Multivac

I haven't listened to that podcast yet! But apparently persistent thrust even when a ship is out of focus has been confirmed, which suggests solar / laser-assisted sails should be quite possible in KSP2? (Discovering planets with telescopes before you can go there makes sense to me; but telescopes capable of doing that are probably gonna be much lower in the tech tree than the technology for actual interstellar flight; after all, such telescopes have already existed in real life! I'd like to imagine they'd be one notch above KSP2's equivalent of the Sentinel, or something like that, perhaps)

Well, my whole point is that this should be up to the player, and not a limitation imposed by the game. You guys may think that interstellar probes are "pointless" or don't "make sense," but someone else (i.e. me, for example) might want to start interstellar exploration with probes. I mean, for one thing, because that's the way it's most likely to ever happen in real life, and KSP has always been about finding a good balance between fun and realism, but also, just because... why not? I mean... I'm assuming that the parts we've seen in the clip aren't the only interstellar parts that we'll ever have, and also that one particular mod isn't necessarily *the* blueprint for interstellar travel in KSP2 either?.. Sure, something like a truly enormous engine bell would make sense for construction in orbit, rather than launch from KSC or docking together from smaller parts. It just doesn't make sense for parts like that to be a sort of hard-coded requirement for unlocking interstellar travel. Now that sounds good to me!

Now, imagine additional star systems being crafted and released all the time by KSP fans, maybe through mods, or maybe even through some more-or-less official system where any KSP2 player can design a system, submit it for review, and have it added to the game if it passes muster... I wonder how long it would take to populate a reasonably-sized galaxy, including central black hole, if something like that were implemented?

Many of you are assuming big giant starships launched in one go, but why jump to that assumption? In KSP (as in real life) comparatively small automated probes often precede more ambitious piloted missions. IIRC, one of the more-or-less realistic ideas on how interstellar travel could be done in real life involves attaching a tiny probe (think a few small instruments plus the bare minimum of electronics needed to run them) to a solar sail, and sending it to a nearby star with a laser assist; because of the tiny mass of the probe, it could potentially get there — for a brief fly-by — within mere decades. (Granted, this also sharply limits what kind of science the probe could do — but that, to me, does seem like a totally organic and logical limitation). No engines bigger than the VAB required for such a mission! (Well, actually, the solar sail could end up being bigger than the VAB once unfolded... But no-one is proposing launching solar sails into orbit in unfolded configuration.) And, of course, as I've already mentioned before, even if you did want a truly gigantic starship, you could always just launch it in segments from the KSC, and then dock these together in orbit. This is something I'm sure many of us have already done for more-ambitious interplanetary missions in KSP1. No colonies required there, either, even if you do want a flying Burj Khalifa in space. But serious, realistic concepts on how interstellar ships could be built have been around for decades. None have been built so far, obviously, but there is nothing physically impossible about many of the concepts that have been proposed; in many cases it's more a matter of great costs and remote, purely scientific payoffs. Orion drives and solar sails are very expensive, but there's nothing really impossible about them; simple physics tells us they should work (small-scale solar sails have already been tested in space and confirmed to work, even) and should be capable of reaching nearby stars within comparatively reasonable time-frames (i.e. decades rather than centuries, millennia, or longer, which, once you adjust it for the smaller scales of the KSP universe...) And, well, most of the already-proposed interstellar concepts do not require colonies in orbit or on other worlds, so why would they be a requirement for trying these things out in KSP2? Well, I've seen it mentioned more than once on this forum, including right in this thread, that starships might only be unlocked as an option once you have colonies; that's why I think that's a possibility. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this one! Mind you, if it was a "practical, emergent limitation" as you describe, I'd be happy with that! Sure, building an interstellar ship might be easier or more sensible to do once you have orbital facilities to assemble it. It just shouldn't be mandatory; that's what I was saying in my earlier post — I am expressing the hope that KSP2 will be flexible, and will let players progress along whatever path they choose, in the same sense as KSP1 does so now. Reading these forums shows that quite a few players get fun and enjoyment from doing things in ways that are not the easiest, most sensible, or most practical! And that should be an option in KSP2, as well. I.e. what I'm really concerned about, is what kind of game KSP2 will be in this regard — to what extent it will allow us to choose our own path, and to what extent it will hold our hand and say "no, you haven't met arbitrary requirement X yet, so therefore you can't do activity Y, regardless of whether you might have found some other way to do it."

