Wjolcz

Oh, yeah. I knew it was not going to work. Another pointless addition to the career mode. And I remember people praising and calling it a remedy for how bad the career mode is. All the contracts should be filtered by category like celestial body and their type, not some silly player "friendly" adjustment system. I think contract configurator already does that but it seems like it still takes the weighting into account.

So is the whole suit inflatable or is the helmet "glass" part attached to the hood somehow?

I genuinely thought this was some sort of pun connected with Boeing and the new spacesuit. Really expected the SpaceX reveal. They said it was going to be stylish and modern after all.

I too remember these and the massive FPS drop every time one of these explosions happpened.

An electric prop would definitely be nice. And I know it's annoyong and I've said it a hundred times but KSP2/Kerbal Aircraft Program would be more than a perfect opportunity to have all these things you and me want, which is from pre World War One to near future aircraft stuff (except kerbalized) + multiplayer.

Wasn't the plan to reuse each recovered stage at least 10 times or sth?

The lack of tankbutts would be pretty amazing to have. So many more possibilities!

Yep. And it felt like singleplayer game with a chat. We tried to do something creative so we performed a rendez-vous and got bored because of how many bugs and problems were involved during that one simple thing. I'd much rather have multiplayer in a form of Telemachus/Houston mod where one is the pilot and one is the mission control. And frankly, I fear it would be the only sensible and enjoyable "multiplayer" KSP could have.

Then all you want is KSP with online chat.

Something overhyped, that's for sure. It actually is about near future. I remember reading it in one of HarvesteR's blog entries, but it seems it got deleted after one of the great forum purges. He posted it long time ago. Besides, we have the RAPIER engine. It's near future.

Can't argue with that logic. Fair points and everything. You could have just said "Oh, but I want them to work on this feature. Who cares if it will be playable or not? I don't. Like it's my problem". Seriously. I feel like people request things because they feel entitled to do so for some odd reason. And I guess someone could point their finger at me and say I'm a hypocrite because I keep whining about career mode and a new kerbal flight game (which would be much more well suited for multiplayer than KSP and it's a fact and you all know it). Fair enough. The problem is though, career was meant to be implemented since the dawn of KSP and they did a really poor job and now the game is in it's "released" state. Career was meant to be a part of it since forever. Multiplayer wasn't. People requested it so many times SQUAD probably went all "Jeez, we've gotta promise them this MP thing and get other things done or they'll feel ignored and get angry, or something". And now we're being flooded with all these pseudo-solutions for time paradoxes. MP will never work in KSP. By saying that you'd rather have these paradoxes than deal with actual cooperation you only prove that there's no way to deal with this problem and you don't care much about it, so why not play some different space game with multiplayer instead, hm?

Altough I agree that the goal of the career should never be the last node of the tech tree, this is very true: IMO KSP should be about exploration, never the tech tree. Not saying having skins for parts and colony bonuses wouldn't be nice but the game needs something more than that to be engaging and keep the player playing. It's really hard to think about something that would keep you engaged in a sandbox game like KSP. In Minecraft it was the building and finding that procedurally generated underground fortress. For me though it was always more about sightseeing. I would keep going and going to find a nicer place than before and if I didn't I would create one. KSP is not procedurally generated though (maybe @tater is actually right and it should be), so the possibilites are finite. For me it should be the contracts. But maybe KSP could have some part building equipment (like Extraplanetary Launchpads) after a certain point of career is passed? 3D printing is not impossible in real life and in fact it actually seems like the future. Or maybe the development of the game should end and a new project should be considered? I don't think they can squeeze much more out of it, to be honest.

No, it's not the problem. The problem is ruining your PR by releasing the same thing except prettier and calling it a completely new game for the same price. So basically paid DLCs. Another great way of ruining your PR. Especially when mods are already there and free. Remember when Valve tried to make everyone pay for mods, or something like that? Not like I cared about it that much, but IIRC people were rather unhappy. Nope. They've already stated many times that the engine change is not happening for KSP. After seeing what they did to career mode I'm very skeptical about any DLC released by SQUAD being "in depth".

