Bej Kerman

Irrelevant. Hardly given that all that learning happens outside of the game. Talking about KSP 2, not KSP 1; Irrelevant. Given how terrible KSP 1 aero is, both mean the same thing. Literally wrong. I['m not saying I'm disagreeing, I'm saying this literally isn't how planes work. All you need to keep a little glider or a Boeing airliner in the air is to hold the yoke back a bit so that the ailerons keep the plane from nosing down. Autopilot functions like holding a heading or pitch and maintaining a certain speed are usually only used for insanely tedious and simple tasks like keeping a plane straight on an intercontinental path. KSP 1 lets you do that. Can make a suborbital plane using two fairly subsonic looking wings and mostly circular fuselages, and it remains maneuverable at most altitudes. It's silly and daft, and it shows that KSP 1 used to be barely a mobile game before the devs tried patching a full simulator into it. KSP 2 is meant to be more than a mediocre game we all play anyway because there's nothing better to play (besides SR2 that's still fairly barebones in terms of game and community or something like Orbiter that's too hardcore). Noted.

Orbital mechanics was unintuitive before playing KSP. That doesn't mean KSP should've ran in the opposite direction and made Star Wars esque space operas possible. Instead of running away from such "unintuitive" stuff, KSP should teach the player how to design their planes properly instead of mollycoddling them and removing challenges. They shouldn't. The gameplay is learning how to design rockets and planes in a realistic environment. And? They should build better planes instead. They can mourn their old borderline physically impossible abominations when they're done designing physically plausible aircraft. That's a UX/UI problem, not an aero problem.

If you want to have a debate at least have the decency to read who you're replying to and their posts. I've gotten the gist of it - KSP 1 aero works "well enough" and isn't worth changing. That mindset has never led to anything improving ever. KSP 2 needs something at least close to FAR. With the amount of devs working on KSP 2 and how much of an upgrade everything else is, and how good FAR was with just a few modders having contributed to it, there's no excuse to leave the aero model behind in the dust. Just because it's harder doesn't mean it's worse. Avoiding challenge is never a good reason to shoot down improvements from KSP 1.

Hard disagree, as far as flying in games goes KSP terrible model is way above average, it's terrible, but exactly as for orbital mechanics it's still better than most games (if you exclude dedicated flight sims, obviously). Terrible isn't good enough. If you make a mod that changes stock and fail to provide the documentation on those changes than I'm sorry but you did less than half of the work. I don't care how accurate FAR is or how terrible the stock model is, if it's not documented then it may as well not exist. Toyota isn't showing you how to upgrade your stone cart into a car. It's not happening. You missed the several times I've explained that I'm in favour of a better model. I'm just pointing out that if you want a more complex aero model you should first and foremost have better in game explanations and tutorials. So, guess I should forget all the bits you said you hate FAR because it doesn't let you make unrealistic abominations that shouldn't fly?

I don't play KSP to study how aerodynamics work. That's not KSP job or responsibility. If it isn't then it shouldn't have had a SPH in the first place. If KSP 2 is going to support aircraft like KSP 1 did then it will need to do a competent job of not letting you do silly and ridiculous things that should not be possible. Yes, FAR is that far ahead of stock. There's no documentation to "bridge the gap" because the stock model is terrible and, as I stated earlier, is so unrealistic and easy to grasp that it's put a wave of newbies and veterans off of using something like FAR. The stock model needs to be left behind to rot in the stone ages. I'm sorry that you consider not being able to fly a literal grand piano difficulty. But, as I said, the stock model is archaic, and is almost actually insulting to anyone with a shard of curiosity about aviation given the time the devs have had to improve it. It's like if KSP 1 had infinite fuel on by default for the sake of "fun", because players would rather build silly things than learn how spaceflight works properly and find any fun in overcoming challenges. It'd be insulting to anyone with even a tiny grasp on how rockets actually work.

Conformal Decals was flexible, the stock implementation is just tacky. Literally just a picture on top of a generic part. Having to faff around with different scales and transformations to make it look right on the part it's on, not fun.

Is there any reason it shouldn't look as it does now?

Conformal Decals mod already does this. It still baffles me why Squad decided to go for a lazy flag-part "solution".

If KSP has messed up your idea of how aerodynamics actually works to the point of giving up on FAR so you don't have to abandon being able to make bricks fly, then it's done a terrible, terrible, terrible job, plain and simple.

What I’m saying is that in this situation, realism cuts into the gameplay and makes it less compelling. Instead of going for more realism in the aero model like FAR does, KSP 2 could make the model more lax while keeping the benefits of a voxel based model. And gameplay matters more than realism. That'd hold water for something like Elite Dangerous where realism can take a backseat to gameplay (or what little gameplay there is in that specific example), but KSP 2 is supposed to be teaching players how rockets and aircraft work in the real world, not precisely the opposite for the sake of a few laughs. If anything, not being able to make literal made-out-of-clay bricks fly is the best outcome here.

And? It's realistic, at least it will be if the devs have heat transfer detection implemented in those areas. Whether or not it's realistic is the department of those who have read stacks of books on similar topics to determine how such an engine would work I.E. those Intercept consulted while creating the engine.

Very commanding... "When you're sure the rocket will politely wait before it blows up, select the launch button"?

Well it'd be nice to be able to teleport anywhere in the Universe instantly but that's not realistic. Ultimately realism matters more than being able to make a grand piano fly.

Super off-topic but... do you think the corporation that sets the price cares about that? I'm just flabbergasted by this response.

Dark Multiplayer for KSP has been doing it for years. No problems encountered yet.

People are literally dying because they need to pick between having heating in their homes and having food. Please take a few hours every year to clear your mind of KSP 2, and have some understanding for the kinds of people who are spending every waking minute of their lives trying to stay alive and won't be able to afford the time in the coming few years to complain about how metallic engines look

I honestly can't see any conceivable reason Intercept wouldn't want to go as realistic as possible here.

What if Player A wants to help start a Mun colony while Player B stays on Kerbin and sorts out KSC business?

Sudden Challenge Get to Jool with no UI That's right, it isn't important

I don't really mind which KSP 2 UI gets used. Any way they have it, the biggest issue with the KSP 1 UI is still being addressed: The fact you have to look at the bottom of the screen for a speed and angle readout, ping your eyes to the very top of the screen just for the altitude, then look back at the middle to see how your craft is affected by how it's moving. Doing this is massively irritating, but it won't happen in KSP 2 because Intercept's UI experts actually know how eyes work.

I'd say pilots, engineers and scientists can all learn stuff on a simple flight. Makes sense; being in orbit gives all three professions the chance to learn something.

I'd say "Players should be encouraged to learn how to hold headings themselves before they have the option to make their pilot do it for them." strongly implies that the focus of the subject is new players, not experienced ones, else the "learn how to hold headings themselves" in the sentence would be somewhat redundant.

Funny how "gameplay should trump realism" only applies in specific cases... tech tree delay between star systems cough Players should be encouraged to learn how to hold headings themselves before they have the option to make their pilot do it for them.

I'd say an actual professional in the field is more trustworthy than a website developed by someone who admits it's just something they do in their freetime that may contain mistakes. There's nothing to worry about.

I was saying that to indicate how long and unnecessarily drawn out the thread was What you said had nothing to do with how drawn out the thread was. The only thing your message said was that NB kerbals are somehow a step too far compared to male and female kerbals. That's the only way it can be interpreted; you didn't bring the thread's length up once until I pressed you about this.