Gydra54

It's perfect. I like normal KSP Mun, but more realistic planet designs has always been something I've been interested in.

Why not have procedural tanks but also have presets in the part picker. That way, new players and people that prefer building lego-like can still do that and completely ignore the procedural system, while those that do care can utilise it.

Now THIS is an update. Wow. I've been using KIS/KAS for a while but I never imagined something like it would get integrated into the stock game. Thanks Squad for your continued efforts on this game!

I don't really get the "prebuilt" sentiment. It's not like they're giving you the entire rocket to drag and drop, they're giving you pieces that you can use however you desire and combine with whatever other parts you wish. I can say that for me, I've used plenty of the SLS parts to make things that are not remotely like an SLS, and the making history parts to make things that are not remotely like any Apollo spacecraft, for example. That said, for balance and part sizing reasons, I understand the compromise they made for the accuracy of the recreation.

I wonder if anyone complaining about the navball position have tried it in KSP. I expected to agree that it should be in the middle, but after playing KSP1 with the Navball moved to the left it's actually not bad at all and I think I even prefer it. Honestly, the more I look at the new UI the more I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Not saying anyone is wrong in their preferences, but I would at least recommend trying out leftside Navball, or just waiting for KSP2 to come out and see how it is then. However, I do agree that they should 100% make the GUI customizable, as much as possible.

Yeah normally not negative on these, but I have made many better Ariane V rockets with stock parts before. Decals are neat I guess. It's one of my favourite rocket designs visually IRL, so it's a shame the proportions are so off with this.

Wouldn't the whole "confusing new players" thing be solved by things like, a Tutorial, notifications about fuel/engine incompatibility, easily accessible in-game info, good UI design to make sorting and picking out different fuel types much much easier, progressively unlocking different fuel types in a "career" mode... etc. Like, initially I was also opposed to the idea, but it honestly doesn't seem that complicated to implement without being confusing. So long as it's much more clear than in KSP1, I don't see the issue. There's so many ways to do that. In fact, I just came up with another one: detect when the player mismatched fuel types and highlight the offending parts in red, with a nice little text box on the screen with a warning symbol exclaiming "Incorrect Fuel Type Tank/Engine!". Make the notification toggleable in the options for players who know what they're doing. Colour code Engines and Fuel Tanks based on resource in the part picker. Or give them a little icon. IDK, there's so many things you could do, I can't see this as necessarily turning off new players tbh. And this is coming from someone who always installs "LFO only" patches to mods using LH2!

Frankly, the fact that they have stated they will be making custom planets easier to create is already enough. RSS2 will be one of the first custom planet packs and it will be done incredibly quickly if the game actually delivers on in-built planet creation tools. Then Realism Overhaul 2 would come, and would again probably be even easier to make and put together if what the devs say about improved modding support is true. There is no point in spending dev time trying to put in an optional hardcore RSS mode that the vast majority of players wouldn't even realise exists or make use of, especially when modders will be very very quick to add it to the game regardless.

Nah, AT MOST a single early playable demo or something, but even that I don't really agree with. Let them develop the game and release it when ready. I don't care even if they have to delay to 2025, I am willing to wait for a proper game.

Nate mentioned that he has an interest in procedural parts, but did not comment beyond that. That is one thing I remember, but I tuned in last minute. I'll have to rewatch the interview from the beginning.

Clouds! We already knew but I'm so happy every time I see them. Also like the way the planets are styled, looks more "real" and finely detailed. Also I feel like we've heard this before(?), but Nate said release is Fiscal Year 2021, "sort of going into march" or something along those lines. Hmmm, might be stream compression as well screwing with it. But yeah I'm sure they'll improve.

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD! Love that this game is still getting support like this! The new parts of course look great, and thanks so much for the new fuel drain part!

I can't be the only one that's shuddering at the concept of latching onto a skyhook at interplanetary speeds... the window for hooking on and matching velocities would be absolutely abysmal, you'd have to perfectly line up and catch it in the span of what must be just a few seconds! No taking your time to cancel velocities and approach at really small speeds, if you're not careful, that thing is gonna drift away from you real quick. And if you don't catch it... off back into interplanetary space you go! Doesn't sound impossible, but certainly a very tense situation. I wish I could simulate this in KSP, sounds like a fun challenge. Not a programmer, but I think this could be implemented, it seems like it would have to be a very "special case" thing though with a unique solution. Maybe some very smart modders will implement it somehow. I see some talk about it moving at very fast speeds and "skipping past ships", but it seems to me like the intended purpose is to only interact with it at low speeds (<100m/s). Unless I'm missing something, there's no need for super accurate collision simulations in this case, any more than any other ship. If you for some reason rendezvous at ridiculous speeds and it goes straight through, how is that any different from any other hyperspeed rendezvous with other craft? There's no material I can think of that could withstand the G-forces from latching on at the speeds at which this would be a problem anyway. Basically, what I'm getting at, is that there's no need to simulate the entire skyhook at once at the same level of detail and at ridiculous accuracies. If you simplify it, the only real interaction seems to be with the "hook" itself, which you can treat as any other craft except with its own special case trajectory. There's also the cable, but you can make assumptions like assuming it will always be taut so that it's rigid. It doesn't seem that bad if you just simplify it to the things that acutally matter to player interaction. Just throwing out ideas, IDK, again I'm not a programmer, so maybe I'm just spouting nonsense.

A procedural part system with preset parts in the part selection menu would be ideal IMO, if they could make them as visually appealing as what we'd get with preset parts. I don't care either way though, I'm sure a procedural parts mod will be made eventually anyway.

No you didn't, don't be disingenuous. You made claims that Unity is a terrible game engine for KSP and that KSP2 will run into exactly the same performance issues, and you presented zero evidence for this other than the fact that your grandma can make a game using it (????). Obviously people are going to argue with you if you make bold claims with literally 0 evidence and a non-sequitur to back them up. If you don't want to start an argument, next time don't make confident assertions with no supporting evidence.