Moons

That would defeat the whole purpose of even having advanced physics and things out of lots of parts? Honestly this would ruin the game - if your system cant handle things with lots of parts in KSP2 why not just play KSP1? And what would even be the point of having 10.000 parts when none of them matter? With the same logic you could just build a rocket out of three parts and pretend it consists out of 10.000 parts. Sorry but this would seriously reduce KSP1 to just another one of those spaceflight sims without any depth. If your main target is building there are games made for that - for example Space Engineers on Steam. The key aspect of this game is the physics simulation - if you dont care about that you are probably way better off with other games. I wonder - did you play KSP1?

I think that would be great aswell - everything that gives the game a more alive feeling is welcome. Someone else suggested this: I think there is a lot of potential to make KSP a better game - and those gameplay mechanics will also help getting more casual players into the genre and i doubt even veterans would be against having mechanics that add things to do instead of making up your own story all the time. A first step could also be getting a telescope into orbit to discover planets and research them to get info on atmosphere etc. - maybe without that we wont even know their trajectory etc. I think what i probably missed most in KSP1 was the a ctually "game" - i really disliked the way it was done with carreer mode a lot. To me it would make a lot of sense to have more discovery and research and in general mechanics similar to real life (not beeing able to simply fly to XY without a lot of extra issues without probing etc.) - i think the planned ressource management is probably the thing im looking forward to the least. I wonder how other people feel? I would prefer more reserach, discover etc. instead of ressource management.

I think what could improve this game a lot is to not only make flying a big part of the game but also the rewards for a player to actually doing something. This is just what i would imagine beeing a fun addition to the game - i think its best to describe how i would think the impressions would be like: I would imagine that visiting new plantes shows interresting and new landscapes - with amazing views - for example: So the first step would be to send probes to see a planet in general similar to how it works in real life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus The next step would be to either launch a real mission to discover the planet randomly or another mission for example putting satelites in orbit of a planet to find POIs. I even think it could be a fun feature to have different planets require way more different builds similar to real life that actually make sending probes etc. a requirement for a successfull mission (special heat-protection, radiation etc.) - so like KSP1 but more advanced. And that would be the next big thing i think should be improved a lot - Planets also need way more interresting POIs - maybe even inside caves (caves would be a really nice addition) to discover - obviously these shouldnt be randomly generated but handmade - and it would be enough to have a few on each planet. Those could either be found by accident, or by using satelites to find interresting POIs. Those POIs could be linked to game progression or simple great looking scenery etc. - maybe even small relics of a past civilization - with or without any impact on science etc. To me it would even be a fun POI if there was a random stranded Kerbal in a small basic base on some of the planets etc. that could be taken back home when found etc. This could also lead to new gameplay - for example building rovers and doing missions with limited avaliable ressources due to beeing in a cave and not having solar energy etc. I think the ressources mechanic sounds interresting but i think discovery is way more interresting in a game like this than ressource management.

Not trying to be that guy - yes this really shouldnt work with physics now and with a heat system later on (the top) ^^

Is it planned to add eastereggs etc. and special things to discover on the different planets? (more Discovery etc. could really improve this game in my opinion) Would it be possible to add clouds more similar to this mod to the game? (i seriously think this could be a game-changer for the game since it would enable really spectacular planets and would also be something that could sell the game way better to many casual players) I think thats a great question - this could add a lot of potential fun gameplay elements for rovers etc. (power management, discovery) - even if it doesnt work with CBT it could be done by hand-modeling a cave etc. which normally is better anyways (more unique). So i might add to this question - are things like caves to explore etc. planned in general?

What is the point of trying to be overly positive when reality is different? The game still has way less players than KSP1 - at this moment: KSP1: 3450 KSP2: 1500 The patch just did a short peak - but even that wasnt really high - i was expecting way more of the initial players to test the first patch. Its weekend and the player count is going down already. https://vginsights.com/game/954850 https://steamcharts.com/app/954850#All To be honest i think its not looking good for the game - development has to be changed and pricing has to be changed in my opinion. (for example reducing the scope of the base game - reduce the price focus on getting that to 1.0 as a solid base and then go for other features as DLC etc.) I think the initial price is way too high for what it is in EA but also in general will act like a deterrent - especially for casual gamers and other people interrested in the game.

