GoldForest

We've already seen this. They did it as a steam live stream last month. Nice to see that we have confirmation that the music is KSP 2. And this is definitely the same video we saw. The aliasing is still there.

That's not a cloud, that's a giant popcorn.

Then you will be sorely disappointed. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Cinematic trailers are just that, cinematic. They are meant to exaggerate and be a movie like experience. They are not representative of gameplay, not unless the little disclaimer pops up that says "Filmed inside the game engine." They show solar panels breaking off and shattering into a million pieces, along with truss structures. They show realistic ice formation on the LOX tanks. They show a kerbal flying by to grab on to a ladder, the kerbal actually reaching for said ladder. They show all this, yet we know none of that will happen in game. Solar panels will break, but not realistically. There may be ice, but it won't be realistic. Kerbals won't reach out for the ladder as they near it. If you hold a CINEMATIC trailer as a benchmark, then you will be disappointed. Deeply disappointed. No, no it won't. What we see from the sneak peeks, is what we get. They might improve the textures a little bit, but they will be nowhere as good as the cinematic trailer. Nothing truly it. The parts in the cinematic look 10x better than the parts in game. Why? because they're made to look pretty for the cinematic, like how you pretty a car up for a car show, or when you add photoshop to a movie to make the lighting better or the actors pop. I mean, just look at Jool in the trailer versus the Jool dive sneak peek. The trailer Jool looks way better. It is a bit of a stretch to say the game will match the trailer when we've been given evidence that Intercept's art style is not trying to mimic the trailer's art style. The game comes close, yes, don't get me wrong, but in order to get the fidelity of the art style and mechanics they used for the trailer, would take them working on it longer, and your personal computer would have to be top of the line, or worse, a gaming server to even run at playable frame rates of 30.

So, I just took a look at SteamDB.... Intercept is doing some work. There's been an update like every half hour to an hour for the past few days now (With a few breaks inbetween). They really are ramping up. They're probably finishing up the EA build so they can get it out to content creators so they can show off what the players will get at launch of EA. Which by the way is:

No min or rec specs have come out, but they said they would post more information about the release timeline in "Early February" so expect to see the specs coming out with the timeline information. I would say KSP 2's min specs are going to be a little higher than BlizzWoW's. Keep in mind, BlizzWow is a rather simple game in comparison to KSP 2. BlizzWoW does not need to calculate complicated rigid body physics, orbital rails, engine thrust, etc. KSP 2 has to do all that and more. I will be very surprised if anything less than a 6th or even maybe 7th gen CPU is the min spec. And GTX 10 series for the GPU.

Oops. Nothing but J-2 Saturn launching S0 truss. Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Not it won't. Because KSP 2 isn't technically releasing. Early Access and Release are NOT the same thing. Early Access doesn't need a lot of people. There are 218,088 members on this forum. 218K players. Let's say at minimum, 40% of them purchase EA. That's 87,200. Not bad numbers for EA. Now let's add the EA buyers from Steam that aren't forum members who like space sims. Let's say... 25K to be on the conservative size. 87,200 + 25,000 = 100K. Now let's add Epic *Barf*. Argument's sake, 15,000. 115K. 115,000 people playing KSP 2 on Early Access release. That's a lot of people for EA. Let's not forget that the content creators will be pumping out videos during every update of EA, which will drive up the numbers. And the closer to release we get, the higher those numbers will go. KSP 2 will not go unnoticed.

No. THat's EXACTLY the reason for Early Access, to bug hunt.

Early buggy product = bad = no heavy marketing Non-buggy release 1.0 product = good = heavy marketing.

They look like that sometimes IRL. This is months old, they could have probably fixed that issue. The parts weren't the focus probably when this screenshot was taken. We've only seen the water from far away, up close probably looks good. They have a set style, so it's not going to change much.

