dr.phees

Maybe they are just trying to write a great "turn-around" story as a huge PR stunt? Having a great game ready, releasing a bad, years old pretend-alpha, then release, step-by-step, one old dev build after the other until the actual, already ready game is released. This does not make very much sense, but, who knows, maybe they are just leaning back in their deck chairs, downing one cocktail after the other, giggling about how no one gets it...

The con trails look cool for a moment, but turn into just annoying the moment you realize they are always there. My suggestion: Turn them off, fix them if needed and only activate them if they really do anything even close to reality. Easier alternatives: - Allow the player to activate con trails per part. I mean, I am fine if finding logical places for con trails is too hard for the game logic. I can to that myself. And if so, throw in a "sensitivity" slider for me to control how easily they should appear. - Or add a tiny "con-trail" part, that I can place just like a sticker, visible in the VAB, invisible outside, but creating con trails as defined in its part settings. Be honest to yourself: The current ones are just badly done.

Quoting correctly isn't your thing, right? Try to find out who posted what and only then comment on it.

> Why ignore them completely and develop a game with a narrow-minded intention to just fit the playstyle of the developers? > all we see are their "everything is fine, these are not the droids you are looking for"-PR statements* Sadly, this characterizes pretty much all I get from KSP 2, currently. I still very much doubt this will come even close to KSP 1 with mods, which a KSP successor clearly should. The lack of interaction and lack of acknowledgement of the serious flaws in KPS 2 are a big red flag.

I downloaded the .2. version, built a plane and started. I wanted to land, lowered the gear, was to fast, raised the gear, approached again, lowered the gear, landed. Then I took off again, raised the gear, flew a round, lowered the gear and watched both wheel nacelles simultaneously drop from the plane. I ditched the plane in the water successfully, but decided that it was not usual that the gear fell off. I tried it again, and hoped the gear wouldn't fall off, and it didn't for two cycles as above, but then after the third it fell off again! The gear was simply attached to the side in mirror mode and then turned by 90 degrees, as it is quite common to do for a plane. Guess I will give it another shot in .3.

That would indeed be very helpful. And cool!

It was a suggestion from old KSP 1 days as well: A training facility where you can set up different scenarios: On-surface training on the various bodies, zero-g etc to test your craft. The idea was also bound to a ScanSat-like exploration feature: You could only rough-estimate the scenario if you didn't have data collected on the body you were setting up in the facility, making exploration and visiting the bodies much more necessary. The idea was to reflect it by having no or only very pixelated surface features and more and more high-rez surroundings the more you explored that body.

For starters, the Dv and TWR information needs to be sufficiently reliable for this to be if any use, which it currently isn't. Also: I might want to drop something before a stage has burned out. KSP is a game that allows all kinds of things, especially not-traditional rocket designs.

Maybe just "a spendid example of a very absurd idea"?

The idea of having the node at the start of the burn is, in many cases not very helpful, though. If the game does not understand my rocket (unusual/on the fly staging for example, or something happenstm to it), I cannot properly set up nodes. Why would anyone think that was a good idea? At least let me decide if I want to set a node for burn time start or as a classic, 'instantaneous' node. I understand that long burns should be calculateable in KSP 2, but it does not make sense to treat all the burns like that. Planning is much easier if you can set up the node like you want it. Best version would be to allow me to toggle the node back and forth between both modes. It would be nice if the predicted start and end of the burn could be visually presented, though. An example: Color the trajectory before and after the node red or yellow to indicate burn time visually. Now that would be cool.

I think in KSP you could set the thrust of SRBs. I don't remember if it was possible for sepratrons...

This is again an issue that was solved in KSP 1 already. It sometimes still happens in 1.12, but only very rarely.

There were a couple of lovely suggestions back in the KSP 1 days. My favourite: Make bodies that have not been visited low res. And I mean really low res, like a very roughly textured, visibly pixelized, coloured blob. You can send probes there and do stuff, but only when you send proper scanners or even small cameras there, will you get a progressively better view, scansat style. If you send manned vehicles, you will get better visuals, but only as long as there are Kerbals there, it will get worse again when they leave. Then you will want to get elevation data as well, then biome scans, resource scans, possibly temperature scans, you name it. This will give you proper space exploration vibes. And finally a very good reason to visit all bodies, even several times. [Edit: ScanSat has a nice export function for the maps. That would also be very cool to have in KSP 2. I would even imagine one computer generated info-graphics poster pdf per body or the whole system, which will be updated when new data is available, including biome names, a small temperature map etc. A bit like this, but with more focus on the scanned map data: Man, that would be a cool feature.] I think the dev team did not do a very important thing: Go through the old forum entries for good ideas. There is real gold in there and somehow all the good things have not been seen...

They are making a game that appeals to the masses, not to hardcore space nerds. I seriously doubt at this point that continuously repeated statement, that they were all KSP players. Sure, they might play it, but in a very beginner way, not really doing the weird stunts, that KSP 1-players are famous for. The time they put into the tutorials for a game, that is ultimately in alpha state shows it: They are not expecting to change any basic functionality or their tutorials will have to be redone again and again. The current thing is what we get with a 'multiplayer experience' bolted on and a very simplified base building, probably with large premade parts that are basically physics-less. I also have serious doubts about the interstellar ships: Will we really be able to fly them or will we get a nice animation, showing a departure and an arrival, making those things basically static/star orbiting stations? Mac and Linux ports will not be available at any point - adding that at a late stage will cause so many issues from early decisions that the small audiences will be a good excuse not to provide them. Somehow I still am not convinced this game is really targeting KSP 1 players as an audience. With every single chance I give KSP 2, I am again and again going back to 1.12. The new try feels so far off that I have huge doubts it can be made better than its predecessor, which absolutely shines with a couple of mods.

I feel the same, but let's hope hard

Definitely needs one.

And hopefully umlauts etc. will be allowed.

That instant scan was a proper disappointment in KSP 1. Especially with ScanSat out, which simply does it right. I hope KSP 2 will at some point do it right, too...

Storms will probably only result in heavy vehicles slowly creeping around again. I would like some stability and proper wheel physics first, but am currently giving up on that hope.

That was a really bad issue in KSP 1 and I thought every KSP player was sufficiently annoyed by it. I really wonder what the dev team means when they say they all played KSP 1. Did they? What did they do? Fly small planes?

So true, completely bonkers.

We simply need Scansat. I hope they will implement that without relying on a mod. Those dense clouds make it necessary in-game, anyway.

Sadly, I have to agree.

Agree. Limiting the plan is dumb. Very stupid and dumb.

Maybe even visitable without the game itself? It would be so cool to show off dioramas to friends who don't own KSP, maybe even on a website or a free KSP diorama viewer. You could have a certain amount of spatial volume exported into the diorama file, possibly even with loop-animation of thrusters. The graphics style could even be a bit simplified to reduce memory impact. That would be so cool. Having dioramas of my first Mun landing, my biggest space station, my first docking, my first really, really bad crash ... To say it again: That would be so cool.