GoldForest

WII U was an outlier, I mean, it sucked so badly that Nintendo broke their own timeline and came out with Switch early. As for grinding out the Switch, oh, they are going to ride that train until it derails. I don't think we'll see a Switch 2/Pro until 2025, minimum. And that might just be the announcement.

That assumes the mothership will enter orbit instead of just flyby dropping the colony modules, which would be way faster than entering orbit. The orbital colonies could be launched from a landed colony, yes, but it would be much faster if the mothership just flyby dropped that as well. Both modules would aerobrake, just the orbital module would brake less than the landed colony.

So, turn off V-sync?

"Liquid fuel engine" could be literal, meaning it takes liquid fuel instead of solid fuel or ionizing fuel like Xenon engines, or plasma, etc. IMO, that engine being called "Liquid Fuel Engine" is the same as calling the RS-25 or RS-68 Liquid Fuel Engines. It's not wrong, nor is it misleading. And yes, metallic hydrogen has been confirmed. Several times. Never once have I heard Nate or the other's mention that the metallic hydrogen will run off regular hydrogen but have MH properties. And honestly, if they did do that, it would be kind of crappy imo. They'd literally be making another LV-N situation again, which I'm fairly certain they do not want. I feel we're going to get tons of more fuels. Well, maybe not a ton, but definitely more than the grab bag that we got in KSP 1. I think we will see Methane, LOX, He-3, H2, H3, Fission/Fusion pellets, Hydrogen, metallic hydrogen. If we don't, I feel like it would hurt KSP 2 if the only new fuel they added was hydrogen and nukes. KSP 2 is supposed to expand on KSP 1, if they don't expand the fuels, I would say they failed in one of their goals. To teach about space and space science. Yes, the educational aspect might be a low priority, but they have mentioned several times they'd like to teach people about interstellar travel, about what it takes to colonize other planets. With that in mind, they'd have to expand the fuel roster to be more genuine and fleshed out.

Well, KSP 2 is supposed to expand upon and fix a lot of problems in KSP 1, while still retaining that fun, and learning, experience. The fuel system needs an overhaul, let's be honest. The base fuel system in KSP 1 is... basic to say the least. That's why most mods use CRP or integrate their own fuels, for better expandability. And since Nate confirmed there are several new fuels, one of which being Hydrogen, I have no doubt they wouldn't go with other fuel types or even more exotic fuels, like H2, H3 and He-3. Putting H2, H3 and He-3 all together as simply 'fusion fuel' is going to lead to people griping about it, just like how they gripe about LV-N using Liquid Fuel. KSP 2 also serves to add more 'learning' aspect to the game. Can't really teach people about fission and fusion fuels without having said fuels present.

I feel like we're going to see tons of new fuels. It's already been confirmed that Hydrogen and Metallic Hydrogen are in game. I wouldn't be surprised if Methane makes an appearance. Heck, Liquid Fuel might be changed to Kerosene. I wouldn't be surprised if it was. And then you have the possibility of He-3 which will more than likely be in game, along with H-2 and H-3, to power direct fusion drives. Then you have pellets for the Daedalus engine. Yeah, I think we're getting a whole overhaul to the fuel system in KSP 2, and a ton of more fuels than we think.

Config files would be needed regardless of LUA or Module implementation.

I always thought of it as Kerosene and that the LV-N was just an oddball/outlier because limitations/laziness. Kerosene makes the most sense since both rockets and planes use it.

Yep

Rescale 2.5x + sigma

2.5x and I used Agena to slow down to a point that Ranger can land. Then I tipped it over, and released the ball. Thanks btw!

Here's Ranger family! Had a few hiccups. You'll notice a few of the images don't like up. I had to launch two of the rangers again due to... er... "Guidance problems" (Namely Ranger 3 saying it could survive 3400 m/s, hits the Mun at around 300 m/s and goes poof...) Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Ranger I: And yes, I accidentally left the hud on for the last image... Ranger 3: Ranger 6: Ranger lander:

Well, they might just do that. PS5 and XBSX both have DMA. Of course, that matters little because... well, the CPU and GPU are practically one in the same... so... yeah... AMD needs a Ryzen 5000 (Select 3000) and Radeon 6000 or higher models for DMA to work. Of course, they still need the CPU and GPU to talk, but their "Smart Access Memory" will increase performance by allow the CPU to talk to the GPU using a full PCIe bandwidth, instead of talking to one memory module at a time. NVIDIA has DMA, but it looks like it might be just for their server clients atm. No Geforce implementation that I can find. So, unless you're rocking the latest AMD CPUs and GPUs, you're SOL on the PC platform.

@KerikBalm Good lord... Yeah, that's a mess and a half if I've seen one. I think FAR calculates the physical wing, and not the attachment, so no need to worry about it being offset. Also, I forgot to add a word to my first post. I meant to say,

You mean you are not going to attach procedural wings to procedural wings to procedural wings? Tbh, the limit for the wings looks quite small. Of course, that could have just been a medium wing we saw when they were showing off the procedural wings. But if we don't have any airline sized procedural wings, I picture people still stacking wings on wings. Not to the extent of KSP 1, but it will still happen for sure.

