Superfluous J

The roadmap is a list of stuff that is vital. It may not be comprehensive, of course, but I bet it's the top items.

You can also change which direction a part thinks is "forward" in the right click menu.

I was merely asking for clarification. I'm not sure the target country would be okay with "The Kerbal Space Program forums said it was okay."

You want to fire a cannon at another country?

And yet not one has.

Yup. You can even do it "legit" by putting that probe core between 2 docking ports, and then when you dock your (lander + probe) to the orbiter, you undock so orbiter+probe come home leaving the lander in orbit. One more trick, undock on landing BEFORE recovering, and then recover both vessels separately. That way, you'll get science for a vessel that orbited AND science for a vessel that landed.

From what I can tell, no. You need to have at least one command part (probe core, command module, cockpit) that was on a vessel that was landed on the Mun, recovered from landed at Kerbin, to get this science. Science doesn't count. Kerbals don't count. the science CONTAINER doesn't count. It must be a command part. If you're lucky, you brought a probe core to the surface and you can EVA Construct it onto your lander. If not, you're either having a fun ride home or you're getting that science on the next mission.

Perhaps a link to some mention of this person (Kerbal?) would help us know what you are talking about. Because I for one have no idea what you're talking about.

KSP2 has EVA construction? I don't own it (yet) but I don't recall seeing that anywhere.

I find it funny that people who think they've been lied to by the entire dev team for the past 4 years still want communication from the dev team, as if you'd believe anything at all they said.

I'm not a moderator (and this isn't a question) but my gut's telling me wikia is doing that to save on bandwidth. I can't imagine the KSP forums software is deciding to shrink down just wikia images.

It is DEFINITELY a niche game - at least the original version was. You have to enjoy exploring for the sake of exploring without any other reward. You have to enjoy the gameplay loop of arrive at system, go from planet to planet that are "unique" but really not that different from each other or any other planets you found, scan "unique" animals and plants that really aren't any different form each other or any other animals and plants you've seen, then visit the local space station for some contracts, fuel, trade goods, or whatnot, then move on to the next system to do it all again. I found it quite chill and enjoyable for about 100 hours or so, so found it well worth the cost. I however felt I'd gotten everything out if it I wanted and never really felt the urge to go back. These days you can also build a huge base and design a big portion of the interior space of a huge cruiser ship (using mostly the same tools as base building), and farm and bla bla bla, but none of that interested me all that much.

Maybe I will. The last time I played they had added power requirements to bases and that just made them worse Nice to know you're not forced to make them anymore.

Agreed. I feel sometimes like I'm the only one who thought the release build of NMS was the best version. Bug fixes aside, very little that's been added over the years has made me happier with the game.

We won't. Any guess, even by the developers, would be wildly inaccurate. Because giving rough and broad guesses at release dates has gone so well in the past?

My crystal ball doesn't work as well as yours, it seems. Or I've been bitten enough more times than you that I'm quite a bit less sure than you are. Personally I don't care that much about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of $50 is a nice dinner out. Actually more like 65% of a nice dinner out. I'm just not going to buy something I won't play, no matter who says how much better it'll be in some far off nebulous future. When that future comes I'll be right there. I expect it to happen when Science drops but who knows. I expected it to happen when the game dropped at all and it didn't.

As someone who tried to shoehorn that exact thing into KSP1 with a mod made to my skill level (poor to non-existent) this sounds great to me.

When you need to go from development to public builds, you MUST make sure ALL added code doesn't have ANY problems with ANY other code, old and new. This task takes about as much time and effort EACH time you do it, no matter how often you do it. Maybe it takes a day. Maybe it takes 2 days. I don't know I'm not working on the game and no one who is would dare state here how much time it takes. If it takes a day, and they release a build every week, you just cut productivity 20%. If they release once a month, it "only" hurts productivity 5%. If you rush it, you get stuff like the recent maneuver node dV limit addition.

2 minutes later...

That was 7 years ago I sadly don't recall the details, other than the config I used back then stopped working with an update. So even if I did know where to find it, it probably wouldn't work now.

I'm not knowledgable enough to partake in this whole discussion, but I want everybody to know 2 things: I am thoroughly enjoying reading about it. You should all be thankful that I didn't make a single John Travolta/Olivia Newton John/Michelle Pfeiffer joke here.

Reminds me of Manny Both Hanz

When Luke told Yoda he wasn't afraid, why did Yoda say "You will be" and not, "Be, you will"?

The ONLY thing I didn't like about the Procedural Wings mod for KSP1 was that there wasn't a hud-style interface like how the in-game gizmos worked for translation and rotation. Why should I have to use a gui window to resize the wing when it could instead be designed to have arrows in the "world" of the VAB to click and drag? The only use for a gui would be to enter exact numbers for things. I was a bit disheartened when I saw that the GUI for KSP2 pretty much mimicked that UI idea. That said (and without having touched wings (or anything else) in KSP2, my vote would also have been a resounding NO. Useless redundant parts (and the time spent making and balancing them) should not be added to the game.

I second (or fiftheenth) the idea of maneuver nodes being separate from maneuver planning. I'd love to be able to set up a detailed plan of my mission, node after node after node that aren't actual maneuver nodes but work pretty much the same as they do, and then be able to have that plan up in map mode as I'm making the maneuver nodes that I'm actually going to execute. I still think limiting the node to available dV shouldn't be a thing, unless you are 100% sure in every instance that the dV your game calculated is the actual dV of the craft. And maybe not even then.