Phoenix84

I was not aware GOG didn't allow them. I wish Steam would ban them. Hopefully the Steam Deck gives Valve more power to refuse that garbage. I started buying games on GOG recently due to more freedom. However now that I have a Steam Deck, I've changed my mind, and will prefer to buy from the Steam store wherever possible, because the integration is so much cleaner. Yes, I know I can install games outside of Steam on the deck, and I do. But they just don't integrate as nicely.

I disagree, the launcher is part of the game, and the game experience. If this were about something Private Division did outside of the game, then I would agree with you. It seems this launcher might not be as bad as like the one for Bioshock for example, where it doesn't work on the Steam Deck, but they have been known to interfere with the game experience, preventing users from playing. If they to want to shove ads down our throat, I'd rather they be done in-game, like Space Engineers. Launching the game outside of Steam also breaks integration, such as with Steam Controller/Deck input. If an update on Steam breaks the ability for me to launch the game on my platform, then I hope there's reviews to tell me that. As it is, I was already on the fence about KSP2, but it having a launcher makes the decision easy for me: I won't be buying it. Yes, I hate them that much.

You mean career? It's been so long since I've played anything but that mode. However if I have some time, I'll set up a sandbox instance for testing this. I'm a developer myself, so I understand the importance of testing, plus this is a very valuable mod for me. Thanks for the information!

Thanks, now I don't feel so bad for making a MM patch to "fix" them. I'm really looking forward to KISv2. It feels very "cheaty" right now to have two different inventories with unrelated volumes on the same part, and that's besides the lack of interaction between it and stock (which of course I don't blame you for one bit). I noticed it's in alpha now, but I'm not feeling too confident to use it right now. I'll be keeping an eye on it though. I recently picked up playing KSP again since before either DLC were released, but KIS and KAS were always my #1 and #2 mods.

Is there a reason certain parts have the inventory sizes they have? For example, both the ImC-800 and ImC-1500 have only 12 slots, but the SC-62 has 16. I would think the ImC-1500 would more or less have double the slots of the 800, and maybe 3-4x the SC-62.

I ran into this same issue. The USBasicMicroSatWedge seems to be the right part, but I didn't know what it was in the part editor. I think this is the "USBasicMicroSatWedge", but it doesn't show that it has "Simple Temperature Scan" or "Simple Atmospheric Scan." I also thought it was a probe core, based on its name, which is why I skipped over it before. It's poorly named IMO. So, I edited the part I did know, the ThermoBaroWedge to use the US experiment instead of the stock one. In the end, I made a ModuleManager patch to change the "Atmospheric Science Unit" part to use the US science experiments, and that worked. I was able to complete my contract at that point. This is the logical part, since it says "Atmospheric" in it. @PART[USThermoBaroWedge] { @MODULE[USSimpleScience]:HAS[#experimentID[temperatureScan]]:FINAL { @experimentID = UStemperatureScan } @MODULE[USSimpleScience]:HAS[#experimentID[barometerScan]]:FINAL { @experimentID = USbarometerScan } }

Intersteller, MP, and $60? That's a hard pass. The graphics look amazing (assuming those actually are gameplay, and not just pre-renders), but that and what's listed is not worth the price tag to me. If the performance is significantly better for crafts, I might revisit it in a few years time. Oh, and it's not Squad. Never heard of this other game studio before. (Ok, this last bit is mostly for nostalgia )

Can the editor support node snapping? What I mean is, can the current time vertical bar snap to keyframes, and can keyframes snap to the time bar? This would work for me in lieu of copy-paste (at least for now. Maybe also a synced horizontal bar/marker that also allows snapping, for snapping the curve height.

Yes, I suppose I should correct myself. I do use it, I just have to restrain myself from overusing it.

I don't have a console and don't follow the console version of this game, for that reason. I take it you mean there is a Mun launch base in the console version of this game, like what some new bases are on Kerbin, which I haven't used either? Yeah, that's not something I want either. It's quite possible they used the console to test a feature, see how it would be received. Given the feedback (admittedly in this small sample size) seems pretty heavily leaning towards not wanting it, Squad probably decided that feature wasn't well received, and didn't pursue it further.

I remember those days. Now though, with part clipping and offset tool, it feels like cheating. I have to restrain myself from using the offset tool, as it can easily make craft that shouldn't exist. At least it hides Kracken.

The last 7 days of posts weren't drip enough?

Ha, yes. If they called it "spin-o-matic" I wouldn't even care.

Rotor? I'm not usually one to point out scientific issue in KSP, but why is it called a rotor instead of motor? As I understand it, a rotor is the rotational part of a motor (stator being the stationary part), but the entire assembly together is a motor. Is there some other part/contraption I'm missing, which also has that name? Or does the part not work the way I think it does? Space Engineers did the same thing, calling it a rotor when it's supposed to a motor/servo.

A return to Kerbin from the surface of Minmus launcher. Emergency Kerbal return for those days you run out of Fuel.

As I understand it, KAS split a long time ago, and what this DLC shows off is more like KIS, but what you are referencing (attaching parts) is KAS. KIS/KAS are one of my few "must have" mods. So I'll be eagerly awaiting this to see the full features it has, and how KIS/KAS can better integrate with it. Less code for the author to maintain potentially means easier porting to new KSP releases, which means faster releases.

