Bej Kerman

I'm pointing out that new players are going to be using a ship large enough to carry a transfer vehicle and lander to orbit, and that's where KSP begins to struggle. Yes it is, unless you are implying that everyone owns a beast of a computer. The learning process is only one part of the problem. I know how to dock. I know how to build vessels. I'm still not bothered playing KSP, because unless the only thing I plan to do is to send a dinky little lander, plant a flag and go right back, the game will struggle. If I dare to do anything with an inkling of ambition, the yellow clock tedium begins. Players shouldn't be discouraged from sending anything bigger than a lander.

No it shouldn't; if you removed the atmosphere from Kerbin, the TWR would be exactly what the tool is telling you.

Yes, Intercept. Market to a demographic that isn't old enough to buy games without stealing their mother's credit card

And is everyone into optimization? No, of course not. Some people aren't into doing rendezvouses all the time, others haven't even figured out how to dock. Point being, I see this argument all the time, as if a game like Kerbal Space Program doesn't need to be built to support reasonably sized rockets. It does. Black and white fallacy. Just because you're not hyper-optimizing everything doesn't mean you aren't building rockets large enough to put a city in orbit.

What feature would that be?

Why are you pessimistic? It's still a good show of the sound design.

I'd rather those anomalies have substance than just be identical/procedural assets sprinkled around for the lulz. The thread can go in circles but it all goes back to this:

I'd suspect a massive structure like this bouncing from such a height would make a crashing sound. I'm guessing KSP has conditioned us into thinking something crashing down should only make noises when damage of a catastrophic nature happens

I don't see any clouds, nor do I see anything texture-related to complain about. I'm having trouble figuring out what you're saying.

Anything more sophisticated than a student project will see emergent behaviour like this, else the programmers would be actively suppressing realistic behaviour (and probably end up messing up some other edge case as well).

can you elaborate?

And it isn't

I'm very sure they would have had to actively work in order to make an aero system that doesn't do this.

Do you plan on a KSP 2 remake?

It shown up as an embed elsewhere, so I'll just relay my reaction from there: Point being, the reaction felt more akin to seeing a new feature. We've seen all this before.

Ah, now I see. I don't see how this is unexpected. KSP 2 was getting wings, KSP 2 has aero simulation, and KSP 2 has engines. Given the hype, I was expecting an actual surprise, like propellers.

Can you upload it elsewhere?

More often than not, people have to cancel contracts because they ended up in a backwards orbit

This resonates with me SO MUCH. KSP is full, full of these kinds of seemingly minor bugs that can brick your missions (like the docking port resave bug) and just general jankyness (this is not how wheels work!!!), and I am exceedingly enthusiastic about being able to ditch this game for good.

I don't understand what there is to be outraged about. KSP 1 just overlays the interior over where the windows are, even if the "windows" are behind other structures. KSP 2 makes the windows act as windows. The devs haven't said anything on implementing an overlay that ignores what's in front of it. They have said stuff about implementing windows, which we can see in the screenshots. Not to mention if it was an overlay effect, then the transparency of the window models would be ignored.

You're getting at what, exactly? The screenshots are right here in this thread.

Definitely not; read edit

Does Steam not suffice?

Even if the devs undershot their original goals, there's no way KSP 2 is going to run any worse than KSP 1.

Not a him Thanks anyway