Lettuce

Please tell me how different they are.

KSP1 had a team of 6 and had 1.0 release 5 years after the start of development. Development for KSP2 started 5 years ago with a team of roughly 20-30 and we're nowhere near KSP1 in terms of stability at 1.0, KSP2 is just shinier.

I have taken to playing KSP 2 as more of a dev build, I've flown to the moon but during that flight I noticed some odd bugs like Bill getting flung into a different orbit while on EVA and decouplers not working. It was fine for me as from the early videos that KSP content creators made I knew to expect some bugs and for now I dont invest more than 30-45 min into a mission to avoid getting frustrated. I'll probably play a lot more after they get the science feature out and the bugs are fixed but for now I found that if you keep things simple and don't take it to seriously it can be enjoyable just not as much as I would have hoped.

Don't know if you're still having this issue but I solved it by just going back to the space center then going back to my kerbal through the tracking station.

If I'm not mistaken they confirmed this with agencies? You'll be able to work in the same agency with your friends or have separate agencies and compete with each other.

Sort of the idea I was going for, a gas station in the middle of nowhere that rarely ever has customers. A pair of kerbals waiting for their shifts to end.

This is pretty old, but I really hope that's possible. Can't wait to drag a comet to interstellar space and make it an interstellar gas station

Just a minor correction since I'm in my 3rd year of engineering, with things that are under cyclic stress like an engine would be, there is what's known as a fatigue strength, which is the stress that a material can endure for infinite life, with materials like steel the limit is very distinct and for other materials the plateu in the number of cycles they can withstand is less obvious. If you go over that limit it could last for a while but will probably break after a while like you said, but if something goes over whatever number of cycles that you predict it would last under a certain stress above that fatigue strength it won't just instantly break, the chances of it breaking increase over time however until it eventually shears. In that picture you can see that the stress over the fatigue limit wears the part down until it snaps when it can't handle the load. For this reason I agree with having ratings for using the engine more than 100% for a limited amount of time cumulative through out the mission, but let's say you used the engine at 105% for a section of the mission, it could be warranted that now your engine is no longer able to sustain 100% thrust for infinite life. but from a gameplay perspective I can see that it would be limiting and not very fun to implement that, but moving onto my main point, I think if you go over the rating say 105% for 4 minutes instead of 3 minutes the game begins to roll dice after those 3 minutes for whether or not your engine explodes would be a fair and fun way to implement random part failure, letting players who want to take the gamble have some suspense in the game when coming in too fast on landing or realizing their orbit isn't going to be complete before reentry on 100% thrust. But overall I agree that when you're operating withing 100% thrust you shouldn't have a random failure like that.

That would suck but even then it has no effect on people who already bought the game.

It's probably later in the road map just because multiplayer comes with its own set of bugs and they want to isolate it from the rest of the game while they fix the single player bugs

I was a bit disappointed too at first but I realized that early access just means that the devs can hear more about what we actually want instead of wasting time on features we might not care too much about. Let's say they release colony parts and it turns out people would actually like to IVA inside colonies or with more people using procedural wings and the like, other parts could be made procedural if that's what's wanted from the community. Just means the game will have more stuff that people wouldn't have known they wanted if it wasn't for early access.

Matt Lowne actually made a video today about some questions he had asked Nate Simpson, anything that says pre-alpha capture is from about 2 years ago.

I obviously can't know for sure but I can only assume local servers. If it were on global servers it would have to be monetized via skins, outfits, maybe parts and other microtransactions for server upkeep. I don't think anyone here wants to deal with that and the development team knows that. I imagine something like minecraft multiplayer with LAN connections and probably some servers hosted by players for anyone to join.

Well considering when that screenshot was posted, it's more like this week now. I'm guessing Friday since it was posted on a Friday.

Any unreleased game you've seen a trailer for by definition is vaporware until release

That's actually because its based on a tribute video for the original KSP made in 2013, really great that the team is so in touch with the community

Mine would probably have to be this not in the moving planetary bodies way but in seeing an absolutely massive engine firing.

This is exactly why I think they’d actually have a much smaller window between announcement and release the delays have already killed a lot of hype for a lot of people it seems. They probably wouldn’t announce a date to release until the game is ready to go and a delay is out of the question.

No not at all I wouldn’t mind the star DLC, KSP wouldn’t have DLC that works in the way you’re describing, the star simply wouldn’t exist if you don’t have the DLC kinda like how planet packs work in mods right now. If you don’t have it installed you won’t see it at all

At this point you've dropped so many parts of your original proposal that its becoming regular time warp the only time I'm seeing that you can't use timewarp in this system with all of the amendments you've made is essentially while landing which is a 4 minute inconvenience when parachuting on Kerbin for the sake of immersion. I'm not trying to bash you so I apologize if that's how this post comes off but I hope you can see why so many players took issue with your original proposal.

I expect to be able to play the game with the same basic functionality as the original KSP singleplayer but with friends. The expectation of an MMO to come out of this game is by far more baffling than my pretty simple expectations.

This would pretty much destroy any fun that could be had in multiplayer, you would be shoehorning everyone into playing the way that you personally play the game. Some people don't want to over engineer a lander, sure that's fun for a lot of people on this forum even myself at times but its definitely not for everyone. Playing without reverting is terrible with the original KSP and I assume for the most part some of those issues are going to carry over into KSP 2 for example accidentally staging while in orbit which under your proposed system would be after almost 10 min of work wasted. Having your rocket tip on the launchpad and being out those resources/funds used to build it, kerbals dying on the launchpad because your rocket tipped and you then have to wait for their respawn timer. Doing away with quick saves would make everyone overly cautious which IMO would harm the fun that is supposed to be had in KSP.

A multiplayer game would probably be able to do away with holding onto data from before whoever is earliest on the timeline such as taking the time from the earliest quick save and deleting all position data from before that time. The only sacrifice a player would have to make on multiplayer is probably that quicksaves will only be valid in the play session they were created in so once you disconnect from a server all of your quick saves are deleted and the server can discard position data from before the earliest still existing quick save. Anything built by a disconnected player could be placed in a frozen state upon disconnect not consuming resources while the owner is offline but still moving in its stable orbit. When the owner reconnects their builds would start consuming resources again and their time is synced to the future most player's present. Might lead to some weird super far future dates on servers but nothing that would affect gameplay and would definitely save storage on servers. I don't know how this system would handle ships on trajectories between SOI's but I'm thinking you could calculate where it would be in the server's future most player until either the owner of the ship reconnects and syncs to that time and/or the ship is in its final orbit. This is me just spit balling solutions to optimizing storage of positions of craft so I'm sure there are flaws with my idea but it shouldn't be infeasible to implement it that way.

He time warped in LKO but because he set the mun as a target and the manuever brings him out of Kerbin SOI fine I’ll give you that. He then warps to Periapsis of his orbit fly-by so + 1hr 11min which brings you to just 4 min shy of 2 hours not enough time to return.

Post a video of you performing a landing on any celestial body other than Kerbin using the rules you are proposing. The transfer isn’t the only part of a journey that takes time to execute. If you can do so in under 2 hours from launch to recovery then most of us would have our concerns disproved, the major one being that your system would make the game too time consuming for the majority to play.