regex

Eh, I'm glad to leave KSP1 behind, it's a decade old game that looked a decade old when it came out. What made it good was the novelty and the community, the game itself wasn't really much of unless you were getting inspired by other's builds while working around/through the bugs or checking out mods which all broke your save when a new version came out. I could do without the "edge" and awkward too, half of the time it felt like they were insulting my intelligence but then, I'm not one to really care for hype videos. Even with the obvious UI/UX issues KSP2 feels more polished and inviting by comparison, and the default design isn't "hide all the information because that makes you learn better" (so many "forced" choices early on). The music is miles better too.

I don't stage parachutes until the capsule slows down below 300m/s. In fact, I think my rule was 250m/s (or thereabouts) and that has been a constant since the KSP1 RealChute days through KSP1 vanilla flight recode and now into KSP2. I have had no problems with this.

I'm positive I can clear it in two but, again, I'd have to look at how the missions shake out (you can clear them with craft already in flight but I'm not 100% on the order they appear) because completing missions and getting heat shields (I play on 120% heat) is pretty crucial to getting all the science. If science experiments transfer in a reasonable manner I can just leave the first flight in orbit and rendezvous on my way back from the Mun, no need to try reentry without a heat shield. It is entirely possible to land on the Mun or Minmus, or even Eeloo if you want, using the base set of parts (electricity might be an issue but most engines have alternators) so yeah, two flights (one to get the science, one with the new heatshield to return it).

Based on my single-Kerbal mission last night (transfer craft + lander + return craft, no docking), the science seems to stay with the Kerbal automatically. No idea how it works with multiple Kerbals, but if it's just one you shouldn't worry about it.

Yeah, I might have spoken too soon, tier 1 science might be designed to be simply blown through. I got a look at the tier 2 costs and they're substantially ramped up. I'll start seeing how the missions progress through there tonight. Less than two hours tbh, far less if I keep successful craft between saves so I don't have to spend time designing. I think you can clear most of it in ... maybe three launches at a guess? Maybe two, I'd have to make a chart about how the missions shake out to really know. You want to take a Science Jr. to the Mun though. That reminds me, I need to kill Jeb and Bill. Bob already bit it and it doesn't look like he respawned, let's hope he never does.

le sigh

I mean, just don't accept them in the first place... Seems like a couple extra clicks on either side. I could go for requiring an accept for missions with autocomplete, that would work, it just seems weird that I have to come back to get a debriefing about coffee makers.

I couldn't stay away. Initial observations: 1. The missions give a ton of science and they don't autocomplete, I have to continually go to the mission control screen to do them. At least they'll complete if you accept them and then take control of a craft that can complete them in its current state. I've launched two or three rockets and have completed most of the tier 1 tech tree. Further play is needed, but the missions just might be "easy cheater mode". 2. As suspected the autostrut feature removes any and all engineering challenge. Oh well. 3. The TWR/delta-V display collapses to its initial state when I close the configuration screen. This is bad UX, it should remember my selection on the right-side bar with the little dots. 4. I tried making a "Saturn 1" kind of rocket from smaller parts and the delta-V calculator crapped itself on that stage. Apparently it doesn't like having a structural part central to a bunch of fuel tanks and engines around it. Plus the fuel calcs seem weirdly off and if you attach a small radial tank it'll give a completely different result. No fuel shown on that stage either. 5. The fonts are actually terrible. I've been trying to avoid that sort of language when addressing a dev team/community these days but I just can't with this UI, it needs a lot of work. 6. The clouds are beautiful and fluffy. I'll have to make a sandbox save and load up some of my old aircraft to check out the new terrain.

My own opinion about the release, how the systems interact, how the secrets work, game stability, all that stuff. Social media tends to amplify either end of the enthusiasm spectrum and that can "poison the well", so to speak. OTOH I doubt I'm going to stay away from discussion.

Genuinely considering completely ignoring all KSP-related media for a couple of weeks while I figure Exploration mode out for myself, but I doubt that'll happen. So I guess the first thing I'll do is ignore this forum

Zubrin's theory-crafting aside, the point still stands that you'll need an engine with much higher isp than what they've previewed for metallic hydrogen in order to really cut travel time down.

Apparently speculation by Robert Zubrin about an NSWR using 90% enriched U-235, which would achieve an isp of around 480,000. Link, source also included. Note that it requires better efficiency over the "regular" NSWR, which itself is kind of dubious.

Minor nitpick here, the metallic hydrogen engine stats they previewed aren't all that much better than "conventional" nuclear thermal engines. Something like a nuclear salt water engine would absolutely allow for near-brachistochrone transfers but that sort of drive has a six-digit aspirational isp. Metallic hydrogen is still in the lower end of four-digit range; it'll be great for utility craft but quickly outpaced by better transfer craft.

Some really cool stuff and fresh ideas, I'm looking forward to the new update. One thing that wasn't answered was whether missions autocomplete or whether they're needed to complete the tech tree. That doesn't seem to be the case given that we have discoverables but then that kind of brings up a question of just how fast one can blitz the tech tree by taking advantage of all different avenues.