Or don't. Multiplayer for KSP is not worth it. Better create a new game built for multiplayer and interaction from the start.

I feel like that argument is kind of a moot one though. If we assume they stop working on KSP and start working on KSP2 then there will be no KSP updates so the mods [for KSP] will never break and will always be compatible with the latest version released. KSP has its problems mainly due the fact the devs weren't experienced at coding back when its first versions were being released. They would learn as they developed the game. Now if we assume KSP2 has everything fixed, is better and prettier + everything that mods already do (like the extended tree) then the risk involved is high. KSP2 would probably feel like a visually better copy of KSP. For me not buying KSP2 when I already have modded KSP is a no-brainer. Sure, it's not as pretty as its remake, has RAM and garbage accumulation problems, but it works, so why should I spend money on something that is a nicer copy of itself? It actually has the opposite result for someone who doesn't know how KSP's development history looked like. If they see a buggy game in its "finished" state AKA dead and then they see another one with the same title they will probably think "Hmm... What if this remake will be abandoned just like the previous one? It looks better but I can mod all that into KSP." Let's compare them to cars. We have car A and car B. Car A was first. It's fully functional, looks OK and has manual windows. Car B looks exactly the same as car A except its seats are more comfortable, the windows are electric and the steering wheel feels a bit nicer. The problem is you already have car A and you can replace the manual windows with electric ones for free. Now you are offered car B for the same price you bought car A. You can't sell car A. Do you buy car B? If I could exchange KSP for KSP2 without paying anything then sure, but paying the full price for pretty much the same product? Why would I? Elaborate. What possible systems and expansions could possibly be offered in KSP2 that differ from the massive library of expansions (mods) I can have for free?

Career is a mess and I'd like a kerbal aeroplane game.

The problem with this is they decided to make it SSTO, for some odd reason.

What do these two things have to do with each other?

I'm confused. Are we talking about a completely new game with kerbals or KSP remastered? Because if it's the same solar system, rockets and spaceflight then it's KSP remastered. If it's a different solar system then it's KSP Modded. The only way I see, when it comes to making a new game, is not going the same way (gameplay-wise) KSP did. They should do something new and fresh. Otherwise, it WILL BE THE SAME EXACT GAME and the dev time spent on it will be wasted and I guarantee you IT WON'T sell well. Kerbal flight sim would be the most sensible thing to do in this case.

I am not an expert, but If I had to guess the comets' orbits would be probably constantly changing each time they pass the inner system. Either that or they would also orbit the barycentre and be far away and faint because of that. The Oort cloud would probably be gone by now (because of two massive bodies orbiting each other and pulling the stuff in and out all the time).

Oh nooooo! NONONONO! I'M BECOMING TRIGGERED! Let's start with the "guidance". First of all, there is none and never was. Second of all, why lock the player in a certainprogression in the name of "guidance"? Seriously, people need stop treating the new players as some sort of dumb infants that don't know how to have fun. "Naaaaah, mate. You don't want these wheels. Grab that engine that doesn't fit any of your currently available fuel tanks instead. Trust me I've been to the Mun I know how to progress". Back on topic: progression is one thing. I agree that more freedom and paths during the research should be the way it works. However, the problem of science grind would still be there. Tech tree and science points are permanently bound together. Poor decisions were made during the creation of career mode. A new tree won't fully fix the problem no matter how many paths and branches it has.

o7

AFAIK JWST will be able to look farther than that. Not sure what exactly it'll be looking for though. The youngest stars and their composition?

The only problem with this logic is it wouldn't be "KSP 2" but "KSP Remastered". Same thing with more eye candy. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if there was some sort of "Kerbal Pack" with KSP Remastered and an actual kerbal flight sim sequel (or rather prequel) game. Just like it was with Homeworld (iirc). Otherwise it's just reselling the same product after a facelift.