Domonian

So I'm watching the "KCS beats to relax/study to" stream over on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/ The clouds look nice but leave a bit to be desired after the clouds we saw here: https://youtu.be/2s84Rwwng0o The night time skybox looks a bit odd; seeing stars and stuff is nice but it looks like there's no atmosphere, and I'm personally not a fan of it. I think those sort of views should be limited to empty space and planets with no atmosphere to block it. EDIT: I suppose you'd get some of those views from not having any light pollution, but I'm not a doctor and haven't ever seen anything like it myself.

Personally, I'm hoping we see some "ruins of a lost civilization." Whether they be precursors to the Kerbals, their creators, or what have ye, I think the possibility of finding derelict colonies and ships and being able to get new technologies or learning the locations of planets or anomalies would be really really fun.

It's only when it's not up to standard or expectations does it get noticed... or it's being compared to EVE. I've been very excited for the new clouds and atmospheres, since "atmosphere" (literally and figuratively) adds a whole lot to a game. The clouds in that show and tell do look MUCH better than what we see in (confirmed) gameplay screenshots, but there are a lot of reasons why that may be the case. The clouds show and tell could have been at settings that look great but don't perform anywhere near as well as the clouds we see now, and aren't going to be publicly available. I highly doubt that they would downgrade the graphics as time went on, but it would be odd to have steam screenshots at lower settings than Maximum. It could also be them tweaking certain values for that build, cause, as you stated @The Aziz, those trees popping in and the LOD in general isn't great. I just hope the clouds look more like that show and tell than what we see on the screenshots.

Purchasing directly from the KSP2 store (direct download) will give the devs the most money, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could purchase a key to give someone else, although a key for Steam or Epic may still send money to said platform. I'm not sure how getting different versions of the game works, but it sounds like you can pick and choose any version of KSP1 and download it. Steam is smoothlined for gifting, and will have the best community features readily available, such as guides, screenshots, and depending on how they do modding and craft files, possibly mods and crafts available for download through the Steam Workshop. Steam also has versions of the game stretching back to 1.0.5 for KSP1, so past versions are available. Epic has... umm... not a whole lot. I would avoid, as it has nothing going for it in terms of community, modding, or game versions. More money will still go to the devs through Epic, but you lose far too much for it to be worth it over Steam or direct purchase. Every store will be up to date and running the same version (at least updates will be out on every platform quick enough to not be noticeable). I doubt there will be crossplay between PC and consoles, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't crossplay between PC platforms for multiplayer, provided game versions and mods/mod versions are the same. I'll personally be purchasing through Steam

Oh I see, my bad

The terrain around the KSC and the foliage inside the KSC looks much nicer, as well as the shores surrounding it all. Excited to explore it all!

Twitter, but close enough

@Majorjim! We got some alpha gameplay! Notable differences from previous gameplay; the KSC looks much cleaner, as well as the terrain around it. The clouds look fantastic, and the shore is quite pleasing as well.

Those engines with that lighting look fantastic. I cannot wait to get my hands on that stuff! And as people have mentioned, why has it been 20 hours with 2 comments? I swear I didn't see this post when I checked yesterday, so maybe it was hidden?

Definitely want big cargo/carrier style spaceplanes for my fleet. Stuff like the Valkyrie shuttle from Avatar: a massive brick that's VTOL for no reason other than it can be. Typically, large spaceplanes with high surface area. This ship from twitter user @Z700k is a prime example of what I want to build, although I'll likely end up with something looking much, much worse. I like to imagine that ship is also a swing-wing aircraft, which would be fun. Conventional rockets are cool and all, but who needs efficiency when you have... um... wings? Giant flying doritos are really, really cool looking, and these types of designs will definitely be more viable (with the new procedural wings and planets with thicker atmospheres), rather than the "standard" SSTO you typically see in KSP1. I just hope we get some more powerful jet or closed cycle engines, or at least engines that fit well on a plane.

I think any time frames we had are just about out the window now that we have an EA release date. The 4-5 months between feature episodes doesn't work, since its 2.5 months till EA itself and the last one was about a month and a half ago (so we might get one but I personally think its unlikely). Dev diaries are all over the place, between 2 and 4 months apart, so we could expect one more soonish if they follow the same pattern. We genuinely don't know what's going on over there, but I think it's safe to expect an increase in content starting next year or even in February at the latest. All we can do is wait, but at least now we know how long we actually have to wait for.

I would expect one sometime this month as a little Christmas gift; I don't think it will cover something new (like colonies or multiplayer) given that we won't see those for a few updates during EA, so maybe we could expect something like a recap of all the development + new in-depth footage of things we've already seen, or a demo (I can dream). Regardless, we're two and a half months away from EA release, so I really hope we get a nice treat for the holidays. If we don't get a dev diary, maybe they'll show off all the crafts the dev team has come up with in-game as a teaser to what we can build ourselves.

