Bej Kerman

Again, this isn't some game about fighting monsters and you've got 50 niche swords to pick from, KSP needs to at least reflect reality on a surface-level so as to achieve its goal of demonstrating roughly how spaceflight works in the real world. Tech has to become obsolete. But a metallic engine or something similar could probably achieve that same maneuverability with a similar Isp. Either way, you might as well just use RCS thrusters, which themselves will probably get late-game alternatives like in Near Future. By the time you can make a hyper torchship 9000, you'll probably never touch methalox engines again. Why bother when metallic engines work in an atmosphere as well and are much more efficient? Unless you're doing miniaturization and don't need anything bigger than the rocket Goddard built, of course.

Yes you can? For example we know that nuclear technology will produce radiation and produce heat, this means that nuclear ships need additional space and shadow shields, things that methalox engines dont need. This allows methalox to have the niche of being compact in regards to nuclear engines. For very niche cases where you really can't take the slight size increase and somehow don't have anything better to use than methalox engines, sure. But for general use, you can't avoid obsolescence. Rockets today don't use the engine used on Goddard's rocket, even if you insist they might have a niche use that somehow avoids obsolescence.

Well parts will sit as soon as far future tech comes around, especially the engines that work in atmosphere. You can't avoid things becoming obsolete.

KSP isn't a typical game, it's a game that also serves as a simulation that approximates real life. If you've got an engine that outclasses the others but you don't want it to outclass the others, tough luck. That's just the march of technology. I hope you enjoy seeing methalox engines rot, because you'll see a whole lot more of it when you get to metallic engines and torch drives that render them completely obsolete.

I don't understand the realism in having an increased range because you put more antennas on.

You think there's an "integrate" button somewhere that'll do all the magic quickly and effortlessly? To answer your question, yeah, probably.

It's tempting, but it takes the fun out of exploration and removes part of the incentive to build new / better / faster / hybrid vehicles. You could just explore the whole celestial body with just one rover with solar panels.. not ideal. I think we're forgetting the pillars of KSP here. Driving for hours on end isn't one of them. It does occur to me that all of this could be avoided just by sending the vehicle on a rocket and skipping the drive in the first place.

It needs fixing? The RS-25 was specifically developed to have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency, ergo the KS-25 will have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency. It's probably worth noting that the stock parts were balanced for 2.5x scale planets in KSP 1 and that might skew the perception of how OP it feels.

If two players send in two different persists where they've attached two different modules to one docking port, how do you handle this?

I think you're overestimating how many people care to drive in KSP, let alone for dozens if not hundreds of kilometers. Rugged terrain, molten lava, doesn't matter. It's all going to look the same after the first hour or so. KSP 2 could do with a driving autopilot. Set a destination, timewarp, now you're near the destination.

I have a dream! A dream that gets passed around massive gaming journal sites as misinformation

Global server! Where did you hear KSP 2 would have a global server?

The pillars of KSP are realistic space flight, defining and achieving unique goals, exploring new planets and building cool & unique rockets. Colonies as you suggest implementing them would overstep these pillars and introduce management gameplay that does not need to be there. The only thing colonies need to do is collect resources and provide a place for players to launch ships - they shouldn't need to turn the game into a task of finding what ratio of entertaining buildings to research buildings to maintain.

There's literally no way you could make something like KSP 2 from the codebase Squad left. Interstellar mods for KSP 1 are nothing short of janky and the devs have had to implement solutions to keeping track of vessels at interstellar distances that could not be implemented into KSP 1. Just the fact it costs money should scream "this is not a glorified modification of KSP 1", and all the dev diaries make this further evident.

It is recorded from the Unity editor.

If you invite any of us to whatever server you're on, sure.

The skybox would only get darker when closer to a star, if anything. The green, if barely visible when within a system, should become more prominent as you approach interstellar space.

Guess i just have different tastes than you, idk what else to say? The clouds, ship, and Kerbals if there were Kerbals in frame, would all look like they were sourced from completely different places. KSP 2 is trying to fix that, and I can say that the clouds in KSP 2 at least look like they are from the same game as the Kerbals. Same for the style they've chosen for parts, buildings and terrain. I can't say the same thing for the screenshot you sent me, I can really tell the clouds, ship, etc. were done by different people who weren't together to make a coherent style. Even in stock, Blackrack's clouds don't blend well with anything.

They have to prioritize something, they can't make everyone happy. You aren't being ignored. [snip] You can't just accept there isn't a stock autopilot?

Any routine mission can be repeated as far as I know. Hopefully that covers launching payloads, adding parts to space stations and refueling motherships. I'm confused. For anything less complicated than a Buran, just turning until you see a circle around the planet in map view will work, and it's what the tutorial teaches. As far as I can tell, yes. You need to run a mission once before you can let the game handle it. Not how it works in real life obviously, but this should also help the game figure out how much dV some profiles need for more complicated parts of flight, like atmospheric landings and takeoffs, when determining the range a routine mission can have with a specified ship. Rocket science is complicated, some things the game just won't be able to figure out without you first simulating a mission. [snip] I'm not a fan of the "[thing I don't like] is a possible reason the game is unpolished - [thing I like], however, is a valid excuse for the devs to not spend time polishing other aspects of the game" fallacy. It crops up everywhere. Just because you want an autopilot doesn't mean other people consider it a critical component of the game that's worth directing development time at, nor can you blame a lack of polish on something that you don't want but other people have wanted for a very long time. Game development is far more complicated than that. People have wanted multiplayer for nearly a decade and the KSP 1 devs had ambitions of it at some point. It happening in KSP 2. Please, vent your frustrations in a way that's heathier than making blatantly false objective assertions like "sorry guys but multiplayer isn't critical", things that need to be looked at in a subjective manner.

Automated routine missions have already been confirmed. KSP 2 is also getting improved tutorials, so people should also more often be able to get into the game without needing 3rd party resources. As long as you can dock once, routine missions can do them repeatedly. It is a thing

We're already getting that. You just need to do the actions you want automating manually first, so the game doesn't lose the piloting aspect. Procedural fairings are already a thing. KSP 1 has them ergo KSP 2 will have them.

Pardon my eyes, but... what art style? I see a mishmash of styles if that's what you mean.

If you ask me.... No "yes" boxes under modded KSP 1, great graphics and great gameplay is a massive stretch. Impressive, sure, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily good. Blackrack's clouds look nothing short of out of place, doesn't really help the already scattered look of KSP 1. As for great gameplay, nah. You're playing with a higgledy-piggledy of modules and elements made by modders who only balanced their creations with stock-KSP in mind. Trying to make a KSP modpack that approaches even half the scope of KSP 2 without it ending up as an incoherent mess of bits and bobs people made in varying amounts of time and with varying loadouts in mind is tricky, dare I say impossible. I don't want a massive toolbar full of tools, I want all my QOL improvements properly integrated into the game (another point for KSP 2 EA that KSP 1 modded doesn't get). Add a column for "breaks your PC because you thought it was fine to play but you only had 30 gigs free on your disk and KSP's memory leak problem caused it to take every last byte on your disk". Yes for modded KSP 1, possible for stock KSP and no for KSP 2.

Eh. I don't think I'm alone in saying that they at least have a style in place, where the EVE clouds are just generic and don't fit any style.