Colonies having to grow up a bit before they can support their own VAB, and needing resource collection to provide resources for said VAB, makes a lot of sense to me... But only being able to build starships in colonies seems arbitrary to me, and pretty much like the exact kind of game-imposed inflexible progression I meant. If I can manage to strap enough boosters to my starship to launch it straight from Kerbin (maybe in several parts that can then be docked together, or maybe just using one reeeally big dumb rocket)... why shouldn't I be able to? I mean, there have even been ideas on how to build interstellar probes in real life (Orion drive, laser-assisted solar sails, etc.) that don't demand colonies beyond Earth at all... I agree that some limits on progression make sense, like working in "tiers" as you mentioned, but I don't really understand why deeper gameplay must necessarily imply more restrictions on how the player can advance... Or, to put it another way, some restrictions make sense; like having to study an exoplanet through a telescope before you can fly a ship there. Sure, that's intuitive enough. But there's a difference between sensible limits on progression that make logical sense, vs. arbitrary restrictions that are just there because the game itself wants you to move forward in a certain way...

One of the joys of KSP is that there are a myriad ways of attaining any particular goal, and that it's up to the player to decide how they want to get into orbit, land on a planet, or complete a contract; which nodes on the tech tree they unlock first, what tech they'll use to get to their destination, and so on. This is also well illustrated by the self-imposed challenges you can read about on these forums — players might try to see if they can accomplish a certain goal without a particular technology that would normally make it easier, for example. For my part, when starting a new save I often try and see how far I can get without upgrading the VAB for the first time, seeing what I can do with craft under the 30 part limit. (And you can do a lot! Not to mention that once you unlock the first clamp-o-tron docking port, you can dock ships in orbit to get past the limit... :P) This is all in contrast to many other games out there that tend to hold the player's hand, and offer only one or a handful of ways to advance — unlock ability A, then unlock ability B, then C, and so on. Even seemingly sandbox-ey titles, like No Man's Sky, often irk me by forcing me to complete objectives in a certain order, or to do certain tasks before I can advance in the game, when I feel like I should really be able to work around the linear requirements. So my question is... To what extent will the flexibility of progression that we see in KSP 1, be preserved in KSP 2? Will I still be able to skip over tech tree nodes that I feel I can get by without? Would a planes-before-rockets playthrough still be possible? Will I have to build colonies before I can unlock interstellar travel? Etc. Have there been any hints from the dev. team on this?

Now, hearing you say this is very exciting!

This is a good and interesting point. On a closely related note — in real life, the Voyager probes have just recently passed heliopause and transited into interstellar space, and have sent back some interesting data about this transition, which has challenged some established thinking about what the "edge" of our solar system is like. If semi-realistic interstellar flight is going to be a part of KSP2 I think it would absolutely make sense to also have significant scientific rewards for doing experiments at the edge of interstellar space (kerbolpause?) as well as in interstellar space proper.

This sounds like a really fun idea! I love that it's inspired by those awesome old Lego space sets, and given that colonization is a stated feature to be included in KSP2, this seems like a reasonable feature idea to me. It may well make sense to have multiple colonies on the surface of one body, and having some efficient way to link them just makes sense from the perspective of "colonization" gameplay. Also:

I agree with this, but I'd add that it really doesn't need to be terribly detailed. I don't need KSP to turn into a complete "Kerbal civilization simulator" with super-detailed mechanics for cities or "civilian" Kerbals. However, having a city or two, and a few other "civilian" points of interest, would go a long way towards making the game's world feel more alive. The emptiness of Kerbin has always been a bit of a let-down, especially if one is focusing on building planes or other planet-bound vehicles rather than just spacecraft. (And even when it comes to spacecraft... who doesn't want to see city lights — from actual, at least somewhat real-feeling cities — glistening on Kerbin's surface as your ship swings around the dark side of the planet?)

If KSP2 really is built to be easily mod-able, I would expect lots of mods designed to add new systems to the game will quickly pop up. Some such already exist for KSP1, but it sounds like KSP2 will be built with a foundation to make such additions easier; with a system for travel to other stars already included in the vanilla game, it'll just be begging modders to let their imaginations run wild and dream up new systems for us to explore.