General: how far the steam-release compared to the internal release (is there already a lot more completed (beyond assets) in the internal version?) Is there any estimate on when the different roadmap targets will be reached realistically and roughly how much time is planned roughly for V1.0 (this is important to people because its hows how much time will be invested in this game and what to expect) - for Example 6 Months/1+ Year/2+ Years etc. to me thats important i saw for example an EA that was pretty rough - so it was clear that dev time planned was short it would be a flop - said game then stated that 1.0 is planned in 3-6 months wh ich to me as a consumer made clear what was planned and realistic and that that game would never become much different etc. Mechanics: will the game mechanics be adjusted to feel more like KSP1 - or will the game stay or try to be more different than KSP1? (a lot of things seem to be different when playing this game and doing the first launch - especially how a rocket behaves) Vehicle Assembly Building: could you offer multiple lighting versions of the Vehicle Assembly Building - the current one simply doesnt seem to put enough focus at the rocket and isnt pleasing too the eye (too dark) will the UI of the Vehicle Assembly Building also be adjustable - seems way too big at the moment would it be possible to add a basic suggested function - this would be great for new players aswell (for example if you click on a fuel tank only engines with a compatible size and fuel type will be shown (maybe with an easy way to turn that function off)) UI: Are there plans to give some sort of legacy UI Are there plans to make the UI more modular for users to adjust it and change it with mods - especially a way to scale the UI? Are there plans to reduce the UIs use of screen space? Multiplayer: Is there any news on what type of MP is planned and could you make some statement to assure people that MP wont negatively impact SP (features etc. - it seems like lots of things in this from my point of view SP-focused games will be hard to work out in MP so i just hope SP wont be held back by constantly thinking about multiplayer implementation problems) would it be possible to add leaderboards ingame (global and for groups/friends etc.) for custom and normal missions for some sort of fun competitive MP to see who does something the fastest, the most efficient etc.? (seems like a fun way to implement some MP without actually hurting SP) (probably also easy to implement) Game-Price: do people from the DEV/Publisher realize that the game price is a big issue as it is now (especially because of the state of the game) and will be in the future because such a high price will potentially put off lots of potential customers and could have negative effects on the size of the community modding etc.? would it be a solution to reduce the scope of the initial game and put some of the Roadmap-Targets in DLC to sell the main game way cheaper (everything in the roadmap could just be given to EA-Purchasers that still bought at full price "for free")? OR in general are there internal discussions about changing the pricing and the scope of the base game to make development of the base game faster and to get a bigger userbase? (also please look at games like Forspoken - even AAA Titles cant justify a 70 Dollar pricetag etc. and this can completely crush a franchise for no reason) Development: could you maybe change your development and adjust it to what other EA games are doing to speed up development and use the community for better feedback? (many EA game for example do experimental versions for new patches - that way people who want to can test maybe unstable versions - report bugs and the actual patch will be way smoother while also having people more invested in the development and give them new things faster) Financially: is funding somewhat secured by the publisher for lets say beyond 1+ year and could the financial/general (or lack of) success of the EA Release have impact on funding etc.? Looking at the game and our real world with lots of countries wanting more engineers - why isnt ther a lot more cooperation with public and private companies? I could even see a game like this running in aerospace-museums etc. to promote the game but also to promote tech-jobs to a younger audience - to me its eems like there should be a lot of potential interrest in this game from education, government in general etc. - or am i a bit naive? even companies like Space X etc. should be interrested in some extra funding for some marketing that benefits the game - for example some Space X parts etc. (i normally dont like marketing but getting new parts funded by companies seems like a great idea) To me its a very important question knowing what im investing in since i have no guarantees with EA - looking at the game now i doubt it will be finished with all the Roadmap targets within the next 1.5+ years so im a bit scared that the long develoment time, change of developers and negative EA release and cutting costs that was in the news could actually in the absolute worst case could lead to this game beeing canceled. I know some of these questions are probably hard to answer or not even by the person doing the AMA because its different fields but ill just ask and see.

How is that a paradox? You shouldnt make future promises because you shouldnt ask your customers to bet on the future of your game? The way its stated is probably mostly because of legal reasons - if you sell a product marketing etc. can actually be legally binding so it would be pretty bad if some indie dev sold EA - made lots of public promises and then stopped development or had lots of promises he can never fullfill. Also the only thing that actually is important to consumers is statements on the store page and by representatives of a company. You also have to differentiate the second FAQ is mainly for Developers/Publishers.

Why should i make up my mind - i never made a different argument? Its weird how emotional these arguments become - i criticized the game and the way it was published - you on the other hand seem to mainly criticize me for some reason. I also cant follow your argumentation since to me it doesnt seem like you actually react to what i wrote.

