MiscelanousItem

The definition of wasted development time... Exactly, so why did you propose this idea in the first place? Also, that "only to us" thingy assumes you guys have some sort of merit coming from the fact you brought the game.

So there are two question in this thread : the first one being the OP's question "I' m a KSP1 early adopter will I get KSP2 for free?" and the second one being "Should KSP1 early adopter's get KSP2 for free?" I will attempt to answer each in turn: So as answer to the first question, I should say no, as no statements have been issued to this effect and that Star Theory is a different entity to Squad. As for the second the answer is longer: Firstly we must define what the transaction in place for KSP1 is, as the OP seems to want to replicate this system for KSP2 : even if at first glance the transaction resembles this : Squad ---> Early Adopters it cannot be that way however since the labor put into making the product the early adopters received must be payed for, so the transaction should be this : Other Buyers <---> Squad ---> Early Adopters, or : Squad Employees <----> Squad ----> Early Adopters, (obviously these examples are simplified and treat Squad as an isolated entity, which it is not but the principles are there) so when an early adopter gets a DLC for free they are either making the price of the DLC increase or making the salary of Squad employees decrease or else making Squads profits decrease, which results in less work being able to be payed for, so less growth and new content for every one. So then we must answer two more questions: 1.Why should the Early Adopters receive a product for free? and 2.Why should they not? 1. In general, one receives monetary/material compensation when one either works or buys, with this model the Early Adopters act like share-holders in a public company, they receive money/products because they invested/brought shares/the game. One could say they receive material compensation because their early investment allowed us all to have fun with this game and that if they had not bought the game it wouldn't have existed, however in this sense the game we play would be radically different without modders, but should we give them DLC's for free ? 2.Even if the arguments above are completely valid we have shown that the "Early Adopter Policy" adopted by Squad acts as a weight which results in lower salaries for employees and less content at a higher price for the other users, and such an decrease of happiness for every one, despite what Bertrand Russel says, I should not and am not happy to throw my money away... So we can at last answer the question we asked ourselves in the first place: "Should KSP1 early adopter's get KSP2 for free?" to which I answer : No, they should not, for the reasons that I have said above as well as reasons cited by @The Aziz , Star Theory should not make the same errors as Squad and will, I hope , not make them for the wellfare of all : from the community, to their employees... Plus the fact that there was no mention of a sequel in Squads promise which is the base of the "Early Adopter Policy".

Basic MM patching here: @PART[sepMotor1] { CoMOffset = x,y,z ///What this does is add a new variable to the part cfg to overwrite the CoM pos, since normally COM is coded in the model } This should work if you replace x,y,z with the coordinates of the new CoM.

Everyone. Nuff said.

Well in the video at least the breaks aren't on...

Combo: my age + the best country in the world...

Gas-III : 416 meters/sec Also: A yet un-flown prototype of the Gas-IV...

I agree with @shdwlrd I think that's an ion engine glow: And the large sphere resembles pre-Mariner shots of Venus. So it could be an Ion powered ship going towards some sort dense atmosphered planet IMHO

Well there is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/cyqoym/biggest_takeaway_from_the_paxwest_video_viewing/

Well people have done Mun arch arch stations before... However I have to remind you the forums rules : if you want to make this a challenge you have to prove it is possible...

Damn out of likes

In that case 90% of threads in this forum section are useless...

130 meters per sec...still pretty sweet, and with a craft as good looking as that, I say release it pls

Well today I continued developing the Rocketry Branch of my Tech Tree mod, however I ran into a problem: the stock tech tree is to cramped for my tech tree. So I thought I might use CTT but it is just some more loading time for just one node, so I decided to take the unused "Nanolathing" node and move it to the position I wanted it to be in... EDIT: Does this actually count as doing something in KSP?¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basicly the title I want to delete a section of a cfg using a mm patch, how can I do it?

@Neoks you'll need to go in Gamedata/Squad/Parts/Engine/ionEngine/ionEngine.cfg then you need to find maxThrust = and change the value therebut remember to back up the .cfg before you edit Or you could downlaod Module manager And write @PART[ionEngine] { @maxThrust = x } X= the thrust you want I would recommend the Module Manager solution more

@ronson49 no threaded physics really; read this...

Today I've started testing the balance of the first level nodes of my tech tree mod Coming Soon™

Looks weird...I like!

Well you should get fairings earlier...

PbC means probes before crew I meant that ksp 2's tech tree should be PbC

PbC nuff said

No he's saying that he doesn't hate every fantasy franchise the he says he's never seen a Hollywood version he doesn't detest. Not all fantasy franchises are Hollywood my friend

That's a contradiction. How is it a contradiction?

a little example of quality and optimized unity game: https://www.thelongdark.com/