For my part, it's multiplayer. I want to both cooperate and compete with a group of friends while exploring and colonizing space. Or maybe just to build a nice little orbital gas station for them to refuel their ships at. :3 I was really sad that KSP1 never got multiplayer, and that the mods that enable it aren't more stable and playable (which isn't the mods' fault; KSP1 just isn't built for it). Being able to play with others is the main reason I'm looking forward to KSP2. Everything else is either not all that important to me (graphics), or doable with existing mods that are stable and playable (colonization, new parts, etc).

This sounds like a mix of Kerbal Space Program and Empty Epsilon or Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator... Which would, indeed, be very much fun and is a great (if perhaps slightly ambitious...) idea

On a separate note: The main thing I, personally, would want to see in KSP2 multiplayer is the ability for each player to run their own separate space agency, with their own funds, science, reputation, and crew roster. These different agencies could compete for achieving "firsts," compete for contracts from a common pool (and if a given agency fails a contract, not only could they be penalized, but their competitors could be given a shot at the contract instead!) or, on the other hand, could cooperate to achieve bigger objectives together, say with each player/agency contributing a module to a giant space station, or contributing something to a multi-stage interplanetary mission. If the larger mission succeeds, each player could then earn a reward commensurate with their contribution! Another, related, idea might be giving players the ability to create contracts for each other! Say you launch a satellite, but can't quite put it in the right orbit before it runs out of delta-v; or say you land on the Mun, but your rocket tips over and your crew is stranded. Instead of sending a rescue mission yourself, you could create a contract for another agency to rescue your crew / refuel or reposition your satellite for you, and offer them funds, science, or reputation from your own budget in compensation! You would still benefit by getting your crew back (the whole Kerbonauts-join-their-rescuer's-crew mechanic would probably best be disabled for inter-player contracts) or by getting a satellite in the right orbit (potentially achieving the objective for your own contract, and thus getting your own reward), and your rescuer would not only get the reward you'd put up for them, but would also gain the satisfaction of knowing they helped another human being (as opposed to merely completing a computer-generated contract for a fictional agency run by a random number generator). There'd even be an incentive for players to specialize; one player might become the server's expert on planetary landings, for example, while another might run an orbital tug, becoming an expert in rendezvousing with other players' craft and refuelling them or efficiently putting them on new orbits. Notably, this is something that multiplayer mods for KSP1 cannot currently do — currently, the only form of multiplayer available, even through modding, seems to be everyone sharing a common funds/science/reputation/Kerbonaut pool. I think everyone running their own separate agency would be a good way for a more competitive, yet still constructive, style of play to work in KSP2, and I think it'd add a lot to the game experience!

IIRC the main issue with Luna is that there is *no* physics engine. I.e. it lets each KSP client simulate physics separately, only sharing general information about e.g. where a craft is located and what trajectory it is on between clients, then letting each separate client run its own simulation. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that that's really the main limitation of Luna — and probably an unavoidable one given what its developers have to work with. I've had fun with Luna as well, and even ran a server for a short while with a couple of friends, but at the end of the day it was, sadly, just too glitchy. Spectating another player — especially if they did any time warping at all — was just asking for trouble (at least in part, I think, due to the above limitation — more than once, the craft being spectated ended up looking all squished and messed up by physics forces from the perspective of one client, while still seeming perfectly fine from the perspective of another, and then the craft's final fate ended up being determined entirely by who stopped viewing it first...) and we frequently had problems with Kerbals getting listed as M.I.A. even when they were recovered safely, when that recovery was somehow not synced properly between clients... Docking different players' craft together, which I always thought should be a pretty big part of KSP multiplayer, was always kind of a crapshoot. Anyway, it was cool to be able to play KSP multiplayer at all, and Luna's devs deserve congratulations and gratitude for accomplishing that much! But we ended up spending more time worrying about how to keep the game working than about how to stage successful space missions. Regardless of the exact form multiplayer takes in KSP2, as long as it's stable and coded into the game from the get-go I think I'll be pretty happy to see it!

