Bej Kerman

I know - less than 5 years How long did it take Squad to implement multiplayer?

If you can wait 3 months for Squad to deliver heat, can't you wait a couple of days while the devs have a well-deserved break?

And it's bad, something modders had to fix like much of the rest of KSP 1 (systemheat shouldn't neeed to exist), indicative of the "that's a problem for future me / the community to fix" way Squad tended to develop things. Frankly, the community deserves a spot in the KSP 1 credits more than everyone from Squad did Also per Aziz. "Heating was simply added" isn't how it happened.

Probably unlimited. Shouldn't need limits down your throat while you're still starting out. I expect resources and limits will only become relevant on other planets where having hard limits on how you can progress makes sense.

3 reasons why I never understood liking career mode. You can set challenges yourself in Sandbox mode and you never have to worry about hitting balance issues or having to do asinine, undemanding missions to get a part you want.

You are free to play KSP 1, behold its glorious 2003 UI and forget this part of the forum ever existed

You didn't explain the problem with the staging being consistent between screens and the navball being moved to give a clearer view, nor did you explain why you don't see an advantage in the readouts not being scattered across the screen.

We aren't the people saying development is easy and that the devs are bad people for realising their earlier plans were not realistic.

"That's not really how eyes work..." Squad could've learned a thing or two from Sibelius which suffers similarly egregious UI issues.

Inspired by the 80s. Taking inspiration from real tried and true equipment. There's a difference between an interface that's inspired by real equipment which puts important readouts near each other and an interface a hobbyist made over a decade ago that not one Squad dev suggested updating to be more readable.

None of those mods were essential like the example I gave you.

I can use Ion engines, a bare basic feature of the game, without tacking crap on to make up for dev laziness. What possibly did Intercept change there?

And your mods list is exactly the same as everyone else's? KSP 1 is dependant on mods for basic things. Burn in warp, tolerable VAB camera, etc. Getting a game to run and have basic features should never be a case of throwing darts at the wall with the lights off, trialling different mod loadouts to see what runs bearably. Squad effectively dumping these things onto the modders to deal with is pathetic, and the fact the devs of KSP 2 are trying to change that is honorable, even if they undershoot (they are only human, and it seems half the forum would rather them live in a cave over mishaps).

KSP with mods is the joke people say about awful games. "It's like all 50 developers were locked in different rooms". Good luck fixing things when you have to go through 50 modders to find out why the game does not launch at all.

...don't have opinions differing to mine? No, pass. It looks stellar, spectacular and awesome. [snip]

[snip] They're right. Is that why you didn't want to read what they said?

Are you just assuming whatever was physicsless in KSP 1 must behave the exact same way in KSP 2?

A bridge between the devs and community does not need to be a doormat. CMs should be payed to do exactly this, tell communities when they're being inflammatory and insulting. So: you don't care about others' opinions on the matter, and consider your own opinion that they're being inflammatory (read: having a backbone) a fact that's set in stone?

If I called you the things Dakota called the reddit community, I'd be out the forums for at least 15 days for insulting language. Having a backbone =/= insulting. If you were being told what the dev team are being told every day, you would have much worse things to say than the dev team has. If anything, Dakota is being nice.

The CM isn't being provocative or mean. Dev teams are simply sick of being used as your (and everyone else's) doormat and you don't like what they have to say.

Exactly. It's mostly people whining about KSP 2 and coming up with the most ridiculous arguments for why it'll fail that make this forum a reading on the Geiger counter, and yet it's that exact same group also whining about censorship and toxicity. [snip]

One is a complete game with pre-made craft* made by the company that made the operating system the game is playing on, while the other is in EA, made by a (at least relatively speaking) small team, and allows its users to build anything the engine can render. *I know people say you can add planes to it, but from what I see building them is more similar to coding a mod in KSP than building a ship. I've no firsthand experience with it as MSFS is as interesting to me as Paint Drying Observer 2023. Your idea of how fun aviation is, is misinformed, but yes. Doing the metaphorical God's work showing these bad analogies for what they are.

I don't believe there's a conceivable world where Kerbals, beings with heads twice the size of their torso, would work with realistic skin.

That is debatable. You described it better than I could have.