Raptor9

All I'm hearing is that we can't...trust...anybody.

This is precisely what happened. They admitted it was poorly worded and changed their language to be more explicit to avoid confusion. However, in a gesture of good faith to those that may have purchased it solely based on that misinterpreted promise (I can't imagine it was very many), they implemented the early backers free DLC thing. Not only that, they left it open until the end of the month, which was April 2013. For anybody that has been the victim of misinformation regarding this issue, here's the original dev team blog addressing the issue: https://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/47730955705/expansions-dlc-and-the-future-of-ksp Of interesting note, they mention multiplayer and colonization being potential ideas for large "Expansion Content" that are outside the scope of the original game, however sounded like really good ideas. This despite the fact that large expansions were never even planned. This just goes to show that over the span of several years of development, plans can and will often change.

I don't see any harm in throwing a message to one of the moderators if you need to start networking, provided the request is framed correctly for what you are trying to achieve. In fact @Snark is a moderator AND he was invited to conduct an interview with Star Theory recently at Pax West. That's probably a good start to "put some feelers out" to see what options could be available to you. Good luck.

That was actually on my list of things to evaluate for updating my shuttle analogue, after seeing how well Rocketology used them to implement a thrust curve for his. That would still be a nice feature to have, but the need for it may be mitigated somewhat by the ability of the new SRB's to vector their thrust. But if the 1.875m and 2.5m SRB's have TVC, they could potentially be very competitive for cheap launch vehicles akin to OmegA or Ares I. As we've discussed in the other thread, I prefer to implement career strategies that result in fewer total launches over the long term versus pinching pennies on individual launch vehicle costs. However, depending on what the stats are for these new boosters, in performance and cost, IMO there's no sense in not evaluating cost savings if the vehicles are just as capable as existing standardlized launch vehicles.

Ares I and a better shuttle analogue were the first things I thought of too when I saw those.

@Majorjim!, @septemberWaves I figured you two might find this quote particularly interesting since you both have done a lot of Constellation-inspired stuff.

Just watched this interview. Was a good watch if anybody has 20 minutes. The most interesting quotes that I heard from the interview between DasValdez and Nate Simpson ("Creative Director" for KSP2) are below. Nate Simpson mentions in the interview he started playing KSP in the 2012 timeframe with alpha version 0.15. 14:35 DasValdez (referring to the Orion drive): "If I launch that over the space center, is it a problem?" Nate Simpson: "It's a huge problem." 15:20 DasValdez (referring to Metallic Hydrogen): "It's a new resource. Do I have to go harvest it? Or can I go harvest it?" Nate Simpson: "You don't harvest...uh, elemental metallic hydrogen. You synthesize it from other collected resources."..."Resource collection is a big part of the progression in our game; and there's a lot more resources to collect."..."One of the things that colonies do is synthesize those natural resources into fuel types and other natural resources." 17:40 When Das asks about the tediousness of making a colony work, and the balancing of how much time is required to be invested, this was Nate Simpson's response: Nate Simpson: "This is a game that is principally about building, flying and crashing rockets. And the base system was built to augment that experience, not distract from that experience." 18:35 Das asks about the "orbital VAB" mechanic, on how you build a craft in space Nate Simpson: "There is a colonial VAB, that you've seen in the trailer, it's that box that is sitting as part of the colony"..."At the end of the trailer you see a vehicle land on it."..."That is a colonial VAB for terrestrial building."..."There is also an orbital VAB."..."The interface for that VAB is similar in that you have a parts palette on the side, but the only physical boundary that you are building within is that big long truss with the robot arms on it...so you have no practical size constraints" 5:10 And the most comforting statement out of the whole thing, which gives me confidence KSP2 is in good hands: Nate Simpson (talking about developer/community interaction): "This is a conversation. And it's going be a conversation; in the same way that the original Kerbal Space Program has been sort of a collaboration between Squad and the community in some ways since 2012, 2011."

Not necessarily. An example of what I meant by that was I wouldn't design a surface module with the Mobile Processing Lab or Hitchhiker laying on their side. When I have multiple crewed parts close together, I evaluate the IVA view on the launch pad before continuing the build to ensure that there isn't any sort of crazy clipped surfaces making the IVA's look weird. And I also generally try to keep the outside view unobstructed for those screenshots or just admiring the view after finishing your base or space station. Some of my rules I may bend on occasion, but requiring it to be landed in 1st person isn't a concern for me since I never do.

Having some sort of simulated L1 and L2 Lagrange points would be pretty cool indeed.

