GoldForest

I don't think Kerbals can pass out in game, though I've never played with G-force limits on.

There's already a thread to talk about advanced IVAs.

Yeah, but it shows how many stars you can see, and that you can see the Milky Way. OP wants nothing on his sky box for the game, which is un realistic.

I think it's a little bit pre-mature, we have no info.

I just thought of something I would really like to have. Physical fairings, and not the procedural ones like in KSP 1. The old KW type fairings where you built your own. The procedural fairings are nice since you can make custom sizes and stuff, but I would really like to see physical fairings make a come back, as they actually were shaped like actual fairings, instead of having to TRY and make a fairing look good.

True. I guess there's no harm in having it as an option .

I'm kind of against the idea, as kerbals passing out means you lose control of the space station until they wake up. And if the g-forces are that high, the station might start ripping itself apart as well if G-forces were applied in that way.

Unity is a powerful engine when the game is coded properly and uses a fairly good graphics API like DX11/12 or Vulken. Performance comes down to coding, model optimization, and several other things. As for as the gameplay footage goes, yeah, it's not that great, but again, it's pre-alpha.

The release date is March of 2020 to June of 2020, with rumors saying it will be in March because Take-Two wants KSP 2 out before their fiscal year is up.

You can do full missions in KSP 1 in IVA view already, Scott Manley did a video on this subject. But I agree, More A in the IVA please.

KSP 2 will get it's own section within the forum. The wiki might be the same way, just a section within the KSP wiki.

I know, but there's no srb or fuel tanks with built in decouplers. Maybe, but I swear I saw nothing of the sort. I'll rewatch it.

It's not black though, it's only black when you are near or seeing a light source. So like near a city or on the sun side of the moon.

Apace is not dark or void. There are bright splotches that you CAN see. This is what space looks like. Go to the desert and you'll see the same thing. This is a painting, but it is real. Look up desert night sky.

No, the galaxy does not need to go as you can see it in real life.

That, not what space looks like. You can't see the stars because the moon's light is blocking them. You should actually be able to see lots of stars. Also, that big brown thing is really in the sky. Go to the desert where there's no lights at all, you'll see the milky way.

I was rewatching the gameplay, and when they showed the boosters detach from Orion drive, I swear I didn't see or couldn't see radial detachment points, so that begs the question, will parts have multi-functionality now? Like will some engines come with a built in decouple which you can set seperate from the engine in the staging ui? Is this is so, it would be a big improvement having self detaching parts. What do you guys think?

I think it will most likely work like this mobile game I used to play called Space Agency. In it you had certain speeds at which you got captured by planet or moons SOI's. Go to fast and you shot last them, slow down just enough and you get captured. Of course, I'd imagine KSP 2's thing to be much more refined than just hit a certain speed and get captured. I'd also imagine aling shots would be super helpful, especially around Jool, but sling shot timings are hard to do, especially when planned out.

If they weren't that far along with coding, they wouldn't have pre-alpha footage with working parts already. And we dont know how far along multiplayer is. You saying they aren't far along is clearly false as they have gameplay and screen shots. They've made the entire kerbin system, plus at least one or two solar systems. They also have tons of parts, as evident from the screenshots. They are far far along. At this point it's probably just finishing up polishing the code and running bug fixes and maybe adding a few features that are missing.

I do realize that are simply separators and not decimal points. I know how version numbers work, I'm just saying that I like 1.9 to 2.0 better than 1.9 to 1.10, because then you can end up with updates in numbers that are imo ridiculous. Take Factorio for instance. They're in update 17.66. That's kind of a bit much. And I get that Factorio isnt out of beta yet, but let's take this as an example. Ksp update 1.66 doesn't really sound that good imo. Even if it never reaches 1.66.1, it just doesn't sound good in my opinion to have 1.10 or 1.11 or 1.12. I guess it's just me, but having #.#.## is better than #.##.##. But again, that's just my opinion.

Not a support part but I do agree.

Not necessarily, but okay. 1.9 to 2.0 just sounds better to me. Instead of a game going 1.9, 1.10, 1.11,..., 1.45,..., 1.99,... 1.100

Not really. 1.9 to 2.0 isn't far fetched.

We'll have to wait and see. It can go to any number they want really.

This is true, but I feel as if they will go from 1.9 to 2.0, especially with KSP's 10th Anniversary coming up soon. 10 years is bronze year? Iirc. pretty important. If KSP is still actively being developed in 2021, Squad will want to do something HUGE for KSP, and the only thing huge I see is dropping V2.0 with a massive update.