Turbo Ben

We were never away from "the voice is the problem". The clue is in the thread title. Where did you get the quote "unmanly"?

I haven't seen anyone raise concerns over the art style. This topic is about the voice. Not familiar with kurzgesagt so just checked out a couple of YouTube vids. Thanks for making my point that you don't need to talk like a kid to appeal to kids.

This is exactly why I'm raising concerns about the tutorials. KSP's target audience should be people with an interest or curiosity in spacetravel. Any other targeting of the audience is just going to reduce the audience. I'm not raising concerns for my own benefit. I learned what I need from KSP1 and will just skip the tutorials. My concern is for new players with no knowledge of KSP. Their first stop will be the tutorials. Do you really want to give anyone over the age of 12 the impression that KSP 2 isn't made for them? Marvel and Star Wars, both now owned by Disney, have been heavily targeting their audience for a few years now. Result: they have a much smaller audience.

You don't need a voice like that to be kid friendly, but it will put many teens and adults off. Experienced players that can't listen to it will do what Scott Manley did and quickly skip the tutorials. New players are likely to do the same, then hit the onboarding brick wall. They'll either take the time to go looking for help online, or they'll give up and get a refund. Nobody is asking for an adult talking in a monotone voice. As an example, Neil Degrasse Tyson explains complex ideas in an entertaining way that anyone of any age can understand. The "squeeky kid" description was used by Scott Manley in his review.

I would say too early. I suspect it's only being released now because T2 promised it's investors it would be released this financial year. Most people don't even have the necessary hardware. The previews were done with a 7900X and a 4080, and it was still having performance issues. It should be $30 in it's current state. Increase the price by $10 at every feature update.

I have to agree with the OP. I wouldn't say condescending, but as Scott said himself, not everyone will appreciate the "squeeky kid" voiceover. I'm not saying the tutorials should be like a dry university lecture, but there is surely somewhere in the middle that could appeal to all ages. I'll be skiping the tutorials which is a shame because there appears to be a lot of work put into them. Thankfully there will be "a very grown up Scotsman" providing tutorials on youtube. New players to KSP are not going to know about Scott though, so heres hoping some of them take the time to check youtube before refunding the game. I also agree that the price of EA is too high. It looks buggy as hell and badly optimised, with only a promise that it will be fixed and all the missing features added. We don't even know the timescale for feature updates, it could be years before the game goes in to full release.

That's good to know, thanks. I do have it on a custom loop and heavily OC'd, so hopefully be able to keep those settings high.

So, if a 3080 is recommended for 1440p, will a 3090 handle 4K?

Hmm, so chat GPT sees Kerbals as machines. Hope you haven't just given it the idea for our future overlords.

I'm not saying it can't, in fact it already has in experimental engines. I'm saying it isn't.

You've reminded me, I did have a fourth option of having tanks specificly for jets (the same as ksp1) that just contain kerosine, and keeping the methalox tanks for rockets. Two reasons I'd be against that. First, how would you build a spaceplane with both jets and rockets? You'd need seperate tanks for kerosene and methalox. It would be better to have all engines capable of running with kerosene. Second, back to onboarding. This would add the extra fuel type early game, and would require either a new set of tanks or the need to switch fuel types. With my suggestion, you would just need to pick the liquid fuel tank (which would default be kerolox) and stick any rocket or jet engine on it and it would work. The small amount of extra complexity comes later once a player is already flying.

I probably have over 1000 hours in KSP, so I'd like to add my opinion on fuels and tanks. My main concern is with methane fueled jet engines. Other than a couple of experimental engines, this is just not a thing. To me, KSP is a fantastic education tool as well as a great game, and teaching wrong is bad form and a missed opportunity. If onboarding new players is the concern, a bigger problem is only having sandbox mode in EA. I didn't have problems learning KSP 1 because I started in career mode and parts/principles were introduced slowly. How many players will be scared off in EA because they go to the VAB and are confronted with 100+ parts? In the scheme of things, having one extra fuel type adds very little complexity and for the gain in realism, I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Solutions? 1. If onboarding is such a big concern, KSP 1's use of ambiguous "liquid fuel" was fine. The only reason to name the fuel is realism, but then methane jets contradict this. 2. If you need to name the fuel, kerosene would be a better option as it's used by both rocket and jet engines. Using methane to make ISRU production more realistic is all well and good, but it's at the sacrifice of the basics. 3. This is what I would like to see and satisfies the dev's criteria as far as I can make out. Early game, to aid onboarding, kerosene is used for both rockets and jets. Later on, once players are onboarded, Methane is unlocked for rocket engines only. Methane can be produced by ISRU, kerosene cannot. Liquid fuel tanks: I would like to see semi procedural liquid fuel tanks, where the length can be adjusted freely, and the diameter can be adjusted in steps. Having the length freely adjustable will allow fine tuning of fuel capacity so you're not carrying dry/wet mass that isn't needed and would also reduce part count. Larger/miniature diameters are unlocked as you progress. Make the top and bottom diameters independant to make interstage adapters . You then have a single "Liquid fuel tank" part that replaces every size and shape of tank/adapter, reducing the cluttered part list while giving the player more options. Have the fuel switchable between kerolox and methalox and have a slider to adjust the fuel/oxidiser ratio. Have a button to lock/reset the ratio to standard. This way, the tank contents can be tuned from 100% fuel to 100% oxidiser or anywhere inbetween, and be returned to standard at the click of a button.

