Infinite Aerospace

I've been pretty vocal regarding science mode. I'm willing to give him (Chris) the benefit of doubt on the responses as I've got no reason to assume he is being disingenuous. I'd love to think a lot of people here are in the exact same place, I don't think *most* people in the forum want to see the game fail (although I question a few if I'm honest). So where do we go from here? Well, we do all we can do, talk amongst ourselves and wait. Wait to see what 0.1.5 brings and wait for @Nertea Dev Blog regarding science is released. I mean if one of the lead developers can see the benefit of doing that, then I think as a community we to listen. Maybe some really interesting stuff is buried in whatever form that takes. I'd be more than willing to listen provided that some tangible information as to what is going to be going on in science is shared. I can't believe at this point that science isn't a finalised thing, just going through the later stages of its inception. As soon as science and progression drop, the game changes and takes an immediate step forward so I can't imagine it isn't high on the list of things to do.

To be fair, whilst I agree communication is an issue at the moment Chris (Adderly) did go back and revisit a lot of the questions for the AMA, including a fair few regarding science. I think he said he's gonna do a video / blog on the topic.

Looks sweet, I like being able to do a Starship-esque heatshield.

Why not have it and leave it optional, and even at that point 'optional' meaning you can either have all of the life support goodness, or just certain parts like. Let's say you want food, water, oxygen and such but nothing beyond that. What's to stop the developers doing what modders have done before and just have boxes that can be checked (or left unchecked).

I think it's best to lean toward caution with regard to this, chance are it might just be new parts and perhaps a significant bug getting locked down.

Life support I think is perhaps the biggest omission from the 'roadmap'. I can't understand the reason why it's being left out, though I might be in a minority of people who want life support.

Thank you for revisiting some of the questions @Nertea You'd be surprised just how much of a difference that will make to people's opinions and optimism regarding the future of the project. I will totally be looking forward to your developer blog - video on the upcoming science and progression. There's a few things in those answers that sound very interesting. Thank you again.

The question is, in the quest for minimising part count due to performance (and it never hurts to minimise part count) would you not want that option? Like I'd strongly support the idea that wings are a thing that evolve in the course of the tech tree, something like the following: Node 1) Aerofoils I: Unlocks basic Procedural Wings, control surfaces and stabilisers. Node 2) Aerofoils II: Unlocks 'Compound' option for procedural wings, unlocks 'Curve' option on Procedural Wings. Node 3) Aerofoils III: Unlocks 'Internal Fuel Tanks' option for Procedural Wings. Node 4) Aerofoils IV: Unlocks 'Integrated Airbrakes' and 'Integrated Landing Gear' to Procedural Wings. Each node increasing other characteristics, such as maximum length, as materials advance it's easier to make more complex wings with greater span. Also, to further represent the advancing in materials through Science, have the wings weight decrease through the nodes. Beginning with heavier, more crude wings at the start of the progression, ending up with lightweight 'composite' style wings you'll find on things like Global Flyer. With the added benefit of as craft size and complexity increases, several parts gradually start getting merged into a single part which is advantageous for performance.

They'd have genuine game improving qualities too. Especially wing fuel tanks and integrated spoiler/brakes.

Never thought of integrated landing gear. I'd 100% be for that too.

Rushed? The game was already significantly delayed to begin with and what was released what essentially an alpha, if science was released four months from now, that would be almost eleven months after launch for the first planned update. I don't wanna sound funny here but in what definition of 'rushed' would that qualify? Version 0.2.x essentially.

I think if it takes four months from now to implement science, that's a spectacular fail. Sorry but it just is. Same goes for heating effects, if it takes two months or more then I'm concerned about the ability of the developers to actually get this game to completion.

