Bej Kerman

We can only help you as much as you help us

Send a screenshot of the rocket, with the relevant engine right-clicked.

The power of actionsgroups would be nice. I love to automize things. So I don't have to manually bind 60 sustainers, it'd be nice if there was a keybind to do this automatically, and another that shuts everything off blueshift-related. Anything to cut the amount of clicks I have to do to turn something off.

Maybe you want to shut them down to reduce the overwhelming power of your vessel (made for interstellar flight) to be able to cruise smoothly through the destination star system.... i think, thats the reason - to give you all the flexibility you might need. In my experience, doing this just leaves the main drive unable to move the ship. Nevertheless, I still think things can be done to make the drive less of a hassle to use.

No,... not for complexitys sake... You have the option to only shut the engine down and leave the powergeneration online. This is good to have that flexibility. But i would not recommend it, since this way of powergeneration eats graviolium. For that reason my Warpship carries a separate powersource, that I power up, once I arrive at my destination, so that I can safely disable the whole warpreactor including the powergeneration. I'd recommend one of the nice near future mod - reactors to keep the scifi-feel to it. They have also limited ressources (uranium), but will last for years. I just don't see why this is necessary. There's many better ways to generate power as you said, and having to go through a two-step process to prevent graviolium consumption just feels obtuse. If enabling and disabling the generator was automatic and required a manual button press to remain on even when the warp drive is off, I wouldn't mind this so much. But right now it's just an extra step you don't realise you had to complete until it's already gotten you stranded light years from home. Indeed. It'd be nice if I didn't have to activate them at all - they should just work passively, else it's extra clicks for 0 additional gameplay.

So you picked up on a piece of wild speculation, embellished it and spread it around, and that's a rumour now is it? This is one of their more believable claims - with KSP 2 less than 10 weeks away (the last four years flown by, this wait will be nothing to me), the idea of a new KSP 2 trailer is certainly a billion times more believable than the idea of MMO gameplay in KSP 2 and the hasty assumption that Unity 2021 LTS had a major affect on KSP 2's release date (under the super clickbaity title "Unity 2021 LTS brings KSP2 closer to release", no less), both things Vl3d has argued for in the past. Point being, this isn't their first time embellishing blind speculation In seriousness, now would be a good time to start on making a gameplay trailer that consolidates all we've learned from the past few years of snippets and teasers. You can dig through videos old and new to see interstellar ships being released from their support clamps and rovers being driven around, but it'd do good if you could see things like this in action from KSP 2's steam page. It's only a crime that the steam page has no videos of the Orion drive in action, not even pictures of it! [snip]

The engines use Methalox now. The image is a table from the KSP wiki that contains stats for all the non-DLC engines. This implies that the engines in KSP 1 have ran off of Methalox all this time.

Why not skip the demolition part altogether? I don't think complexity for complexity's sake needs to be introduced to KSP 2. This is something KSP 1 got right. You have the money to upgrade the launch pad to support heavier rockets, so you click one upgrade button. You don't have to demolish it, timewarp as ground crew demolishes it, then build another, or at best, click two buttons. Why do either when you can just hit an upgrade button?

Well that depends. In ksp 1 we get to drag around a science lab bay because SIENCE. In KSP 2 do we get to drag around (or build Via Colony’s) the KPL KSFC and CK and so on? I'm not sure what your point is Comms should only be needed for sending science. In other words, useless in sandbox. In real life, NASA does not have someone sitting at a desk 24/7, waiting for maneuvers and hoping that the probe stays linked during every maneuver. That doesn't happen - the probe's computer manages all of this. Curiosity wasn't landed by someone, it landed itself. Someone said it before, but it should be fair to say that in KSP you're not flying the probe live, you're just acting out whatever the KSC programmed it to do, so by that logic a link to the KSC would only be necessary for science collection.

Thank you Guess I could roll that into the second half of point A, complexity for complexity's sake.

That is not Vl3d's point. They're saying that the limiting factor with a colony should be weight and resources - there's no reason this should be part count instead. Why should NASA only be allowed to use at most 56,000 screws in their rockets? Wouldn't a mass or resource limit make more sense? Of course it would.

