dr.phees

Wasn't this a weekly thing? Are there no more community highlights?

It should also be possible to switch between / toggle CoM calculation for empty craft, fully fueled and actual (like what you have in the hangar).

I understood it as a "virtual" convoy. You drive the route, the game remembers how long it took and how much cargo was transported and it will then keep delivering that, but without actually visible vehicles. Maybe I am wrong, but sadly I don't think I am.

It is funny that the wishlist for KSP 2 is basically the same as people had for KSP 1. Of course it is longer, as it also contains the features of KSP 1.

Yes, that would be nice. Diving in Kerbin's oceans is really nice and gets actually creepy the deeper you go, just, there is nothing there... Imagine we had some underwater scenery like in Trailmakers...

In KSP 1 you could bind that to different keys. I always put wheel acceleration and steering to "ijkl". Isn't that possible in 2?

I don't think they will add it or they already would have added it to the wings, (it is simple to calculate the amount of fuel) but, hey, maybe they will. Would be nice. Considering they did not even implement a fuel type switch in their tanks - again! - I don't expect this to happen at all.

Since KSP 2 might be on the way to getting cancelled, I thought it might be good to find a backup forum to meet again if the plug is being pulled on KSP 1 and possibly its forums. With T2 you never know and it might be in the interest of them to get rid of us mouthy KSP 1 fanbois. If only to hide how good KSP 1 is compared to KSP 2. And I don't want to have to meed on Discord, which simply is annoying as hell. Any suggestions? Is there a good forum already that I have missed? Is anyone stepping up to create one? Or: Am I wrong, and there is no need. We should be able to trust them to carry this KSP 1 forum on for years to come?

I agree, there should be a UI-toggle /lock for auto-switching and a preferrence toggle in the settings.

Show me an example where a proper comment from a developer was made on a suggestion.

Actually I expect lots of new bugs, a cheap copy of KSP 1's science system, a bad science tree (probably the same as KSP 1 again). If they care, there should be a proper system like Scansat, a good science tree with a couple of starting points (a ground based route (wheels etc.), a plane based route (wings, landing gear), a rocket route. Maybe you could also select your playstyle at start (manned/unmanned). Science should not just be a 'been there' thing, maybe some quests to look for various surface rocks, so have to drive around a bit and search for stuff, maybe have a cool gadget like a spectrometer integrated to make finding weird rocks easier! Some science could also be done in various day/night scenarios, making a thermometer only fully effective when it has run a day/night cycle etc. Innovative science gameplay would be a huge thing. But, as I said, it will probably also just be a copy of KSP 1. So, I don't expect much and keep playing KSP 1 with ScanSat

It should be the other way around (that's what some real pilot assists do). SAS should control trim, user input should be added to SAS input. I don't know why the current bad behavior has been put into the game again, except that the devs seemingly not only want to build the complete same game as KSP 1 again, not going for new / extended story etc., but really don't want to touch anything physics related - 'good enough' left and right. @DEVS: If you somehow read this (we never know, because you never comment): Finally do SAS properly! I don't care for better communication anymore, just do this right.

I agree that they are not 'bad' as such, just badly implemented. And it looks stupid when happening mid-wing and at low speeds. If we could have a toggle-able part as a source for trails, that would be quite cool.

One thing: Zeros should not have the center dot. That is being used to discern zeros and Os, but in most meters there will be no letters. The center dot makes it harder to recognize and allows confusing with 8 / 6 / 9. 'Clean' zeros should be used instead. (Not as cool, but better to read :D)

Well, as long as the front does stay on...

