Bej Kerman

That was KSP 1; KSP 2 should provide most of the tools needed to make these judgements. No it isn't, it's a completely different game altogether. New codebase, new code altogether, mostly new dev team, none of the spaghetti code from KSP 1 is in KSP 2. I'm guessing you either forgot what it was like playing KSP at first, or you got your NASA degree first then got KSP? EVE is a spreadsheet simulator. Well, that's the joke, but it's kind of true. More accurately, it's an economic simulator in which you can commit hostile takeovers of rival corps by declaring war and sending a fleet against them. People think it's just about space battles and mining, but the real endgame is in managing the economy and logistics of a 1000 player or larger corporation/alliance and competing with other corps/alliances. It's very much unlike KSP, they just both have pretty space graphics. To add to that, Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous couldn't even qualify for simulators. They're both hideously simple, but they hide behind unnecessarily convoluted control schemes that provide the façade of a sophisticated simulation. Citation needed Try not to base a mini-essay on an assumption that has no source yet - sure, some people would enjoy a game that is mostly unrelated to KSP and leans into detailed simulation, but as per Newton's 3rd law, you're going to lop off an equal or perhaps much greater amount of the playerbase that plays KSP rather than Orbiter specifically for what KSP provides over Orbiter, a casual easy-going experience.

Is that not the entire point of technological advancement?

I wouldn't agree. What use is a special kid in a universe of incomprehensible size?

Overpowered, creating a Kerbal like this should be a case of using them a lot on many missions as opposed to getting one because a dice roll said so.

Perhaps now would be a good time to begin trying to understand how far a light year is. Travelling 4 light years after scraping up 100km/s using, say, Ion engines, would take 11,000 years...

Kerbals are innocent and are largely logical and rational when things aren't exploding. Humans are the ones that invented nuclear warheads made for destroying other humans, and are now trying to push this image onto a fictional but innocent race.

? KSP is a space flight sim, not a human aggression sim, so don't expect warfare or anything weapon related to end up in stock KSP 2.

Inb4 linuxguru comes to the rescue

Forget the r7, the n1 is a pain in the backside to make in stock thanks to KSP's marriage to LEGO-style parts and the lack of n1 style decouplers for anything but the non-existent 1.8m size parts.

I beg your pardon? KSP 1 load times are tied to the frame rate!?

CAN'T YOU SEE HOW OBVIOUS IT IS!? The description could very well be a reference to a cancelled feature. How does the bolded part in the end affect that? Let me rephrase myself A single vague anything does not provide any clue as to what the devs were planning. Moho's descriptions means nothing, you are reading too deep into things.

What about the literal official description of the literal planet "Moho figures in Kerbal mythology as a fiery place with oceans of flowing lava. In reality however, it’s much less interesting." Please explain your point

No it doesn't. A single vague file name does not provide any clue as to what the devs were planning.

Good timing, just got on Knock knock knock knock, @Master39?

A bit overdramatic for a planet whose environment isn't much tougher on equipment than the Saharan desert, I feel.

Drag it into a new tab and it'll display The rocket is fairly typical, if you've already got a Soyuz recreation using MH then you could do this rocket with a few tweaks around the second/third stage. What if someone tried to make a rocket that A. fits the profile and is reuseable, and B. can redirect an asteroid?

I think what @Vortygont means is any amount of symmetry, not just 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. So it would be anywhere from like 1-10 or 1-100 What Ryaja said 6 kinds of symmetry isn't "every symmetry", it's 6 kinds of symmetry. Personally, I think this is a drag on what people can do with the game.

Great timing, just got on @Master39?

KSP 3 won't exist until KSP 2 has become outdated enough, and even then there's not any ground it could tread without retreading things KSP 2 already covered; KSP 2 already borders on the edge of practical physics (e.g. Metallic Hydrogen engines, interstellar travel) and that's about as far as KSP could go without losing its identity to sci-fi.

It seems to be what everyone else considers the goofy bits, not that I'd agree. I'd call the Kerbals and the engineering gameplay the things that makes it goofy, but I've seen all too much "KSP would lose something if the bugs [and aero] were all fixed".

KSP 2 is supposed to be slaughtering what made KSP goofy. The grindy science, buggy mechanics, and the terrible aero model, in pursuit of a game that feels solid.

Same difference

Because it's more difficult to make a real plane fly than a grand piano, and some people just don't want to spend ages making sure their plane flies properly/doesn't turn too fast, etc. Maybe as a save option, it'd make sense, but I personally really hope they don't make it so that it's too hard to wrap my head around We can apply that logic to orbital mechanics and say it should be removed because some people don't want to spend ages designing, testing, crashing and redesigning rockets so they work. But that's the core gameplay loop of KSP, you can't just simplify things so you don't have to spend as long in the gameplay loop.

Can't have it both ways - loosening the aero model to allow for "different shapes and ideas" will inevitably loop us back to the flying piano conundrum.