Bej Kerman

I would not call putting the speed on the opposite side of the screen from the altimeter a very useful arrangement.

It uses the vessel coordinates and known water depth to calculate the AGL. Given that objects below the vessel don't block the supposed radar beam that emanates from the bottom-most part of the vessel, this is the logical conclusion.

Likely due to the ground underneath that water

Is your orbit circular? Is the altimeter in land or sea level mode?

Comets were merely the addition of particles around some objects (shouldn't take years to do) and the other three features should've been in a long time before Squad actually got round to adding them.

And Squad did what?

You mean implement multiplayer to the roadmap? Modders proved multiplayer can happen and the community wanted it. How long did it take Squad to implement multiplayer?

"Them going radio silent for two days" is a very harsh way to phrase "they had a weekend".

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?