regex

How can I be tired of something I pay no attention to, at all, whatsoever? Those people chase trends and clicks, they're not worth my time.

Good riddance. They should get rid of all the other auto-spawn named Kerbals too.

It would make no difference. Like @Superfluous J I just show up at a planet and land, I don't plan out a spot or anything. Maybe I'll scope something neat out from orbit but where I'm going to land is the last thing on my mind while designing a mission. None of these "fog" ideas hold any interest to me and so long as they don't seek to prevent me from whacking down a maneuver node, finding an intercept, and expending some fuel, I literally don't care about them. It's pure, uninteresting fluff. Locking intercepts out or preventing expenditures of delta-V are terrible gameplay, especially for experienced players. Going interstellar will be the real "fog of game", Kerbol isn't and shouldn't be a mystery.

I endorse this service/product.

I don't think we're going to get that sort of failure (or similar stuff in airless environments) in the vanilla game. What would we replace that with if we had a fog?

What happens if I go there and just land something?

This is usually what people are talking about when they want telescope requirements, gating the solar system behind seeing it from afar. If you're just talking about the presence of telescopes in science then I have zero issues, and never have.

I am talking about gating my delta-V expenditures behind what seems to be either a "click->receive" or "put it into orbit and wait" mechanic, not gathering science.

I'd like to see something like a Kuck Mosquito: fly up to an asteroid, bag it, add a heater and pump, get the juice. Anyway, so long as I don't have to do ISRU mining with the drills in order to advance my space program, I'm good. I know people enjoy mining but it's not really my thing.

Because "click button -> receive payout" is boring while actually doing something is fun. For that matter, putting a satellite into orbit and waiting isn't what I'd call a "mini-game", something like KSP Interstellar's seismic experiment where you have to crash something into the planet after setting up the experiment was interesting. Because it serves no purpose beyond preventing the player from doing what they should be allowed to do if they have enough delta-V. If I have enough delta-V to make it to Duna and I line up my exit maneuver at the right time and place, I should absolutely be able to make that transfer. Telling me I can't because I haven't, what, looked at the planet in greater detail even though I know its orbital parameters, and should have known those orbital parameters literally hundreds of years before my space program was even conceived, is artificial gating. I'm just repeating myself at this point. Then there's nothing left to talk about.

I actually have, you're just apparently not willing to read it. Scroll back a bit.

Because mini-games don't represent blatantly artificial gating that makes zero actual sense.

Because we didn't need telescopes to actually figure out orbital mechanics some 350-ish years before we actually applied them. Because seeing something in greater clarity doesn't matter when it comes to plotting a course to it in space navigation. Because it's artificial gating that makes zero actual sense. Because it would get extremely repetitive on a second and subsequent playthrough. Science mini-games are at least fun and serve a useful purpose.

Personally, I just don't find you really engaging to deal with. Wasn't even talking about you in this case, although I do disagree with your points, but I think the entire "wobble vs. not" thing is purely personal preference and not worth getting into arguments about aside from stating said personal preference to help Intercept make a decision.

It really doesn't matter to me, but taking away any engineering challenge in favor of permanent, rigid joints that never break just sounds extremely boring and against the entire vision of this game. Without flex or breakage this game would be completely trivial.

The runway is relatively safe, I think the problem has more to do with the actual terrain. Either way, yeah, it's an absolute PITA to drive cross-country, something I was really looking forward to in this version of the game.

And if we had joints that act like they should (given that we're getting LEGOs no matter what) by simply snapping without flex (acting like a rigid body which should crumple or break), we'd have people complaining about having no idea why their craft suddenly broke up.

Good lord...

Excellent. Kind of drives home the point that I shouldn't have to use a frickin' telescope of all things to send a mission to another planet.

Try driving across Kerbin. I managed about 900km before my vehicle finally died. It was a constant process of save/load, watching a phantom ledge stop me cold, seeing my rover get thrown 20 meters into the air randomly, not to mention a complete and utter lack of torque from what looked like some very powerful wheels.

Probably around the time they rebuild the terrain system. It'd be kind of worthless to spend time doing it with that in the pipeline.

He actually did use a telescope. 350-ish years years before someone decided to try launching a rocket to Mars.

The idea that I'd have to use a telescope first before I could do a launch to Duna or Eve when Kepler had figured out the very-weird-looking-from-Earth orbit of Mars in like, 1600 AD, is downright stupid.

Kerbals have always been the star of the show in Kerbal Space Program.

I like the one on the left. The one on the right is stupid and shouldn't work. Scratch that, neither should work, but at least the one on the left actively tries not to.