That physics system is already there: In the seas. And in atmospheric density. It should be relatively simple to add. (I mean, there is already proof-of-concept in form of a KSP 1 mod). One point that I have not seen here is, that gas giants really earn their names. They are just that. Diving into atmospheric pressures that make floating balloons work means diving deep! If you want to ascend from that, you will have to move through a lot of atmosphere until you leave air drag behind. I think Jupiter's atmosphere's scale height is about four times that of earth. That means: If you could build a floating city in earth's atmosphere, you would have to go through 4 times as much atmosphere to gain orbit as on earth. Speaking for Kerbin/Jool that would be about the same I guess. So, four times the atmosphere to go through. And in the end we need roughly the same orbital speed as on earth. You would have to launch quite a rocket, obviously dependign depending on your floating city's height. But I am pretty sure we are talking Earth/Kerbin sea level pressures at least, so, quite a job.

SAS was basically excrementsty in KSP 1 and is again in KSP 2. Years ago I suggested a solution for proper SAS: Do SAS via the trim sliders. This would also completely eliminate the weird 'bump' when adding some manual input. If SAS used the trim, a manual input would be added to the current pitch/roll/yaw. Currently, when a manual input is detected, the SAS input is basically switched off and handed over to the manual until manual input is zero again. And that even for all axis, even if there is no input on that axis. Trim could be reset if SAS is turned off, or could even be kept (optional), so you get a stable craft when turning off SAS. In case of surface/orbit switch, SAS should have a period of ~2 seconds of soft 'crossfade'. This should do the trick in solving OP's sudden 'step' issue.

No, not really. Interstellar travel opens up the way back home but also to other planets. The story could provide a "choice". Once the technology is developed, the Kerbals can go home or simply decide to send a probe with that technology to Kerbol system and explore other systems. Depending on how KSP will handle it, you might be able to send two ships, even. Or make a quick visit at Kerbin collect resources, Kerbals, equipment and move on to somewhere else. The arrival in Kerbol system would be a great milestone. The stranded would come, bring interstellar travel and would be greeted as heroes! This approach opens up a proper reset (where necessary) of KSP, which KSP 2 currently does not deliver. Plus: A cool new star system to explore, then a nice visit home, then exploration of further systems.

I hope they will make it work, I just don't think they can.

Don't know, didn't watch it. I mean, it is quite a generic plot, but it would work as a setting for KSP 2.

They should sell it off to the community. We could all pitch in and see if we can raise their bid. Imagine some of the modders getting their hands on the code.

Why doesn't KSP 2 start in a far-away star system? Intro should show us a couple of stranded Kerbals, probably even flung there by a space kraken. Now they want to go home, making interstellar travel the huge goal of KSP 2 and: - It Pushes one big new feature of KSP 2, allows for a very simple star system at least for the early access times, it could be fleshed out for proper release. - It allows completely redesigning the parts catalogue - It allows changes on the physics engine which might break current game assets, but the small system size, small parts catalogue would allow quick turnaround. It would even allow reselecting and rewriting the physics engine one last time, but this time properly. Only when the systems are rock-solid should the artists roll in and flesh out the assets. KSP 2 is, from my point of view, being worked on just the wrong way around. It appears it is being art-driven, not tech-driven, but it is supposed (at least many forum users thing so) to be a space sandbox/vehicle builder first, a vfx-feast last. Maybe I am wrong. But in no project of mine (not a game dev) would I have set the artists to polish up every little detail before the software was as good as ready. Even in pre-releases that you run parallel to existing to-be-replaced sytems for testing you see to that the UI works and systems are working and not too ugly to use, but polishing everything up is simply not necessary in that phase and would even work against the processes, as throwing UI systems, assets etc. is harder when many hours have been spent on them. I think the community is ready for a reset - freeze up everything, reduce scope to something new (interstellar travel), work on the foundation properly, without having sacrificing expensive assets again.

Exactly that. I think it is pretty pathetic for a "reaction", though

Sad, that the team never reacts to these suggestion threads, isn't it? I mean, this was a topic in KSP 1 for a very long time. They obviously never looked at suggestions for KSP 1 before making KSP 2, but even now they are ignoring this thoroughly. "We want your input" to me would look differently...

Launchers really are a cancer to games. I struggle to understand the reasoning behind these pieces of junk software.