VlonaldKerman

I agree! Also, I feel like the OG KSP main loading screen theme should make a cameo somewhere in KSP 2. Would be very cool.

I share your sentiment about performance and sales, and, as I've discussed in other posts, I think high sales for the EA release will be crucial to the development of the game. Unfortunately, it would simply be unreasonable for them to make significant optimization improvements in the near future- that's just not how game development works. Every time they add something new, then they need to optimize again. Better to optimize at the end, or after many more mechanics have been fully implemented, than right now.

I would personally enjoy weather that's purely visual, even if it could make certain things harder. I think the devs are probably hesitant to add it because if they added weather, they would feel obligated to make it functional, i.e. wind pushes your craft and pulls your parachutes, most people probably don't feel that's a necessary, or even beneficial, game mechanic. I know the new EVE clouds mod adds visual weather and it looks great. However, it is a mod, and I think if it's to be officially implemented as a feature by the devs they would feel that purely visual weather isn't enough. Also, implementing weather opens a whole can of worms- is it random, or does it obey some sort of physical laws, and can it be predicted? Anyone familiar with the Kerbal Weather Project mod knows that simulating even remotely realistic weather is a whole separate topic they probably won't want to broach.

Interesting- I didn't know about the statements made to shareholders. Sorry you received a backlash for talking about it- I think there's a tendency to conflate skepticism with close-mindedness, as well as criticism/discussion of T2 with criticism/discussion of the KSP 2 devs, leading to some of the community leaping to the defense of the devs, without realizing you were actually commenting on T2 itself. Obviously I didn't see exactly what people said, but I suspect that's it. I share your concern for the future of KSP 2, especially in light of the specific statements T2 has made to their shareholders about cutting costs.

It seems like they are going with a merge of a more modern graphical look, with the look of old-school instrumentation and readouts. I agree in that I would prefer for the text and icons to have a sleeker, more modern look, I just think it would fit better. Also evident in the main in-flight hud, with the SAS direction indicators. I like the suggestion that others have put forth of having multiple UI styles, and, in general, UI customization. That way, we wouldn't have to have contentious arguments on the KSP forums about subjective aesthetic preferences! (not a dig at OP just a general commentary about the forum and this thread)

WARNING! Rambly post incoming. Also, if I say EA, I mean early access, not the despicable company (lol). I just want to preface this post by saying that I adore KSP and intend on buying KSP 2 the moment early access releases. I recently shelled out several thousand dollars for a new top-of-the-line PC specifically so that I could play KSP 2 with the best hardware possible. I have real faith in the KSP 2 dev team, as well- they seem smart, competent, and truly passionate about their game. I also don't care, in principle, about the game being in a state that many perceive to be "undercooked"... as far as I'm concerned, the earlier I can get my hands on the game, the better, period. That being said, I've been thinking about what I've seen so far from the preview footage of KSP 2 and while I'm not in the "We're being scammed! 5 years and they've done nothing! If you buy the game you are a sheep!" camp that seems to haunt the forums and youtube comment sections, I do think there are some important/revealing shortcomings of the EA release, that bear discussing, and I'm interested to hear the community's thoughts on this. My central observation/theory is this: KSP 2 EA is being released because they need the cash to continue to fund/justify the project to take-two. There is a 0% chance that, upon conception of the KSP 2 project, the intention was for the first EA release to not include: re-entry visuals/heating, auto-strut, airbreaks, high-def atmospheric scattering and planetshine, high-def surfaces for bodies like the Mun, better-looking clouds, at least marginally better preformace, etc. Maybe you can take issue with a few items on this list and say that it's reasonable for these to be left out of the VERY FIRST release, but the lack of re-entry heating is a dead giveaway; it's such an integral part of the Kerbal experience, there is not a chance they would release even a beta version without this, absent other factors. To me, this signals that the 2/24 release of EA v0.1 was not a calculated, "OK, the game is ready for the first beta release in the current state", but rather an edict from corporate that, in order to justify further investment into the project, the KSP 2 team would have to prove that the game will in fact sell enough, even in its early access state. This also explains the lofty price tag of $50... well above any other game I've ever heard of that's in this early of a state, except for high-level contributions with things like "your name in the credits" to an indie studio. Another aspect that leads me to suspect this potentially risky state of affairs for KSP 2 is the fact that, other than an influx of cash, the main reason for doing EA is to gather community feedback. The devs are very adamant that they value community feedback and I truly believe them, however, the current state of the game seems to be one in which there are very immediate, obvious areas that need improvement, that you don't need "community feedback" to point out to you as a developer- see the list of things I mentioned in the prior paragraph, for just a FEW examples, out of many. To be sure, there are many areas in which community feedback will clearly be immediately useful, especially when it comes to the UI, which is generally pretty good, but definitely still needs some tuning. But I think the "community feedback" period of this EA release will be relatively short- that is to say, there are not currently many changes/fixes/problems which satisfy BOTH of the conditions: "Not obvious, and therefore need the community to point out problems or give their opinions", AND, "Currently in the game, so that the community can actually experience them to give feedback." To summarize: the game is still in such a young state, that I can't imagine community feedback on the current build will be incredibly valuable, and certainly what feedback we will provide, would also be provided if they waited and released a later build (i.e. the UI would be the same, and garner the same feedback, if the game were released this August, instead of now), and thus, there is no real point to releasing the game now, for feedback purposes. Therefore, the EA release is being shipped out NOT primarily for the reason of community feedback, but rather because of the cash that will come in. Am I way off-base? The video which inspired me to write this post is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAoLGHG8Fg4 . In it, Billy Winn Jr. interviews Nate Simpson, and one of the other devs (I forgot his name, I'm sorry). In general, I would characterize their affect in the interview as subdued, and somewhat apprehensive. It struck me that they were not proud of the product they were putting out... yet. This came through especially in their answers to the question of whether or not they plan on adding things like ground effects, or weather, into the game. If I recall their answers were very wordy, like they were trying to be careful and handle the topic delicately, and essentially boiled down to, "It depends where it is on the priority list of the playerbase," which, to me, is code for, "We currently are not planning on adding those things. If players really, really seem to want them, then these features may be added way down the line, provided the project is still alive at that point, and we have the resources to deliver anything but exactly what we initially promised for the game, or less." I may be totally misjudging their demeanor, but it seems like they were timid because they KNOW the current build is not up to their standards, and they care about the game, and really want to do a good job. This point is definitely disputable, but I thought it bore mentioning, even though I think my stance on the current state of the game is substantiated even without this additional evidence. I know I've been pretty critical of the state of the game in this post, but that really isn't my intention. Rather, it's the opposite: If KSP 2's development is at the point where they are willing to release a premature build of the game for $50 in order to continue to fund development, then I'm hoping that as many people buy the game as possible, because I do have faith in the dev team. If I didn't believe that the devs will do a good job, provided they have the resources, then I wouldn't feel this way. I'm not trying to tell anybody how to spend their money, and $50 is certainly a lot to pay from what amounts to a promise from a dev team that may or may not be almost out of money, but if you have the money, you like the dev team, and you care about KSP 2, then, IF IM CORRECT, this may be worth considering. It would be a shame, for instance, to write the game off as a "scam/failure", and not buy it even though you have the money, when money (or the lack thereof) is precisely the thing preventing the game from being incredible. Again, all of this is only valid if my wild speculation is true. Sorry for the mega-long post, but if I'm right, I think this is an important topic. I'm super curious to know what your thoughts are about this subject. Have a great day!