intelliCom

I will admit that it's a bit strange how they've only been showing us "pre-alpha" footage despite it having to release this year. There should be footage at least in beta by now.

We shouldn't be so negative about this. If I understand game development correctly, it's possible to have more than one lead designer. There was this slideshow panel that I remember where T2 wanted to make a mobile entry for all of their franchises. Perhaps this is intended for that? It's more than possible that they're hiring a QA tester because they're in the last stages of development, and they want to make sure everything's up-to-scratch for release this year.

@TruffleSpy When it comes to game performance, I like to follow the unwritten rule of "comparison with consoles". If your computer runs a game better than a console port, then your computer will do better than consoles will. For example, KSP 2 is going to release on XB1 and PS4 alongside PC. If they need to optimise it to run well on XB1 and PS4, then it should run fine on a PC that is as good as either of those consoles. If your computer runs Doom Eternal better than XB1 and PS4, don't worry about anything. Also, I'd argue that KSP 2 would only require marginally more performance than KSP 1, since KSP 1 had some notable optimisation problems. KSP 2 is likely far more optimised, with more intensive graphics cancelling it out.

Apologies. Could I be redirected to the mod that changes the audio of engines from stock effects to more realistic and "powerful" effects?

Update, I've found that it tends to happen when switching between map view and flight view. When it happens enough, the noise cuts out.

I have speculated before where if you build colonies large enough, you would be able to see the light from space. If it's true, it would definitely be possible to turn any celestial body (with a surface- no jool surface colonies) into Coruscant. Just get ready to spend a lot of time and effort doing so. Also, as @AtomicTech mentioned, "frying computer components."

So a bug-patching mod? I don't really know any of them. Would love if there was a bug-patching mod for apoapsises (apoapses? apsides? unsure.) and periapsises from extremely far away nodes moving strangely when your craft rotates (Typically happens on Jool transfers, to name one example.) Also, a patch for the sun's inconsistent heat.

I know that, just trying to pin down whether the trees are just a placeholder or actual plant life on Lapat.

You mean the Squad monolith? It's potentially KSP lore, but again it's really one of those easter eggs where it doesn't actually indicate a sign of any specific life. The monkey face and "squad" text is arbitrary. It could be any other picture and any other language and the result is more or less the same from the Kerbal's perspective.

The kraken I can agree with, but that whale skeleton is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference. In other words, it's an easter egg that shouldn't be considered canon to KSP's lore. Just a fun tid-bit. Like the Neil Armstrong monument on the mun. There obviously isn't a Neil Armstrong in KSP, it's there because the devs put it there. If you want to consider the whale skeleton canon, how do you explain the broken bowl of petunias next to it?

Sorry for completely ignoring the entire point of your reply, but what mod is this, I am strongly fascinated: https://imgur.com/a/GgkKDVA

If Kerbin is detailed enough, one idea I had- before anything else- was to make a plane and just fly around Kerbin, get a feel for it. Use it as an opportunity to get used to any new bits that the game has. When I finally feel ready, I'll perform a first actual launch.

I believe that was Lapet/Lapat. It's more than possible that it was placeholder decoration. But, then again, the placeholder could be anything else, why make it a tree?

I've thought of a funny idea: "Congress Difficulty", where funding is always ridiculously low, forcing you to consider new ways of using your money effectively. Failing to meet the quota results in funding being cut further. Doing too well also results in funding being cut further.

I always feel that when I'm playing a career game, and I stockpile enough funds from stacking grand tour contracts, the game starts to feel like the science gamemode instead. Contracts become pointless, and so does the money. Only thing left is to eliminate the remaining tech tree nodes.

It's basically just "This year but not before April." Not exactly better or worse, just the same really.

Question: What makes the stronger engines in KSP (Vector, Mainsail, etc.) have less vacuum ISP than a lot of the weaker ones? (Terrier, Poodle, etc.)

It is clear from many screenshots of development that KSP 2 is being made in Unity, which means that they're using some form of non-native integration of Lua into Unity. This is sounding a lot like Garry's Mod. You don't have the mods that the server needs? It'll just install the necessary mods before joining. Garry's was also coded in Lua, so the parallels- assuming this optimistic speculation is true- are extremely close. I love it.

