Bej Kerman

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.

The KSP2 team is already trying to make tutorials simple and as baseline as possible. A tutorial that needs to explain a multitude of complex aerodynamic characteristics would be quite counter to that, I think. They're already making tutorials on a multitude of complex concepts, orbital mechanics. Aerodynamics would not be that far off. To go back to a previous point, I'm sure if we were getting orbital physics after spending 10 years becoming accustomed to aero physics (as opposed to vice versa), we'd be chanting "simplify orbital mechanics to Star Wars levels of simplicity" rather than instead accepting two-body physics and putting out a demand for tutorials that can explain orbital physics.

This is in the realm of tutorials You may want to read what you're quoting, I've underlined the important part for you. And the context is important. I deduce a large amount of this stems from the fear of "pure [inconsiderate towards gameplay] realism" being hard to grasp, which it wouldn't be if the tutorials were done well enough (and with good tutorials we can bar the 'no consideration for gameplay' part ).