tstein

Because, only they will know. I am excited for KSP for the rest of the game. If we are not excited by something else in it, patience and wait.

Really sad to know PhysX is still so much ... limited. I left game industry before PhysX became a thing, but I expected them to handle things like that since even a car rolling on asphalt havs more than one constraint when interacting with the ground. The advantages of tree that you state are the ones I implied when I said makes easier to know what is still a ship after a stage decouples, but as you said, you do not need a genius to solve it, Djkstra already did that for us.

Yet I used them in almost ALL my missions because they were the best balance for the scale of ships I built.

Oh on that I agree, it will PIVOT into that direction, but it is not unreasonable for them to make the first state focused in their true and tested crowd.

KSP is a niche game, a sequel to a niche game. Marketing for this type of game is completely different from an eye candy game. the vast majority of people that will buy in February, be sure of that, will be returning KSP players. To exemplify, Dwarf Fortress on steam sold half a million copies in 15 days.. do anyone bought it because it looks amazing? No, because there is already a player base. It is a completely different marketing from a RPG or FPS. Also , now a bit of personal feeling so might be off, I really think that on average people that like complex building and mechanics game are less likely to care for high end graphics as people that play games that have almost nothing but graphics to care about. So much that a lot of people that play KSP do not even have a dedicated GPU.

Yup I think on my last 100 launches about 80 had either one of these engines

Mostly important. Are these trees 2m or 1.875m parts?

The vast majority of the public do not buy games in EA, EA is not the moment to worry about marketing to people that never heard of KSP before.

Am I the only one that likes to make the ships small? 1.875m Was a good size for unmanned missions with multiple components.

I don't think the earliest part of EA will be very crowded with new players. I really think in the first months we will see mostly people that played KSP1. Later I think things start to change in the direction you pointing to.

Sure but notice they did not even said that was ingame. Those could be the first art candidates. It is not rate that whatever art departments proposes need to have some effects removed to fit in the performance budget. Notice as the time mark following it looks a lot like the recent images. SO I woudl not take ANY image of a planet without a ship on it as evidence of game footage.

Because most I would risk are happy that the developers seems to have focused more on other things than graphics. I for once have seen a lot of times games being released with clearly all effort made into graphics and everything else being left behind. ... those games always are horrible. Maybe you should remember that to put effort in one thing you must remove effort from something else and for an EA at least it is muc more important a good system under the hood than a shiny polish.

Not really. Most rigid body physics engines are made to handle multiple connection points already. The more compelx part would be on predict what is a stage and how much DV a specific stage coudl have if you cannot infer what will remain and on what order.

Those statements are contradictory. Wide range of machine imply it cannot be peerless. This is a marketing flavored statement as any statement you will see from anyone in any company. I know I have my own development company and we put more adjectives than woudl be wise. That is normal. Do not read such statements as formal contracts

The thing is what wow one might be irrelevant to other. For example, no matter what the game graphics will be I will always select the lowest graphics setting available (except the resolution itself), because I find graphics to be distractions and irrelevant for a game like this. I coudl play KSP in command line if there was such a more, well I play dwarf fortress in Ascii still nowadays (because of the game depth, that is something that wows ME)

Well If I were to troll a competign space agency I would try to land several asteroids (slowly and delicately ) int heir launchpad just to see them suffer to remove it

A specific thread where all bug reports should go is simpler and in EA is probably enough... at least in the firs tmoment

True, each one with a size varying with your mission needs. Also there could be omni directional and directional ones. To have to find out what blue dot is kerbon to point your antena to transmit science is an extra challenge.

I don't care for the marketing, but a few daily screenshots per weekday would have been a nice boon.

That is more interesting that simply removing a class. The important part is not to make antennas somethign you just automatically always do the same thing because tha kills a game.

That logic would demand we remove engines that need air to operate... an antenna being good to receive (a physical demand exist) and different to send (power demand) teach as much as an engine needing air and the other not.

No stuff that might not be possible.. except kerbals being able to walk with those heads

Although worm hole that put you in random positions could be funny.

My opinion : 1- No.. making the game shallower is not an advantage, simplicity shoudl not result in shallower 2- You can transmit with directional if you have direct LOS to KSC

Upscaling is ok, but for obvious reason a mammoth in a tiny tank is not reasonable.