Vl3d

Footprints, tire marks, blowing dust when landing, even creating a small crater or scorched terrain decal - all this can be in the game. What I'm not sure about is the big front shields on the interstellar ships. I mean, having interstellar debris to account for would be amazing, but I thought Nate was on the fence about it. Or maybe that's just a design used for atmospheric deceleration.

What exactly do you see in the cinematics that could not be added to the game? (except for randomly failing parts - which can be left to mods)

There's always a risk of assumptions about the future made by people who don't play the game daily and don't intimately know it's state. There is no reception arch - the game was playable from the start with very small craft and avoiding bugs. Now it's playable on more PCs with more parts while avoiding fewer bugs. Would I play KSP2 daily instead of KSP1? No. Is the base game in a polished state? No. Will For Science fix all the fun-braking bugs while adding all the missing features to bring it up to parity with KSP 1? Also no. New features, more bugs. What the game needs most right now is polish. Otherwise players will complain again at the first bug they encounter and will be "disappointed". The community and core audience that has supported the devs and been partners in bug hunting and making suggestions is not the silent majority on Reddit and, I assume, doesn't dream of "redemption". We're all just kicking the ball forward a little bit every day. That's succes. I don't care what anyone says, in the end KSP2 has to deliver what it's cinematic trailers promised. I see highly detailed terrain, awesome wheels, weathering of part textures, impressive atmospheric visuals, collidable scatter and debris etc. - I need it!

Who remembers this? Unfortunate I was not there for it. How was the KSP1 0.22 launch?

To merge?

They can slow down enough before atmospheric entry. With those engines the only problems are radiation and shock waves when hovering to skycrane.

So you land on the Mun to unlock the parts needed to land on the Mun?

Just your usual torchbraking atmospheric descent. No weapons in the game, but on arrival we gotta clear out space for the mining colony somehow! Wildlife beware.

I guess that's what the tutorials are for.

Yeah but it's not this now, is it?

Why can't I connect two subassemblies using just struts, without other tricks / decouplers / docking ports? But what exactly are the expectations? If these are your expectations, I've got bad news. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/120-ksp2-suggestions-and-development-discussion/

I've never ignored it. The terrain has been and is terrible in both games. But if you think about it, not even Starfield delivered in this respect. @Gameslinx is a wizard for his work on Parallax, he built on the PQS foundation - but you can only do so much with textures and scatter. What KSP really needs is a lot of hand crafted points of interest and terrain features on top of the CBT system. It takes a lot of manual work to make really interesting planets. But the fact that there are only a small number of celestial bodies gives me hope that the artists can build on top of the the procedural foundations.

Good luck to Blue Origin! Hope the lobby team gets them to orbit and to the moon.

Can't wait for Kerbol to be fixed.

Just start a new campaign guys.

I mean... judge for yourself.

I'll just leave this here from 4 years ago. You can watch both interviews and compare the subject matter talked about.

As lemmings.

Please allow me to rant: Regarding the ShadowZone interview, I very much appreciate it, but we keep focusing on the same problems with the internals of the technical development and ignoring the very important aspects of gameplay decisions and mechanics. We know very little about how this game is improving on KSP 1 gameplay and how the new features work in detail. Gameplay features are presented as "aspirational", but when we get down to the nitty gritty, all the systems are very bare bones. I've been asking constantly about really important stuff like CommNet, KerbNet, buoyancy, radiation, RPG mechanics for years and the few straightforward answers have been "we're not implementing life support" and "delivery routes will be timers at first". I think players deserve to know more about how the decisions to change, improve or keep the KSP1 gameplay are taken. And don't get me wrong, I think the developer blogs and chats are great, we need more of them - but what I'm saying is that they tend to focus on reimplementation of features that already existed in KSP1 in a similar way, instead of showing the character of true innovation that many of the KSP1 mods brought to the table. There's so much good work and so many good ideas that I feel are not getting attention because they're a departure from KSP1.

It just dawned on me.. if there's unlimited sample storage space on the experiments, does that mean there's no need to reset them, which implies there's no need to have a scientist class kerbal on board? Or do we need scientist kerbals for the Orbital Science Lab module thing (last part that unlocks)? @Pthigrivi this and the fact that there is not a progression for SAS functions (which means there's basically no way to differentiate pilots) are strong arguments that kerbal classes are not getting implemented in KSP2. Even looking at the new image of kerbals styles, there's no real indication of classes.

The vistas and discoveries are what I play the game for. The engineering is what makes the journey interesting. Last night I landed for the first time on Eve in @blackrack's Patreon mod (with Parallax, without bubbles). OMG I'll remember it for years to come. I will dream of those visuals. Can't wait to get home and send probes to Jool and Duna to check out the storms.

Pics?

Oldies but goldies.