Bej Kerman

KSP isn't even a pre-alpha compared to KSP 2. "Early Access" is just comparing KSP 2 as it is now to its planned final state. I guarantee you KSP 2 on day 1 will be ten times better than KSP 1 has been through its messy history. You mean bugs, crashes, horrible memory usage, and the lot? If you know a mod that can handle automated supply routes across dozens of ships and colonies, a mod that does non-impulsive maneuver nodes that cross SOIs, a mod that divides KSP 1's playable area into grids so that floating point errors don't destroy the KSC upon returning from an interstellar trip, and most of all, a mod that calculates physics using multiple cores and has LODs so that multiple massive vessels loaded at once don't break the game, feel free to tell me where you found them. There's no amount of mods you can add to KSP 1 to fix all the underlying problems and make something half-playable. A. KSP 2 isn't going to be "patch something together until it works". Actual developers are working on it. You had to relearn KSP 1 three times because it took the developers several years (0.7.3 to 1.0 - the FAR mod existed for a majority of the game's pre-1.0 history!) to realise that maybe actual aerodynamics in an aerospace simulation game might be a good idea after all. You won't have to relearn KSP 2 three times because the devs weren't descended from a company that A. had nothing to do with software, and B. whose existence was virtually undocumented before KSP's history. All the tutorials you see should apply the exact same, from the beginning of the roadmap to the end, save for the ones teaching you how to exploit bugs, a software phenomenon Squad didn't bother dealing with until KSP 1's bugs tracker got too big to fit in a large novel. B. If you think KSP as it is now could be described as anything approaching "playable" or "complete" (which it isn't), then I don't get why you wouldn't consider KSP 2 to be playable from day 1. "Early Access" is just a title, and frankly, avoiding Early Access titles just because they have the tag "Early Access" in spite of evidence suggesting that the game is going to be fairly solid from the getgo just sounds arbitrary to me. If you decided whether you were going to play KSP 1 based on its actual development progress and not just which versions are labelled beta and what's labelled release, then I suspect you would have never done so much as touch it.

So I don't waste useful surface / area on a lander probe core. A parachute is big and heavy and I only need to place one and put science experiments and small lead utility weight opposite. It's a design tool. I don't understand how using 2 antennas would be any more wasteful than one antenna and one weight.

That's actually a very good point! Making sure clouds correctly interface with solar panels is probably a higher priority than making them look any better, which probably isn't a goal in the first place because hyer-realism isn't what Intercept should be aiming for here, it's making sure that there's a consistent art style that the clouds respect. To take Outer Wilds for instance, its clouds (attached below) can hardly be described as realistic, but it works very well with the style of the rest of the game. I'd anticipate that super realistic clouds like what's demonstrated in the impressive upcoming volumetrics update of EVE, not to say anything bad about it, would only serve to make KSP 2 look jankier (for a lack of a better term). It'd have the same kind of effect on KSP 2's art style that KSP 1 had when Squad started, but never fully committed to, revamping all of the parts.

I won't name names but it's only a few people that hold KSP 2 to silly expectations. Rest assured, KSP 2 won't be bombed with negative reviews saying "there's too much green", etc.

Those aren't clouds, it's a skybox. You'd only be making a point here if the dev of EVE had to also rebuild KSP 1 from the ground up. In my opinion, while the EVE Redux clouds look very nice while only considering the clouds, they aren't living in a vacuum. Against the art style(ish) that they exist alongisde, they look jarring, and frankly I'd rather KSP 2's clouds stay as they are than approach a realistic style. People's hyperfixation on graphics continues to confuse me.

Why not just use 2x symmetry on whatever you're placing?

I don't think there's a lot you can do to approximate KSP 2 gameplay. You can use Far Future Tech and Interstellar Extended all you want but I haven't yet seen a mod that fixes all the heaps upon heaps of fundamental issues with KSP 1 that makes doing interstellar stuff difficult. Principia is literally the only mod I have seen so far that does non-impulsive maneuver nodes, which are important for being able to predict maneuvers and properly brake when approaching a planet from the sorts of high velocities you expect from a torchdrive.

"Look, Dave. I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over." We have only seen a few of the planets that will be in KSP 2 so far, so now's not the time to be getting angry or hyper-fixated on the possibility that KSP 2 won't have a planet for every single niche there is in astrophysics. KSP 2 might have a habitable tidally locked planet, it might not. But does it overshadow the fact that in a few months we won't have to be driven insane by KSP 1's abysmal performance and buggy physics?

So? Did you want a screenshot of every possible place a spacecraft could be landed on a planet? Static procedural weather effects? Probably. Dynamic weather effects that evolve over time? Nope. Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter as long as Kraken attacks aren't commonplace? I don't understand the idea of placing graphics as a top priority. If I had to guess, some obscure physics related to the shock absorption tech you see in IRL launches. The new parts have been showcased in pretty much every KSP 2 video to come out so far, so this is a really odd complaint to see. Refer to previous reply Does it matter what colour it is?

I really hope you can see that measuring days, months and years using the orbits of the Earth and the Moon is not as absurd as using imperial for no other reason than "it was there, I guess".

Of course it is. It's being developed by Nertea et al.

Sounds silly, but you wouldn't believe what happened the last time I tried mounting a Duna rescue.

Calling 911 because of a fire... ...inside an Aircraft... ...that's flying over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. I hope the operator knows a really good breakdown service.

I wouldn't say the buildings are that close to the runways.

She looks more confused than flustered. To be fair, I'd be wondering how I outright flipped such a flat structure as well.

One Kerbonaut's curse is another Kerbonaut's blessing

Pretty sure EVE-Redux doesn't fix KSP's memory leaks causing it to take up over twice as much space on the disk as the actual game files, nor does it implement other stars and fix the navball freaking out at interstellar distances. A modder trying to patch up the graphics for a game with more loading screens than Sonic 2006, one that's gonna 100% be certifiably redundant in a month and a half, is more than a few light years off from putting KSP 2 in serious trouble

KSP 1 tends to crash before any kind of vaporization happens

I am aware Mutahar uses VMWare and not VirtualBox, but I maintain that the VMWare logo looks terrible, especially in a meme format.

It is 100% fake. -The real Duna SSTV signal has an echo effect applied -The signal volume is inconsistent with the rest of the game's volume And this is a slight stretch, but if Squad added another signal, I'm willing to bet they would have used the mode Robot 24 instead of switching to Martin 2 for whatever reason. Even just pressing one button to output the signal in robot mode would have made this 10x more convincing.

SLS can attest

KSP2 chasing realism without considerations for gameplay, would also realistically mean that most if not all manual piloting to be removed from the game and replaced with the player learning how to program an autopilot from scratch. Still, I don't remember people complaining about the Mk2 parts acting like lifting bodies for once, or right-angle turns at Mach Plaid causing wings to shear off.

KSP 2 devs have a lot more to be concerned about than "muh graphics"

Indeed I don't recall anyone complaining about Squad making the atmosphere not a soup, and I don't think people would complain if Intercept went full FAR with KSP 2's aero model.

It should have a vac ISP of 268; @atmosphereCurve { @key = 0 268.5 @key = 1 243 } What am I doing wrong? Solved: "@key,0 = 0 268.5" would be the proper formatting.