I was watching a video about flying boats earlier, and felt the urge to build one in KSP — but then remembered that KSP's water physics are still a bit wonky, and planes (or spacecraft, or even dedicated water craft) designed to land on / take off from / operate over the surface of water tend to be... not always particularly fun to pilot. (I know it's possible to build such craft and that examples are out there, but I also know from experience that water in KSP doesn't always... act in ways comparable to water in real life — potentially leading to rapid unscheduled disassembly events...) See also: Water landings in KSP are still more dangerous than landing on good ol' terra firma. So my question is... Will this be adressed at all in KSP 2? A quick search didn't give me an answer, so could anyone else possibly point me towards anything that may have been mentioned by the dev team regarding a re-work of liquid physics? Will seaplanes, sea-launched vehicles, capsules designed for water landing, and dedicated seagoing craft work better in KSP 2 than they do in the game's current incarnation? And what are everyone else's thoughts on the topic? Saunders-Roe Princess Flying Boat

Hey! I've been trying to play around with this mod, and the Recycler keeps acting a bit wonky: KSP: Kerbal Space Program - 1.9.1.2788, Windows 10, 64-bit Problem: Recycler won't recycle if unpacking is required before use in the difficulty settings. Items in recycler queue get deleted instead of either recycling or being returned to storage. Mods installed: B9 Part Switch (B9PartSwitch v2.13.0) ClickThrough Blocker (ClickThroughBlocker 0.1.9.5) Community Category Kit (CommunityCategoryKit 5.0.0.0) Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack 1.3.0.0) Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 1:3.4.1) Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 1.28.0) Contract Pack: Bases and Stations Reborn (ContractConfigurator-KerbinSpaceStation 2:3.7.2.2) Firespitter Core (FirespitterCore v7.15) Kerbal Inventory System (KIS 1.24) Kerbal Inventory System - No Fun (KerbalInventorySystemNoFun v1.4.2) KerbNet Controller (KerbnetController 5.0) Module Manager (ModuleManager 4.1.3) Near Future IVA Props (NearFutureProps 1:0.6.2) OSE Workshop Reworked (OSEWorkShopReworked 1.2.13) SpaceTux Library (SpaceTuxLibrary 0.0.2.3) Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux (StationPartsExpansionRedux 1.3.3) The Janitor's Closet (JanitorsCloset 0.3.7) Toolbar Controller (ToolbarController 1:0.1.9.4) USI Life Support (USI-LS 1.3.0.0) USI Tools (USITools 1.3.0.0) Zero MiniAVC (ZeroMiniAVC 1:1.1.0.1) Reproduction steps: Build a ship with the Recycler, a container for KIS parts with some parts in it, some empty containers for material kits and other raw materials, a power supply, and other paraphernalia. Go into game settings, and in the difficulty options for Workshop, ensure that you've selected the option that requires unpacking before use of the workshop modules. Launch your ship, right-click on the recycler, and unpack it. Then open the recycler menu, and try to recycle a part. It will appear in the recycling queue, but no recycling process will start. Click on the part, and note that it is deleted without recycling (you can see the ship's mass will drop as the part is removed, and no new resources will be gained). Try switching to other ships to re-load the scene, etc., and repeat the process; the same thing will happen. Go back into difficulty settings, and turn off the requirement to unpack before use. Recycler should now function as expected. (However, I still haven't found a way to move parts from the recycling queue back into storage without just deleting them...) Log: https://send.firefox.com/download/46d7213e7c0c42b1/#ClxpY91Tk6vMeV67z2ynQA I'm not nearly techy enough to understand what any of it means, but the log seems to contain an awful lot of this bit: Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if this is already a known issue -- I've tried searching for it, but couldn't find anything. Of course an easy work-around would be to just keep that option turned off in difficulty, but I kind of liked the idea of it and the extra challenge it seems to add. There's other... oddities I've noticed when playing around with the recycler, but they don't seem as critical and I didn't really check them as many times... Still, I'll describe them briefly. Firstly, if the difficulty option that makes modules take acceleration damage when upacked is checked, the Recycler seemed to take damage regardless of whether it was packed or not. Next, when I tried to include some duct tape in the ship so my kerbs could repair this damage, I realised *two* identical-looking duct tape items appear in the parts menu. Experimentation confirmed that only one of these seemingly identical items *actually* repairs anything -- the other one doesn't seem to actually have any functionality, or to be recognized as "duct tape" when I tried to fix the recycler. Lastly, when I *did* get the recycler to work -- by turning off the requirement to unpack it first under difficulty -- it seemed to recycle whether engineers were present or not. Actually I'm not sure this was a bug, but I tried the 3D printer workshop, and that refuses to work if no kerbs are aboard, so I expected the same to happen with the recycler... Anyway, just some oddities. They don't make the mod unusable or anything, and it's still adding a lot of fun to KIS, so I'm not complaining too much. Thank you for maintaining it!

