Bej Kerman

I don't think jet engines work and the Aerospike came way before propellers. If you bring wings, they should work.

And, you're not able to work on a backup, are you? Working on the live thing sounds like a recipe for disaster. Obligatory "that looks better than correct" post. (I don't actually think it looks better, but it does not look all that worse) Honestly I agree

Not sure where to post this (wouldn't be able to find the suitable topic anyway), but the forum is completely and totally broken. Is it so on your end? It's like there's no style, just text, massive bullet point lists and the default Chrome font. Screencap https://imgur.com/k4MOffr

It's a bit more complicated than that.

And the caveman said "I don't believe in 'any sufficiently advanced tech is indistinguishable from magic', because it assumes that there's tech that wouldn't have any sticks and stones I.E. understandable parts in it". Of course, nuclear reactors don't have sticks and stones inside, nor are rockets powered by branches tied to the ground.

??

I dare you- no, double-dare you to create your own universe in a computer with mostly-accurate orbital dynamics, massive ships made out of thousands of parts and graphics unmatched by most other games out there.

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.