Bej Kerman

Ah yes, specially with the SAS wobbling your craft all over and the phantom forces from reaction wheels being huge. Those are not issues I've seen people discuss, let alone experienced myself.

Even ignoring the game itself and just reading up on its development, it's way less irritating reading the developers' thoughts and their plans than it was reading up on what Squad was doing with KSP 1. Reading up on Squad's development, it's impossible to not question why they were more bothered with fireworks and textures, than they were with better accommodating low thrust engines (like KSP 2 does now), fixing the holes in the parts list, hell, even extremely easy things like adding one or two more timewarp levels. It's actually stupid that they introduced Jool and Eeloo, and could have easily saved all of us over the years an accumulative tens or hundreds of hours waiting for vessels to sail to the outer parts of the system.

Now you're just being silly! That's an edge case causing a CTD. Indeed! Might I point out, if you used an edge case to discredit KSP 1, people would get mad (read: double standard). I've played KSP 2 fairly regularly this week, launching big rockets and I've even played with docking. it's a fairly smooth experience - dare I say way smoother than KSP 1 when it comes to low thrust gameplay particularly.

It's still Squad's fault for trying to put a game fundamentally unfit for console on console, and finding a company that was unable to do this well. The good old double standard. KSP 2 suffers from flaws -> claim it's a scam and fling excrement KSP 1 suffers from flaws (+ outright lies about the console edition) -> don't hate the developers, it's the engine's fault! Squad is perfect in every way and exempt from criticism of its incompetence and prioritisation of rubbish + fireworks over core features

Console players have waited literally years for a single update they were promised for KSP 1.

And optimisations will happen so don't consider it a permanent mark against KSP 2. Non sequitur Nope, the altimeter is the primary example of bad design but the rest of the UI still suffers much the same of nonsensical (and inconsistent) placements. Or maybe features that receive a lot of compliments and little criticism aren't going to be changed to please the critics? The instrument tapes exist for the same reason they exist in real cockpits, and frankly a complaint about "funny noises" in a game about space frogs is a nitpick of the highest order. Please do explain part models and such loading in when they're created instead of being pulled straight from RAM.

That's objectively wrong. The game handles its assets much differently which is evidenced by the fact that loading times aren't long enough that your resolve to play the game can fizzle out between telling the game to open and seeing the space center (and to some extent, the way parts are coloured and respond to lighting). Engines can burn in warp which is an immediate advantage given that in KSP 1, Better Timewarp and/or Persistent Thrust are prerequisites for ion engines and the NERVA unless you have all the patience of a stray atom in intergalactic space. The UI also doesn't suffer the problem the KSP 1 UI had in terms of layout, that is some jobsworth working at Squad refusing to have the altitude and speed moved closer together from where HarvesteR put them back when KSP 1 had effectively no features (either that, or they seriously didn't see a problem with the layout of the UI for the many years people had to look at it when doing QA). A landing can be done without diverting ones' eyeballs from the navball which would have been impossible if the navball, input gauges and altitude were still scattered haphazardly across the screen. The style might be debatable and the way the UI is rendered is suboptimal, but those are frankly nitpicks compared to the overall layout, which is no longer, to put simply, stupid. People can keep panicking about the features, but when it comes basic QOL features that Squad deprived us of like persistent thrust, a UI that isn't ridiculous, load times that aren't idiotic and acceptable RAM usage, I'd say it improved a great deal on KSP 1 and delivered the more solid foundation we were waiting for.

Ground telescopes. Didn't need to wait for JWST to discover Neptune.

I was referring to the fact that you can play KSP in multiple ways: It's a little obtuse to use "several games" as a description of a game, singular, especially when all these systems are meant to tie into each other.

~2 years since the last update... Probably not.

An apt description of most of this speculation.

Of course not, it's just two. Also, I'm pretty sure we were just talking about KSP 2.

