t_v

Just want to point out that Nate liked the following post / comment For clarification, the post talks about the implementation of multiplayer on the code side. If you don’t have a system that is multiplayer capable already, it is really hard to tack on multiplayer and have it function well. For example, Minecraft (which has a lot of single player users) sets up a server to play on even in single player worlds, because the way the code is set up for multiplayer, the client isn’t designed to generate the world and make changes to it, so there always needs to be a separate process that the client connects to to make the game run. Multiplayer really should be technically up and running near the start of development, even if single player mode is a viable option. In other words: we still have no evidence towards specific or general multiplayer solutions.

Or maybe outside of a different galaxy? Since the galactic center seems small, the play space might be a cluster of stars that is floating far away from the actual galaxy. Although, we should then see the outer arms, because that pattern of light and dark isn’t really present in elliptical galaxies (correct me), and this doesn’t look like an irregular galaxy.

This is an interesting topic because I don’t think I’ve talked about what experiments I would actually like to see. I’m mostly hoping for more in-depth physics experiments , but I suspect that as we colonize the solar system, exo-geology and exo-meteorology will both be relatively common areas of study. I’d like to see an experiment collected via a mesh of ground stations measuring the speeds of ground waves to generate a map of the internals of a planet, or an experiment that you put on a plane that records its trajectory and telemetry as it passes through extreme weather events. The actual nitty-gritty can be abstracted a bit, but I’d like to see some high-level representations of the data. For physics experiments, I’d love a long-running experiment that functions a bit like LISA, detecting really small gravitational waves in space. And I’ve always wanted discovery of other stars and planets to be completely fleshed out to an unreasonable degree, with spectrum images and light curves and lots of data, alongside an intuitive interface where you can click on a few absorption lines and then a box pops up telling you what chemical species is causing that. Highlighting cyclic dips in light curves can reveal orbital periods of planets (or secondary star) or the period of the star if it is a variable star. Observing stars over a long time will give parallax data which gives distance which… Well, I don’t think even 1% of that full system will be in the base game, but I’m going to mod it in for sure.

Thanks. I saw that thread which is why I was unsure of whether this had official evidence behind it.

Personally, Im just not a fan of sexualizing kerbals and don't think it needs to be brought into the game. I don't desire to see some kerbals with chest lumps to signify their sex for instance. I don't think you are describing the same thing. In KSP 1, there is a distinction when a kerbal is male or female, even though we don't see any differences beyond the face. (and to anticipate, no this isn't the players making something up, this is something that was an intentional design decision, and was communicated as such, and the design is pretty suggestive of the male and female sex in the traditional sense) If nonbinary or other gender nonconforming kerbals were in the game, I think it would be represented the same way - perhaps a sliding scale where the face can be between the oval and rectangular shapes that are the current options, generated hair styles that aren't commonly associated with a certain sex, and other facial representation. Simply not separating the list of options between two groups would accomplish this if you went really low effort, and then if you spend the amount of effort it takes to make the two lists separate, you can instead set up a few simple systems to give different distributions of features.

I still see nothing wrong with the statement that I made. I didn't make unrealistic predictions or jump to conclusions, and I was wrong. I would rather be wrong than go out on a hypothesis without logic and be right. However, I don't think I was as wrong as you may think, so let me re-phrase this "funny" post with new information. There is a chance that the devs actually haven't coded any of the systems they are introducing in early access, but there is a chance they have coded them, and people saying "It's not going to be two years of EA" is just because so far, lots of people have been jumping to negative conclusions, and you'll notice that when people jump to the conclusion that this means that KSP 2 will be the most feature-packed game ever by the end of release, the same people that counteract negative opinions counteract those ones. This isn't a discussion between negative and positive people, it is a discussion between jumping to conclusions and recognizing that we don't know enough to make them. I feel like you may have missed the point - you are free to have personal predictions for how the game will turn out, how development is going, etc., but please don't make it seem that these are going to be the case. For example: some forum members thought the game was actually vaporware and the entire development cycle was an elaborate, multi-million dollar ruse to entertain the follies of Nate Simpson, who was apparently a trickster god of some sorts. You and I both know that the game definitely could have been a vaporware. But we don't jump to that conclusion because we don't know enough about KSP 2 to support it. The expression "a broken clock is right twice a day" comes to mind... I'll restate this: I'd rather be reasonably wrong than be right on a lucky unsupported hunch.