There is some really nice stuff in here: The re-entry effects are nice and bright, and vibrant. Goes well with the overall aesthetic of the game. The volumetrics around those mountains look better than anything I've ever seen in KSP period, much better than the volumetrics in KSP1 (Mod). Loving the gravity ring, looking forward to seeing more parts. I hope Chris (Adderly) has a lot of input on these as his parts tend to be the gold standard of KSP1 modding, maybe with the exception of Benjee and their insane Orion and station parts. Science, I have so, so, so many questions! Can we have an AMA focused entirely around science and career? I feel there's a *lot* of people in the community that are craving answers regarding that. As a final note, this is the kinda communication I think the community really wants, hands-on stuff with something to show.

Is it fun? Within reason yes but it's sorely missing content to add depth. I mean I was a massive KSP1 player, but I've kinda 'shelved' KSP2 at the moment. Don't get me wrong I haven't been dramatic and *I've uninstalled it!* but I'm finding it a hard play right now. I am more or less a 95% career player, I like the restriction (in terms of parts) that it gives the player, and the contracts (whilst a bit repetitive) give the game at least some direction. It is however perfectly playable for me (Ryzen 7 5800H, 32Gb RAM, RTX 3060 (M) with a mixture of high and medium settings with AA enabled. The performance has increased dramatically since the first release, so I don't think anyone can be critical of that side of the patching process, each update chips away at the performance issues that little bit more. But until science and career come about, I'm going to be doing a full playthrough of the Homeworld series in preparation for the third installment dropping. It jump into KSP2 now and again though.

To be fair when Nate went on record talking about things being 'Kerbal' I kinda feel he suggested that it was a conscious choice. A point Matt Lowne did a great job at countering in one of his videos.

I like 'all' of those things, count me in! I'm all for making Kerbal Space Program as complex and in depth as possible, I don't just want KSP1 but a bit fancier if I'm honest.

To be fair, some actual interaction rather than the token AMA. What is going on with science, how does it work, when should we expect it? I don't understand the reluctance to engage with the community to be honest, I know people are annoyed at the state of the game but not talking about it isn't going to make it any better. Wobbly rockets are pretty much a design choice at this point. Though I don't support Nate's opinions on wobbly rockets, it's not 'charming or quirky' it's just annoying.

I really genuinely hope that cancellation is not on the cards, that said I also don't have much faith we'll see science before the first anniversary of the launch. I find the lack of any communication regarding science concerning to say the least.

So, what's the word? Does this patch make a meaningful improvement to the game? I've found it's been running quite nicely since 0.1.3 dropped to be honest but there's a few really irritating bugs, such as docking ports off-set when loading a game.

Hoping people will report back on whether the changes are positive and noticeable.

I've gotta ask, do the developers ever actually interact with these posts or just 'post and disappear'? They *really* could help themselves here with a bit of actual person to person communication.

A procedural heat shield system is sorely needed to be honest.

Agreed, that would be a nice addition.

I just want to know some more about science mode, and career progression. They're not really doing a very good job of generating interest in upcoming updates if I'm honest. I don't understand though *why* there's a complete unwillingness to go into some details? Unless of course nothing about science and progression is ready...

So, there's a few things I'd love to see added and/or tweaked to how the procedural wings are generated, see below: 1) Wing fuel tanks, is there a method of adding an internal fuel volume which conforms to a given % of the wing volume. This would allow players to make much more realistic aircraft and allow the main fuselage to be much more payload-centric. 2) Angle 'snapping', what if someone wants to make a rectangular, or square wing? With the current system it's not the easiest thing to do, why not implement a drop down menu at the very top of the procedural wing system, with some basic geometry, allowing the user to adjust the scale rather than having to create the shape entirely. 3) Curve, the wings right now are entirely angular, based on straight lines and angles. I'd love to see a method to blend the wing shape a big more, give it curved edges, perhaps add a slight dihedral curve. 4) A potential 'compound' wing, where multiple procedural wings can be attached to one another. So instead of having to make two wings and then attach them together with the offset tool mainly. 5) An option for integrate airbrakes, or spoilers.