AHHans

From the way @nestor asked his (her?) question here I guess that they are working on a new game. (Or at least planning to work on a new game. ... really soon now. ) And you know what? I'm probably more exited to learn what that might be than I'm about KSP 2.

Given how KSP resonates with the geeky mindset I don't believe that there aren't relatively more Linux users in the KSP userbase than in the general Steam userbase. It would be O.K. (not great, but O.K.) for me if it was a purely economic decision. But I'm afraid that there is also a certain level of "mental laziness" involved (in particular with the big companies). "We did it like this all the time, why change it." "If it is fine for Borderlands 42, why do it differently for KSP 2?"

Why do people post pictures of their kids on facebook? They want to "share" their new craft where they get the most feedback.

I guess that's for the general player base. And what's the number for KSP players?

I don't think it's exactly trivial, but it shouldn't be a big deal. More important is IMHO your second point: building it multi-platform from the start discourages "quick hacks" that only work on Windooze and are a pain to fix afterwards. I honestly don't understand why so few games build for multi platform from the start.

Yupp. But the only tip I can give you there is: training, and maybe even more training. Same here. I only really started using sandbox when I became active on the forums here: to quickly build test craft.

Well, docking without RCS can be done (at least for small vessels), but its neither easy nor fun. So for that RCS is a must. (I usually have enough reaction wheel power on my ships to rotate then, and disable yaw, pitch, and roll on the RCS thrusters. That way I can control rotation and translation independently. I also don't use docking mode, but I, K, J, L, H, N for translation.) For rescuing Kerbals RCS isn't much help. The key skill here is controlling a Kerbal on EVA. That mostly requires training. When I do a rescue mission nowadays I don't actually do a zero-zero rendezvous anymore: just get within the 2.2 km "vessel swap distance" with a relative velocity of less than 100 m/s and do the rest with the EVA-jetpack. (Well, one thing that took me weeks to figure out is that Kerbals on EVA have their own lights with which they can illuminate the ship they want to enter.)

None of my suggestions requires Kerbals. You could replace them with humans or other aliens. And even if: why should Take Two not allow SQUAD to make a KSP related game, as long as it doesn't compete against KSP 2? (And as long as they get their "fair" share of the earnings.)

O.K. I had some more time to think about that, and the conclusion is: ... drumrolll ... I have no real idea what kind of game you at SQUAD are working on! It just depends on too many factors that I don't know about. What kind of people do you have running around at SQUAD looking for new work? Hardcore physics engine coders? Graphic artists? "Movie" directors? Story writers? Did someone at SQUAD have a nice idea for a completely new game? Are you trying to do a somewhat-quick "asset flip" out of KSP? (Which could be good - even great - if done right!) Are you working on a new game that plays completely different than KSP, but internally re-uses a lot of KSP? Some ideas are: Using mostly the existing KSP to tell a story, making the rocket building and flying parts a lot easier (e.g. by telling the player what to do) and focusing more on the story to attract a different player base. (Kind of "let a good story teller go crazy with the mission editor". ) Maybe the above could also be used to make a educational program teach small children about how rockets and orbits work. (Or teach not-so-small children. ) A more "XCOM like" KSP: where there is more variation and resource management in the base building part, and you do single missions with your rockets. Bound together by a story with not only a start but also a clear ending. This doesn't have to include shooting others, interplanetary transport can be exiting on its own. A submarine building game. ("KSP meets Subnautica") With (semi-)realistic physics. A graphical novel in space? A space-fortress building game. ("Forts in space") Edit: P.S. Someone used the l-word. All these ideas are yours to do with whatever you want.

Just think of it as a big box of LEGO parts. There is no need to use all of them, you can do lots of crazy things with just the basic parts, but sometimes that one special part is exactly what you want. Or in other words: it's fine to stick with what you know, until you understand why you want to use another part. One problem with KSP 1.x is that it doesn't do a good job of teaching new players the more complicated issues (like how to do a transfer to Mun/Minmus or an interplanetary transfer, how to land in vacuum, how to rendezvous and dock, etc.). But there is more and better information on this on the internet: the KSP wiki, the forum, youtube, etc. Worth it? Making History: Yes! Breaking Ground: Hell Yes!!! But I'd suggest to wait until you are at least over the "confused with the parts" phase before buying them. Maybe even until you are over the "being pi**ed off by the physics glitches" phase.

Oerks.(*) Sorry, I'll have to think about this for a bit before I can give you an answer. (Edit: it's 11:30pm here, you might get an real answer tomorrow...) I hope that you work on a new game for two reasons: one is that I really like KSP, so I give it a good chance that I also like another game made by the same people. And second I'm not sure if and for how long KSP will keep paying your bills, so having a "plan B" seems to be a good idea to me. Also keep in mind that this was before the breaking ground DLC came out. But even with regular new DLCs, I don't know for how long KSP will keep paying your bills. P.S. (*) That's German for the sound when all the long-unused gears in someones head start turning again.