Where did i write that? Thats just what you made out of that and it explains a lot. It seems as if a lot of people seem to take critique of this game pretty personal for reasons i dont understand. If someone was to write "this is the best game ever - its way too cheap" that would also just be an opinion - would you seriously argue that by saying that the person who sais it is calling everyone with a different opinion a mindless hater etc.? And yes to me an EA game is utterly broken if i cant even do the most basic stuff without running into multiple gamebreaking bugs (the simple launch of my first rocket had all that issues - and i didnt even add the bugs i had in the VAB (some parts not connecting when mirrored or some parts uddenly duplicate in a weird way when mirrored (for example - i see 4 boosters (mirror options) but the game suddenly shows another 4 in some weird fashion))). And yes my expectations are bound to the price charged. This is why most other EA games with a normal EA price of 20-35 USD have good ratings even with lots of bugs and problems. No im claiming that it should had never been released and should have been delayed or at least have been released at a reasonoable price - reflecting the product at this moment to some extent - which would have made community reaction and expectations completely different. This game could probably have had a great launch at a lower price or with a few weeks delay to fix obvious gamebreaking bugs. I would even complain way less if it was a pre-order with alpha access at full price. (okay i would complain at 70 USD) I even tried to be optimistic and productive by stating what i think would be a way to fix all those problems to some extent (reduce scope of the game and put things in DLC that people that already bought it at 50 USD would get for free since it was in the roadmap etc.).

You can for example make a new game of a series - put an alpha as Early Access - charge 200 USD for it and then simply quit development after some time. Depending on how and why you do it it will actually not be a problem - but that doesnt mean that its something i would think is okay to do. (obviously not talking about KSP) Its the same with MTs and Gambling Mechanics, Loot Boxes etc. it wasnt against any rules to do that - but from a ethical point of view it was pretty unethical to use such mechanics at all - and even worse in games with a target audience that is pretty young. (obviously not talking about KSP) Would you mind quoting that? The only thing i said is that i think it should be taken off of steam - but i never said it didnt meet the requirements for EA.

Why shouldnt steam allow the product to be sold. Steam isnt a gatekeeper - and thats a good thing - i wouldnt want a gaming platform like that.

But thats the case - thats a simple fact: https://www.destructoid.com/valve-updates-steam-early-access-faq-with-warning-that-some-games-wont-be-released/ https://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess EA isnt a pre-purchase. There is a lot of things you can do and that wont be against any rules - but that doesnt mean that they are okay. When did i ever say that KSP violated EA terms?

You do realize that the only think that is imoportant is what you agreed to on Steam and the Steam EA FAQs - there is no clear definition what EA is in general and it doesnt matter what is written on Wikipedia.

No its normal to be shocked that anyone would sell a product in this state for 50 USD to long term fans. To me its hilarious that to you there doesnt seem to be any expectation when buying EA - its like a magic term that seems to make everything okay? So from your point of view - is there anything that wouldnt be acceptable when a game is sold as EA?

Yeah its not This is a paid product not some F2P open beta. Out of interrest - so from your point of view - there is no state this game could be in that would be unacceptable to you since you can always avoid the problems/bugs by reading hundreds of threads and doing nothing that could trigger a bug and maybe simply buy and not play it until a patch? Also i am sorry - i would bet money that you have had lots of bugs - most of the bugs arent avoidable - okay maybe if you just do very limited things.

Wow thats a pretty bad comparison. Also do you have no standards and expectations when you purchase a product?

Werent you answering to this post - if not then sorry.

If modders can add something like this to KSP1 - shouldnt it be a reasonable possible thing to add something similar to KSP2?

The probem is - if they did that they were wrong. EA actually means you buy the beta the the time of purchase nothing more. Everything else is pretty much just a gamble - if this was a pre-purchase on the other hand this would be a different story. Im not sure if they knew what they were doing - this has the potential to do long term damage to the brand. In the worst case it was a test if the game is even profitable because of the long development and switch of developers. Well Nintendo was always overwpriced - it is beyond me how they still get away with it especially since their main consumers are kids ... (dont even get me started on their handling of virtual console titles) - or their anti-consumer and anti-fan practices in general - some of the things they do are real life comedy: Twitter Post They asked fans what their favourite Zelda Songs are - people posted youtube links and all of them were copyright striked ... Anyways - to justify a pricetag of 50 USD for the final version i expect the game to be free of bugs, full of content and a great base for modding. I think its a huge mistake to sell it at such a high price - this will just turn away many casual gamers - especially combined with the hardware requirements and this will also turn away modders in the long run. But obviously thats just my personal opinion. And tosum up what i think could help the game - i think one of the most reasonable things to save the game to some extent now would be to: - reduce the scope of the base game - and reduce the price - put things in DLC and give it to EA-Buyers for free since they had the roadmap That way they could concentrate on having a base KSP2 out sooner than later and concentrate on making that part of the game good and concentrate on all the other things later on - that way they could also sell the base game at a way more reasonable price that wont scare away new customers and people would also be way more tolerant when it comes to bugs if the price was lower - but i dont know if you can sell multiple EA versions at different prices? I also think you cant change the price of an EA game for some weeks according to steam.

