TLTay

1) Attempt to hold my breath until mechjeb is ported to KSP2 2) Fail at number 1 3) Attempt a career save without mechjeb 4) Fail miserably at number 3 5) Shriek loudly until I get automated rendezvous, docking, and interplanetary transfer functionality 6) Enjoy delicious porkchop plots

Nope. Don't care. Just planning to upgrade and want to see what kind of a physics boost X processor would have over my current setup.

I'm not worried if my machine is capable. It is. I'm more worried about quantifying performance differences with a fixed point of reference. There's always a bunch of threads/posts about performance and frame rate under this or that circumstance, and it might benefit the community to be able to compare their findings and where they stand. It would be nice to know where a certain CPU stands in comparison to your own on KSP-specific tasks before F5ing for weeks and spending a thousand dollars for a 2% gain in performance...

Hi everybody. I got to thinking about all of the different kinds of hardware that people play KSP on, from god-tier to potato-mode, and though it would be really super convenient if we could quantify the differences in performance and hardware. I know a number of games include a benchmark built in, and if KSP2 had one, it could help tell what impact x mod has on performance, or y ram speed has. Maybe even a part-count vs frame rate chart or something? That would be pretty awesome.

All of my big wishes are being taken care of, afaik. Better graphics, more to do, better navigation tools, interstellar, easy to build on-site, automated missions, better mod support... At this point, I see no reason to be pessimistic. Timeline moving to the right is upsetting, but other than that, I'm on break from KSP until KSP2 comes out. It's supposed to fix/add all of the things KSP lacked/got wrong.

I'm going to go with the "skin" texture. The plant texture is ok. The other ones are disturbing.

It's almost FRIDAY! I feel a video! Video! VIDEO! VIDEO!!! !!!VIDEO!!!

I wonder... If I worry loudly enough, will they feed me reassurance in the form of video? But seriously, KSP1 was never finished. No game can be all things to all people, that's why they are making mod support a key part of the game. Mods are what will keep KSP2 alive for a decade or more. From some of the comments of the developers, it seems like they are farther along in gameplay development than many suspect. I also suspect they are adding completely new gameplay mechanics. Believe it or not, KSP has the ability to attract the exploration/survival/resource gathering/crafting game crowd that has been exceedingly popular over the last ten years. I think they are hiding those kinds of game mechanics from us at this point. If they can successfully leverage those mechanics, they can boost KSP well past current popularity.

Another one here not in favor of construction time for the base game. Resource requirements, tech requirements, etc are enough for the base game and can be made into fun gameplay mechanics... Waiting to build things is not so much fun.

I concede that money can play a valuable role early game to exchange one resource for another. My concern first focuses on gameplay: How can we extract the most fun and enjoyment out of every ounce of the game for as many players as possible? It was noted by Squad that many players never leave the home planet SOI. One focus to fix that was tutorials, but perhaps that is also something that doesn't necessarily need "fixing" if the player enjoys Kerbin-bound operations. I think resource location and extraction can add a large incentive to explore and enjoy the home planet, as long as it's not grindy. Nobody wants a grind-fest here. Locate resources > Place survey stake > Add extraction facilities that you can choose to build yourself if you want > Resources automatically (or using supply route missions) delivered to KSC for use > Can expand resource area into launching base. I don't see any reason to treat Kerbin differently than any other planet. Make it about exploration and engineering challenges, not about grinding through it. Have a monthly resource/money income and have the player look around for more. I'm sure that will be a key point of gameplay on other worlds. Once you find and set up extraction, you are free to forget about it. Each planet can have its own "wallet," and in order to transfer resouces from one to another, you set up a supply route. Maybe for extremely rare resources you could have players scrounge around a bit for scatter in hard to reach locations or something.

Instead of money in career mode, just use resources. Economic cost of a part has no meaning when building said part on a colony on another planet. Using resources would also make players explore kerbin for resource locations using planes, ships, and rovers. That would help fill out the early game and ensure Kerbals invent the wheel before landing on the moon.

I think they have to be careful not to emit so much coolness that they cause an unplanned gaming media story. When it's time for media, you want to blow them away with carefully crafted visuals and narrative. They have to be careful when letting info out, especially pics and videos during dev phase. Rocket plume info seems to be from here: https://wodeshu.gitee.io/roprop/text00023.html On a side note: Personal thanks to the dev team for the amazing work you are all doing! This project will influence the life and career choices of many, many people over its long lifespan. Science has never been this much fun.

