Bej Kerman

They don't need to be required, just advised, else you're pushing into the realm of RNGBS.

RTX 2060?? My old 1050 Ti could handle SpaceEngine's ray-marched Kerr-Newman black hole simulation, complete with volumetric accretion disks, so I'm a bit surprised to see that KSP 2's minimum requirements call for something better than the 1000-series.

If you don't have 2 antennas for direct and 4 for relay, then what happens if something breaks?

Thanks for inventing this bit of terminology. I've wanted a word to describe the thing that keeps players stuck to such unambitious missions like "go plant a flag there and come right back" even when they're capable of such larger missions. KSP's Kraken Ceiling is too low for a game whose free advertisement comes from Mile-Long Ships! Then again, most EA titles (especially KSP 2) will be more stable than a full space simulator built on a codebase only intended for a 2.5D time killer.

KSP already does this, though. If you only include one antenna, or panel, or anything that can break, what happens if it breaks? Redundancies are already an advantage. You can get away with redundancies, yeah, but it's still a good idea to include them.

It's just another one of KSP 1's mistakes that Intercept has every right to change, another fix to address KSP 1's horrid UI placement. The middle of the screen is for the rocket. Besides, looking a bit left won't be difficult, especially now that altitude and speed aren't scattered on opposite sides of the screen. So now it's the most important display instrument, and it's been moved a tad to the left. Still just as easy to read as if it were in the middle.

I believe you are really underestimating how important the UX is for gameplay, like really underestimating it (again, Intercept didn't spend 5 years modding KSP 1 - they've rebuilt it, and then some). "where is the new gameplay?" is a secondary issue to "is the existing gameplay held down by an endless array of issues, oversights and poorly designed UX/UI?" KSP 2 is special because you can no longer site malfunctioning mods, a lack of persistent thrust, performance, etc. as a reason you're not using NERVs and ion drives for manned exploration - that's just one instance of something that's considered unimportant but actually has a major impact on gameplay. I'm not judging you for holding out on KSP 2, I'm saying your judgement of KSP 2 could be considered flawed and is focusing on less important things to, say, backend improvements so that resources don't stop existing in the background, or so that the fps you experience while focused on a large vessel isn't that far off from the fps you started with.

I'll just drop this here, I've made my point once and don't need to rephrase it All this should be considered - the vast list of fundamental changes to the game, the UX, the background processes - not just how the gameplay looks on the surface and all the roadmap features you hoped to be using 3 years ago

Yep People ought to be careful now because now is when people choose to start making edits of the UI. Before making judgements about the UI, it's worth making sure you source your screenshots from their original posts.

KSP 1, in my case at least, sometimes explodes the entire craft instead of the one part that clipped.

Could just be a case of "it looks cool", and yeah, multi-antenna configurations do look cool, as well as being a realistic thing to put on your craft seeing as a real craft would need redundancies for nearly everything.

Scott Manley once suggested that re-entry heat should cause joints to break, rather than just explode stuff.

I just wanted to establish that there's a difference between saying that you want to play KSP 1 modded instead of KSP 2, and saying that KSP 1 modded does what KSP 2 does - it certainly doesn't I like that theory, but I agree that it's hard to see what was covered up. My other theory is that they just have different rendering code for the UI elements, and that these shots where part of testing it but it wouldn't explain why the rest of the shot would be exactly the same—unless they just quickload a bunch of test scenarios to see how the UI works out in different circumstances. I'm just going to go with what Occam's Razor says, and say that it's just a bit of flair, like the Kerbals at the start which obviously aren't in-game footage.

M2V

"Modded KSP does the same thing!" VAB Workspaces? Physics LOD? Background resource flow? Orbital speed collisions? I'm not judging people who won't be getting KSP 2 and will try to make do with what they can cobble KSP 1 into, I'm just saying it's fallacious to say KSP 2 isn't going to be much more than what modded KSP 1 can do. Sorta undermining the half-decade Intercept has spent analysing KSP 1 to figure out what can be done to improve KSP 2. Not directed at you Solar, just something to add onto what you said Even if KSP 2 runs at 20fps by default and drops to 15fps with massive vessels, it'll be a better start-fps:lag-fps ratio than KSP 1 dropping from 60fps to 10fps because you switched to a massive (not even that massive, just big) vessel once.

Assuming there is one, even if you have to rebuild stuff. If you've already tested and successfully flown your rockets in KSP 1, then it should just be a matter of copying what you did in KSP 1 and weeding out any rebalancing problems due to it being a completely different game. That shouldn't be anywhere near the headache designing a craft from scratch would be.

Indeed. Colours are nice, but when overused, they lose their novelty fast.

Looks like you've got some catching up to do Methane + oxidizer is now the go-to fuel for the NASA-era rocketry in this game.

Oh GOODNESS no. This is precisely what made the KSP 1 UI such a mess, scattering anything and everything to fill the sides of the screen. The entire purpose of putting everything in one corner is so that your eyes don't have to dart around for readouts. Sometimes leaving empty space is a good thing! Negative space is sometimes just as much a UI element as the UI itself! Please pardon the misread. I recognise you said "navball" and not "screen" now. Still, an illustration would help define what you mean by "edges of the navall" seeing as the atmo and climb readouts are already there. Atmo pressure, I can half-understand. Climb rate, it's perfectly fine there. Right next to the navball like it is in an airliner.

100% agreed. The player shouldn't have to go beyond the flight view for information that doesn't pertain to their mission plan.

I assume most mods, given KSP 2's extended moddability, should properly integrate themselves into the game rather than be some BDB Big Dumb Button sitting in the corner (again, compare Kerbal Engineer dV readouts with stock KSP dV). Either way, I'm guessing this is going to be an interactive UI element, and would be a convenient way to switch scenes quickly. Actually, this is probably one of the more underrated changes KSP 2 made. In KSP 1 it was a function with 0 presence in the interface, 0 presence outside the keymap. It's easy to say "it's just one key!" when you've got 4/5 years experience behind you, not so much when you are still learning the game. Besides, the GO button holds the total dV readout, which I'm guessing you'd like to be on-screen at all times. Lopsided would be my chosen descriptor. No space is saved, the navball still extends sideways as much as it did before being adjusted, plus or minus some pixels.

One of the big things KSP 2 will do is make massive vessels accessible. Making behemoths with dozens of km/s of dV shouldn't require you take a class in tolerating physics delta and Kraken attacks anymore, plus timewarp, non-impulsive nodes and reactors will give players a much, much bigger incentive to use ion drives for things besides probes.

Also note that the IVA view shows empty seats now I wonder how that'll scale for vessels with dozens, if not hundreds, of spaces for Kerbals.

It's rather easy to see it was edited in post.

KSP 2 also has a part manager that lets you bring up a part's properties without needing to click on the vessel, but we'll see.