Are you going to give them a million dollars for marketing? Hmmm? No? One rumor on why they are pushing EA is because they're out of money, or running out, because Take Two is upset with Intercept and their delays. No money, means no marketing. Considering that this rumor may, and that's a big may, hold some tiny amount of water, the type of marketing they are doing is just right. Cheap and free.

Yeah, 4 years ago and the wishlisting has been steadily going up ever since, still goes up to this day. Those aren't descent, those are good, great even! It shows interest is still going up and hasn't leveled off, or even gone down. Heck, it got a boost with the EA announcement. A big boost at that.

Every video they put out, every picture they post on social media, every interview Nate Simpson has with game journalists, that is all marketing. You don't need to put out a 2-to-3-minute trailer and have it broadcasted on TV, Ad Banners, YouTube Ads, whatever, for it to be marketing. Hell, people telling their friends about KSP 2 is technically a form of marketing. They have been marketing it this whole time, just not heavily, which I think is the right way. You do not want to go heavy on marketing until you've got a more finished product. No. They really aren't. Considering most videos on Youtube barely break 100K.

I wonder if one of those points is right where the twin's SOI's meet.

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Teaser:

So, a natural figure 8 would break down. So, if you want to stay in the figure out, you'd basically have to use RCS or the engine to make the craft switch from one planet to another.

Well, we know we're getting more systems after To Be Announced. I'm sure they have a Binary star system they want to add. Maybe even a trinary star system. I know those are extremely rare, but would be nice to have. So the N-body physics won't just be for Rask and Rusk if they do add either of those. It also depends on how well the hack or fakery is. If it stands up to scrutiny, then they might use it again. If it is more pain than it's worth to expand it on to other celestial bodies, they may abandon it and leave Rask and Rusk as the only planets with semi N-body physics. And yes, I know it won't be true N-body, I just don't put "fake N-body" or "N-body hack." Hmmm. I wonder how hard it would be to get into a figure 8 orbit around the twins.

I don't think that was the only source. I think in one of his interviews Nate said the same thing.

Mods. Someone will make a financing mod.

AH, I guess they could make a fake point. I was thinking they might do something like one of those fake orbits where the two are in the same orbit, but one is slightly offset. Like the ISS and it's 'orbiting' satellite.

I'm really interested in seeing how they handle the twins spinning around each other, while being tidally locked, while also being N-bodied, while also orbiting around Deb Deb. Or was it To Be Announced?

Patched conics, except for Rask and Rusk. The twins get N-body, iirc.

That's kind of old news that everyone knew already., but nice to get reconfirmation as something might have changed to add money back in. Glad to see it's still not there though.

Hmmm. Well, I feel like exploration mode is going to be difficult, seeing as you actually have to explore and achieve milestones, from what I remember. A new player is going to fail many times starting a new game. That failure might lead to them becoming dissuaded in playing more, where as in Sandbox, you fail, no big deal. You don't gain anything, but you don't lose anything either. Yes, I know. Exploration mode is the new career mode. Focuses on exploration and milestones. At least, from what I remember hearing about it with the limited information Intercept puts out. I didn't say KSP 1's career mode will be the same. I even say in the reply you reply that it focuses heavily on exploration. As for different modes, I doubt there will be anything but two modes. Sandbox and Exploration. Nate said it himself. They got rid of science mode and career mode and are creating a new game mode with emphasis on exploration. Hmmm, didn't think about that. I guess in that respect, limitations would be nice. Perhaps a Sandbox Beginners mode? It unlocks parts over time instead of with science, so they can play but don't have to worry about unlocking or exploring.

Mmmm. Considering that career mode will put heavily emphasis on exploration, I completely disagree with your view. Newbies should play sandbox with all parts. They should learn what each part does for themselves. Build rockets, planes, rovers without constraint. Then when they're ready, then I would suggest a career/exploration mode. Because then they'll have the knowledge needed to go and explore the universe. If they jump into exploreation mode without knowing what they're doing, they're going to get frustrated, and they're going to quit, possibly never to return. So, yes, sandbox mode first, exploration mode second.