Bej Kerman

Not to mention save corruptions and rockets disassembling themselves because you made the part tree too confusing and built a cubic strut somewhere near the root, the latter of which happened too much to me.

Wings have control surfaces built in, so it doesn't look like hardcore wing patchers will get a good substitute for old style building. Unless you like every tiny bit of your wing flapping.

It wouldn't be a bad thing for KSP 2 to have an ingame alternative to having to mess around with Windows Explorer tabs and having to reload the game to see your flag show up.

Is putting thought into your designs really worse than not getting a choice for small wings? The indicators not moving is a bug so that's not an issue in the first place.

If it does the job, there's no reason for me to not use it. I'm not a recreationist, I make things with specific purpose and so far I had no need to use 80 parts just to build a wing. Partly because it never worked for me. And I'm pretty sure some people who wanted to remake Concorde or jet fighters or whatever already went to use procedural mods because they knew what to do with them. Okay, you keep saying whatever gets brought up is the only possible reason a wing needs to exist. Wings having a variety of possible shapes is a good thing. If a delta wing is all you need to add, good, but there exists purposes for wings that aren't just delta-shaped or any of the other basic shapes provided by Squad. It's good that now, if you want to make a large aircraft (the Concorde is solely for comparison purposes), 90% of your parts won't be spent solely on the wings. You didn't? You did say that - the words I see here and the fact it's under a post complaining about wings rather than documentation would pin your frustrations on procedural wings rather than the documentation. I just said that they aren't a shortcut or an easier way to build working planes. They may solve the shape and part count problems, but nothing else. In KSP1 if my pre-designed wing didn't work, I'd simply switch to a different one (really same thing applied to engines). In KSP2 I have 8 sliders each modifying different parameter. That's not making things easier, is it? In KSP 2 you've got 8 sliders that each change important properties that affect distinct properties of the wings. That is making things easier, especially for applications that call for very thin wings, which KSP 1 did not provide at all. In KSP 1 you had to fidget with tiny squares that weren't always the same thickness, sometimes caused Z-fighting, had to be maneuvered in specific ways to hide the uglyness, yada yada, that's not any easier than 8 simple sliders with distinct functions. Not to mention that control surfaces are part of wings now in the case of fixed wings and thus appear as distinct components rather than a flap dangling off a string of squares and delta panel masquerading as a wing. When a control surface is at rest, it properly blends in and is flush with the bits around it and doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

No. They said at most 16 players, divided into at most 4 teams. If they said it was just 16 players per synced instance they would have said so. Temper your expectations - please!

We've been through this before, haven't we? A game shouldn't require knowledge gained elsewhere to play it. I don't have to know how a wing should look like and how it affects the aircraft, if I can just use a wing that's already there, like I've been doing for years - again, I don't use the structural blocks. KSP taught me rocket science, but not air science. "fundamental principles of proc wing design" Which are? None of the games have ever taught me that and I don't think KSP2 will. I'm ready to be surprised though, but I wouldn't count on in-depth tutorials on wing design. A game shouldn't require knowledge et cetera, but that doesn't mean procedural wings is the problem! Little documentation is the problem and you're laying it squarely on the shoulders of the procedural wings because of a problem that doesn't pertain to them at all. You prefer the KSP 1 wings because you didn't get to decide on thickness at all and all that. Having no options isn't better than having options that you need to do research on to recognise their impact on flight. Yeah, you're not used to proc wings, but do acknowledge that it's not fair to blame procedural wings on problems that don't quite pertain to them. SimplePlanes doesn't have tutorials on everything, and if something lack tutorials, the fact the feature doesn't have a tut is the problem, not the feature itself. Well, yeah, but how do I know the shape? for KSP1 it was either slap a delta wing on a shuttle, large wing on a Mk3 plane, or smaller swept wings for small aircraft. But here? I get one wing and I have to work my way around it, supposedly spending hours before it can fly properly. What if you don't want a delta wing? This answer only accounts for one kind of wing out of many types. In KSP 1 you have to patch a bunch of tiny segments together for long aircrafts. For something as big as a Concorde, wings are going to account for at least 70% of your parts count. Rather than fiddle with some sliders, you're building a big ugly delta wing out of tiny squares when you could have just scaled one up. In KSP 2 you still try to put something from your mind into the game, but you're given way better tools for making a wing that looks how you want. (yes, you are replying to someone else, but forums are forums and I'll deliver input ) If only I had their level of expertise. I'm sure you'll adjust swiftly.