No it isn't, it's a completely different game altogether. New codebase, new code altogether, mostly new dev team, none of the spaghetti code from KSP 1 is in KSP 2. You took this a little too literally; all of the content KSP1 (minus certain parts and career mode as we know it currently) is still present in KSP2, not the actual game. This is the case with most space games, unfortunately. It's hard to deepen a bunch of rocks out in the middle of nowhere. Although this does depend on how you define "deepen." How would you deepen KSP2, or rather, what is your ideal sequel to KSP1?

I might not do it, but I don't want to underestimate the KSP Community. Yes! I wouldn't be surprised to see the option to turn off volumetric clouds (or volumetric particles in general, possibly with a mod) and reduced surface scatter, reduced reflections, etc. The bare minimum for 1080p 60fps (low settings, obviously) is likely "have a graphics card from post-2010" and "have an i3 CPU or better from the same time." Obviously, large craft and colonies may cause frame drops, but since the most popular GPUs from Steam's hardware survey are all GTX 1050s or better (most have 1060s or better), the majority of players should be able to run the game just fine, albeit at lower settings than enthusiasts with better hardware.

I agree with almost everything else you said, but KSP2 is going to be graphically intense (although not more intense than on the CPU). Volumetric clouds, atmospheres, surface/material details and scatter, and lighting are all going to suck away at any GPU. The biggest offender is definitely volumetric particles, such as clouds and certain atmospheres. Getting everything looking good and looking right (with lighting specifically) is highly demanding of the GPU. Just take a look at Microsoft Flight Simulator. Obviously, it's not to that quality or to that scale, but KSP2 will definitely need something like a 2060 or better to run at 60fps on 2k or 4k at high settings. This is purely based on what we've seen so far visuals-wise, as well as what we see in other games and their performance. In the end, it likely will just be "how much optimization can they push down the pipeline so I can view my 4000m long mothership at 120fps." Regardless, its good to know that the bar is a bit higher for consoles, and by proxy lower to mid-spec systems (meaning they need to optimize it more to be acceptable). Personally, I've got a 2080Ti and an i7 8700k at 5.0ghz and will be running at 2k, so I'm not too concerned with performance, but volumetric particles are what I see being the big frame killer (with the exception of multi-thousand part craft). Hopefully they balance the workload right so I can use all of my GPU and CPU, rather than just all of my CPU. Depending on the computer, increasing graphics quality might increase frame rates; I know it happens on some games for me, typically those that are more reliant on the CPU than the GPU.

I love this idea! I've had a similar thought before, so I'll dump my thoughts here. I think different materials for different parts could fit quite well into the stock game, and it doesn't have to be difficult or very specific. Maybe the player needs high heat resistance, so they opt for thicker heat shielding (or a better material) that increases heat resistance, but also increases cost and weight. Maybe they can't increase the weight due to other limitations, so they use a more advanced material that has similar heat resistance, the same weight as the standard material, but is much more expensive (and maybe less resistant to radiation, physical impacts, or other factors). Sliding bars may be too complicated, but having a select few materials/options for parts could give the player more control over how they choose to design their vehicle. Maybe you can afford lightweight but still strong structural pieces for your interstellar craft, or maybe you can't and you need to opt for the cheaper, yet heavier version. This could be communicated to the player via a set of bars to show modified stats, with green on the positive sign and red on the negative sign (with descriptive words at each end; more weight =/= positive and that should be specified). I don't know if this feature could effectively be extended to parts such as engines, but for "body parts" it is definitely something I'm interested in. Late game could feature "super alloys," that have all the benefits but are incredibly expensive and time consuming to produce, or use resources that are incredibly hard to get a hold of.

Seeing as the release on last-gen consoles has been dropped, I think it's safe to assume that a PS5/Xbox X should be able to hold 60fps on high (or a mix of medium and high) graphics settings at 1080p. Given that the PS5 has a GPU roughly equivalent to an RTX 2070 and a CPU roughly equivalent to a Ryzen 7 3700X, things are looking a little bleak for those with very low-end specs. For 60fps at 1080p on low settings, a GTX 1050 and i3/r3 of similar release date may be required. I don't think it's going to be very kind to low-spec systems, and my estimated specs for 60fps on low may not be able to maintain 60fps with large/complex vehicles or colonies. This is simply speculation on my part, based on the visual quality we've seen so far, and the graphical tech (like volumetric clouds and reflections) they've shown off.

