Bej Kerman

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.

I think that blindness could be dealt with just by simulating the trajectory a bit ahead like Principia does then continuing patched conics from where the N-body ends. I wouldn't describe it as a SOI because that carries the connotation of a vessel only being affected by one body (and it probably isn't a sphere), but okay. I'd say "lagrange zone" would be more apt, though.

Yes and no... the lagrange points are very missnamed making people think it is a place where you balance in top of a needle. They are local minima or local maxima (in fact cell points in the function) potential and kinetic energy wise (that is why you have L4 , L3 and L5 even when these are not aligned in direct counter forces) , so you tend to get dumped into energy function minimum around them and get a lots of comes and goes until you can be finnaly pulled out of them and while on that process minimal dV adjustments can return you to the deepest point in the local energy function, the result is that they are SEMI stable. GoldForest was referring to the point directly between Rask and Rusk. So yeah. Now to discuss simulating lagrange zones as small SOIs as a placeholder, well it's stupid. But I think there's a clear middleground that'd make everyone happy, continue using rails for most orbits but enable multiple-body gravitation for vessels within zones surrounding the lagrange points. AFAIK, the game should easily be able to figure out where the lagrange zones are for each body and moon. You still get orbital stability but vessels also act in a realistic manner when in proximity to a lagrange point and can hold realistic orbits. Maybe if the player lets a vessels' RCS drain, the game will lock its orbit and keep it in a fixed halo so a player can leave a vessel in a halo orbit without needing to manually keep it there. Sounds similar to SOIs, yeah, but it isn't; the kind of fixed orbit I propose would use an already-established halo orbit as a basis rather than a weird Keplerian orbit around a black hole that doesn't behave as an orbit should when it's being constantly perturbed to form a halo around an imaginary point.

A craft situated between them would quickly fall to either side of the system as the point where their gravity is balanced is infinitesimal.

It's an idea I like. Spending 40 years on a mission while the KSC does bog-all besides a few recorded routine missions would suck and so would having to juggle more than 2 missions which sounds tedious. I can get past the complications, I really just want a way to do my missions one-at-a-time without ending up with ridiculous times on the in-game clock,

I feel like we've wandered into a minor tangent, so I'll say it straight, Spore's climate "simulation" is hardly a basis for terraforming in a game whose incorporated technologies at least need a theoretical basis in reality (see: metallic hydrogen). Spore is a game where you can do most things that take hours in KSP within a few clicks. You say realism isn't a big factor but it is considering what KSP is about, showing players roughly how these things work in real life. Playability matters but it doesn't trump realism when the entire point of KSP is that you have to do gravity turns and Hohmann transfers like in real life. "realism doesn't matter" is a very slippery slope anyway, where do you draw the line between not realistic enough and too realistic? Would you mind it if KSP's interplanetary transfers were one-click ordeals? Point is, Spore's climate "simulation" would not cut it if KSP 2 did terraforming. KSP's simplified ISRU has the excuse that it's not simplified to the point that you just point a tractor beam at a bit of land and scoop energy up like it might work in Spore if it had ISRU, you still have to land a refinery along with drills and processing units, and figure out how to get a decent amount of dV (and TWR depending on your goals) out of your vessel while lugging along all that equipment. It's hardly comparable to how things in Spore work. If you want a proper reference for how planetary transformation would work, look at Universe Sandbox. It properly simulates water flow and temperature. It's quite a bit more complicated than a simple recolor depending on temp and atmospheric pressure. But then again, US2 doesn't have to generate a detailed physical surface from the planetary-scale maps it simulates.

It helps simulate an observable phenomenon. Of course it does, but I'm still not seeing how it does it in a way that's not wildly inaccurate.

It'd be impossible. Even if you started in a perfect figure-8 orbit, the limited accuracy that the game can describe the position of your ship with will cause the orbit to fall apart soon after establishing it.