I know I already posted some questions, but there was one I was thinking of the other day. Will there be a stock set of camera tools? Where you can more easily manipulate certain views like fly-bys, moving relative cameras and such? I don't think it's necessary for gameplay, but it would be nice for those that make cinematics and such. Maybe a stretch goal after all the other good gameplay-related stuff being asked about.

1) Will we have the ability to refuel or transfer resources to craft on a planet/moon surface without the need to dock with them? Like attachable fuel hoses or some other mechanic of that nature? 2) Will we see parts inspired from existing real-world spacecraft that have yet to be featured in KSP1? Such as Soyuz, Orion (the crew vehicle, not the nuclear explosion drive ), SpaceX, gimbaling SRB's? 3) Will any new parts be based on cancelled concepts like NASA's Constellation program or on un-built proposals like Lockheed Martin's Mars Base Camp? (the "Orion" drive being a very general concept, whereas these are more specific from a stylistic standpoint) 4) Will there be any hazards to exploration, such as thick sand to trap rovers, high winds or duststorms, geysers like on Enceladus that could divert or damage spacecraft, or periodic equipment failures/maintenance? Thanks @Snark

To be clear in this thread, there has only ever been one fairing system in stock KSP, the one introduced in v1.0. That system evolved from the "potato-chip" jettison to allow the clamshell jettison, with additional features and behavior tweaked to allow for interstaging; but nevertheless there has only been one. Unless you're referring to engine shrouds or the MH DLC's structural tubes (which I consider useless anyway since they don't occlude anything inside them from aerodynamic drag). But I'm not familiar with the "old system of modular fairings" you are referring to, and I've been playing KSP since 0.13. You might be thinking of a mod; Lord knows there were plenty of fairing mods back in the day.

That right there is what I keep forgetting. It's a small but very significant distinction between an "update of KSP" and "a new KSP altogether".

Note on the trailer: Everything in that trailer is an in game asset. I really hope they were only referring to the presence of the new elements like propulsion, large tanks, etc, and not some of those old parts. I would hate to go back to some of those legacy parts like the old gray/yellow 2.5m monoprop tank, the Mk1-2 pod, or the old RE-L10 Poodle. I've been hoping that Squad can finish getting part revamps on the remainder of legacy parts like the Mainsail, Skipper, Reliant, Swivel, and a few others that are showing their age. But those four definitely. I certainly don't want to take steps backward; I'm hoping I'm just taking the quote too literally at this point.

It may sound anticlimactic, but this would be the best thing for KSP1's legacy. Any new content released into a "final update" has great potential for eternal bugs. Having said that, I'm not writing off KSP1 yet, I still have a lot to do in the game before KSP2 comes out.

I wholeheartedly believe that if anyone has the creativity and ingenuity to accomplish their goals in KSP, those skills can easily transfer over to real-life. In the example of figuring out how to pay for KSP 2, even if you don't have an official job due to age restrictions, there are other ways to generate. When I was a young teenager, I mowed lawns, did landscaping, and helped local farmers put in fences over the summer. There were times I could've easily paid for KSP 2 after one weekend of work. Of course, not everyone lives near a farm, or has neighbors with unkempt yards, and not everyone may be capable of those things due to a variety of factors. But that's where the ingenuity comes in. There are always ways to accomplish your goals, especially with the opportunities in the modern age. Just need some of that good ol' Kerbal creativeness, short of the explosions of course.

I haven't really dove into the Breaking Ground DLC too much since I'm still on a KSP hiatus. But we'll have to see. A robotic arm for station assembly is on my list of things to investigate when I get back into the game. While I'm here, I figured I should mention that based on a recent interview, it sounds like Star Theory is planning on keeping any existing part performance/stats as is when we start using their KSP 2 equivalents, as well as the original Kerbol system. So it sounds like my existing designs won't have any sort of serious impact to their behavior or performance in game if they do in fact keep existing part behaviors consistent. I find that hard to believe, but again, we'll see. I'm assuming that I will still have to rebuild from scratch any design I wish to use in KSP 2. All of this is still speculation and I could be 100% wrong by the time the game is actually released of course.

