Vl3d

The suits have electric charge indicators, so they must have batteries. Maybe we can change suits and backpacks also functionally, not only cosmetically.

Suit designer confirmed!

It's 9 AM at the office, right? Long day ahead.

Edited the comment to clarify it's my opinion. Also correction: RDR2 / 1060 gets ~50-60 FPS on Medium and ~ 35 on High.

Are you sure? Have we seen officially posted specs? Please don’t make factual assurances without citations. This only leads to confusion. You can just check benchmark websites. A GTX 1060 runs RDR2 and Cyberpunk 2077 at 70 60 FPS on High Medium settings at 1080 resolution. He is a little bottlenecked by his CPU. Besides Nate said the team is focused on allowing even potatoes to run KSP2.

There's no such thing as a Windows PC. Any x64 system supports both Windows and Linux. You just have to buy Windows Home.

My opinion: You're good.

Basically the same for KSP2.

Apologies, what have I messed up? My bad, you fixed it already. I saw this comment: "KSP 2 was announced to be delayed Nov 5, 2020 not Nov 5, 2021"

Please fix the delay announcements in the timeline. @DrCHIVES

Why don't you upgrade?

I think the anger is because it's been one month since the Interstellar video came out and it's been complete radio silence since. We're starting to imagine things because there is very little official communication with the community. Don't stress, devs are probably busy testing / fixing bugs and the marketing team is crafting promotional materials for the upcoming campaign. Hope we get some news tomorrow.

I feel like we all should know how MSF implements the MMO flight aspects. I think they will be an inspiration for KSP2. https://guides.gamepressure.com/microsoft-flight-simulator/guide.asp?ID=55610 And remember MFS has ~200k active players and 5600 concurrent players on average.

From a business POV I think it's safe to say KSP2 must be released before Starfield. I'd bet October, after being announced on 20th of July.

Well I think the Agency Interactions / Contracts / Trading page would be the main means of communicating with other players outside our agency. Filters of all kind would be mandatory, as seen during play testing. We could also have some kind of agencies alliance contracts for grand projects that require pooling designs and resources and segments, with more than the regular 4 co-op players. There are a lot of interesting ideas that come up while exploring the possibilities.

Q&A: How could players collaborate inside the persistent world? (1) playing co-op with max 3 other players inside a single space agency (using extended single player mechanics) (2) seeing other players crafts, stations and colonies but having limited (approval based) interactions with them (3) having a contracts and trading system and market interface that allows multiple space agencies to indirectly interact: ex. you ask for a satellite with some specs and pay another agency to build and/or launch it etc. (4) having a "grand projects" system that allows multiple space agencies to interact directly by building together or contributing (kerbals, designs, craft, station segments, resources etc.) ex. a huge space station or interstellar mission.

We're talking about 4 things: (1) playing co-op with max 3 other players inside your space agency (2) seeing other players crafts and colonies but having limited interaction with them (3) having a contracts and trading system and interface that allows multiple space agencies to indirectly interact: ex. you ask for a satellite with some specs and pay another agency to build and/or launch it etc. (4) having a "grand projects" system that allows multiple space agencies to interact by building together or contributing (craft, station segments, resources etc.) ex. a huge space station or interstellar mission I know that what's in my mind has to be explained 1000 times so it gets built in your minds also. But believe me, the vision for this game is huge and amazing. I just hope the devs also saw it.

Some of us really don't have friends to play KSP with.

It's really not "slandering", it's the opposite of "natural". English is not my first language, I meant "unnatural physwarp mechanic". Other than this, your opinion is valid. I just feel like tedium should be avoided through other game mechanics instead of controlling time zoom on the planet / in the atmosphere. In a transportation game, some journeys are supposed to take longer. Personally I don't like gameplay that makes time flow relative and distances inconsequential. Fast travel and teleportation are just convenience features. We should strive for a little more realism. (Again I'm not talking about on-rails time warp.)

The devs mentioned a number of times that multiplayer is a fundamental part of the design architecture of the new game and that making multiplayer work was THE most challenging feature of the game. Not one of, but "THE central technical challenge of this game was the overhaul of the architecture that is required to facilitate multiplayer" (Nate, Purdue Space Podcast, 38:00). I cannot emphasize this idea enough. KSP2 is fundamentally built for multiplayer, but will also allow single player DRM free gameplay.

Tedium means: (1) the game has a gameplay rhythm problem it should solve or (2) that it intentionally tries to motivate you to aquire a faster means of transportation. If (1), using physwarp is equivalent to teleporting or using other solutions for fast-travel. Why not just takeoff from a runway closer to your destination? If (2), using physwarp means you are cheating. Travel was supposed to take a long time. By all means do whatever you like in single player. But having a Mk1 airplane (at X4 physwarp) do the same journey in the same time as a Mk3 (at x1 physwarp) means you are forced to always use physwarp, no matter what plane or rover you use. I think that's terrible gameplay. And you can see this in the fact that no other games use this artificial physwarp mechanic. On-rails time warp is a completely different issue I will not address here. Running at 4x and using a vehicle should not be equivalent. It's a game breaking mechanic.

I am in principle against physwarp, i think it is a cheat and it breaks game immersion. All other games encourage you to build/earn better/faster vehicles. It's called progression.

simple! To be able to share the experience of a rocket launch to space with another person, a landing on a planet, building a space station, and just generally being able to share in discoveries and exploration of our universe even if its fictional with near future BELIEVEABLE tech and with all the trials and tribulations of successes and failures that make us human. To which I would add, as usual for public server online mode: A common persistent universe for players where we can all build individually and together (either intra or inter agency) and discover what other players build by seeing their craft and colonies in the game world. Plus a trading and contracts inter-agency collaboration interface + being able to design and plan complex missions through co-op. Plus a inter-agency space race option (but this would be emergent gameplay anyway). Plus a lot more: For offline single player mode or for private / small / co-op servers I generally agree with most other players that insist on alternative KSP1 multiplayer solutions. But big KSP2 multiplayer will not be like KSP1 multiplayer (Luna or Dark), i believe this deeply. PS: I don't want to talk about time warp, it's not a fun discussion.

Because I've listened multiple times to all interviews and read all articles about KSP2, I can tell you that on the Purdue Space Podcast Nate specifically said ~ the main technical challenge of KSP2 was designing a game architecture that allows for time warp AND multiplayer. I have no idea what that specifically means, but the fundamental decisions were probably taken in 2018-2019. So they know very clearly how the game is designed and implemented. But there's been this "it's classified top-secret" attitude for years. Why? I don't understand this lack of transparency regardless of assumptions floating around. Why hide CORE features of the game for so long? Why avoid ANY statements related to multiplayer (and other stuff)? "The game is not done" is not a valid argument. The fundamental decisions have been taken 4 years ago. Every single time they've been asked about it: "we can't talk about it right now, there will be an announcement in the future". What's the big announcement? Are they concerned about the player-base's reaction to something? People who today keep saying "the quiet treatment is OK, be patient" tomorrow will probably throw a fit because they were not told earlier of some major decision for the game (like KSP2 being a MMO or similar). Transparency about the most fundamental design decisions related to gameplay is GOOD communication practice. I'm asking for a general description of the core gameplay features, things that have been known internally for years, not to be shown a 100% finished product.

Puffy face, growing beard. Life is hard in space, it takes its toll. I would love more visual kerbalism in this regard.