Bej Kerman

It's glaringly obvious you get all your ideas from Star Trek, and not the various papers and amateur videos explaining how interstellar travel can be accomplished without FTL, and hard science fiction films and shows that show how interstellar travel is really done It only takes 4 years to reach Alpha Centauri, at 0.25c that's only just under twice the amount of time it took New Horizons to get to Pluto, a much closer target. IIRC that figure is outdated. Now you only need the energy in Voyager I's mass.

By whom?

No. "Coriolis effect" or something, "interstellar music" just isn't an achievement name. It isn't even a name. I can't be sure this is even grammatically correct.

Scouting star systems via probes attached to solar sails, many years ahead of bigger rocket-propelled vessels

Indeed - the spinny bit we can put on massive vessels is just to keep the snacks from floating into the aircon

Not at all. There are too many orders of magnitude with timewarp. One player wants to get to Jool and another wants to land on the Mun. It doesn't matter anyway, subspace bubble timewarp is tried and true, lets you timewarp as much as you need without affecting someone else.

May I ask what seems feasible about a colony depending on shipments that only come every half a century? Doesn't matter anyway, independence is going to be a necessity with colonies.

No idea how you expect such a system to work, unless it's just an in-game window for code to be written and run.

Unity gets a lot of flak for having a low barrier for entry, resulting in a lot of poorly done games. People cherrypick these games when they want to demonstrate that Unity is bad, when it really isn't. KSP and a lot of other good games have been built in Unity, so you really can't use the bad content against it. Just ignore "bobs game 99" if it's getting on your nerves - it shouldn't degrade what Unity has made possible. All this is to demonstrate that a planet maker isn't bad because people make bad content with it. A toolbox is only as bad as what you use it to make.

Does not matter. You don't think KSP might also have a ton of bad mods that don't get attention because they're being overwashed by the quality stuff? Point being, a planet maker would be good for accessibility - all communities have good and bad content, and it's not hard to find good among bad. A planet maker would let creative individuals tinker with planet creation without having to be good with long config files and coding.

Yes

1/25 is a pretty random value, don't you think? Point is many things can't be solidly defined, no matter how confident you are in your own definition. Even the line between brown dwarf and red dwarf gets hazy. The devil is in the details.

Where do you go from B orbiting A to B and A orbiting each other?

Doesn't matter, you could probably dig it out of the files just owning the game on its own.

Bad idea. Just simulate the rocket as a single part, then actually punish the player for destroying the rocket by ruining colony happiness, and of course not letting the player take the resources from the shipment.

Some thing's just don't have to be said Realism: It could be either. Pessimism and optimism are stupid.

Master39 makes a perfectly good point, you can complain about the skill required to land a booster near a colony but you have yet to consider the response you would have in mind if someone even newer than you complained about the skill level required to get into orbit. Is the solution to make everything in the game have an autopilot? Absolutely not. The solution is better awareness and less "task saturation". A stock variant of Kerbal Engineer I think would make a good solution for helping with situational awareness, and of course task saturation can already be overcome with slow motion so that the player has more time to absorb the events happening. So why, after I consider two solutions to two problems, do you just go for such a cookie cutter reply as 'throw in an autopilot'? (just a reminder that Scott Manley also had depth perception problems in KSP but didn't shy away from narrowing his booster landing skills) Confirmed. Maneuver nodes will account for burn times in how the trajectory is shown. What I've been saying this entire thread - we don't have an autopilot for docking, we certainly don't have an autopilot for interplanetary transfers or landings. So why must the line be drawn at booster landings? Because one person can't do it? Well I've got news, there have also been people who could never dock or even land on the Mun. So why don't we argue that an autopilot should play the game for us? Because flying is the core aspect of this game, being in control of a rocket you have got to get back safely. The skill curve of KSP 2 is going to be an extension of the skill curve of KSP 1. You've mastered all you're bothered to learn in KSP 1 and you've now got to keep pushing yourself to utilize the new features added by KSP 2 - it looks scary and that's why forum posts flare up about adding an autopilot, because people don't want to go further up the skill curve than they already have. Because it looks difficult.

That's why I suggested having slow motion to reduce the amount of quick coordination required, instead of the cheap (and frankly terrible) solution of letting an autopilot do it.

And what you're suggesting is that the side scroller should play itself.

I think they mean that instead of having a stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, you could have "Final reentry stage" "Interplanetary Transfer Stage" etc. "this is already somewhat a feature" "somewhat" It's sort of in the game and you can approximate the feature they are wanting with it. When we need to thread the needle, the current short arrow displays do not help much.

This is already somewhat a feature - you can rename different capsules and probe cores, and set their priority so that the highest priority part names the vessel.

I agree with Aziz. If a player can't fly properly, help them fly properly as opposed to taking the stick from them. One very nice QOL feature would be the game trying to follow player inputs across multiple ships.

Given the lack of autopilot, it must mean to the devs hands on, manual.

KSP wouldn't really be KSP with an autopilot - the motto as I remember it is build, fly, explore. An autopilot would take away a core pillar that's been there since before the game went into open alpha. Valid wish, sure, but a wish that goes against KSP's foundations.

Programming a rocket (kOS) is different to having a pre-programmed autopilot already there (what everyone else is on about). Some aspects of TCA should be stock in KSP 2 given that rockets are getting so huge that Mammoth engines would make tiny RCS thrusters in comparison.