I will definitely keep this in mind, and if it does get to be too much for my potato, I'll switch over to SNACKS life support. In the past, though, I've often looked at the need to keep part counts low as an extra challenge! "Hmm, maybe if I move these RCS thrusters from here to there, I won't need as many... Maybe these two solar panels can be replaced with a single large one in another location..." and so on. I guess attempting to play with this mod will be a good test of my abilities! Thank you, I'll try removing those patch files and see if that gets rid of the options! And if I can't get it to work, I guess it's not a big deal, since I'm not installing the MKS mod for now. I'm now also playing around with multiple installations to try out different combinations of mods, trying to see which ones cause the most problems for my system, and which ones I like the most... Of course, this creates the new problem of taking up space on my potato's hard drive, which I've had for years and as a result have already cluttered with tons of junk. It's all a careful balancing act... Also, this community is awesome. I didn't really expect this much information and this many replies when I started the topic! I greatly appreciate the help!

I've sort-of kind-of got it working, woo! I ended up using CKAN, and installing the USI life support mod, the Stockalike Station Parts, Simple Construction and Konstruction's ports (deleting everything else from that mod's folder except its .dll and, just because it scared me, the database file), and I also got the Kerbal Inventory System and the Community Tech Tree! Woo. It takes forever to start up, but nothing crashes, and the game is playable. There's some slowdowns in the VAB especially now, I assume from all the extra parts, but hopefully that will get better as I figure out which parts to prune -- I also got Janitor's Closet! I did end up getting heappadder as well, and it turns out to come with a recommended config file for systems of 4 to 6 GB RAM, so I used that. Hopefully it's helping! I actually did try to do it manually at first, with the Community Tech Tree mod (I couldn't find it in CKAN until I figured out how to make it search for mods compatible with previous KSP versions). I put the mod's stuff into the Game Data folder and everything, but when I tried to use CKAN to install a couple of the other mods I wanted, it didn't want to recognize that I already had the Tech Tree, for some reason. So, I ended up doing everything through CKAN once I figured out I could include previous versions of KSP in there. DStaal might be happy to know that I did end up playing around with the mods' directories later on to remove all the parts of Konstruction that I didn't want, though, and I managed not to break the game while doing this! :D I tried it, and I believe I can confirm that it's working in 1.8.1! :D Thanks for pointing me towards it, I think this will be a very useful mod indeed. :) And yes, I went with the USI-LS, and no conflicts or problems so far! I do have one issue -- well, more of a matter of preference, really, with Stockalike Station Parts Redux: It adds a bunch of "cargo container" parts that can store ore and a heck of a lot of other resources, and these also have "planetary warehouse" and "local warehouse" options. I haven't played around much with these yet, but I assume this is like Simple Logistics' and MKS' ability to "teleport" resources between structures that aren't physically docked together? Can anyone confirm? And if so, is there a way to "permanently" turn these options off -- i.e. so that even the option to turn them back on doesn't appear in game? (Like, maybe some... file that gives the parts this ability that I can delete from the mod's folder, or even something I can edit in the parts' files themselves with Notepad or something?) The reason is that I've thought about it, and decided that regardless of costs to my system and added work, I'd prefer to actually have to dock things together (even landed ones!) to transfer resources. Docking things is too big a part of the game, and I've spent too much time working on it in un-modded KSP, so it'd feel a bit too "cheaty" for me now to gain the ability to instantly zap stuff between one station module/ship/whatevs and another... Plus, I got "Breaking Ground," and the new robotics parts can actually make it somewhat easier to dock things together on the surface of a planet, and I want to keep playing around with that! I realise this is a pretty specific request, though, so I'll understand if no-one has a particular answer on how to do this! In either case, thank you again, everyone, for the help and information! I feel much better prepared to continue exploring the world of KSP mods now. :)

Thank you, I will give this a try. Another question: Is it recommended to use CKAN for mods, or should I attempt to install them manually? I doubt I will ever have very many mods running...

