Bej Kerman

I have before.. but us discussing them doesn't tell us anything about what the devs actually have in store though. So talking with everybody here about them wouldn't really do anything with regards to discovering what is actually in the game. Oh. Let's keep discussing the Kerbal G-force thing then, that's interesting. I bet mood will impact boom events. Keep your colonies comfortable to live in and it will be more self-sufficient than a cheap tin can with a drill, a launchpad and a few biodomes attached.

I posted above Okay. Please start a discussion about one of those then.

Dude.... they revealed how the kerbal animations will react to the g-meter. THAT!... is core gameplay right there. I'm going to definitely shape my campaign and build my ships with this mechanism in mind. What else is there to talk about? What do you want to talk about?

That would be good, but what would actually be the best is if they went after a few of the high priority bugs first (fuel flow bug, anyone?) before purging loads of the smaller ones. "As many as possible" isn't good enough in my book, but fixing a few really bad things is better.

Nuclear engine with high ISP and high TWR feels OP in KSP 1. The technology progression you've suggested so far feel like they're simply out of spite of having to wait to cross huge distances in space and not because it's realistic or reasonable.

FYI, metallic hydrogen is far from being an interstellar engine, and from the devs' comments, its performance isn't all that high. They described the engines as being between advanced nuclear options and the NERVA-derived one we have in KSP1. In context of the other engine choices, it's pretty low down the ladder. I'd say it's pretty compact and is pretty much at the top for any interplanetary vessels.

The Alcubierre drive is theoretically sound, but actually obtaining exotic matter is a massive if, hence why it isn't going to be in KSP 2. Oh, I'm sure there'd be FTL if there was a theoretical way of obtaining the propellants, much like getting MH to work.

Endless technical debt!

Kerosene isn't a propellant... until you invent the stuff you need to use it as a propellant.

"Thousands" is a bit optimistic. 300 sounds more realistically. You don't have KSP if you can't simulate thousands of parts.

We're not talking about rendering a couple polygons. We're talking about several thousands of parts reacting to one another. But whatever tickles your nostalgia ig.

it is real by the way, if anyone is wondering Yep. Good luck convincing a caveman that they could one day turn living things into rocket fuel.

If interstellar is too far away, you're not using the right propulsion. Try using KSPIE for FTL, it has many torch drives.

What I meant was people who are just coming into the game. An average person will be attracted by the cool videos, see and the new tech, and will do this, destroy the launchpad, fail to achieve orbit, think "This game sucks" and leave a bad review and convince all their friends to not play it. A person genuinely interested in spaceflight will go on the forums, watch some videos, and come back to play the game in a natural progression. But not following the natural progression is a problem in KSP. Many people in KSP use the Saturn V parts to go to the moon and the Saturn V parts are way too OP for the Mun. Its almost too OP for Jool. That leads to people never making it past Kerbin's SOI because they have taught themselves bad habits on Mun/Minmus missions. An experienced Kerbal gamer (like the forum members) will play KSP2 with a natural progression, then play around with ridiculous technologies on Kerbin. I bet even Danny2462 will play the game with a natural progression first, before using a torchship to go to the Mun. That's a lot of bold assumptions.

"There will be people whose first craft with be an Orion powered orbiter with metallic hydrogen boosters and that is the way the game is meant to be played." FTFY

Yada yada, KSP 1's development was more interesting than most games because, like Minecraft, we stayed so we could watch and play the developing game, and not because corporations were trying to overhype us by drip feeding occasional dev diaries. The last thing I expect the KSP 1 fandom to do is break down in tears because the beta game is in beta.

Oh no! Anyway

Correct! SQUAD Will still develop the original KSP 1. A disappointment for the 15,000th person asking this question, presumably hoping for something different than the other 14,999 responses.

It was mod-moved after OP. Ok Dude a mod literally moved it from the KSP1 suggestions section xD I figured that out already

I thought we were talking about KSP 1. On the KSP 2 subforum?

That just means KSP isn't your type of game.

Let's cut interstellar travel, scenes with tens of thousands of parts, graphics, etc. out of KSP 2 so it can support your old office laptop. Games aren't going to let themselves be dragged behind by those who won't upgrade their systems. Some people can't afford the necessary systems, yes, but some people can't afford games altogether. How about we just don't make games at all. Now that wouldn't make you happy, and neutering KSP 2 wouldn't make potential players happy either.

Have you not been listening to the news, or...? One of the most obvious things about KSP 2 is its faster and better timewarp.

For a start, the Mammoth engine has been made redundant and won't be in KSP 2.

I am not. ^^ This. I don't play this "forever-early-access" game any more. From 0.18 to 1.7.3 I played each and every update. Thousands of hours played. Never got bored. The only thing that made me left the game was the endless wait for the next update to fix one or another bug, the constant hold, wait, before starting my new mission, base or whatever, hoping that there will be a stable version some day that can be used to play a very long save. That version never came. And 1.7.3 is the last version I installed. I seriously doubt I would play this game any more, still I have it installed and come to the forums once in a while, and with each new update, hoping for the best and finding the same as before, just new bugs. It's sad to say that about a game I recommended to everyone I know. Now I think I recommended a never-ending project of a game. The number in the version before the first dot doesn't make the game finished. For every single minor feature or cosmetic update we get a bunch of new bugs and some old ones revived. All those bugs mentioned here before (and some others) prove one thing: KSP is a (bad) beta. The fact that many people are still playing 1.3.1 should have made SQUAD think seriously about it, but they chose this insane strategy. Even games developed by only ONE person get more hotfixes for critical bugs than this one. Why? I don't know. And I don't care anymore. KSP2 will be finished before KSP, despite the delays, and by the time, as KSP buglist is constantly growing, KSP2 will surely be less buggy. If I have to wait, I'd better wait for other product, developed by other team. Maybe they have better QA and bug fixing people/skills/will/whatever. Meanwhile, I will be around here, reading changelogs about new useless parts nobody asked for and workarounds for partialy solving new gamebreaking bugs. It's funnier when you don't play the game. I would play KSP if it didn't have a negative impact on the performance of my PC. I'm sure my PC would be much faster and less worn out had I never booted KSP. Unfortunately, the architecture of the game is very old and is probably beyond repair at this point.