Vl3d

I am afraid of Undo.

I like the UI. The dark NavBall needs better contrast to feel more cheerful, we need a mach meter, a TWR throttle indicator and fine controls for maneuver nodes. Other than this it's good for me.

When you realize how low expectations have fallen.

I was referring to the fact that you can play KSP in multiple ways: A: Interstellar, Near Future Tech B: Realism (RO / RSS / RP) C: Warfare (BD Armory) D: Roleplay (controlling a single character on missions, with IVA focus) E: Colony builder (and resource / transport logistics game) KSP2 is going mostly down the route of interstellar and colonies (hopefully with some first / third person roleplay). Mods can serve the needs of realism or warfare. Multiplayer is an architectural decision, it can be added to all of them.

This post is really relevant to the discussion. KSP is not just one game.

What's your vision for KSP?

I trust Nate and the team to take the game to a good place.

I accept the decisions of the dev team and I believe in the end goal and vision shown in the cinematic trailers. The differences you're mentioning are in the actual implementation details - and I'm not a dev so I can't decide anything, I can only give feedback and make some suggestions. As for the MMO thing - maybe it's not technically and financially possible, but that's still the ultimate KSP experience for me. That can bring all the community together and allows players to actually see - in game - what everyone else builds. Until then we're checking out craft files online or watching videos on YouTube or posting in the "what did you do today" forum.

I said the innovations from mods and user suggestions should be taken into account and in the best case integrated in the systems. Case and point - science experiments have a timer now - I don't know the implementation details, but I assume it's for transmission instead of for the actual doing of the experiment. We shall see. Look, I trust the devs and I'm gonna eat what they serve and provide feedback. But because of a lack of communication regarding gameplay systems, we have to keep an ongoing dialogue about what "could or should be" instead of what "is our will be" in the game. It's not talked a lot about here or on Discord, but the actual gameplay system details are very important. It's the small things that matter, the sane defaults, the grind / fun / difficulty balance. This should get way more attention - unfortunately right now we're too busy talking about the bugs. For example - the issue of life support: ok, consuming time limited resources breaks the warp mechanic, but at least give us radiation management or something. Don't leave us disappointed that a very requested feature will just be missing. Especially after mentioning snacks in the tutorials.

I provided some details in the post. I also have some ideas in the Grand Unified Wishlist: There's a lot of cool innovations that could be used to improve CommNet. My worry is that it will not be improved because "it just works". Also, CommNet is joined at the hip with the Science system. You can't really have one without the other - and most ideas for Science mini-games involve communications: data transfer speed, data size, transmission EC consumption, relays etc. Comms make or break science - just check out Kerbalism Science!

Planets are mostly hand crafted, but some terrain details are procedural. Enjoy!

Nate's vision is my vision also.

"Mission Control is also open for business - meet Dr. Keri Kerman who will send you on increasingly-challenging quests from learning about basic rocketry to attempting to build and maneuver an entirely new kind of vehicle." What types of missions do you think Mission Control will have? What missions would you want there to be? I can think of a few: - world first missions (fly-by / orbit / land / return) - visit discoverables - plant flags in hard to reach places - make kerbals pass out (was always a fun one) - lore missions (the actual narrative campaign) - build / expand space station / colony - perform scouting (telescopes or planetary scanning) - things to do with airplanes (scouting, research, transport) - low orbit missions (capsules or space planes) - rover missions (science, transport) The most important thing is, in my opinion, to only define a greater mission objective and let the players decide the actual subgoals, profile, implementation details. I would like to come to the conclusion that I need a certain type of vehicle by myself, out of mission necessity, instead of being explicitly required.

I feel in love with KSP 1 the moment I realized that, beyond what was in the game, the potential of what it could be is limitless - a persistent universe where players can build, explore and show off their creativity. I long for the day when I'll visit a new planet and I'll discover the huge busy colonies built by other players and I'll see the craft they actually designed in their own unique style flying and roaming around. I'm very happy to see how the vision and potential of KSP is slowly becoming reality. Some day we will meet each other - out there! The dream is alive!

I'm very excited and impressed by the idea that we may be able to build boats and submersibles.. ekranoplans. At the very least the water will have physics and the docks will have gantries and cranes to fly through. Maybe there's also stuff at the bottom of Vall's lake now. Thank you dev team!

Unofficially there are some basic mods, just point CKAN to the KSP2 install. Official mod support, I don't know.

True. Then idk. If there's one thing I hate in KSP it's a part with no gameplay function.

Also with decouplers and clipping.. you never really know.

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.