Yes and i doubt they needed the communmity to find those bugs. I have lots of EA games but never got a game for th is price with so many obvious bugs in basic mechanics - especially not at that price. The complaints in my thread are perfectly reasonable - EA means you purchase the product in the state it is when you do you purchase - they could simply stop development and i wouldnt be able to refund since the only thing i actually paid for was the game as is at the time of purchase. Therefore the price has to reflect the state of the product bought - i have lots of EA games and most for that reason sell their product at a price that somewhat reflects the state of the game at the moment. Since this game costs 50 USD i obviously expect way more than from a game that costs 30 USD. And yes even if it was 30 USD i think the bugs would be too much - i would understand if those bugs would rarely occur etc. but some of th ose bugs are gamebreaking and so obvious that if someon would have playtested the game once or twice would have noticed them - and at that point it would have been the only right decision to lower the price a lot or delay the release. To me its not even worth it reporting a bug since chances are all of those bugs are already known. I dont even know how many EA games i own - just looked it up - almost 80 - this EA is by far the worst ive ever seen - and the only EAs i can compare this too were all way cheaper. EA doesnt mean you can simply do whatever you want and people shouldnt complain especially when selling long term fans a game in a state like this at that price. Most of the games features arent even in the game - not even re-entry heat etc. - yet even the small parts that are in the game have gamebreaking and obvious bugs that dont seem to be limited to special cases.

Just found that on reddit: Reddit Looks even better than the cloud videos you posted - or is that just a mod that uses new features of the unity engine? Honestly what the ...: - this seriously looks amazing - would it be easy to implement that in KSP2? (effects like that could also make other planets way more interresting - this seriously has a wow effect to it that could really help KSP2)

Probably never. https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/games-kerbal-space-program-2 (there is a FAQ in regards to consoles - console release obviously will be way after PC release is finished and only for "next gen" as it seems) I also wouldnt buy that version since you would miss out on one of the most interresting aspects of KSP - modding - and no limited console modding is not even remotely the same as PC modding.

Im not that excited - i think the main issues will be: - how easy are they to implement - is it even worth it when already mid development - how do those things scale - KSP doesnt just render a bigger area - it prett much renders a planet and a solar system Would be interresting to know if those things are easy to implement and will be used for KSP2. Anyways anything that improves engines for space/flight sims is always welcome by me - the space-flight and flight genere needs way more games - simulators need to have a comeback The clouds by the way look pretty similar to the ingame clouds? And i also hope that the DEVs are looking into DLSS - while that tech somewhat cheats a bit and reduces image quality - the results when used correctly still are great since it enables better looking games on cheaper hardware. Hopefully it wont be used to compensate for bad optimization in the future. And regarding tech in general - while one can argue that Star Citizen is aweird Kickstarter - i hope the tech developed for Star Citizen will improve many new games. The detail of planets, ships and even seamless landing on planets is mindblowing but i doubt it would work with that much focus on physics like in KSP due to hardware limitations:

And there are more obvious big bugs. For example i just built a rocket - with 3 boosters with the mirror tool. I put them on decouplers - 2 for each booster. Everything works fine but 1 booster is moving arround like in a comic even when the rocket isnt even moving - its as if 1 booster isnt really connected to one of the decouplers even tough everything is just mirrored and should be the same. I even tried using a third decoupler but that dint work either - it just showed me what seems to happen - instead of having the physics of a part fixed by 3 points the booster simply moves as if it was fixed in the middle of the booster - it acts like a seesaw. I also had similar issues after getting in the third area of the height - indicator - all of a sudden the rocket started spinning (the center of sinning was the middle of the rocket) even with RCS and SAS. Even if i had forgotten something if something moves upwards with a lot of speed it wouldnt suddenly start to spin? I did everything pretty similar to how i do it in KSP1 and never had issues like this - is this a bug or am i missing some new mechanic?