Laxez

i think that the shield you see, is not for some sort of anti collision device, is for protect the passengers for the high amount of radiation that the angine makes

It would be nice if it were procedural, having played a lot of "No Man's Sky" it is very interesting and nice to discover always different planets, however these planets often have the same characteristics or are absolutely anonymous. Instead I prefer a few planets but of quality, I happened to see flying rocks and large environmental glitches in NMS due to procedurality. It is also not excluded that more systems will be included in future DLCs

Come on guys, potentially we have to wait a maximum of 269 days

Are you serious?

seems legit

yes... but it's not even a live, it's a 4 and a half day video. should i watch it all?

is this some kind of april's fool joke?

since KSP 2 is set in a scenario that makes use of technologies of the near future it is logical to think that we will not see something exotic like warp engines, also because it has already been said that they will not be added. I would like to have an engine that can run in any environment and that has the efficiency of a nuclear engine. at the moment all the models seen in the various videos are two types of engines: 1- chemical engines that work in all environments, but have a low ISP 2- nuclear / metallic hydrogen engines which have a high isp but only work in space it would be handy to have a universal engine like those seen in TV series. even if it is technically you can build a vessel with both types of engine. Actually, wait! i really want the linear aerospike engine, for no particulary reason, only because they look cool.

to be honest I don't have anything in particular that I want to relive, I just want that WOW effect I had 7 years ago when landing on Mun for the first time. To quote someone famous "to go where no man has gone before". I think I want to have an experience that in real life I don't think I will ever be able to have (if humanity continues in this way...)

Instead of saying the game is dead, I appreciate the transparency the Devs are having, honestly I wasn't expecting features like dynamic radiators and that's something that took me by surprise positively. Nate Simpson said in an interview that we don't even have a clue how big KSP 2 is compared to KSP 1. honestly I don't like to see feature videos because I'm a bit spoiler, but on the other hand I'm super happy to see that this game is made by fans and not just any developers, for this reason I think that even if one day (which will never arrive) the game will die, KSP 2 would come back to life in other forms. Some video game houses post absolutely nothing except a cinematic trailer at the beginning and some gameplay just before releasing the game, this is not called transparency. As a fan since 2015, I really have perennial anxiety about the release of this game, and it really doesn't make any sense to be told that the game is dead, it hurts too, so, kindly stop saying nonsense until at least something will be said officially.

imagine landing on Rask and landing on Rusk instead... a Kerbal classic

maybe is not on schedule, because ksp 2 was presented at Pax WEST and not Pax EAST

i Like Debdeb! (and I'm not just saying that because they've already said it will be called that)

EMH, HELLO, what's the problem with people who say the game has been canceled? As we say here in Italy "volete la pappa pronta" translated: "you want the baby food ready", to do things well you need TIME. You're new to the forum, go see the "non-serious stuff" they shared. Did they announce the closure of the studio? I do not think so. The "don't release videos every half second" doesn't mean they're scratching their bellies waiting for someone to tell them to release the game. Sorry for the outburst, but i'm tired of hearing people say that the game will never come out just because the devs haven't shown a video in a few weeks.

Guys, as a KSP fan I am also in perennial anxiety about the release of KSP 2, but I am also aware of the fact that I have no power to release the game sooner. stay calm, the videos that show features will arrive, they are like the Philosopher's Stone, the more we want a video, the more it will not arrive, the best thing is to see it arrive when we least expect it. however usually the videos are released on the last Friday of the month (the important ones), but even if it does not arrive this should not lead to despair because "they are no longer releasing the game" but just that they have nothing important to share. knowing everything in advance can ruin the gaming experience and the "taste for discovery"

Sorry for the interruption, but I think there is no real reason NOT to make a colony on Minmus, in fact, I don't think there is a real reason not to make colonies on any celestial body, even Gilly who has a very low gravity can have a colony. Although the resources to extract may be lacking (ice cream aside),but Minmus and Gilly represent an excellent starting point for large spaceships that on Kerbin or Eve would be possible even just to take off, even as an alternative to space stations. Guys, literally any moon could be a free space station. And for God's sake, no one denies an ice cream factory on Minmus. Who else should do it?

I made a post about that:

well, it also depends on what kind of species the Kerbal are, some say they are dust, because when they crash too quickly they disappear in a cloud of smoke. there are those who say they are plants, even I thought so, then in a video you can clearly see greenhouses with vegetables inside, and I have never seen plants eat other plants, so I am still confused about the type of species to which the Kerbal belong , maybe they are simply vegetarians ...

