joratto

This answer still confuses me. Even the extended answer in the audio. What was the actual answer to the question?

I adore KSP1 but it has way too many bugs and you’d be insane to deny it. The fact that KSP2 makes KSP1 look better optimised than Rollercoaster Tycoon is the reason why it’s so ridiculous. The hope was that a larger team with more budget and vision could’ve remade KSP with a lot less fundamental bugginess. Looks like it might still take 5 years to realise that dream, if it ever happens.

I would add that the "set as agency colors" button might be a little misleading to new players. Instead of changing your current colours, it's frustrating to find that your agency's colors have just been reset (and must now be re-eyeballed) instead. This ould also be much less of a problem if there were some way to get your agency colours back after you've lost them.

Would you like to see rogue planets in the game? Would you prefer a gas giant or a planet that’s landable?

I have a feeling that acceleration under timewarp stops working for very low thrust. Annoyingly, the acceleration from a single ion engine on a 100t vehicle may just be rounded to zero for on-rails physics. Not sure if that's a bug or an intended feature. IIRC, I've also had this issue with hydrogen engines on very heavy vehicles, but I'll have to do some testing to confirm.

Asteroid/comet mining planned for the extended roadmap?

Great post. I would LOVE to see a Korolev-style snowy crater on Duna and frankly I’m surprised the devs haven’t added something like it.

At semi-realistic scales? Only with warp drives/wormholes. Andromeda is ~300 million light years away.

This assumes that the kerbals’ own brains aren’t also governed by the same “klanck time”, and that their own stream of consciousness wouldn’t therefore stutter and jump in the same way. It feels like that would make the “jumpiness” invisible to them, but time would still seem to progress much faster than normal. But it’s still just a game.

You should not be able to fly things like this, because the exploits that make it easier to get something like this to fly (like wing surfaces generating lift whether or not they're buried deep inside the vehicle) can also make it harder for new players to understand how to build a plane that flies. For example, you should not have to worry about the lift/drag of a part that's deep inside a fairing or otherwise visually covered up. There have been many occasions where I built something that SHOULD work in real life, but fails in ksp because some tiny, invisible, uncapped fuel tank was generating 10x more drag than the rest of my craft. You would expect those parts not to affect your aerodynamics at all, and it can cause great headaches to try to identify what unrealistic gameplay "feature" is responsible for flipping your SSTOs. That doesn't teach you anything except how to exploit the game.

I like Dres being lonely, maybe with lots of extra asteroids nearby. it’s partly inspired by ceres, after all.

Feature video 6 is what I was referring to. Was there some other announcement I missed?

Are we getting any form of ISRU in EA or before the "resource gathering" update??

I'll eat my hat if we see multiplayer before 2024

I'm over the mun with joy that I get to actually play KSP2 in the remarkably near future, even though I'm disappointed that the major differences in game mechanics that I was looking forward to (colonies, orbital assembly, advanced resource management, automated trade routes, multiplayer, etc.) won't be there to make this game feel truly different compared to the original. From the way they're selling it, I'd be shocked if roadmap-completion came about before 2024, but a No Man's Sky -style update schedule isn't that bad.

Kassini

Which people? I'd like to read these accounts.

The SRB's look a little too smooth and featureless compared to the kerbal aesthetic I know and love. I hope placeable flags will make a comeback in KSP2 at least. It's great to see recent extended gameplay footage though. I'm hoping it's just the video framerate

I’ll believe it when I see it. I, for one, would realistically consider it a success even if it’s just a parts/planets pack with better graphics and multiplayer.

most mainstream games aren't as buggy and grindy as ksp

I hope they wouldn't completely disable achievements on a save just for using cheats. If ksp2 is anywhere near as buggy as ksp1, then occasional cheating will be essential to prevent frustrating glitches from ruining hours of gameplay.

TeamTrees just got dark

Somewhat unrelated, but I would LOVE a Pokemon Snap -esque picture-rating system that rewards the player for taking pictures of different things in different locations. For example, you could get a contract to take a picture (using a camera part or a kerbal-held camera) with any of the following conditions: - Must be in orbit/landed on a specific planet - Must be in/over a specific biome - Must be at a certain time of day (midday, midnight, sunrise, sunset) - Must/must not feature 1 or more vehicles - Must/must not feature 1 or more kerbals - Must feature kerbals doing a specific pose - Must feature a flag - Must feature a monolith - Must feature multiple celestial bodies (maybe specific ones e.g. "sunrise on Laythe while Tylo and Jool are visible") I take way too many screenshots in KSP as it is, so it would be great to gameify it and make it a fun challenge to search for the coolest photo locations in the galaxy. I think even just a really great photo mode would be a fun activity to do on planetary surfaces or in space stations, which is something KSP has never really had. PS: Stock placeable cameras that you can switch to would simply be awesome in general. Especially for Falcon style landings.

And? Orbital inclination already makes the game harder than it has to be (as you rightly pointed out!). In fact, most players will never even fly by Minmus (the first big "orbital inclination challenge" most players encounter). So why make its orbit inclined if it would just make the game harder? After all, you can still learn oodles of orbital mechanics just by transferring between perfectly coplanar orbits. Because A: I think it makes the game more varied and interesting. B: It's a relatively small consideration that doesn't seem to require an especially large step up in understanding (especially compared to the prerequisite knowledge of getting into and maneuvering in orbit in the first place!). C: It's realistic, immersive and educational. I never said that Kerbin or Mun should have axial or orbital inclination. But you're avoiding asking players to eventually have to consider something as elementary as axial tilt on top of their other concerns just because it's "making the game harder", and missing out on an amazing opportunity for players to experience the unexpected consequences of the axial tilt we all know from childhood globes as a result! Because taking basic knowledge that we all kinda sorta had as kids and making it all make real, physical, intuitive sense is one of the things that KSP is the very best at. You think it's reasonable to have important, major holes in the home system? What could cause you to lean towards important holes in game design? Sure! ...And? You (much like me) are most definitely "not a typical KSP player" in that sense. In fact, the orbital inclination of celestial bodies in this game will probably never affect most players. It's a feature that, while realistic and enjoyable for some, only raises the barrier to interplanetary travel for the vast majority of players. But we both know that's not sufficient to say it shouldn't exist, right? So why do you mention it, @Snark? ----------------------------------------------- I feel ya @JoeSchmuckatelli! i know the pain of trying to get my friends and family into this game, only for them to get overwhelmed and quit immediately. What I don't see is how that could be a good reason not to add something as basic as axial tilt! Can you imagine if Squad had implemented axial tilt years ago, and people were now arguing that they should remove it?

Why do you think it’s the “correct” game design choice not to include axial tilt on any of the home bodies, not even small bodies like Bop, Pol, or Gilly? I think you’re mistaken if you think that it’s niche or selfish to want axial tilt in a game about orbital mechanics. Orbital decay? Axial precession? Sure. But children learn about axial tilt in middle school. It doesn’t make you “not like other players” to expect this basic bit of astronomy to be a feature in a game that teaches people about basic celestial mechanics (especially when some planets have such prominent ice caps!).