Where did you hear this? I heard there will be secrets Fromm the latest video, but I didn’t see anyone say it would be connected to science progression. If anything, I hope it isn’t connected to progression because I liked the intrinsic motivations of finding every anomaly or planting a flag on every body, and I feel like if it was made part of the mandatory progression, then it wouldn’t feel as special.

There was a whole thing were PDCWolf said that if you have a HUD or AR orientation system, you only need an abstraction or simplification instead of a brightness-boosted image of reality. In other words, why would you render millions, billions, or trillions of points of light when you can just render RA/Dec. lines and maybe a few key stars, like Kerbol. Even rendering a couple dozen thousand stars (which would be a pretty sparse sky by the way) is just another simplified representation of the sky. If you want the stars for orientation, such as for recognizing sky-marks You can accomplish that by rendering just the stars important to those constellations, or even drawing constellation representations on that sphere. They are pretty much equivalent, just different aesthetically. Either way, neither one is an actual image of the sheer amount of stars out there. Luckily, it doesn’t matter if rendering every star is realistic, HUD or not. The game can make an aesthetic choice or present a few choices about what the sky looks like, and it is fine because nothing is holding KSP to the utmost standard of absolute realism.

Elden ring: guess I’ll die. Seriously, what is with these generalizations? If you code a PC version, and the console version is being coded independently, then there is no difference to the PC version whether the console devs manage to include every feature or not. If you code a console thing and port it over to PC, you might not be using the computer’s full potential, but it doesn’t really make a difference the other way around.

The Eridians would just make a rigid Xenonite structure before dealing with messy snapping ropes.

Science is in the second panel, so it is still in early access, but it won't be there on Feb. 24. What I'm hoping is that there will be a maximum of a few weeks to give feedback on the content in the first panel, and then science is introduced to start giving feedback on it.

I agree that this should be a space game first and foremost, so there's really no reason not to have a diverse population of kerbals, because it is just better socially, fits the optimistic tone of KSP, and it won't exactly impact the space flight aspects.

What I’m hoping is that basic systems are in place before they are expanded upon. I want to have resource scanners and underground deposits, and self-building drill mechanisms, and all that, but I’m happy to build my colonies using copious amounts of Ore taken from barely a meter below the ground. (That simplicity would be a bit extreme, but hopefully it shows the point)

I’m also having a similar problem with readability. In terms of the UI elements and their positioning, I actually really like it because the nav ball contains the most pertinent navigation information (altitude, speed, direction) in close proximity but in distinct locations (want heading? Look up). I think that the choice of ticker tape is reasonable because it gives a good indicator of rate of change, and even modern aircraft HUDs use it because it works. However, the font and the way the lines are put together is visually cluttered, more than any of the other UIs in your post. Even if you compressed the SpaceX interface so it didn’t take up a whole screen, the visual simplicity makes it easier to read. I think that the amount of lines and markers on the navball makes it hard to really distinguish specific pitch angles, and the text on the rest of the UI fades into the information surrounding it. Making them even more distinct and isolated would go a long way towards being able to get information at a glance. This is purely subjective, so feel free to disagree, and who knows, maybe you will be able to mod UI themes into the game for anyone’s preference.

Something that might help is in Shadowzone’s video, he mentions that he has talked to the devs and hints that these systems might already be in a playable state and will be introduced slowly just for play testing purposes, not because they are just not coded yet. In that case, the early access might be quick and new features might be added as soon as the community is happy with the existing ones. We’ll have to wait until Sunday to find out though.

Yeah. I don’t want to start a big discussion about this in the repository, but “extended roadmap” definitely means after the early access period. Whether EA takes a few months or more than a year, a lot of other features will bump the priority for Mac and Linux down during that time, so I’m probably not going to be seeing it on any of my everyday operating systems for a while.