The Epstein drive is a literary device, it's not even a theoretical engine. I'm fairly certain it's not going to be in KSP2 and if there are plans for it I'll consider the game an absolute failure. Real talk though, if you want to get to another solar system in a reasonable amount of time you're going to need something which has an isp which is a significant fraction of C. If you use that in-system it will likely trivialize travel but it's worth noting, again, that engines can usually only prioritize thrust or isp so you'll still need landers and utility craft, and you're probably not going to be using something like a nuclear salt water rocket for a lander either because that would constitute landing on a continuously detonating nuclear explosion. The challenge is not going to go completely away.

I don't see an issue with using interstellar capable engines in-system, no one's gatekeeping my delta-V expenditures and at some point that interstellar engine has to traverse the system it's in to get out of that system. The problem with them is generally a long acceleration time because engines that are bound to the laws of thermodynamics can pick one of high acceleration or high isp and for interstellar journeys you're going to prioritize isp, so you're wasting a lot of potential by using them in-system with short travel times. There will undoubtedly be mid-point drives with a decent balance of accel/isp because they are stepping stones to true interstellar drives; like I can't imagine you'd skip directly to an antimatter beam core engine without trying antimatter catalyzed fusion, for instance. That beam core is going to get you to the next star while the ACF drive is going to run your interplanetary shipping empire.

It is undeniable that KSP1's core game loop and general feature list was groundbreaking. Where it failed (utterly, in my mind) was leveraging that groundbreaking game loop into something more satisfying than a sandbox experience. Science mode didn't have enough incentives to send you further than Kerbin/Mun/Minmus and maybe some probes to Duna and Eve (and easy landings on Gilly and Ike) and Career mode had very little in the way of player decision-making (the random mission slot machine was an incredibly poor design) or allowing the player to define their experience, and any rewards were quickly moot due to a glut of money. Ultimately the sandbox experience, build/fly/repeat, combined with interaction from the community on challenges and mods, had to complete the simple, incomplete, and poorly integrated mechanics in order to extend gameplay beyond the incredibly shallow and boring science/career modes.

Personally, I think Intercept has their own vision of KSP's gameplay and that trying to be directly comparable with KSP1 is ultimately a losing game. KSP1 didn't really have any unified gameplay design in its larger systems and the overall experience really showed that. I'm very interested in seeing where KSP2 goes, I'm hoping for a tighter, more well-thought-out experience.

Yeah, that's always been a big worry for me, having to follow a particular path to success. KSP started as a sandbox game and IMO it should follow the sandbox format: player-set goals and methods. KSP1 didn't manage to achieve that with career mode because contract disbursement was terrible. It did to some extent with science, but having science parts unlocked through the tech tree created a situation where a certain node path was far more valuable than others. I'm hoping KSP2 can do better. If missions complete automatically then they shouldn't rely on previous missions for completion. Science collection parts should unlock in a manner that isn't dependent on picking the right tech tree path. Player goals should always take precedence. Any sort of "path" through the game should be considered guidance. Any guidance should be ignorable by setting and not nag the player.

Just to pick at this thread, we don't really know how they're going to be delivered to the player, that being whether they're random, whether they're introductory, whether they autocomplete, and so on. (Or I entirely missed the deep dive into them) What we do know is that they're entirely optional for the player to engage with and that is a big change from KSP1. I would hazard a guess from this that missions are designed as a sort of narrative, introductory path for the player to follow with incentives to complete them; they serve the simultaneous purpose of advanced tutorial, guidebook, and goals for people who need that.

3 Rovers are Hitting a Physics Glitch Every 1000m from the Location of Rover Being Loaded into the Game With Disastrous Results Fix implemented and verified I'm holding you guys to this. If I can't drive north at a hundred and ten per I'm gonna be pretty mad. Please do something about the wheel torque too, we're in dire need of some actually drivable large rovers that can climb a > 10 degree grade.

They're the scrolling portion of the altitude displays (above and below the surface and ground altitude displays).

No, the throttle is still excessively large and takes up too much space and the tapes are completely useless, and should be removed in favor of those "externally mounted" displays.

Font size and choice, everything's too big and pixelated. "Whitespace" is excessive. All the space around the navball should be removed to produce a more compact view. The throttle is ... stupid large and also takes up a bunch of empty space. Basically I'd just ask to make the whole thing more compact, it takes up way too much space. Maybe take some inspiration from mods like KER and MechJeb with their compact and configurable information windows (not the look obviously, but the layouts). Playing KSP can benefit from a ton of information and the current layout privileges empty space; tighten it up.

I am not, in any way, suggesting that the devs are going to gatekeep my delta-V expenditures. What I am saying is that I seriously hope we're not going to have certain science instruments locked in certain tech tiers because that limits the things I can do to gather good science. Reference my earlier post, which you quoted from but apparently didn't read: This goes directly against the stated desire for players to go through the tech tree in a manner that fits their playstyle, there will be optimal nodes.