dr.phees

If the devs want to keep the wobbly rockets, there should be a toggleable, researchable node, that makes connections much stiffer. Maybe even two nodes? Stiff and Very Stiff? Why not integrate it into the science development, research tree? All discussions are over, and everyone can finally be happy.

It is in fact possible. It would be an interesting launch profile to write in kOS. Since Minmus is rotating very slowly, you would probably loose a lot to gravity, but since it has no strong gravity, that would not be too much in total. I do not know if Minmus stationary orbits are within its SOI. If not, then it would not work at all. But, hey, a nice idea. The biggest issue (provided there is an accessible stationary orbit) is, that each time you dock/undock/get within physics range of your stationary station, you will knock it out of its orbit by a tiny bit. That adds up over time to it not staying at its location, which might ruin the fun for you. But even then: Writing a direct-launch profile in kOS might still be fun enough to work on this. (Would also work on other orbits, but this is more interesting.)

KSP is not really a game that you play with random people and switch often, right? I would expect people to get together via Forums or Discord and join servers. A typical lobby does not sound like something i would use, as this game is slow paced and it should be possible to find other players via slow communication (forum style).

Why isn't this a thread of the month?

Cheating in a low-player-count-game is really not an issue.

I think players who bought full price before this first sale should be promised all future DLCs for free. This sale is a slap in the face for everyone who did the first months of alpha testing for the team.

Only to clarify: What you mean is the gravitational acceleration (g) and is different for each body. The gravitational constant is G and is universal.

Add some driving around on the surface and (at some point) on the water, using 3-, 4- and 6-wheelers.

In my experience the vectoring of the jets is even worse. Try to take those off SAS / disable pitch vectoring. Sometimes it helps By the way: I always hoped that KSP 2 would check for oscillations when using SAS and switch through a couple of PID tunings to get rid of it or at least let us manually switch between a couple. Would have been nice. Maybe there is a way to do it via modding at some point.

> but nothing comes close to the unpainted parts. Try TUFX in KSP 1. You can even define the reflectivity of unpainted metallic parts or change the metal color from aluminum to titan, gold, copper etc. And using the BobRoss textures allows you very detailed and tailored coloring or parts. Absolutely amazing and much better in my opinion than the current KSP 2 coloring.

Additionally: How on Earth did they not start the game in a new stellar / planetary system? Why re-create Kerbol system? Why not use the chance to create a new, unknown system from scratch? Finding a setting is easy, too: A couple of Kerbals, slung out of Kerbin system by the Kraken, crash landed on a planet, having to develop technology from near-scratch again. This setting would solve so much: A new parts catalog, near future tech, because they are starting with full knowledge, just lacking production facilities, having a fresh, unexplored system, having motivation and a first goal for interstellar travel (going home to Kerbin) etc. Not much creativity needed for this.

There will be, well, has to be a lot of optimization. However, as athmospheric heating already seems too much to be done without loosing too much performance, I don't think KSP 2 will really become the same cult like the original. KSP 2 is not really offering any new things, nothing creative and no feeling of playing an advanced KSP. Just a polished up copy of it. I doubt the solution for interstellar will be any more engaging from a gemplay standpoint to pull many players in. The current part-fiddling (I mean, how can airbrakes be so hyped up? They are just a copy from the original!) does not give me confidence that there is enough wiggle room for better performance optimization to include all the missing systems. Maybe they are playing for time, expecting hardware to get more performant. But based on the current slowing down of the PC market I don't expect too much myself. The big questions are: How much money can they burn on development and can they manage to somehow make KSP 2 feel really new and exciting?

Exactly that. The weirdest feeling when I start KSP 2 is that I am bored by its non-creativity. I am never bored in KSP 1. I waste time like it is going out of style. But KSP 2? It is just a slightly prettier, boring copy. It is the beginning of a remake maybe, but not even close to a successor. I have gone through old forum entries with suggestions for KSP 1. It is a gold mine for anyone who really wants to do a New KSP. Apparently the team never had a proper look at the forums. The saddest thing is, that if KSP 2 fails, there might not be a KSP 3, which could have been a proper creative successor to KSP 1.

Everything is in space...