No, but you're always going to make course corrections. Unless you're a maniac who just likes to throw caution to the wind.

Well, you're not going to aim your craft from that far away. You'll get into the target's SOI before making a course correction, so you do end up where you want.

@K^2 I don't think it's off topic at all. I mean, the thread is about KSP 2 requirements which means hardware. Anyway, to reply to your post: I can't really argue with you there. NVMe is the way of the future and devs might have to support it for consoles, but PCs still use HDDs and devs have to take that into account as well. Since KSP 2 is a PC game first with consoles, while not an afterthought, are definitely a secondary concern. Intercept stated as much. With PC being the main focus (or possibly their only focus atm), they would have to keep HDDs in mind. Most 'mid-teir' gaming machines are budget-oriented systems which go for a very small SSD for the OS and a large HDD for game storage. They want to improve performance on 'mid-teir' gaming machines, which kind of nictitates a small focus on hard drive performance. Of course, this can be done in optimization, which it most certainly will be, but I doubt we'll see an NVMe SSD requirement on the Steam game page.

For Jool, there's an easy solution to using an interstellar craft. Put the interstellar craft into a middle or high orbit, and then launch a small moon hopping SSTO with MH engines. No need to lug the giant interstellar craft around. Also, you could detach the SSTO while still enroute to Jool. The SSTO goes off to the planets early while the interstellar craft is still getting into orbit. Aerobraking the SSTO will be of paramount at those speeds though, since you'll be coming into Jool at basically Kerbol escape velocity almost. So maybe a slight braking maneuver in Jool's upper atmo might be needed. But yeah, we are going to see some wild times. I fully expect under a year in game time trips.

Sorry, I meant HDD won't be phased out anytime soon. Everyone relies on HDDs, even today. I will admit they are getting used less and less in the consumer market and more in the enterprise market, but they are still used by consumers. NVMe M.2s won't be mainstream for another few years. Like I said, they're still fairly new. They won't be the standard for a while. If Intercept Games is using anything to test KSP 2 on it's HDDs and/or Sata SSDs. And tbf, storage drives are not too much of a factor when it comes to testing I feel. Not today at least. Sure they might test load times to make sure they're within expected results, but really, people use a whole host of storage options, some of which the devs won't think of. Something like booting the game off a USB 2.0 Thumb Drive. Ridiculous yes, but I have heard of people storing their game libraries on Thumb Drives. Then you have portable HDDs and SSDs that use USB 2.0/3.0 interfaces. You have PCIe SSDs, PCIe M.2s, SATA SSD, SATA M.2, USB thumb sticks, USB external drives (Both HDD and SSD), etc. There's no way to account for all of them in development in a realistic manner, so really, HDD is the best way to test performance. A middle ground between SSD and USB drives. At least imo. HDDs today have far better performance than HDDs of the 90s or even 2000s.

I doubt we'll see HDD be phased out of development, purely because no one goes full SSD build. People still use HDDs for bulk storage. You can get an 8 or even 10 TB hard drive for the price of a 1 to 2 TB SSD. M.2s are nice, but if you're not using PCI-E NVMe, the performance difference of a M.2 Sata vs Sata 6 gb is neglible at best, and that's what most people today are probably using are either m.2 sata or 2.5 sata ssd. NVMe M.2s are still quite new, so I don't see a LOT of people having them. Even then, PCIe M.2s makes your GPU 16X slot run at 8x speed. Yes, its been proven that 16x vs 8x isn't that big of a performance hit, but some people would still consider not using that PCIe m.2 slot to get those frames that 16x provides.

It's been confirmed that the planets use a load in load out system, meaning that if they aren't on screen, they will unload, or at least the part that isn't 'seen' by the player. From what I understand. And Consoles are taking a back seat to development. PC development is coming first for KSP 2. It's been confirmed that consoles won't release at 1.0 and instead will be later down the line, so a focus on SSDs is probably not in the workflow, at least not like you're saying. Also, PS4 and XB1 have been dropped. PS5 and XBSX are the platforms that going to be programmed for, after PC is done and dusted. The team has also expressed a focus on 'improving performance on current AND older machines' so I think they have hard drives in mind.

It was confirmed that modding could use Lua or bypass it, which I feel most mods will choose to bypass since Lua can be slower in some use cases. If it is slower, which I've heard it is, I doubt modders will want to increase an already long load time for the sake of "portability".

Lua isn't an acronym. It's the actual name of the programming code. And Lua is basically a middle man coding system, from what I understand. It also slower than directly talking to the game from what I understand as well.

They also said the LUA system was also optional and can be completely bypassed if you want to use the direct/old method.