I don't think stock should be RSS/RO. I have RO, stock, and modded stock installs sitting next to eachother in the center of my desktop. All have been played considerably. I've been playing KSP since before you could buy it, way back before steam. Nobody wants less realism and detail. That's not what this is about. KSP takes all of the good stuff about space engineering and tosses some of the more tedious, stress-inducing, and exhausting aspects. Lots of people don't want to make a second career out of KSP. Let's be real here: RO is much more in-depth and difficult, even for an experienced KSP player. I think the biggest turnoffs are some of the things that make it more realistic like limited throttle, limited ignitions, random failures, construction time, etc. RSS/RO definitely has its place, and I enjoy it for what it is. But I think having KSP be too realistic from development would turn challenge into frustration, and mission planning into a nightmare. Some people want that and some don't. It would scare away new and casual players that the studio needs to buy the game. There are things about stock KSP that could use more realism, but that's a fine line to walk. You're not wrong about wanting/needing RSS/RO for KSP2. I want it too. I just think that Human Space Program isn't the game they are currently developing, and might not sell as well.

RSS/RO definitely is fun, but it's way to niche to make it financially viable. Stock KSP on the other hand is complex enough to be fun and challenging, but simple enough to have a broad audience that includes more casual players. I'm sure KSP2 will eventually get RO via mod... Which makes me have to beg the devs: Please have modpack functionality!!!! We pretty much need it anyway for MP games anyway. Also, please can we have FAR and deadly reentry as a stock option?

I'm looking forward to a more logical tech progression as well as more reason to look around the launchpad planet. Lack of graphics and reason to look around is why I never bothered much with planes or rovers.

We have no idea and there's no point buying for it right now with the current supply issues in computer parts. Best to wait until a month or two before release before even stressing over it.

I hope so. My old PC took around 25 minutes to load my heavily modded KSP install off of a Hard disk drive. I went to a new PC (largely because of my love for KSP) with a samsung 970 m2 ssd and it cut it down to a few minutes. The difference was massive. KSP load times are possibly the worst I've ever seen. Many other games, I can't even read the tips on the loading screens because there isn't time, but not with KSP...

It's held together by silly string and snack wrappers.

How about a "doomed" moon that is destined to be ingested by the gas giant it orbits, and is only just barely above the atmosphere at closest approach?

I can't figure out how to illustrate it properly, nor can I adequately predict how orbital mechanics would work with it, or how a dev team would implement it... so it would probably be a lot of fun and new experiences for players. I just want a planet I can fly through without hitting anything. Swiss cheese planet! Unrealistic at large scale, but maybe some ice evaporated away from a rocky core on some asteroids stuck together? No idea how to get it done, just submitting for something new.

This is a cluster of debris that arranged in such a way that the center of gravity and center of rotation are open to space. A player can fly through the center. This body contains surfaces of positive, negative, and zero gravity and in many angles about the center. Many new challenges and interesting orbits/structures are possible with this. Low gravity and smallish size allows players to explore the unique dynamics of the body using RCS. Good item to add to Jool for using as a base to build interstellar ships.

I was wondering this as well. It looks like the larger round parts could be easily modified to fit massive asteroid mining rigs.

I think for floating and underwater colonies, a few special inflatable parts that can double as ballast and balloons would work wonders. No need to redo every part for underwater/floating use. Assuming the atmosphere and liquid physics and pressure curves are done realistically, achieving neutral buoyancy should kind of take care of itself with the right amount of weight/displacement. Something like those inflatable landing cushions from that one mod would be perfect...

I strongly suspect the Kraken is the shadowy object at the bottom of the lake on the eyeball planet.

99.9% chance the limiter will be CPU speed for KSP2. I spent several thousand dollars building a computer for KSP since I got tired of suffering with modded install load times and rubbish physics performance. Current setup is 8700K @ 5.0ghz, 32Gb 3600mhz DDR4, 2080ti, and several Samsung 970 series M.2 SSD. It doesn't look like graphics will be too stressing for a modern GPU of mid-grade, I'm guessing a 1050ti or 1060 6gb is the target for "suggested" GPU. RAM will likely depend on mod count, I had to upgrade from 16 to 32 for KSP1 since I ran into the upper limit of 16Gb a number of times. The real killer for KSP is single core CPU speed. That's probably where you'd want to spend your dollars if you build a rig just for KSP/KSP2. The best single core performance CPU you can afford and overclock the heck out of it. I had a 1060 in there before the 2080ti, and it did fine. For KSP1, an M.2 SSD is a lifesaver, but I'm guessing (hoping) the dev team will fix whatever made my modded KSP1 take 25 minutes to load on HDD, so it might not be as critical for KSP2. Most performance per dollar for physics based games is going to be single core CPU performance, almost certainly.