diameter and we can always adjust course closer in where errors aren't as big.

Do explain.

Then it'd just be easier to launch stuff to orbit.

You're completely underestimating how difficult a space elevator is to build. Interstellar travel only requires you to build a structure that doesn't need to be much longer than the Burj Khalifa and invent rockets that can sustain propulsion and high thrust. A space elevator requires you to build materials millions of times stronger than those found in skyscrapers. You can't just stack bricks to orbit. It does not work like that. You won't be seeing space elevators until way after we've perfected interstellar travel, outside the scope of KSP 2.

Because a bipedal walking gun would be any more efficient than a car with a Canadarm strapped to the top.

That's like saying that we shouldn't say that making the atmosphere of Duna thinner won't affect new players getting to low kerbin orbit. A better analogy would be "we shouldn't say that tilting Kerbin won't confuse new players (starting on Kerbin) that have never seen a Porkchop plot". Kerbin is the start of every player's journey, and tilt could be disorienting.