Bej Kerman

...fine, I guess? Trying to do a reasonable amount of runs, like 15, even at the default iteration and population size, just causes the window to remain in its default layout without the information boxes ever showing anything or the map showing up.

What if we need power on the surface of a planet?

A simple solution would be to let you put the starting KSC on any planet you like. After all, why not? I remember mods that move the KSC were all the rage at one point and KSP 2 is putting emphasis on letting you build your own space centers. You can put yours on the Mun for an easy start, or start on Ovin for difficulty's sake and work your way to exploring Kerbol and other systems. As long as the KSC is a default base and not a special static model like KSP 1, then I don't see this being too cumbersome to implement. Even better, if the KSC is handled as just another colony, then you could change how your KSC is kitted out from the start. I don't dabble with spaceplanes all that much, so save my soul if I ever dabble outside of sandbox, I could save funds not having a SPH in the first place. Even better-better, if you could start with just a root colony part so you don't have to go to the effort of dismantling your first KSC before building your custom one.

Uh, no, it's just dealing with lower framerates and janky physics. That's not "difficult", it's stupid. So, difficult. As I explained

The fact that this is supposed to be a raster prop Monitor IVA and KOS only playthrough removing interiors is not really an option. How many objects in GU do you plan on visiting like that? If you really need more RAM, I'd advise revising your mods list, seeing what you can throw away

It groups most parts of the same series together! Although, frankly, Squad could have done a better job of naming parts so more relevant stuff appears together

Because that's not really "difficulty", it's just an exercise in fighting part counts as you need more delta-V. So... difficulty. Difficulty and challenge are two different things. It's not really "challenge", which is good, but it is difficulty, which tends to be bad. Pedantic rant over Also because you could make Kerbin very large undock the craft and shrink Kerbin, you are now in orbit This would require a quicksave edit to change locked-in difficulty values and you'd have to find your vessel's entry so you can change its state from landed and edit its orbital parameters to not encounter the surface or atmosphere, and at that point you might as well have just started from step 2 on a normal save

It technically wouldn't be rocket science to make an engine that turns rockets into giant soft-body models that warp and explode with stress while maintaining functionality of individual parts...

I'd say the game was dead as soon as someone at Squad said "Hey, how well do you think KSP would play with a controller?". Dead on the drawing board

Because difficulty options that change the fundamentals of the game as opposed to just surface level things make balancing the game a mess. Modders will inevitably make a Sigma Dimensions analog for KSP 2 anyway.

Yes, but it's not like it's practical and efficient. The shape of this example isn't completely broken, it just has a nose and a very wide tail.

Right on board with this. If anyone's sad about Intercept's focus on "defeating the Kraken", then they were only playing KSP for bugs you probably could find in other games. Aerodynamics, solid bug-free physics, etc. shouldn't be topped by "flying reindeer lol" in a physics game nor should bugs be allowed to roam for the sake of cheap laughs when they more often than not caused endless frustration in serious playthroughs.

I'm gathering that a LOT of players never even go orbital, but just plug around on the ground or with planes. They do not want to make it hard for little Timmy to build some comically unrealistic aircraft. They don't want little Timmy's parents refunding the game "cause it's too hard." I get it, but at least give us a more challenging option? A multi-billion dollar publisher should be able to give us better aero than one guy on his free time can... A. Little Timmy is irrelevant. Even with stupid ASDA-grade aerodynamics, Timmy is going to have the game refunded when they struggle to figure out how they're meant to make rockets. B. Have you played with Ferram? It doesn't make the game unplayable at all - if you can build a plane that flies in stock, it doesn't take Einstein to figure out how to make a plane that flies with Ferram. Most of my aircraft, if anything, perform better with Ferram installed.

I don't disagree. I would love to be forced to learn about trans-sonic, supersonic and hypersonic aerodynamics. I think it would be fascinating. But indications so far is that we won't be getting it. Sorry to pour water on the hype train boiler I know Doesn't mean I can't keep telling Nate et al that it's ridiculous in aerospace simulation to treat aerodynamic forces like stuff to throw on the backburner.

Did I say that, though? If a new game where aerodynamics is half of what's keeping you on the ground doesn't improve its aerodynamics to be at least on the same level as a mod that's nearly as old as KSP itself, then that's just embarrassing. I find it hard to believe that "just a tiny bit more complex than KSP 1" is really a bar that's being set.

Won't it be in alpha until it leaves early access since it's not "feature-complete" until it's "done?" I built a new top-shelf PC for KSP not long before KSP2 announce (8700K @5.2ghz, 2080ti, etc) and it'll be time to build a new one/upgrade by the time this game goes 1.0... yowch. I quoted it because it's not spelled correctly lol It'd be weird to skip an aero overhaul. Who am I kidding? Why overhaul aero? It's not like aircraft and mid-launch rockets have to travel through a substance that exerts aerodynamic forces... /s Point is that not overhauling the aerodynamics to use a system that reacts to the actual shape of the craft, even though KSP modders did it back when KSP was in its alpha stage, would be a very silly and perhaps even embarrassing mistake when designing a game based on the physics of crafts that have to be optimized for atmospheric travel. With a new codebase and a team of experts building a game like this, having blatantly broken systems in place like KSP 1 would be a turnoff when it's clear they're going to the effort of optimizing the rest of the game.

Who said it was stable?

Was it "Alhpa Capture" by any chance...?

Citation needed Would 2.5m parts not be overkill?

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Either Intercept is putting pointless details in their animations (bad idea, everything in an animation should be there for a reason) or we're getting a Planet Nine analog.

We can only help you as much as you help us

Send a screenshot of the rocket, with the relevant engine right-clicked.

The power of actionsgroups would be nice. I love to automize things. So I don't have to manually bind 60 sustainers, it'd be nice if there was a keybind to do this automatically, and another that shuts everything off blueshift-related. Anything to cut the amount of clicks I have to do to turn something off.