intelliCom

I feel like if there's going to be so many, they need some categorisation. Perhaps by two primary uses (construction and fuel), then divided by tiers (sorted by a combination of difficulty to attain and how technologically advanced the particular material is). Please feel free to reply with your own suggestions on what I should add to these lists, and also if you feel that a particular material should be moved to a different tier or outright removed. Construction (of both rockets and colonies): Fuel (for both rockets and energy):

I'm not sure any celestial body really deserves any sort of hate. I might be inclined to hate Bop and Gilly for having gravity that is so weak, it's actually annoying if I want to timewarp to the surface. Pol's an exception to this rule because it looks so wacky and interesting compared to those two. Dres is (theoretically) just the Mun, so it's not really hateable. It (theoretically) even offers easy access to lots of asteroids too. (if it existed, that is). Eeloo has nice aesthetics to it, although it hasn't aged great in KSP1. KSP2 Eeloo looks goddamn beautiful though. It's flat, so landing isn't a hassle like what often happens with the Mun's hills. It's also a nice end-game challenge alongside an Eve return mission.

Perhaps it works in "zones", like large chunks of area that have one global wind direction each that gradually changes in strength and direction over time? That way, wind patterns and cyclones can exist, but with huge amounts of approximation that don't sacrifice too much realism. Also has the advantage of applying wind forces to objects not "in focus" (who tend to ignore atmospheres, though drag would also have to be approximated, perhaps by spending a few seconds of extra loading time to derive values for each stage? That way, the object can have an approximate terminal velocity to slow down, even in the Tracking Station.)

"Visual" in what way? Attempting to visualise realistic wind would still take a lot of processing power, and if they're invisible it doesn't even matter. I agree that representing some aspects of real physics is nice on paper. Say you wanted to put a colony on a (theoretically) windy planet like Eve. Building structures that have to deal with wind would be a good way to make things more challenging. But that brings us back full circle, OP's original idea. Simulating proper wind is unnecessary, but a simple, random force applied across game objects alongside the standard gravity should do the trick, just like @Smart Boy said at the start. Think of "wind simulation" in golf games. No fluid dynamics, no influence of temperature, just a singular, linear force that acts upon the ball alongside the stronger, more consistent gravity. Making wind simulation realistic would be more "educational" for people studying the science of weather. But people playing KSP aren't playing it because they like weather science. Most of them are playing it because they like space exploration. The rest is probably fans of engineering, people who like to make replicas of real-world aircraft, etc. No advanced realistic simulations. Just really simple smoke and mirrors like video games have always done things.

As I recall mentioning once before; KSP is a game first, simulator second. Yeah, good luck simulating all of this with reasonable accuracy in real-time without an RTX 5090 TI and Intel i12 (spoiler: they don't exist, and you couldn't afford them if they existed anyway)

My biggest problem with the EVA packs is that you can't really control orientation at all. If we could just control kerbals the same way we do for normal RCS on a spacecraft, it'll make more sense. (If you've ever had confusion in trying to operate a spacecraft's RCS, try doing it with the camera in "locked" mode, works wonders) Maybe KSP 2 might even introduce different EVA pack types. Original monoprop, LF+LOX or maybe xenon-powered? Would encourage long-term EVA use. That being said, umbilicals/tethers would be good in case you're reckless with EVA fuel and the Kerbal would be left stranded, just metres away from its ship but slowly drifting away. Additionally, an umbilical could even provide the ship's own Monoprop supply directly to a Kerbal without getting back in. (Yes, I think the infinite fuel exploit should be patched)

Sorry if I sound stupid, but are you referring to turbulence within an atmosphere? In most cases regarding KSP, I'd assume "flight path" to mean "trajectory in space". Before I thought about it longer, I honestly thought you were referring to just a random arbitrary force in space that would throw off your spacecraft's trajectory, rendering any hohmann transfer useless.

With part clipping, I often use it to embed batteries into large truss segments, especially if I'm building rovers. Makes for a strong part to use on the main body. That being said, part clipping should have its limits. Perhaps they could fix the exploit of compressing thousands of tanks into a small space by only allowing a small bit of part clipping? You know, enough to be "married to the surface", as you described it. Many solar panels in KSP1 already visually do this. Just a matter of finding what the limits should be.

Building an industry-standard claustrophobic iron maiden filled with explosives luxurious and safe interstellar cruiser, with up to 2 times the room!

I suspect that when we're actually closing in on the actual release, news is going to start exploding, and the HYPE TRAIN™ will be operating at full speed.

Be cool to have a hud that resembles interfaces on real, existing spacecraft. You know, like visuals and controls on the Eagle Lander, albiet not so busy.

Bug fixes, optimisations, quality-of-life improvements, and maybe new features. That is the absolute extent of what anyone knows.

Feels like something that would end up as a mod, like they mentioned for solar sails.

So what do you propose? Make KSP2's bug reporting the same as KSP1?

Nuclear Irradiated? Steam Emitting Rocket

I guess it might be more realistic biologically for the third back leg to be stronger than the front two, so bulking it up a bit might make it look better. But I'm not a biology expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I've thought about the possibility of transferring craft from KSP 1 into KSP 2; with the procedural wings re-creating the originals either part-by-part, or approximating the original shape with AI so it's one or two solid pieces

I mute the in-game music and just play my own. Sure, it's iconic, but it's royalty free music. It's a consequence of KSP 1 having been produced as an indie game, with little budget available to it.

My experience with Cyberpunk 2077 has told me to definitely hold off until people have a proper idea for if it's good or bad. If it's bad, not wasting my money. If it's good, then I buy it. I swear to god if they try to have some kind of pre-order bonus BS, I'll have a more difficult time deciding between preorder and buying later. However, if the pre-order bonus is just DLC that could be purchasable later, then it won't influence my decision to hold back.

Huh, didn't know about textures. I guess that explains why it's so easy to have so many fully-fledged celestial bodies with terrain; the data for it is literally just a 2d texture. I'm curious, what's the resolution of the texture, and what's the ratio between pixels on the texture and km on the planet/moon? Terrain seems half-decent for a 2010s game, so the ratio might be something like 100:1 (pixels : km), right?

That would be step 4; ""

I think the Mun has one or two maybe. It's been a while, maybe I'm just getting mixed up.

I didn't say as a DLC. Life itself as a DLC, absolutely, but considering how caves are a land formation, I suspect they'd want that implemented alongside the rest. From what I know, there already exists caves in KSP1, just not underwater.

The closest thing we'll get to exploring underwater life outside of Kerbin would be under-sea geysers, likely on Laythe. But it would be interesting to explore underwater caves on another planet.

1: Why is there a star plume around the engine? 2: Should this star plume not damage surrounding engines? Just putting the questions in a simpler format for people to answer. We already know why the plume is pink, stop talking about it. Focus on the star-plume coming out of the sides.