Bej Kerman

Sounds like K to me... Why would Take Two need 2 identical games? If it's a space flight simulator like KSP 2 I am certain it will not be another Kerbal game. Besides, plenty of SFS games exist besides KSP, you can't just assume it's K because it has space flight in the blurb.

We have 0 reason to assume it's got to do with KSP. The people that worked on Outer Wilds would be perfect for this.

Because Stratzenblitz's EVE infinity sea-level ship works the same way as any other rocket and took 0 imagination to build... If the only difference is the size of the rocket then you're not even bothering to learn how you can make these trips more efficiently. You say your playstyle isn't relevant but if your style is to avoid creative engineering then how are you supposed to enjoy a game where engineering is the core of the game?

Considering that early access offers a half-finished game without any requirement to complete anything beyond the initial version, which in KSP 2 is currently advertised as a sandbox with less features than KSP 1, I find this evaluation amusing. You're literally incorrect. I do believe it was made clear that the initial version will have more features than KSP 1 and that everything else in the roadmap is already in a good state telling from in-dev screenshots. Baseless assumptions that contradict evidence go nowhere.

1. One could think you're making your posts on the silly assumption that KSP 2 is, like KSP 1, being developed with no plan, by amateurs. That's simply not true and I'm fairly confident that everything you said is going to go out of the window in a few months; it's being developed and planned out by experienced individuals. Unless they handed development back over to Squad right this second, which won't happen, you won't find any "half-finished" things because this time there was actual rhyme and reason to the development of each feature. The new tidy flight interface makes that much apparent. 2. That's if you don't bother finding fun and interesting ways to abuse it. Refer to 1,

I'm saying that players, with KSP 2's on boarding, won't spend 100s of hours learning to land on the Mun. They won't even spend 50 hours learning to put a basic colony on Eeloo. In fact, most tutorials on KSP were good enough to get players to the other planets and KSP 2's tutorials will be even better. KSP 2 sure as rain will not need to simplify spaceflight to get players to go interstellar, and you don't need to make people scared it's somehow going to turn into EVE or something. Your post is built on a very faulty premise to put it lightly.

My point's that they don't know how to do a Hohmann transfer from Kerbin to Duna and they haven't taken the initiative to learn how to do things like this, and yet they're commenting on how the game would need dumbing down for interstellar (hint: it doesn't) and making comments on these game mechanics you're best only commenting on if you understand it.

Given that they're condemning interstellar travel because they themselves make the game harder every time they get closer to being able to pull off an interplanetary mission and then go on to say that the devs would need to make the game easier for interstellar travel despite not having the experience to say that's not true in the slightest, I'd say it is fair.

You're denouncing interstellar travel for problems that KSP 1 had which will probably not be present in KSP 2? The gameplay loop involving colonies, space construction and resource gathering on its own will probably nullify most of this first paragraph. Even then, KSP 1 had landmarks unique to planets. Duna has a face, Val has cryovolcanoes, Dres has the largest canyon, etc. and having planets like Rask and Rusk will probably further encourage players to make stops at different planets. I'm just saying, the basis on which you're saying interstellar travel will make these minor problems worse is really shaky.

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.