Hahaha! Thanks for posting!!

The big question still is why these launchers are being made and why those tend not to run under linux while the game does.

> I will also add that Linux / running the game through translation layers is not officially supported by our development team. Will move this to Technical Support so discussion can continue if needed. It would be nice if some day we not only get a disclaimer but some human thing like "but they really want it to run" or similar. Well, we can always hope

> When I hold back on such items Haha! You didn't hold back at release! You made everyone expect and buy a very underperforming game at a premium price. Funny how holding back didn't come to your mind back then. But I guess getting all those 50 $ was your thing. And also interesting how this biggest point of critique is never talked about. I am still writing this game off for now. I don't think you will be able to cram in all your goals with an engine so underperformant, but I still seriously hope you can. Best of luck to the team!

*That* would be so cool. The science tree could have Gene Manipulation in it and would allow to tailor certain life forms to a body's characteristics. (Within boundaries) This would allow some new gameplay: Building huge space based telescopes / telescope arrays with solar system sized base length(!) to search for extra-kerbolar systems that contain planets as life supporting as possible and visit these systems to not only colonize but also to plant life if none is already present. You would have to transport large amounts of fitting biomass / life forms, ranging from frozen bacteria to a proper Ark, transporting large amounts of living animals and plants. Or you could (higher techlevel) send a large BioEngineering factory module and start tailoring life. I think the game should be able to support some simple animals. They would not have to be persistant/simulated. A body would have a couple of values per Biome: Number or density of each "imported" species. Those would then be placed randomly when landmass is loaded. That way they could actually even be static and would still seem to move, since they would be loaded at random locations with each landmass loading. (Moving animals would be cooler, but this would already be very cool). That sounds KSP 2.0, right?

Short version: Probably yes. At least for the stable L4 L5 points. You could put a small pretend-physics sphere into the point's locations. It would be a very simplified physics model but would allow to park ships in that location. I have been looking into the physics behind it a while ago and found a couple of interesting possibilities. If it can be done via mod is questionable, though, but worth an experiment. Basically you would "nest" two spheres in each other. The outer/larger one would behave like a very small body with very low mass. Since we don't want to have any mass center, we need the second, inner sphere, which would basically have no mass at all. Both could be calculated by the patched conics. The transition between the two spheres would be a bit janky, but since the influence would be very low anyway, it would not hurt so much. I would love to work with someone on it, I just don't have the knowledge of creating bodies in KSP, though. If someone is intereste, PM me.

Hahaha! No proper joystick support in a 2023 space and flight sim. These guys really know how to crack me up! *cough* Occasionally! *cough* Huge fan! *splutter*

But Kerbals might bring life to other bodies of water!

Warning: I need to use the word idiotic. I think the whole concept of workspaces is idiotic. Why? If you have to explain this and in that discussion several people come to completely different outcomes, as a game designer you have clearly failed. Granted, I only 'play' KSP 2 quickly after an update and so far it couldn't capture my interest/calm my frustration enough to get interested. But the workspace/vehicle name concept is completely lost on me. It is unclear how the devs want it to be used, it is totally unique to KSP 2, different from any other game (which isn't bad per se). I overwrote two vehicles in the process and it utterly baffling that they thought this to be a good idea. I like the idea of having more than one craft/assembly in place, but this is one of the worst solutions to the problem. Having a system that must be explained and is hard to understand may be OK for a version control system, where the thing is the product, but handling craft saves should be a no-brainer. Players want to build space craft, they don't want to keep thinking about the correct way to save and not overwrite other saves. Honestly: This is completely bonkers, nay, I say it again: Idiotic.

Maybe a cave or two Also: Missions on Kerbin could be retrieval of sunken sample return-capsules, meteorites and similar. Missions on other planets and moons would also be sample gathering, science base construction or at least setting up deep submersible science experiments, maybe searching for life, examining 'strange' signals. Scansat type science could be supported by plane or even ship based scanning...

Currently many people build planes, well for ... reasons. And the devs apparently like to fly them, too, based on their videos. It should be obvious, that planes on a computer scream for interesting landscapes, cool mountains, peaks etc. It should be hysterically gorgeous. Why the terrain has been flattened instead is beyond me.