Bej Kerman

Why? "The law of unintended consequences pushes us ceaselessly through the years, permitting no pause for perspective." - Richard Schickel "Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful." - Margaret J. Wheatley Please explain how these quotes are relevant.

Why?

It's not missing, it just wasn't added. You don't explain where the problem is with the solutions in the OP, you just imply that breaking causality is bad without explaining. It's not "period", again you never explain yourself, you just assert that your given solution is the best without explaining why timewarp should be taken from players in certain scenarios. You ignore it. It doesn't need explaining. The only thing that matters is that players have agency over how they spend their time. If two people want to play together, they sync and stay at 1x warp. If player B decides they no longer want to be with player A or has tasks to do elsewhere, they timewarp off. It shouldn't be restricted just for the same of making things slightly more immersive.

I'm guessing it'll work exactly as it did in the KSP1 mod, you'll remain fixed if SAS is on and your rotation is under a certain limit.

They're using sandbox mode and also using cheats.

Please share a screenshot of your rocket

When people get to hear it I doubt many will be willing to go back, however charming MacLeod's music was.

If there's a login barrier, it didn't happen

Refer to the comment I made. It's not accessibility if the player doesn't need to access the game - autopilot does this. Accessibility would be something like, as I said, slow motion time warp that lets anyone pilot anything without needing super reaction times. The player still has to be here at every step of the journey in order to carry something out the first time before the game gives them the option to automate their route.

I'd say your post getting nominated is a massive win for the LGBTQ+ community here! [snip]

Yes, yes and yes The accessibility argument is null anyway since it's well in Intercept's power to just add slow-motion time warp increments. Even if it doesn't end up in KSP 2, modders will add it in like they did with KSP 1 (see: dynamic time warp, better time warp). Autopilot doesn't make the game more accessible, it just makes accessing the game redundant when you can be off making coffee while the game plays itself. Timewarp increments below 1 do increase accessibility because you no longer need quick reaction times to do certain tasks like land rockets and stage at precise altitudes.

The flight automation is that subject. It's one of its applications. The unmanned probes as well. Nobody sends them in manual control mode, unless it's Lunokhod. KSP is not just a pilot simulator, it's a craft designer simulator as well. The automatic flight control is an important part of any spacecraft design irl. Just think: even SpaceX doesn't land their rockets manually. They use flight automation. You've misunderstood the subject then. We were never talking about probe cores; we were talking about the game playing itself. My previous statement still stands, the discussion of whether you should use probe cores or not is irrelevant.

I wouldn't say requiring no skill is a good thing.

When I build ICBM in KSP, should I make it crewed instead of automated? That's not the subject being discussed.

That is the answer I would expect for a question like "What's an ICBM?". However, I do not have much trouble googling things myself when I find I don't know what an acronym stands for or what something means. I asked "Rephrase" because I truly don't understand what you were trying to do with the below question... ...or how it had any relevance to Master39's statement.

Are you going to explain how this video is relevant to the discussion?

Does it mean I must place a pilot on my ICBM? Rephrase?

Assuming KSP 2 will have part failures. Having failures that are out of the player's control would detract from the game so I don't think that's something to bet on.

No.

I liked it Yes, you liked it, but that doesn't change the fact people don't get a choice to forego the launcher in the first place. Whether people like it or not is, in almost every single way, irrelevant as long as people aren't getting a choice.

Maybe it's just me but [it's] like nobody is entitled to us sitting here talking about (as MechBFP put it) polluting a niche franchise with spin offs so why say we should talk about this?

Until they come out with system specs that's about the best we're going to get. Judging by the in-game KSP footage, Cyberpunk 2077's requirements are likely a very good "comfortable" spec to look to. Well Cyberpunk is a completely different game and it's much more taxing on the GPU than the CPU. Comparing it with KSP 2 is pointless.

The theory is that the minimum spec required to run a demanding game like Cyberpunk should be enough to run pretty much any game that is less demanding, like KSP 2. So going for that level of hardware would ensure a decent experience over the next few years. "You'll need a computer powerful enough to run 90% of games" doesn't exactly narrow things down or serve as a benchmark for KSP 2.

Okay, can you guide us through the logic you used to determine that Cyberpunk could be considered anywhere close to a good benchmark for KSP 2?

The bearing on gameplay is so negligible that there really isn't much of a reason to hide it in the cheats. The benefits of letting players give themselves a good representation in their save very much outweigh whatever non-existent cons there are to letting players customise their Kerbals in a normal no-cheats save.