I like the tech tree idea, but I never really liked the idea of using experiments to collect science points that are spent like currency. My suggestion would be for the R&D department at the KSC to generate, well, R&D. You then decide which tech you want to focus this on, and the tech is gradually researched over time. The rate drops to zero over time (to avoid just time warping a few years). Rate is increased by completing experiments. I'd maybe have 2 ways of doing this: First, one shot experiments such as temperature or pressure readings which provide a rapid rate for a short time. Second, more long term experiments such as space station labs, orbital scanning satellites or space telescopes providing a lower rate but over a much longer time (think hubble providing data for decades). R&D could also be allocated to development of unlocked tech, such as improving an engines thrust / ISP or reducing it's mass / resource cost. SpaceX didn't build the first raptor and then call it a day, development is ongoing. This would make it so earlier tech doesn't become as irrelevant late game. I think this would mimic how technological advancement happens in real life while encouraging the use of stations, outposts and satellites earlier in the game.

The only time I play anything other than career mode is when using sandbox to figure out how a new interstellar extended engine works. I like to progress through the tech discovering new engines etc as I go. Having all the tech available from the start defeats the object of the game for me. It puts me off early access to be honest, I don't want to see the new tech untill I've earned it. I might wait for the science update before playing, assuming EA will still be available at that point. Edit - Just read the PC Gamer article and it's confirmed new career mode is called "exploration mode" and will be coming late in the EA road map, after colonies and interstellar. It's based on resources instead of currency.

Just noticed at the end of the video, it says Feb 23rd for early access, not 24th. Guessing this is an error, but would be cool as that's my birthday lol

I game on PC and console, KSP just seems like a game that should be played on PC. I bought a joystick and throttle just for KSP and wouldn't play any other way. What I'm getting at is it might be worth looking at a PC copy of KSP. It's not expensive and steam usually have an Easter sale. It would also open you up to mods which can add another level to the game. At the very least I'd learn how to do orbital encounters and rendezvous/docking. I can see this playing a much bigger role in KSP2 as we build massive orbital structures. The in game tutorials aren't great but you'll find loads of info here or on youtube if you get stuck.

Hi, noticed a small issue with the science laboratory. I'm running a mission in career mode that has a requirement for 5000 electric charge. I have a battery with 4000 EC and with the 1000 EC in the science lab, I thought I'd be good. Problem is, after launching the craft, there is no EC in the science lab. Right clicking the lab, the EC display shows 0.00 / 0.00. In the VAB however, it shows 1000 / 1000. Any thoughts? KSP V1.12.2 KSPIE V1.29.2

That's fixed it, thanks!

Hi all, I've been having trouble with CKAN since it updated about a month ago. I haven't played KSP for a while as I've not had the time, but I occasionally check CKAN to see if mods have been updated for 1.11, as I still have 1.10 installed. The problem occurs on starting CKAN. The program opens and starts running through startup processes. When it gets to "Updating filters..." I get an unhandled exception error message. If I click on details, I get the following: ************** Exception Text ************** System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at System.Windows.Forms.Control.MarshaledInvoke(Control caller, Delegate method, Object[] args, Boolean synchronous) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(Delegate method, Object[] args) at CKAN.ManageMods._UpdateModsList(Dictionary`2 old_modules) at System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Execute() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw() at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.TaskAwaiter.HandleNonSuccessAndDebuggerNotification(Task task) at CKAN.ManageMods.<UpdateModsList>d__91.MoveNext() --- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown --- at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw() Whether I click "continue" or "quit", the program locks solid and won't close. I need to use task manager to force it closed. I've just tried deleting CKAN.exe and dowloading it again, but I still get the same problem. Any suggestions?

I couldn't agree with this reasoning more. The number of times I've been coming in for a landing and had to either zoom out further than I'd like or mess about changing camera focus. I don't like hiding the navball, I feel lost without it! I'm hoping the navball can be moved freely though, I currently use a tri screen setup, and considering an ultrawide, so having it in the bottom left corner will be too far out the way. My personal preference would probably be top centre, maybe incorporating the altimeter. Failing that, at the bottom either slightly left or right of centre. All said and done, I've managed a thousand hours or so with it where it currently is, so not a big concern.

I agree, tried it on one of my vessels that only has 1 engine. It appeared in the wrong place, at the wrong scale, and with a shroud lol

Cool. I've modded my save game and added some funds to unlock the new engine. It looks glorious BTW! Just as an aside, if I was to go through my save file and change the name of all the old open cycle engines to "OpenCycleGasCoreRocket2", would that replace all my old engines with the new model? I have a feeling it's not going to be that simple. They all have an excess of dv so hopefully the reduced isp won't affect any of my in progress missions.

Posting here in the vain hope that someone developing the game may see this So, I have a tripple screen setup and have been using the Nvidia span function to play the game across all 3 screens. It looks fantastic for the most part except for severe stretching at the left and right edges. Another thought is having the map available at all times on a second monitor. Anyone else got any thoughts on how extra monitors could be used?

@FreeThinker I've just updated all my mods after being away from the game for a while. Have you altered the open cycle gas core nuclear engine? I had a craft in a low kerbol orbit on a rescue mission and it had 17000 dv before I updated, now it only has about 11000, though it should be just enough to get me home. I had a look in the tech tree and I see a new open cycle gas core in there. Has this replaced the old one and do I have to spend over 1000000 to unlock it again?

Thanks for the reply. I came across this idea while searching for the bug. Problem is, I can't save once I launch as the game considers me moving across the surface and the save option isn't available. That's exactly the symptoms I am experiencing, though the cause is different. The bug in that link seems to be caused by broken solar panels after a rough landing. My landings are good and the craft doesn't even have any solar panels. Time warping does not seem to help. However, there is another solution put forward, which is to switch between vessels while on the surface before launching. I tried switching to the KSC and back to my craft and it launched without the bug appearing. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.