I would agree with that. As long as the game can't be much better with newer technology, and people are willing to buy it, I don't really see a problem. If the technical debt comes to a point where it's becoming a real problem (some say it is already), then it might be worth starting over. IMO the issue isn't the amount of DLC available, it's the company, and their intentions. Take Cities: Skylines, for example. With all the expansions and DLC they offer, it leaves little doubt that expansions were part of their goal since the beginning. They intended to have expansions, and as such, likely left stuff out of the base game on purpose, so they could flesh it out better as an expansion. That is the business decision they made, and I can't fault them for that. Though if they didn't do it this way, then if they wanted to release a game with all the features the DLC offers in the base game... it would have been under development for 10 years, and still wouldn't be released. However the game itself is very well made, and looks fantastic, so there's no reason IMO for a Cities: Skylines 2. Honestly, if they did add a new one, that would irritate me. It's like with The Sims. You buy, say, Sim 3, and all it's expansions, now when Sims 4 comes out, you have to rebuy everything again, since the base Sims 4 won't include even half of what Sims 3 + Expansions had. This example is taken to the extreme, but it is a real possibility, since it happened. Squad, on the other hand, had no intention of offering DLC/expansions at the start of development (as evidenced by their poorly worded EULA back then). Note, I own both games, but only buy the DLC when it's on clearance sale. I only have a few of the Cities DLC.

To flip that, at what point do you feel development should begin on a new game instead? Would you rather have KSP 3 or 4 instead? Keep in mind newer games have no guarantee that they'll still include features in the previous ones.

Back when I played more, you wouldn't want a ship with more than 200 parts. So, that's not surprising. Last I played, physics reached the limit at that amount.

Yeah, that's why I never get past Duna. I always start over and never make it far, even though I spend hundreds of hours playing. I think it mostly spawned from when I used a lot more parts mods, and the mods were never updated by the time I wanted to play, so I'd lose crafts.

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I wasn't addressing your points. I meant I had several points myself to lay out in relation to your post. And I see, you weren't meaning using them without credit or permission, you just meant "at all" even with modder help.

Great, I'm glad that was cleared up. To address your inspiration remark, I can see both sides of it. 1) Squad should do something original, vs 2) Squad should add what people want 1 & 2 aren't always the same thing. They tried #1 with MH IMO. This DLC is more targeting #2. Personally, the way I look at is this: there are mods that add significant gameplay value, and really affect how players interact with the game. Some of these mods also have a lot of problems, because they have to hack their way around the game to do things (which is why the Kraken happens so much with IR or SEP). I see this as an opportunity for the developers to focus on one aspect of gameplay a mod adds (before, it was RemoteTech, now it's IR), and really make that gameplay a first-party, supported gameplay experience. To phrase it inaccurately: "I look forward to playing with IR without the infernal breakage that always happens." Doing something like this requires core engine fixes and improvements we can't see, but quite possibly will affect the actual mod itself in a positive way. Changes which could very well be in the base game, so players using IR can take advantage. Now I don't mean the extra APIs and whatnot for the stock robotics, I mean engine stability changes. Such as the robotic parts (stock or non-DLC modded) being properly strutted without problems, deploy without problems, and actually work with aerodynamics without problems. What this means is even if you don't buy the DLC, IR could work even better than it does now. Of course, this is speculation, and we won't know how much is in the core engine until we see it. However I don't doubt there will be some core non-DLC game benefits. Other people mention planet surface mounting stability fixes as well, which may very well improve SEP even if you don't get the DLC.

I don't want to take a side in this, but I have a couple a points to address: 1) Do you have proof? Ideas are not protected, actual implementation is. 2) Given we haven't seen the update, there's no way to know for this release if it's true (unless you have special access, and can address #1). IANAL, but making a statement like that I believe is libel if you are incorrect. This is why proof is required, or this discussion is meaningless. Keep in mind, the idea of something cannot be protected. Only the actual implementation is. For example, "a communication network for ships to be controlled over" is an idea. Actually taking code directly from RemoteTech and inserting into the base game is protected, and cannot be done without the copyright owner's permission (unless the KSP/Squad/Take2 EULA says otherwise).

I'm an older millennial. Old enough to grow up without a computer until about 12.

Here's what usually happened to games for the past 40-50 years: Company releases a complete game, no changes, no bug fixes, nothing. It's immutable, out and done, and on to the next game. As games came to PC (and other non-permanent media), more or less the same happened, but if you were lucky, you got bugfixes. If you were very lucky, the developer decided to release an expansion pack (ala Brood War). Even then, it was usually just one. If the game was popular, and the developers wanted to continue the franchise, they just made more games (Command & Conquer). More games you paid full cost for. Now we get the benefit of continual fixes and improvements for many games, but that continuous work comes at a cost. That cost is additional expansion packs (now called DLC) that we pay for. So right now, there's basically a choice: Would we rather have the current game maintained, and added to, or would we rather halt all development and have the devs start work on a new game, say, KSP 2. This of course means KSP would die (maybe get some critical security or crash fixes if we're lucky, but that's it), as there's no reason for Squad to continue development on a game that has a successor. A new games means everyone starts over. New saves, new crafts, new mods. Starting from zero. The only thing that might carry over is part of the player base. Also, you have to re-buy it at full price (as a discount is not common in the industry). Personally, I prefer option 1. EDIT: If you think about it, with all the changes being made to the game, it's actually quite a different game now, than it was at 1.0. You could almost call it KSP 2.