Yes, but is that really what you want to tell a new player? As long as you are willing to sacrifice the occasional Kerbal to the Kraken? No. In other words: not all crashes are user error, sometimes things go wrong which aren't fully your fault. In particular when you start building larger rockets you may have to work around glitches in the physics simulation. I know that I am seriously upset by that, so I keep the ability to quick-reload / revert a failed launch. Well, a common newbie mistake is playing "lawn darts" with the Kerbals: having a rocket that wants to fly nose-first even when descending (re-entering the atmosphere) and having low drag in this configuration. This typically means that your rocket does not slow down enough to be able to deploy the parachutes.

[Having just added KSP2 to my Steam Whishlist...] I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Welcome to the forums. As other already mentioned: failures are part of the KSP experience. This just means that you'll need to mount a rescue mission. Once you have some more experience and are routinely launching spacecraft into orbit that will be another challenge. And don't worry about the Kerbal in the capsule, they have no problems waiting a few years in a tiny capsule for rescue.

Hmmmm... Looks like they still didn't fix the lander legs. P.S. Looks like I'm going to Gamescom this week...

Yes, or another "Probe Control Point", see below. Only if the mother ship has a valid "Probe Control Point". This could be e.g.: a MK1-3 Command pod with two pilot Kerbals in it and a relay antenna. More details are here: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Probe_Control_Point

Well, you did figure out the problem on your own! So I think there is still hope for you.

Looksee here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/184861-enabling-surface-features-without-new-savegame/ You have to scroll down a bit to the posting from @Rocketology on the 30. May.

At least on Kerbin and in orbit around Kerbin: yes, yes, and yes. The one thing they can't do is perform crew reports. Hmmm... Nope, you can't cheat having control of a vessel by putting a tourist into a command seat. (But offering rover rides to tourists would have been cool. )

A shorter version is maybe: launch into Mun orbit set up a maneuver node fiddle with the amount of prograde burn and the time (=position on your orbit) of the node until it gets you where you want to go perform the burn

The issue doesn't really bother me, but I like the idea!

I usually first launch into a low orbit (10 km or so), and then set up a maneuver node for the injection burn. To set up the node: start at the side facing Kerbin and increase prograde burn until the projected path leaves the Muns (or Minmus') SOI. notice the angle at which you leave the SOI, change the time of the maneuver node until the ejection angle is parallel the the Muns orbital motion (but retrograde, you want to get back to Kerbin) increase (or decrease) the prograde burn to get the periapsis in Kerbins SOI (after leaving the Muns SOI) close to where you want it iterate steps 2. and 3. until you are happy with the result perform the burn of the maneuver node The most delta-v efficient setup is when the apoapsis of the orbit around Kerbin is at the position where you left the Muns SOI. If you want to get home faster, then you can also angle the ejection vector into the direction of Kerbin. This will push your apoapsis further out from Kerbin, but only after your pass close to Kerbin. I.e. if your PE is inside the atmosphere for landing, then you won't get there. You will enter the atmosphere at a higher speed, though. Because an interplanetary transfer works mostly in the same way, I'd suggest to use this opportunity for training.

The roll (torque from the propeller) is actually something that real aircraft also have to deal with, but I believe that the effect is much stronger in KSP (in relation to the other forces) than in RL. While it is possible to fly a single-prop plane in KSP it's way more fun to have the torque countered by a second prop (or have multiple pairs of props). The propellers can be on the same axis, or you can have the symmetrically to the left and right of your plane, both methods work. One simple way to get counter-rotating props on a single axis is to have a single, un-powered servo or rotor (to act as a bearing) attached to the fuselage and a powered rotor attached to that un-powered one. Then attach the blades to the base (one direction) and the front (other direction) of the powered rotor. When the rotor is powered up, the two sets of blades will spin in opposite directions. The pitching down is probably because you have designed your your plane to be aerodynamically stable (tending to fly nose forward), with the center of mass in front of the center of lift. Being pulled down (by gravity) at the COM and pushed up (by the lift-forces) at the COL, this means that there is a net torque that will pitch the nose of the plane down. AFAIK you'll just have to correct for that with control inputs. You can either have SAS set this input, trim the plane with the manual trim, or correct it manually. (And, yes, this is also an effect that real life pilots need to deal with.)

That's kind of what I meant with the "space tug". I was planning to not refuel on Eve's surface, in that case you don't want to do that 3000 m/s burn with the part that enters the atmosphere. That's not saying much, considering that you can actually get paid to collect more Kerbals in a career game.

So you just need a rescue mission and are just too lazy to design your own craft? Hmmmm... I think a major part of the challenge will be to land on Eve without a non-reusable heatshield. Any ideas? Hmmm... Maybe a space-tug that stays in orbit.