As someone who also hasn't been to another planet, I can tell that Interstellar content (and the tutorials) means that things will get harder but much more rewarding. The simple fact is that I don't know how to get to any other planets, I don't know what kind of vehicle(s) I may need to use, I don't know how much dV I may need, and at the end of it all, there's nothing there on any other planets anyway. With interstellar travel and updated resource functionalities, now there's a reason to go explore and colonize other planets, and the game can help guide you on how to do it. Instead of me spending hours watching YouTube or reading guides to get to another planet, I could watch a tutorial in-game, and choose to transfer or brute force my way wherever I want to go, with differing challenges with each. The core of the game won't change. KSP1 is inside KSP2, it just looks better and is less buggy (hopefully). As a space agency simulation, as a space program, making space travel easier is quite literally the goal. You can choose to not use the "overpowered" parts, but the game itself won't be any easier than KSP1, it will only be easier to learn. It sounds like you like things being difficult, but after 4000 hours, you're bound to learn something that makes it easier. And if things are too easy around Kerbin, why not try and go to the rest of the planets? They all have their own unique challenges, and it sounds like you're severely limiting yourself and what you can enjoy. They've already stated that interstellar travel is late-game, and I would expect colonies to be early on in mid-game, where the player has been to a few planets already. Given the complexity of colonies and interstellar travel, I suspect less than 10% of players will legitimately go interstellar within the first 50 hours of exploration mode (the new career mode), and less than half may have a single functional colony anywhere within the first 20 hours. KSP is very niche, which limits the audience to a small selection of people interested in space or may be interested in space (like young children who dream of spaceships). KSP is also very hard, and that isn't going to change, but that also makes the barrier for entry quite high, and without tutorials, those who have any vague interest in space may turn away after seeing how difficult it is. Again, KSP isn't going anywhere, new stuff is being added and the barrier for entry and progression is becoming much lower. I feel like it always goes back to the tutorials. I don't really know how it would take someone 100s of hours to land on the Mun (unless they are actively avoiding leaving the atmosphere), but the tutorials aim to make that process much more inviting to the player, while also leaving plenty of room for personal improvement. Overall, I don't really see what your argument is against interstellar travel. You want things to be difficult, but you also haven't landed on another planet, so what are you waiting for, really? Interstellar brings another layer of difficulty to the game (without taking away from stellar travel), so why are you against it? I understand that atmospheric flight is fun (and what I typically do), but the reason I personally haven't left Kerbin SOI is because there's not much out there and no reason to leave (you can complete the tech tree without ever leaving Kerbin SOI, which is a shame), which KSP2 aims to solve.

I don't think that's quite the mindset they have, considering they're well aware of the hundred, if not thousand-part vehicles or colonies players are going to make. Performance and overall game smoothness (no bugs, crashes, etc) are key to reaching a wide audience of casual players who won't put up with it like the hardcore fans will. Fair enough.

Like? I know all AAA games have CGI or "game engine" footage, but I know of none that actually show early builds and behind-the-scenes stuff like we get with KSP2.

I don't know what else to tell you; depending on how they define pre-alpha, alpha, and beta, we could get beta footage tomorrow an it not look any different than what we've already seen, if "beta" just means improvements to all the backend stuff players don't typically notice. Seeing as the game is a AAA game (going off of price, $50-$70), what other AAA games give the public early gameplay footage months before release, much less years before release (unfortunately)? All we know now is that there's no gameplay labeled "alpha" or "beta," so all we can do is wait. And yes, the proof is in the "play it yourself" (or at least look at the current state of the game in EA). We aren't entitled to any information on the game at all, even if radio silence is poor practice from companies.

We also know that most of the footage we've seen is at least a year old, if not more, so there's a lot that could have changed between now and then. And from what I've gathered from other posts, optimization is one of the last things to come in game development, and is typically pretty quick. If you're skeptical about the game, wait till the full release, or at least until you see some actual gameplay and review from the public once early access drops. I do hope we see some new stuff more often though, but I'm just a hype train passenger.

Career mode is out, Exploration mode is in: https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-director-explains-why-colonies-are-going-to-change-everything-lays-out-early-access-plans/ Just as most people thought, funds are now replaced with raw resources. I would assume that contracts and scripted missions are also out, but maybe we'll see something similar that may provide science points or new parts or something.

We have no confirmation as of right now, but many players want it and the tech is already there, so I wouldn't really get your hopes up but there's a possibility.

Given the whole thing about resources, money would really only apply to Kerbin-side outposts, so career mode isn't really suitable for KSP2. And as Aziz said, most of the playerbase has never gone further than the Mun (or Minmus, in my case). While I like career mode, it's no longer necessary thanks to the new resource and colony system. Money would be a resource used for the first 1% of any playthrough, and then never again.