What the image seems to mean to me is: the top thing is the maneuver editor, with one of the directions being pulled out to create a burn. Below it, there is a kerbal with a thumbs-up, and a “c” next to it, maybe a coin, or maybe the “c” means community? Absolute speculation here, but the message could mean that the community is going to approve the changes to the UI, or maybe contracts still exist?

This is exactly what I was talking about: I made a false statement about the system (as are all the statements in that block of text) and people were confused about whether it is true or not. I think it is going to be so easy to have miscommunication filled arguments about multiplayer that talking about it now would just be inviting a flame war.

Well , considering the amount of people who have suggested this type of time warp management, I wouldn’t say unpopular, just disliked, as are all the other systems to varying extents. This brings me to what might be an actual unpopular opinion: I don’t think that they will show multiplayer mechanics until the game is practically released. There are a lot of opinions, and a lot of strong opinions, about MP, so announcing what solution they’ve found before the game is released might cause some serious issues. People (probably including me) will be sad that their solution didn’t become stock, and then because no one has a copy of the game, they won’t be able to test what the actual solution is like for themselves, so a lot of worst-case assumptions and misunderstandings will be made to fill in the gaps. The leapfrog model will actively incentivize people to speed apart and not rejoin, the cyclic (my model, that’s what I’m calling it) model will have completely broken rendezvous mechanics, the MMO model will have transfer windows in real time, etc. And the modding API is also not out so no one knows if they even have the ability to mod their system in… it is better to just give players the game so that worries can be concretely dispelled. It think that if the devs talk about it, it will be as close to release as possible. We might have a while left before any news drops on MP. I’m still hopeful for my kerbal populations idea. I’ll have to think about how that works for time warp under the different systems though; if something you are co-controlling is warped into the future, does that interaction cut off for you? Wait, if someone in the future just docks with a ship that you alone own (with permissions and all) and makes an interaction, is that ship unable to be interacted with until you catch up? There better be a pretty good anti-griefing system in that case…

So if we knock off a zero, it'll be reasonably achievable. (I would feel sorry for those who wanted to 100% the game though)

So you'll necessarily lose one, but you might break even if one of those dates are correct? Smart.

The topic of boom events makes me wonder: how does population work in the end-game? I agree that slow growth is bad for incentivizing discovery, but once you discover everything, can your population still grow? The ways I can see to fix this is to either have thousands of locations that can cause boom events, such as little surface features that become important in the end-game, or making boom events have criteria that no longer depend on new discovery; something like expanding a colony to fit 1000 kerbals while keeping your empire above a certain happiness level, kind of like Civ does it where you can technically continue getting golden ages forever.

I would still play it a bit because something is better than nothing, but that same sentiment means that I would prefer a broken implementation of full multiplayer to none at all, and I think that some implementations are easy to make happen. I’d still really prefer a good implementation though.

oh, and by live, I mean stuff like rover racing, not docking to a station that hasn't been interacted with since the time where you are at.

So there, you were absolutely correct, but it doesn't make it impossible. There are kind of finicky ways to get around it, like: warp to the same transfer window, even if it is a few years away, or warp so that the starting planet is in the same place then once you rendezvous, warp so that the ending planet is in the same place, but I think I conceded that in that situation, intercepting vessels in transit would require warping to pretty much the exact same window, however rarely that occurs. This essentially turns intercepting transferring ships into the leapfrog system, but definitely doesn't make it any more impossible than that system. Because the problem of planets being in different positions only is a problem when the planets are in really different positions, which you pointed out happens more often than I thought. In any case, warping so that the planets are in the same positions would be a prerequisite for both systems (and is a prerequisite for any live interaction in the leapfrog system), unless you want to do some weird workaround. As for Kerbol orbit, why not? The way I see it, if a craft is in a stable orbit, it just stays there, and if the player that owns it time warps enough that it goes into a planet's SOI, you would see it appear there and then probably shortly after slingshot into another orbit of Kerbol, where it would stay for a while longer. Stable orbits and inter-SOI trajectories aren't treated differently in the code, but I'm talking about them separately because they bring up different issues.