Bej Kerman

'Canon'... oh dear. Let's for a moment pretend like 'canon' is something clearly defined and widely agreed upon (which it isn't) KSP has an exhaustive body of documentation detailing everything that is or is not canon (which it doesn't) and the game authors have given consistent and authoritative support to the One Truth of the Kerbal Universe (which they haven't) .. sure, let's do this. With 'canon' being such a fluffy term, and since we don't have any documented authoritative source for anything being official and/or authentic to the game, let's define canon by 'things that actually happen, can actually be seen, or are actually possible in the game'. Now back to your question: Actually.... not much of what is in the loading screens or the trailer is canon. Most of the loading screens show prepped scenes that you cannot get to or see anywhere in the game, in lighting conditions that are not possible in game, with Kerbals doing things they are not capable of in game, parts/engines being differently sized or textured or doing things they don't do in game, and generally showing a lot of graphics effects that are not actually in the game. The KSP2 trailer even explicitly warns us by showing a 5 second warning at the start: "NOT ACTUAL GAMEPLAY". Which is the disclaimer equivalent for 'we took some liberties in what we're showing - this is not official - do not expect this to be in the actual game - marketing made us do it!'. Even in the context of a completely fictional game universe, it is quite safe to state that loading screens and trailers are 'not real'. And that's saying something. Now please stop taking everything I say so seriously and making it into a debate. It's a game. I think I saw a Kerbal blink in a KSP 2 gameplay video... Besides that, despite the Kerbals not having any in-game origin or evolution, I think it's safe to say they didn't just come out of nowhere, which is where your logic falls apart.

UI, endless parts list, Squad's lack of original ideas for updates. #RSSmasterrace #NonRSSusersaren00bs Imagine the hashtags this guy makes

As opposed to expecting pin-up Mr Potatohead 'eyes' with no visible eyelids to blink. I love this forum. What about the images in the loading screen and the KSP 2 trailer makes them non-canon?

Well, loading screens and recorded video are just artistic representations; they're not real. This makes 0 sense.

*14%

We agree, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future either. I'm talking about how useful they've been in the past decade already. Don't open the spoiler or click any of the links if you might react adversely to images of multiple screens being used, now or in the past. This isn't a real space agency, this is a game. Similarly, you don't need 100 people with you to play KSP.

Of course, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future. I'm talking about how useless they are now, this decade.

Also, 44%, 45% does it matter? If you want to know, we got that number from rounding up 44%. A percent difference really doesn't matter.

Check your difficulty settings

A better analogy would be maneuver nodes. The're not required to play the game but are really useful and are far better than holding a protractor up to the screen or waiting till the Mün passes over the horizon. Also docking is technically not required to land on every body in the game (I site Bradley Whistance's 10 part count grand tour, which contains no docking.) Also, you can beat career with Mün and Minmus missions, plus a few interplanetary probes to skip Kerbin science grind. Maneuver nodes are useful and actually help when piloting spacecraft by saving Delta-V because you can find the path that works best. Also, that is irrelevant, docking is still a major part of the game. Besides, this isn't about maneuver nodes or docking ports. This is about how useless double monitors are. Like I have said before, 1. 45% I people can use it, probably 95% of the remainder won't care. 2. They could dumb down the game to 0.18 levels to increase performance, by removing "unnecessary features" like maneuver nodes, "mostly cosmetic" parts etc. But they dont. Why? Not profitable. Not profitable because it helps 2 people run it on their potatoes while making every one else quit. Just because it's not a critical part of gameplay now does not mean it can't be someday. When maneuver nodes were added would you have\have been opposed to it if a poll had said that 56% of people were fine with protractor's? 3. The reason why you keep repeating yourself is because you can't say anything else. If you could respond in a meaningful way to our questions you would have. The two big flaws in your argument are that you assume it will be a massive technical hurdle or presents technical problems (like I and multiple others have said if this is the case they should abandon it.) And that you assume that because 44% of people can use it 56% of people opposed to it. The first argument may be true but we have no way of proving this. And your assumption about other people's opinions is most likely wrong. When did it become 45%? Where'd you get that from? How is a really wide screen made of 2 screens any better than one screen? One screen provides adequate space to do anything so why you need 2 is beyond me.

Well it's a good thing there's not a 1 mile a year speed limit in space!

Oh, I hoped you didn't. The story is sad, but seriously though. He was such a racist man, I feel bad for those he insulted.

Yes

I wasn't specifically talking about KSP 2 tech. I was imaging a hypothetical civilziation in which travelling was across the diameter of their home galaxy if it was roughly the size of the Milky way was relatively easy. Comparable to us travelling across the solar system. But since we can travel across the solar system, does not mean we can reach the next star. That leap is alot greater. But a civilization that could travel across the galaxy, would have a much easier time getting to the next one. Maybe not trivial (like if they could do it in a year, then next galaxy would be 100 years, which may be a tough barrier to overcome on a human time scale), but a much less of a leap, than the initial problem of getting across the galaxy or getting to the next star. Travelling between ends of one galaxy and the other, and travelling to the other galaxies is not fundamentally different except for the time it takes, as far as we know. If we could walk to the Moon, there was breathable air and resources along the way, then yes, getting to the Moon would be a piece of cake on a long enough time scale. If the Earth was only two islands separated by a vast ocean, it would be much harder for the two inhabitants on the island to ever meet. Assuming magic exists, it's a piece of cake to survive re-entry naked. But if we stop being silly, then it becomes quite clear you're kidding yourself to think naked re-entry is survivable. I am, of course, making fun of "If we could walk to the Moon, there was breathable air and resources along the way, then yes, getting to the Moon would be a piece of cake on a long enough time scale". But of course, magic doesn't exist, Humans nor Kerbals have FTL and you're being really silly. Again, 5 and a half trips to the Mun is a massive step from circumnavigating the Earth.

Best you can do with KSP 2 tech is 150,000 years to SagA*. Don't be silly. Look... "Going around the world at 0.3 miles a year was easy, going to the Moon 51/2 times should be a piece of cake because the ratios are slightly less astronomical!"

What's the difference between this and Animated Attachments?

4 miles, the length of the Grand National and easily walkable. 50,000 miles, around the world twice. 2.5 million miles, to the Moon and back five times and then back to the moon a sixth time. Barring some kind of magic faster than light drive or the discovery/creation of wormholes, travelling from one galaxy to another is utterly infeasible and dismissing it as ‘only’ a couple of orders of magnitude further than before missed the (quite literally) astronomical distances involved and the impossibly durable spaceships that would be needed in order to make the journey. Pinging from star to star a few light years at a time is much more practical and there are more than enough in the Milky Way alone to make going anywhere else not worth the effort. With a theoretical top speed of 1< mile a year, such a Kerbal feat would be impossible.

Light takes 4 years to reach Proxima, 50,000 years to reach Sagittarius A* and 2.5 million years to reach Andromeda. Do you really think that's not a big leap?

Asteroids aren't planets, just big parts. As such, you can't add biomes, atmospheres, gravity, etc.

Docking is an integral part of the game. Support for silly double monitor setups are not.

Definitely Then there's a squillion fuel tanks and an unhelpful UI, and you can never find what you need.

I think you are over-thinking this. Is there a specific exploit/technique you wish to use to compete in this challenge that you want to discuss? I wouldn't say I'm otherthinking this.

When you do this: The video doesn't make the line any clearer. It's still a blurry line that could get your submission disapproved.

When does using decouplers, sepratrons and aerodynamics become exploiting them?

Assuming RNG is kind, the Astronaut Complex.