Awesome! Thank you all for the helpful replies! Snack sounds adorable, and like a very Kerbal-appropriate way of abstracting life support! I think I'll give USI's life support a try, though (hopefully I won't have it conflict with anything...) because of that "living space" system that I want to try... It's good to know that there are multiple base-building mods that can work with USI-LS! If it turns out that my system can't handle USI's mod, Snacks will definitely be my "Plan B." I've just been using maneuver nodes, and checking in at the Tracking Station periodically, since it semi-helpfully lists the time left until the next node for all your missions. Then I'd decide whether I have enough time left to launch a new mission or do whatever else, or whether I might as well go fly the mission with the next upcoming node, and time-warp to it... Of course, I had to actually remember to scroll though my list of missions at the tracking station, and no, I wasn't always successful in doing that... I just looked this up, and it does look like a very intuitive way to prune mods -- I love the idea of being able to do that from right inside of the VAB/SPH. However, it looks to be out of date... I'm on version 1.8.1, and it looks like this mod hasn't been updated yet. Should I still give it a try, and hope that it still works? I don't want to downgrade KSP itself to a previous version unless I really have to... Still, it looks awesome. Heck, there's probably a few vanilla parts that I never really use, and would happily get rid of. Maybe I can just wait and hope linuxguru updates it sometime soon. Thank you, these are all pretty cool, though I'm not techy enough to really understand what the first two do (and I don't think I have enough RAM for that second one to be very useful anyway, sadly...) Simple Construction in particular sounds awesome, though; I've always wanted to be able to build spacecraft on other planets/moons, but I had no idea a mod existed that could make it so (seemingly?) easy to do! Very cool. And it seems that this, plus Konstruction's port, = bases that can gradually expand themselves! Very cool. Your SimpleLogistics mod looks quite interesting too! Huh! Well, this gives me some cause for hope, definitely. I am still not sure whether I should try MKS (I think I may prefer it over Pathfinder, from what I've read of both thus far) or go with Stockalike Station Parts (sans IVA, I guess...) Thank you for the heads up about Kopernicus. It's a shame -- it does look like a very cool mod. Thank you to everyone who replied! Lots of cool mod info here.

Hi! I'm looking for advice on which mods I should try out (if any). I love KSP, but my computer is a potato. (Integrated graphics from Intel, 4 GB of RAM, Windows 8.1 x64) It actually runs unmodded, vanilla KSP reasonably well (or in a playable and still quite fun state, at least) as long as I keep the graphics settings low -- I've even been able to launch large space planes and the like; flying something with too many parts leads to some lag and low frame rates, but not to the point of making the game unplayable, and any simpler craft work with no trouble. But, I am guessing a lot of the bigger mods will be beyond my capabilites. I was wondering if anyone could provide me with some recommended mods given this limitation. In particular, I've been interested in trying out a life support mod, and some sort of base building / colony-building mod to go along with it. RoverDude's MKS looks very intriguing from what I've read about it, but it also looks like it will make my computer undergo rapid unscheduled disassembly if I try to run it. Which is a shame, because I really like the idea of a complex, ambitious colony-building project, and also really like the sound of USI life support -- I like that it adds homesickness and the need for extra living space. (I've always felt bad about leaving Kerbals in small, cramped command pods for weeks or months at a time, and I like the idea of having that reflected in the game!) I suppose I could install USI life support without the rest of the Umbra mods, and try to find a less complex base-building focused mod... But are there any at all that I could have a hope of running semi-smoothly, and that would work with USI's LS? This is where I could use some guidance. I've also seen something called "MKS Lite" mentioned on the forum a couple of times, which seems potentially relevant, but it looks like it was maybe abandoned? And perhaps it would have still been too much for my computer to handle. Or perhaps I can get MKS or another "ambitious" mod and then edit the installation to cut it down and make it more handle-able for my PC? I think I've seen a few people mention that when installing a mod, you can delete individual parts from it to keep it from slowing down the game too much, but as you can probably guess, I have no experience playing with mods and have no real idea how to do this. Also, are there any mods that might actually make the game run faster, thus maybe compensating for the slow-down bigger mods might cause? And are there any non-colony-related mods that I should still get, that might not slow my system down too much? (In particular, I was thinking of trying out the Alarm Clock mod and the Docking Port Alignment Indicator -- would I be correct to assume that even my computer should be able to handle these?..) So, yes. If anyone could recommend any mods that focus on life support and the construction of outposts and/or orbital stations, and that could realistcally be playable and enjoyable on my terrible PC, that would be amazing, and I'd be grateful for the help. I'm also quite interested in hearing about any other low-spec-friendly mod recomendations anyone might have! Thank you for any help or advice y'all might be able to offer!