intelliCom

These tests have too many variable elements. You need to minimise the variables as much as possible. Here's what I propose: Conditions: Settings either set to (Very) Low or High ("Medium" could be too demanding on lower-end cards, so let them see what Low looks like at least) All other programs other than KSP and the launcher closed. (Please record launcher used) A phone or paper(s) to record notes. Alternatively, a prescribed form to be printed / filled out on another computer. I do not recommend recording the game unless you have a dedicated capture card. Recording software can use system resources, skewing the results. To be recorded: PC Specs: GPU (This should be listed as "RX _____", "GTX ______", or "RTX ______". This is NOT "Intel UHD Graphics" or "Vega" (unless you are limited to an iGPU)) CPU RAM Any overclocking used Screen resolution (1080p, 1440p, 4k, etc.) If you are running a lower end card, feel free to set this to below 1080p if you need to achieve a 60 fps experience. Just record the resolution change. Benchmarking tests: For these, read all the steps for the test prior to starting that test. This is to minimise mistakes in the testing process. Keep the steps on your phone/paper(s). If a prescribed form is being used, a copy of the steps will be provided. "Kerbal X to the Heavens" "Engine Cluster from Hell" "MOAR BOOSTERS: Ragnarok" (For lower specs, I recommend Low settings only for this one. High settings may be unable to complete this test.) That being said, I would absolutely like to contribute to these benchmarks. Just make sure serious thought is put into the benchmarking tests to minimise error.

That would contribute to greater GPU usage, which could create a false idea of framerates. Needs to be recorded by the player. Though someone recording one example wouldn't hurt.

The duality of man.

The real answer to the question of how long it takes is this: As long as it takes for you to succeed in a difficult mission in KSP2 with the stuff you already have (i.e., basically all of KSP1's stock parts + a few new ones). In other words, try sending N Kerbals to Eve and back to Kerbin. Try descending deep into Jool and returning back to space. Play KSP2 how you've already played KSP1. The plus side of that is you can hunt for more bugs for Intercept to fix, ultimately making KSP2 better than KSP1 after EA release gets polished. It may have glitches. It may crash. But give it a week, maybe two, and I'm sure it'll become far more playable. No matter what, do not give KSP2 any unwarranted criticism. Too much of that, and T2 could pull the plug on KSP2 due to what they might perceive as a "poor business decision". Honestly, I'm pretty sure the only reason anyone's asking these sorts of questions is because they're waiting for Feb 24. Once people are having fun with KSP2, I'm sure they'll be far more patient for new updates.

Somewhat unrelated point: In KSP1, it is generally better to overshoot the KSC than undershoot it. With the rocket facing backwards, thrust can be applied to adjust as you're approaching. Even if you overshoot too much, there's water directly ahead. If you undershoot, there's no real way to push further to the KSC, and an even bigger risk of crashing into the mountain range. I've managed multiple landings near the KSC, even without mods. It's not that hard.

If this is in USD, would the price change for other countries?

This isn't KSP 2 discussion, this should be in The Lounge.

I mean, assets like sounds and graphics should be far easier to transfer over, but code will definitely need to be redone.

I'd accept it being that way when EA releases, but they should probably change it at some point in development. To support what @Sunforge is saying, we didn't even have clouds to complain about in KSP1. So, KSP devs, if you're reading this, don't get too caught up on visuals this early on. Get the game working and (relatively) bug-free, then we talk about how things look.

Just make a mod.

Would this mean that rockets of the future don't launch by bell-nozzle engines, but rather 'Rota-Det' ones? That'd be interesting to see.

But how realistic is terraforming? Is there actually enough water locally available on Duna/Mars to do it, or would you have to take some from Kerbin/Earth to do so? If you need to transfer water from Earth to terraform Mars because Earth is polluted, why not just terraform the Earth?

Oh, that's new to me. So if the arch were more complete, Kerbin should be somewhere on the left side?

Perhaps they're other star systems? Two of them to visit when the interstellar update arrives? One's a red dwarf (bit too purple, I know), the other is a yellow dwarf?

Both of them are single, so have fun! Does anyone have advice on breathing in Eve's atmosphere?

I feel like 50% of the posts in the KSP2 development discussion forum are either extremely minimal/going to be implemented already (e.g., "Could we have new wheels please?"), or extremely ambitious and could never be implemented due to how ambitious they are. This post happens to fall into the latter. I've seen the idea of procedural planets a few times, but it has to be made certain that such planets don't throw off the game's balance. To avoid unnecessary waste of development time while ensuring every planet makes sense, I think the planets should be manually implemented.

I can imagine this being very CPU-heavy to calculate, on top of all the physics already. What might be more reliable is calculating an ellipsoid area of landing instead. Further behind assumes maximum drag, further ahead assumes minimum drag. That way it doesn't have to be constantly recalculated. I know they used one of those calculations for the Apollo moon landings, but I can't remember what it was called.

You know that weird white wind effect that covers your vehicle if it goes fast enough? It happens around breaking the sound barrier, actually. Pretty sure that's meant to be the shock cone

IIRC, a "sonic cone" effect is already present in KSP 1, albeit very limited and low-quality. Also, please refrain from the "oversized typewriter text", and put each image and video into a labelled spoiler so it's easier to scroll through. For example...

Let's see if this works instead... EDIT: Yeah I'm getting weird errors when I do that. It's not even as a YouTube shorts link. Yes the title has a rocket emoji on the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbjKpF5z9Lo Yeah it's strange. As I've mentioned before, I suspect we'll get to see way more a full month before release, in late January. If there's nothing by then, I'm wondering what's going on at T2 to make them think it's a good idea to undermarket a game with this much development time. Maybe an excuse to make it underperform and cancel it?

Emoji apparently. Though it's strange that this website can't simply replace those emojis with something that works

Yeah probably poor volume mixing for the film I guess, maybe your speaker system rendered it poorly? Not sure. To each their own. I like it. There's worse sci fi out there.

I guess the volume on the soundtrack is too loud relative to voices? That doesn't exactly subtract from how the soundtrack is though.

Okay, writing, characters, and story is fair criticism. But the soundtrack? That's a new one, go ahead and explain.

Okay, remind me how bad of a movie Interstellar is. It has some scientific accuracy problems, but it's miles better than what Star Wars/Trek does.