BowlerHatGuy3

No thoughts here

Make it as powerful as possible pls. I need my robot army!

Lol. Needing to matchmake to get into a game really killed multiplayer games for me

One thing I really hope is that in multiplayer you can create markets where you can buy other people’s rocket designs using resources. With everyone being in there own multiverse timelines there’s gotta be a way for people to interact you what I mean?

Only using drogue chutes is lame tbh. I just want early landings to be more intense y’know?

Considering Duna is a Mars analogue, I feel that the atmosphere is too thick. In the game you can get most craft down with a few parachutes and a couple of engine bursts. There was even a time that a rover I built landed safely with one inline parachute and no engines. Meanwhile irl, landing on Mars is a hassle. Parachutes can only really slow you down to 100m/s (200mph) and the rest of the descent needs to be powered. There’s gameplay reasons to make Duna’s atmo thinner as well. It could be kinda like a stepping stone. The first legitimately dangerous landing that the player makes in campaign mode.

Ksp has always had this problem where there was no real reason to use generators, as the engines on your ship have could always just power everything. It’d be nice to actually have to attach generators to your ship to keep the power up. If they do decide to implement this a good quality of life feature would be to have a bar indicating how much power your ship needs vs the amount being produced, kinda like command and conquer.

It’d be nice to be able to add waypoints on planets to mark places of interest or landing spots. You could add waypoints from the map view or from satellites.

That’s probably more on the publisher side of things. Doubt they can control that.

I think it’d be cooler if you were to discover it by yourself. It’d add to the colony building and exploration stuff.

It is? Well, guess I need to play the game more.

This post was originally made asking for more options regarding the revert feature, but most if not all of the features that I requested are already in game.

You can make biplanes tho? Just offset the wing and add struts to keep it in place.

I’ve noticed the dev team tends to forget put a lot of specific stuff into the game. Not being able to deploy airbrakes in VAB, inability to revert and this seem like quick fixes yet they’re not implemented.

The game has actually been running pretty smoothly for a while now (at least for me).

The lack of this feature can make the rocket development frustrating.

Also more detailed explosions. Having a fire with a pillar of smoke after you crash would be a nice detail. And shockwaves. If I crash my giant 3000 part ship I want everyone within the span of 50 km to know. I don’t think they’d be able to add kerbal injuries due to the fact that at the speeds they’ll be going, hitting anything would cause them to turn into a green mist and multiple green body parts. The devs may not want to push the rating. It would be funny to have the kerbals scream though.

The wobbliness is too iconic to go in my opinion. I’d rather have a slider in the settings you could adjust.

A simulator could open up once you land on a body and do research on it in campaign mode. Should always be on in sandbox.

Remember where some parts would break into multiple pieces (solar panels, antennas) once they were destroyed? It’d be cool for KSP2 to expand on that. Of course not every part is gonna be destructible, but it’d be nice to see landing gear, the procedural wings, and some engines be able to fall apart.

Ever since we first got footage of KSP2 people have been complaining that the vacuum plumes don’t look realistic enough, and that they are expanding too much. I disagree with this because 1: most of the photo/video evidence that is used to argue this has the rocket in the upper atmosphere, not in vacuum. And 2: there are photos and videos of rockets in a vacuum where the plumes look similar to the ones we see in KSP2. There were some good ones posted by a fellow in the latest dev update: And there is a video from a SpaceX fairing showing an engine plume similar to the ones we see in the game as well: I am by no means an aerospace engineer or rocket scientist so I am open to being corrected if I’m wrong.

Idk about that. One of the main things I like about ksp is that you’re the one flying the craft, not some ai. Doesn’t feel very Kerbal.

Functional doesn’t equal ugly. There’s a reason the Saturn V and ISS are more iconic than any fictional vehicle. I don’t think it’s a good idea to “forgive and forget” Sure, ranting and doom talking isn’t gonna necessarily fix anything but I still think we should put pressure on the developers to get 1000 part vehicles at some point around 1.0.

I don’t agree with the sentiment that all planets with liquid should have life (which is a large reason why I decided not to use parallax). Our understanding of the universe right now is that life is extremely rare if not exclusive to earth, and the game should reflect that. There should be only one other planet with life in KSP2 and it shouldn’t be in the Kerbol system imo.