Bej Kerman

Fair enough

They do if you make spaceplanes! Which I do, yeah. But you also had to get used to using them before you could call them easy.

What makes you think that? A. They will be hard to aim (and if your aim too well, directly at the destination, you can't rely on atmospheric drag to help you), B. You need the tech and resources to make them in the first place, and C. Any malfunction that makes it difficult or impossible to control will leave it on a trajectory that's difficult to rendezvous with, especially if you need a more resource-expensive ship to catch up and reach the crew. I can say RAPIERS definitely do not make things easier.

That is a really low bar. Like saying Sonic 06 wasn't received as poorly as E.T.

I assume the navball and "ECEF" speed readout is from Principia? Have you checked to make sure Principia is compatible with this and Sigma?

Feel free to read up on the context because this is not the point being made Here's the short version, OP sees a problem with being able to use powerful engines inside a solar system despite there being no real reason to prevent players from doing so, and torch drives already being made a selling point.

...and? Let the player do what they want, the entire point of KSP 2 is giving players access to powerful engines. Yes, there will be mid-tier torch drives made specifically for smaller in-system vessels, but why would an advanced civilization prevent themselves from using massive interstellar engines for in-system travel should they come up with a use for that? Furthermore, why should the developers come up with an answer for that last question if one of the reasons for creating KSP 2 was to have stock torch drives?

That's what you like to imagine when playing the game, but different people like to come up with different stories for their saves. I think leaving this to the imagination would be best.

They mean from up close.

Those numbers clash with the heavily-aliased UI elements which don't scale to any other aspect ratio. In other words, it's inconsistent.

I think it's a bad idea to just patch more inconsistencies in, as opposed to creating a new UI that isn't riddled with fundamental rendering issues.

Go into here Check these boxes Small mods like this rarely break so it should still work.

Yeah. I mean, if the goal of the project is to create KSP 1... just play KSP 1. It'd be less effort to implement KSP 2 QOL stuff into KSP 1 as opposed to recreating KSP 1 entirely.

They're two different games which are balanced differently. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to start fresh.

Heads up, I think that word has the potential to confuse future readers

A more sustainable solution would probably involve LODs, so parts act that way at a distance without being permanently baked and further padding the parts list with various combinations in the VAB.

A recurring theme I see in this thread is that the people who interpreted the tweets as Intercept hinting at IVA in 0.2 are the ones being blamed for reading too deep, and not Intercept's marketing team for not accounting for this. I appreciate this bit of your reply because it emphasizes that subtext doesn't just exist in the heads of people looking at promo material. Hidden messages didn't just stop existing when yall stopped taking the English classes that were meant to teach you how to read beyond what is literally written down on a page or shown in media. It's pretty clear to me now they made it to be read as "try IVA in 0.2" and used the docks as a convenient little excuse to point at if people dare to look at the subtext that exists here.

When people are literally tricked into thinking IVAs are a thing soon and the official account has to make several clarifications, it's not "supposedly" misleading. It is misleading.

What game like KSP, with lego styled spaceship building and somewhat realistic physics were you playing before KSP became a thing? Orbiter doesn't have the construction, simplerockets came afterwards, most other games have soap opera physics. The only unique thing it did was the construction (which in itself is flawed and has received years of complaints) so I'm not sure why Orbiter is implied to be inferior.

Was it?

Imitating the upcoming IVA feature as if it's gonna be in 0.2 is 100% misleading and I'm not sure where the "it's only deceitful if the lie is explicit" attitude people have is coming from. A message can be sent through inference and there's a reason the history of cinema isn't just characters telling the meaning of the story into the camera. I think it's completely daft to think the marketing team is in the clear just because there's no outright explicit lies in the tweet. It's still misleading and built to trick people into thinking IVA is going to be in 0.2. It sure as hell tripped me for a second when I saw the tweet.

Why is this controversial? Is it not the marketing team's job to keep in mind people will infer things that are not literally said? If the marketing team keeps showing IVAs done with a frankly stupid workaround and has to keep posting "these aren't actually IVAs" they're doing a crap job and should stick to demonstrating things that are implemented already.

The second clip is no longer relevant; So they're killing the thrust this time, and for clear reasons they begin to drift.

Maybe you ran out of power? I'm not sure what useful information the implied yelling is supposed to convey.

If we go that complex, I'd rather opt for hydrogen tanks being bare and the current standalone trusses having attachment nodes on the inside for tanks and utilities.