It's a big ask even for big companies. Especially so if you have vessels comprised of hundreds or thousands of parts! I'm just saying, tempered expectations are good.

It doesn't matter what the devs were exposed to, MMOs are just too big for KSP 2.

Hopefully "16 players online" finally puts to rest some of the over-expectations we sometimes see here for MP.

The patchwork wings were only done by a small development team who didn't have much idea how to tackle the game they started building. They aren't an ideal solution, they're not intuitive, and I still have trouble with them. Cast yourself back to when you started out with aircrafts and I'm sure young you had trouble with them as well. Humans are inherently biased against change and I won't blame you for that. I do want to point out a specific comment... That's on SimplePlanes for not having better on-boarding, and I hate to say it, but you didn't exactly make the choice to use Google or other resources to understand how a wing's properties affect flight. You took your initial understanding and used it as ammo against the fundamental principles of proc wing design. I don't really approve of that - someone not googling stuff isn't a problem with the wings having an option for thickness.

Even now, you should be able to experiment with them using ion thrusters. It'd be interesting to see what happens with an ion set to 0.5 thrust, and I look forward to seeing what that looks like.

Nevermind. You'll see what everyone is on about when it comes round.

The underlying changes especially excites me. Individual features are sweet, but not even going beyond what we already have in KSP 1 + QOL, seeing the work the crew has put into how resources flow, improving how the game deals with physics and high-speed collisions, how the editor handles parts that are placed but not attached to other parts (permitting ofc parallel vessel construction and workspaces ), et cetera. All this is going to make KSP 2 worth the wait, even under EA conditions

Delivery routes will be coming before or at the release of interstellar-scale parts. The devs have put emphasis on this one. If you have any concerns about resources and milk runs, assume that you must only send a ship of resources up to a station once. You're frustrated at the idea of kilometer-scale stations because you think you're going to be sending each ship up individually, at least telling from you saying "Citation?" about this feature the devs have put emphasis on before. You won't be sending each ship up individually.

Without elaboration, I'm not sure what the point of notifying the forum of this was.

By launching them into orbit and connecting them up, just like building a space station. How would the engineers fit the modules in the VAB? Nevermind the monster lofting it to orbit. Cool, let me build it and forget it. I'm here for the spaceships. Yeah, and in order to build spaceships of the scale you're wanting you cannot build them without OABs which themselves will require modules on a similar scale to interstellar rockets. KSP 2's resource management has been explained to be "build it and forget it" itself so I'm struggling to see your issue with KSP 2 properly modelling the steps humans would go through to build interstellar vehicles.

Sorry, how else were you expecting to build OABs? Interstellar scale construction is a physics problem and just lofting each piece one by one isn't the answer, especially when you can't fit a Daedalus engine in the VAB (which is a very reasonable restriction).

Because you were slamming the whole font rather than simply noting that the font doesn't properly represent descenders. There's probably a simple fix without throwing out the entire font. Just move the descender ones down a bit and adjust the above-line segments to line up. There's no reason this font couldn't represent descenders. It's not a fixed display, you can use a theoretical extra row of pixels below the existing ones for special cases. You don't need to blame the entire font - don't be biased. And I'm sure the graphic designer behind this font will have them fixed with feedback.

They've got better things to do right this second than deal with implementing the eye candy systems they made, and presumably haven't yet scaled to work everywhere under every imaginable kind of terrain.

Not if I don't know what the terms are, no.

Then use the grass

And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that the information to the Intercept Discord has been made available to the entire community so further elaboration really isn't needed. However, in the interest of making sure you have it: https://discord.gg/interceptgames Not touching it unless I have a good reason to participate in the first place.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I am not joining this discord unless you elaborate.

We don't know. It falls below the minimum requirements so probably not. It is also worth pointing out that a GTX 1650 Ti portable will be less powerful than its desktop equivalent.