Elite: Dangerous is probably the closest thing you'll get to what you're asking, and it's not like people around stations are going up to each other to compare each others' builds. Most people jump to supercruise to do whatever tasks they have in mind and don't care what others do in game unless it involves their friends or they're being attacked. Real deep discussions on builds and different ships tend to happen on the forums or other social sites and you can probably expect the same from KSP 2. Even if you somehow ended up with the MMO you're asking for, that hypothetical KSP 2 MMO would probably going to be in the same boat as E:D (assuming space centers and colonies would get nearly as busy as ED space stations), people only interacting with each other when they're forced, and people still using the forums anyway when they want to see what other people are building. You might get occasional things like ED's Distant Worlds expeditions, but you don't need an MMO for that to happen and it won't represent most players' experience with multiplayer. So regardless of whether your vision matches Nates', you should probably recognise that there's a lot of wishful thinking happening when you envision booting multiplayer up and being greeted immediately with interstellar vessels in the sky and several players flying in formation.

Nate's vision is my vision also. "A competitive space-race team-based MMO" certainly does not represent Nate's vision. KSP is not an MMO and it never will be.

Per Datau

I estimate that "busy" is going to be a couple players an hour at most. Don't forget to temper expectations or we'll have a repeat of the disappointment people had when the game ended up not being the pre-rendered trailer.

I meant to address this much earlier, but I've just flown around a bit in SE, and the surfaces really aren't that detailed. Obviously there's gonna be a bias in favour of SE because you don't spend most of the time near the surface just a meter above it where those tiny details from orbit or mid-landing become massive topological features.

That's fair, but a lot of us got fed up with arbitrary goalposts ages ago. If contracts exist, they shouldn't be a requirement for doing anything and should merely be a bonus for doing things. You might appreciate that KSP 1 gave you explicit instructions on what to do, but I personally didn't appreciate that being the ONLY way to progress and earn money to launch things in career mode. Worst case scenario, if you want to do something and the devs decide to stay away from contracts, just pretend you've got a contract to do something then do that.

After typing for some time trying to decide how this suggestion can be improved, I decided that it's fine as is. The game silently moving kerbals from assemblies you're going to launch later to assemblies you're going to launch now sounds like it could get confusing, and also prevents you from pre-assigning kerbals to different assemblies before saving the assembly file and sending them up.

Think again... Yeah no this convo is gonna go this way, I'm calling it; KSP 1 doesn't get a free pass because KSP 2 missed some targets. This is the same bad mindset of "the Star Wars prequels are good because the sequels were subpar". Performance is also way better than it was at launch, parts manager is responsive and it's possible to do missions with no major glitches. Snarky comments now had a best before date we passed several months ago.

Just like in real life Why not the Mun? There's probably an abundance of hydrogen and helium on its surface.

Whatever it is, interstellar vessels are not meant for going anywhere near atmospheres (if the dV saved could approach the dV left from an interstellar transfer). Pre-render quality graphics for a start.

Are we still pulling images of handcrafted scenes from Google and proclaiming them a standard for planetary scale games like we were in 2020/2021?

A few points from me A. There is no way you can optimise all the physics and calculations to run well on a mobile, or in a way that the battery lasts long enough to do even a short mission. If you want an example of how trying to port KSP 1 to anything other than PC would end up, look no further than the console version of KSP 1, which runs poorly and has an unintuitive control scheme to boot. The control scheme is another thing, I don't anticipate there being any possible way to elegantly control the interface using just finger gestures. B. Freemium is a bad idea C. You're suggesting porting a game to mobile with the implied idea that they can play on it for a few minutes while they're not busy or waiting for a bus, despite that being inherently contradictory to the dedication and time KSP 1/2 demands for missions of any length or ambition. Despite Squad and its partners making an absolute pig's ear out of KSP 1 Enhanced Edition, at least it fundamentally made sense given that you can sit in front of a console for a few hours and that there's an additional audience that it introduces to KSP. The type of audience you want to introduce to KSP, even if they had a mobile device capable of a bearable fps and battery lifespan, would probably be turned completely off by needing a substantial amount of time to learn the ropes or pull off any kind of mission.

It doesn't make sense in theory either because "radial out" is not "up".