Just a few comments A. It appears warp sustainers can't be given action groups in the VAB; I've got hundreds (Kax A* is a long way away!) and have to bind them in flight. I don't believe needing to manually enable these should be required as I can't think of a scenario where the player needs them off or where having some off and some on would be needed. B. It seems warp drives passively consume graviolium even when shut off, so I have to disable the consumption of graviolium from each tank when I don't need them using. C. Graviolium cheat doesn't obey symmetry, but the amount of graviolium does. Have two tanks in symmetry and enable the cheat in both, and fill them with graviolium. They'll fill in symmetry, but they don't sync when you toggle the cheat. D. The ability to timewarp while in supercruise is well appreciated! I remember the old USI standalone Alcubierre drive didn't have this and it was tedious to use for very long trips. It's tampermental and sometimes my ships freeze in place while still consuming graviolium as if I were busy adjusting my throttle even though I'm not touching it at all, and other times it stops timewarp altogether if I jump to 100,000x too quickly (but I suspect that's vanilla resource consumption + persistent thrust being daft - this happens with other engines under the flippant pretense of "no more resources"; there is still resources, just KSP can't make its mind up on how quickly these resources should be depleting). Still, I'm glad someone recognises that some people have a use for going to 100,000x warp while already going 10x faster than light.

The devs said they want you to feel the size of a light year, and it's not like it matters if some backwater Betelgeuse colony doesn't immediately get a technology you unlocked at Alpha Centauri and will primarily use there anyway.

88 - Reach >1c without cheats Winning A Bet - Land on Minmus using only EVA fuel, starting at and returning to aa >10km orbit Budget Cuts - Land on the Mun and return using only command chairs or ladders for Kerbal occupation

That probably won't happen.

Generating 20 decisions does not help with my indecision. They just figured that generating 20 decisions would help with you deciding what decisions you need in the first place. Narrowing down a stream of thoughts into 20 simple choices, reducing the possible outcomes by a factor of a million, they just figured it'd help. I like the Elite Dangerous convention of picking a random snake. Acrochord for example. Dendrolycus.

Would you mind posting your mods list Bej? I'm curios. Mostly things to make the game feel less dull and barebones, and dependencies. I suspect my mod list will be in the single digits for KSP 2 as the new dev team will be focused on adding features to an already much more complete game instead of wasting most of their time revamping part textures to be worse (both the pre-0.17 and post-0.18 textures were fine and not nearly as samey and generic as the Take Two era textures) and implementing mods but tackier (seriously, it's not much easier to fine tune maneuvers than it was before - mods did this much better and didn't close themselves if you dare mouse over anything but the maneuver node). That's enough whining from me. I just look forward to having a game that's held together by struts instead of glue

I can't think of anything else KSP 2 needs. KSP 2 is only how I mod KSP 1, without the lag and miles-long list of bugs. I can think of a grand total of one mod (out of 90) I have on KSP 1 that probably won't make it into KSP 2, the Netherdyne Mass Driver mod. On that topic though, KSP 2 will have some official form of CKAN and creating multiple instances using any version, if it's as modding friendly as it claims to be. If I have to muck around in order to downgrade or create multiple instances, or if I really have to mess around downloading mods manually after fans, in their free time, created such a good solution for managing mods for KSP 1, then it's not modding friendly.

I don't particularly see how it'd make the game any more difficult - it's just a change of label to work with everything else. A resource called "Liquid Fuel" or "Oxidizer" won't look good next to "Metallic Hydrogen" and "Fusion Pellets"; it would make the game look a tad unfinished. Well, it would be a hangover from a game that had very little polish and only needed the one resource for all of its parts. The last thing KSP 2 should do is take pointers from KSP 1 beyond the core gameplay. "Methalox" does work with "Metallic Hydrogen" etc though, and for reasons stated by the devs, also makes the most sense compared to kerosene for example. Why not explore and discuss important naming conventions?

This is an over-reaction. If you really think labelling engines by their function is going too far, you could say the same thing about telling the player their thrust and efficiency and argue that players should only be allowed to know how powerful an engine is by testing it for themselves. Care to elaborate?

Something obvious that KSP 1 never had was the ability to sort engines by thrust and isp. If you need to find an efficient one, you have to dig through each one to find the best atmo or vac efficiency. This just gets worse the more mods you add.

Would you mind telling us how many versions you've got archived?

Dyson swarms, probably not considered for the stock game but it's low tech enough that a mod could do it stockalike. Really all you need is a resource-heavy planet near the central star, a launch system on the surface to lighten payloads, and a lot of mining equipment. However, Dyson spheres are just too advanced for the game, and would fit into the game just as well as planet creation and intergalactic travel. That's besides the challenge of simulating the physics of a megastructure bigger than a space elevator.

An excellent suggestion, with just two minor drawbacks. One, this doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics, and two, this doesn't obey the laws of thermodynamics.

If there was a good time to be paranoid about something the devs said wouldn't happen, it was when colonies were still on the drawing board.