I'm not one to jump to speculation, rather than state simple hopes for future content in either KSP game. However, I will tell a cautionary tale that some may have seen first hand. In early 2012 Microsoft released a new product in their long line of Microsoft Flight Simulator games, called simply "Microsoft Flight". In contrast to the legacy MFS games, which had the entire world to fly in and a fleet of aircraft and helicopters to choose from, Flight only had (IIRC) two small prop aircraft and you could fly only around Hawaii. Additionally, in an "effort to appeal to aviation enthusiasts of all ages and skill levels", Microsoft Flight featured a "relaxed" (aka arcade) flight model compared to MFS, and the systems were rudimentary with few things to actually manage or do in the cockpit. Within about six months the product had completely flopped due to "low sales". I'm not saying something similar will happen at all, but it is a possibility; although I think it is a very remote possibility; that KSP 2 development could change some its core gameplay in such a way that the product is drastically different than KSP 1 in a negative way. On the other hand, from watching the Developer Story trailer it sounds like Star Theory, in consultation with Squad, are looking to address some of the gaps in KSP 1 gameplay that the community at large has been seeking, such as off-world construction, surface-based colonies, large-scale ship/station/base construction, and interstellar travel to other star systems. Further, the consistent theme of the Developer Story trailer is how Kerbal Space Program itself has inspired and encouraged real scientific learning and understanding. Due to this overarching and consistent message, this leads me to believe that Star Theory will not only maintain the level of scientific fidelity of KSP, but is looking to improve or expand it in KSP 2 in areas that good portions of the community have been asking for, or have turned to the most popular mods to fulfill. On a side note, to manage expectations, I would take everything in the cinematic trailer with a grain of salt. Nothing in that trailer indicates final features. Whether it's the new rover design or the fact that a lot of the ships were painted different colors like the Duna(?) spaceplane. I say all this to emphasize that I'll be jumping into KSP 2 with as little expectations as I can manage. Because let's be honest, I'm hyped as well. I have way more faith in KSP 2 turning out to be the game we are all hoping it will be than I do the new, upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator that was announced over this summer.

Let's all stop lying to ourselves and be honest about this: People want free stuff. Not because the stuff is actually "free", they just don't want to pay for it. Now that I've said that, I need to get back to the real world, and go to work to earn a paycheck so I can pay for the things I want or need.

No internet connection required for play, please. After download, installation, and any needed activation, I hope I can continue to play it if I never connect to the internet ever again. Figuratively speaking of course.

@SQUAD I'm still processing all of this, however if there is one thing I would ask for (even though I know you aren't making KSP 2, but you talk to Star Theory apparently), is that KSP 2 be available to play without an internet connection. That is one thing that has ruined a lot of games for me. I travel a lot, and when I bring my gaming laptop with me, KSP is one of the few games I can still play without an internet connection. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing playing KSP 1.8 and beyond. I salute you.

Sorry for the late reply, I don't why I didn't get notified of thread activity. Anyway, the only place the SEV Mustang is available is part of the EV-4 Hab+Lab (SEV). It comes pre-mounted on it for ease of outfitting an EV-4 for missions to Gilly. The ER-4 that @Jestersage linked above is what the SEV is based on, so if you're looking for the rover version, that would be it. The SEV 'Mustang' specifically is only for zero-G or ultra-low-G operations.

I will always maintain that whatever makes the player feel inspiration, is the right path to take. What's interesting is that you can have players that bring their KSP game to a crawl with high part counts to emulate appearance or function. Take EJ or @Azimech, they build large complex contraptions that are meant to replicate complicated functions of real life designs, and then you have others that add high part counts simply to create a very precise shape solely to replicate the appearance. I do think there are some players that box themselves unnecessarily into certain design constraints, because they feel they are supposed to. I've seen some players argue with others over minute details of a craft and whether or not it's "accurate" to it's real-life counterpart. Who cares? @Rocketology built a space shuttle that looks quite different from the real-life STS, because he felt it performs better. I've used the MEM lander can on other, non-Apollo lander designs, and I did not use it on my Apollo LEM analogue. Again, the most important thing is to design craft in whatever way makes you feel motivated to keep hitting that KSP.exe icon.

There really wasn't much deciding at all with those two. I just didn't want to waste the funds delivering the LV-1H and LV-1U one at a time in a similar fashion as the LV-1S shelter; I just decided to deliver them in a dedicated cargo rocket without any crew, with them double-stacked in the fairing. If you're asking in more general terms like the EV-2C and LV-2A or C, then it's really based on their real-life concepts and proposals for dual-manifested rockets. Sometimes, it costs less to launch a pair of spacecraft on two small rockets versus one big one, but I don't mind spending a little extra to avoid the time required to conduct two launches and a rendezvous. Not to mention depending on your proficiency, you may end up eating into your mission propellant conducting the R&D maneuvers. So it really comes down to weighing the pros and cons of single- or dual-manifesting a rocket.

Nope, it was simply a RockoMax HubMax Multi-port Connector, with 6x Rockomax Brand Adaptor 02's attached to it, and 6x Sr Docking Ports attached to those. Really simple, but turned out to be not useful; at least not with anything I wanted to build.