Bej Kerman

What is this reply trying to achieve?

Impossible. Then that just means more bugs. Why is that?

How is not having the navball and height on opposite sides of the screen a bad thing? Change is a thing, you'll have to get used to it.

Make an interstellar starship and ram a planet at near light speed

Unity is being used for KSP 2. Besides, old engines aren't inherently bad for games. It's only when they're not maintained properly do they turn into Creation Engine.

1. No need to make things complicated. Can be made simple. Simple things are interesting. When few things it's boring. 2. Each ore has its own properties of overheating, bending, brittleness, and melting temperature. This will make the game fun. 3. Even if the ore count is 30-60 it will greatly brighten up the game.4. KSP seems unfinished and not interesting (it Sadly). Why? Now all the top-end (namely, sold games) use the "SURVIVAL" genre. Yes you are the best simulator more realistic in the field of flights, of all (The truth of the planet is mythical, which is very sad (it's terrible)). Interestingly this real solar system. Mercury,Venus,Earth,Moon,Mars,Phobos,Deimos,asteroid belt,Jupiter and its moons,Saturn and its moons,Uranus and its moons,Neptune and its moons,Pluto and asteroid belt. Next already fictional mystical planets. The game really lacks the elements of "Survival" (to become full). 5. It's stupid to explore space without "SCIENCE" (biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering, geology.) It's boring to explore space without "SURVIVAL" 6. To make the game interesting. You need to take emphasis on “SCIENCE” and “SURVIVAL”. Maybe not as I wrote, a little differently. But the genre of "SCIENCE" and "SURVIVAL" in games is very popular and very important. But KSP is a game about flying rockets and NOT about simulating a solar system wide mining company. The game focuses on ROCKET SCIENCE, not EVERY OTHER SCIENCE IMAGINABLE. Aside from that, KSP isn't a SURVIVAL GAME. GENERAL SCIENCE and SURVIVAL may be important to other games and may be important in other niches, but certainly not to KSP and its followers.

It won't make the game too much more difficult, but it'll add complexity that we don't need.

I know it’s from matte lowne but i think most people who can play using visual mods, or at least I do Doesn't matter, you're comparing classic KSP and modded modern KSP to KSP 2, which makes no sense.

Having liquid fuel, monoprop, electricity, etc. instead of a bunch of pointless resources makes the game much easier to pick up to beginners. Have we all been forgetting the fact that the game is supposed to be easier to pick up and not just RSS/RO and Interstellar Extended with clouds, or do hardcore players just want to make the game harder for the rest of us?

No it doesn't, the screenshot is clearly from an instance using mods.

They might need more maths to figure out, but it isn't hard to actually make a beeline for a planet in KSP.

What?

You've taken this to a strange, and frankly, nonsensical extreme.... Does every game that has an Ironman mode come complete with a semi-sentient worm that destroys a bunch of computers? Never noticed it on Xcom... Well you seem to want a mode with no way out whatsoever.

You can still have multiple saves though, giving you a way out in a tough situation 1. Poor personal control 2. So you have a game with no way out of the tough situation you've put yourself in. Now you have a worm that injects code into your PC stopping any current and future installs of the game from turning ironman mode off and using extra save files, a liquided sibling who just wants to play KSP 2 normally, and a worm that has just sent itself to every computer that your computer has saved the Email address to. Not only would blocking every way out be complicated (probably illegal too), but it would be pointless and would also [where the forum censor replaced the P word with liquid] off some people who share computers either because of a lack of space or a lack of money.

Anyway, I'm going to stop involving myself in this pointless discussion. Goodbye. I don't know what you've been reading, but what I've been reading says it will have procedural parts.

Is it really that hard for you to just ignore the list of procedural parts that only has one battery, one tank, etc? Right, because real space agencies can't just design their own engines. 'OK, what engine would be best for this craft?' is just mostly 'Hmm, where do I even start finding this engine I want? I can't use search because engines and tanks are named with the roll of a dice and some random code-sounding letters, and it's like each part goes by its own unique art style'. Also, what about people who don't like LEGO? Yeah, these people exist, me being one of them. I don't like LEGO and I don't like how KSP just stuck to LEGO because it worked in 0.7.3 when there were only a couple of parts to choose from. With that said, I'm glad that KSP 2 is getting procedural parts. It means that I'll finally be able to build N1s, Starship Superheavys, etc. and all other sorts of rockets with non-conventional shapes and cross sections without being restricted by KSP 1's LEGO and endless part lists. Ugh, making fairings for my payloads are my least favourite part of designing rockets. Not only that, but I have to go into the right-click menu to change all the terrible defaults. Why isn't clamshell deploy on by default?

I am not sure what you mean because NASA has a stock of NERVAS that we’re planned for 70’s missions and the Copernicus mtv. I don't see how this matters. We pretty much never use NERVAs. Btw, please fix your quote.

They remove some of KSP's challenge? Searching through endless lists is not challenge. It's just hard work that wastes time better spent actually flying creations, and most of all, leads to fuel tanks stacked on fuel tanks bloating part counts. "With procedural parts, you just take a couple rocket components and just tweak them" Well what if I want to do more than a sub-orbital hop? Obviously there will still be challenge in maximising Delta-V, which is a core part of the game and won't be changed by procedural parts. "LEGO-like parts is part of the character and charm" The PS1's graphics had charm. But we haven't let that stagnate the development of graphics and technology. I can't imagine playing Minecraft with wobbly textures that morph depending on what angle you look at them from. It's not just making the VAB and SPH's endless lists of lookalike parts less tedious. It's reducing part counts as I said earlier and letting people on lower spec devices build larger things and do more stuff. Not to mention, when... Just when... did I say I wanted LEGO parts gone? You have your list, I'll have my working rocket that I didn't need to spend hours on looking for the right parts.

The way the forum works is beyond me. I completely agree with you. Let's try again: How do arbitrary limits make the game more fun?

How do arbitrary limits make the game more fun?

I'd rather more time go to development than pleasing the fanbase who will ask for moar videos 0.22 seconds after getting what they wanted.

All of you are ignoring DunaManiac: Plus, we already got the video showing off the engine plumes.

They're using the same broken, massively simplified aero model that KSP1 has, and that's been confirmed for a long time. Citation needed

How do you know?