I played the game for over 300 hours before I even knew that "specific impulse" means "efficiency". I played the game for over 600 hours before I even landed on Laythe. In all of the time that I have played this game, I have not made a surface outpost with ISRU. Just a simple, small lander that has a few crew cabins in it. KSP 2 is about to introduce dozens more concepts on top of just those few. Trust me when I say this: An improvement to KSP 1's tutorials is very welcome.

Just using the mod in a career game; The editor lists the output for Kitsunium238 as "14.63 Ec/S", while the actual output is about 0.7 Ec/S. I understand that this is related to the parts "Efficiency: 5%", since 0.7 is about 5% of the editor's listed output. I had two questions relating to this problem: 1) What is the point of listing a 5% efficiency if we can't actually do anything with it, such as improve efficiency somehow, or other RTG options with better efficiency? (The largest extent of my part-adding mods is restock and scansat. No other RTGs are added with any of my mods) 2) Why does the editor list the output with what it would be at 100%, instead of displaying the value most relevant to the RTG; the 5% efficiency value?

This is really awesome! Well drawn, and I can see it fitting in very well alongside KSP's kerbals. One small point of critique: The eyes are probably too similar. In terms of life that is within the Kerbol system- besides Kerbals- there does exist a "Deep Space Kraken" easter egg on bop, in reference to the KSP community's terminology for game bugs. Its eyes are slits, akin to a frog or a cat. Perhaps some inspiration could be taken from this? On Laythe there also exists a whale skeleton beside a broken bowl of petunias- which is technically a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- but maybe it could serve as a prompt for oceanic life? All that besides, amazing work, hope to see more in the future!

It apparently has to do with an incompatability issue between AVP/EVE configs and the latest version of scatterer. Using version 0.0722 should solve the problem- just make sure to use scatterer configs of the same version as well. As for why it happens in specifics, I have no idea.

What specifically about those configs makes the atmospheres weird? There seems to be the presense of a lot of inverted colours; Neidon (A purple planet) is greenish, Thatmo (A ice-blue moon) is orange, Tekmo (A teal-green moon) is bright purple. What I'm basically asking is "Why does this car stop working?" I'm not looking for the answer of "Because something's broken", but rather "the gearbox is left in bits". I'd like to understand the nitty-gritty problem that causes these planets to be weird colours in one version but not another.

Good point. Not a good idea to get caught up in the small details when we haven't even cleared up the big stuff yet. I have realised something about your formula though; The only reason The Moon isn't considered a moon via the formula is because it's too far away. If it were closer, the ratio between Earth apohelion and Moon perihelion would be greater, resulting in a number greater than the ratio between Earth mass and Sun mass, therefore the Moon becomes a moon by being closer.

I like the term 'sub-moon', or, alternatively, just re-use 'satellite' again. You could call an asteroid "a Moon of Ganymede", which in turn is "a Moon of Jupiter", or a "Sub-Moon of Jupiter." You could even be silly and say "Moon-moon". The number of "Moon"s is the number of layers that it takes to reach the moon being referred to. What if- and this is real science fiction territory we're talking about here- a moon/planet was manufactured by collecting asteroid matter, melting it down into a larger mass of rock, then leaving it in orbit of another celestial body? If there aren't any significant differences in this artificially produced celestial body compared to other celestial bodies, could it be considered a moon? Do moons/moonlets have to be moons/moonlets just by being primarily made of natural materials like rock or ice? Most technology doesn't really use rocks anymore, so could it be fair to consider a melted down ball of rock a moon? Sorry if this seems a bit too philosophical, I just trying to get down to the nitty-gritty of what a moon should be. Would this technically mean that the moon has billions of moonlets, as there's likely orbiting dust particles? Yet again, you end up with the problem of figuring out the cut-off point. How round should a celestial body be for it to be considered "hydrostatic equilibrium"? Does Iapetus's ridge de-classify it as a moon?