I like the idea of having asteroids of different types, shapes and compositions. As for putting rings around Jool, I would like to point out that already a planet in the first chapter of KSP has an asteroid rings, I am referring to Dres, which although few, has many asteroids orbiting around it, it is possible that this feature will be inserted in KSP 2, but I'm not sure, given the Dres rework shown in some videos. Personally I think that the Kerbol system is more of a tutorial system and that some features such as rings or asteroid belts are preferable in another system, we already know that Glumo, Gurdama and Ovin have rings. Feature that the developers seem to like a lot ahah. My guess is that these planets are not all part of the same system, but rather that there is more than one planetary system, but I could also be wrong. We ourselves inhabit a system with 9 planets of which 4 with rings (it is even assumed that Rhea, Saturn's moon, has its own ring system), so my only guess is i hope there are more than two planetary systems in the game, that's all haha. Furthermore it must be considered that the asteroids of the rings are really small if not made of dust. We also already know some celestial bodies with particular shapes such as Skut, which can be a moon with a very unstable orbit or an asteroid with an orbit like Halley's comet. In any case, yes, I would like to see something special for asteroids in general as well.

here:

On the official Instagram account you can find a story that show they are working on a new show and tell video!!!

I'm not entirely sure, because in a rocket engine two elements burn to create thrust, metallic hydrogen is certainly an element that in its state has a high combustible (or explosive) potential, however in nuclear engines the same reaction does not occur In fact, since there is no combustive element (oxygen) but only the fuel element (hydrogen), in the fusion engine I believe it matters more how much an element expands when it is hit by nuclear particles. having said that I don't know id metallic hydrogen is better or worse than normal hydrogen in nuclear engines, unfortunately I think it's not something we will discover in the near future haha

ok, i think a recovery range is a good idea, i think it works like ksp 1 where just click "recover ship". I imagine that for the creation of a colony everything starts from bringing resources and / or personnel to a sort of outpost composed of vessels landed more or less in the same area, to then take the materials necessary to build a VAB (which I think is the center for the construction of a colony). this makes sense, and I don't think it is difficult to land vessels in more or less the same area. I do not argue that learning from mistakes is a basic concept of ksp, however, as mentioned in a previous video, the game will not become easier, but more accessible and with "more accessible" means helping players with operations complicated like rendezvous in orbit. in ksp 1, there are several indicators that tell you how far you will be from the target at any given moment, it is then up to you to reduce that distance to allow rendezvous. however, in ksp 1 the reentry system from an orbit of a planet with an atmosphere, for example, gives you a landing point that does not take into account forces such as the air brake or the rotation of the planet itself (coriolis effect) and this leads you to be inaccurate with landings. I agree that by dint of trying sooner or later you succeed in the intent, but personally I think that while docking to a vessel in orbit is a difficult concept to learn, but that then becomes easy once you understand the mechanism. landing more or less precisely in one point is equally difficult to learn, but equally difficult to master, as there are many variables that can make landing go wrong, because it depends on external factors, which are not there in orbit, because in fact, the tracking of an orbit does not undergo variations because there are no external forces, in the atmosphere there are external forces (such as friction in ksp 1 and in 2 probably there will also be other atmospheric conditions) that affect the trajectory

well, in the very first trailer we see a rocket landing on Marble, that rocket is carrying resources to the colony, landing on the VAB. It is possible that the first time it is necessary to land a rocket on a launch pad or on the VAB manually, but the following ones will be completely automated because they will copy the path taken by the player. however, the problem remains of doing it at least once, moreover somehow it will be necessary to bring resources to a celestial body to form colonies, especially the first few times when you do not have rockets powerful enough to carry many resources (note that in the video the rocket that lands on Marble has a metallic hydrogen engine) without considering that at the time of launch the planets will be aligned in a certain way and that at the next launch they could be somewhere else entirely. Unfortunately we do not have enough information to make assumptions, but right in the same scene at the end of the video we see several rockets starting from different colonies, whether it is a reference to multiplayer or to an automated resource transport system is not yet known. the other idea I was thinking about is that maybe there is a system that does everything by itself, let me explain better, you select the starting point like Kerbin and an ending point like Laythe, the game tells you that it takes a vehicle with at least 11000 delta-v, and once the proper vehicle is built, the game does it on its own. only for resources transportation. we must also consider that building a rover that goes to retrieve a rocket just landed a few hundred meters from the colony, it could also be done, but from the point of view of an automated gameplay it is a nightmare, I do not think that KSP 2 will have this type of automatisms because they are complicated to program. also you have to consider the dynamic factor, maybe a rocket lands 100m from the colony and there is a whole road cleared for the rover that will have no difficulty in recovering the rocket, but maybe the rocket lands on the edge of a cliff above a mountain 5km from the colony, not the best of life for the rover. we also consider the fact that we will not be there to make every single Resource Transport landing, otherwise the game calls for becoming much, too repetitive and complicated. true, but you have to bear in mind that the Falcons have never been driven manually, everything has always been done with calculations and computers, on ksp YOU drive the vehicle.

I was wondering, how do you go from an orbit to a landing pad near a colony? I mean, with an airplane it is easy because it is more maneuverable than a rocket and it lands horizontally and not vertically, therefore, do you think that on ksp 2 there will be a system to simplify this procedure? considering also that when you land on a celestial body with atmosphere, the trajectory is shortened due to the effect of airbraking making it difficult to understand exactly where the landing point will be. do you think that the view of the trajectory also takes this effect into account? this is what I mean by "precision landing platform" actually agencies like spaceX use computers and complex calculations to allow the Falcon to land like this, but we at home with the good old keyboard, how are we supposed to do?