GoldForest

It's because the Devs of KSP promised early adopters that bought the game before a certain date that DLC for KSP would be free, iirc. Now people are taking that logic and applying it to KSP 2, which isn't an update or DLC, so the concept doesn't apply, but some people think it does for some reason. If you go through the forums, you'll find a handful of threads like this, especially around the time of KSP2 reveal trailer back in 2019/2020. Well, I'm not expecting it, but im thinking that some parts will becone base game parts. At least I'm hoping. Releasing KSP 1 DLC as KSP 2 DLC will be kind of messed up imo.

I suspect the KSP1 DLCs are already in the KSP2 base game, no dlc needed.

Ah, I might have misunderstood then. Yeah, that is a problem. No, but you can take it off stores and make it so no one can buy it anymore, which is a crap move. Most devs leave old versions of games on store fronts. Commandoes, Civilization, etc, all the old games can be pretty much found either on Steam or GOG. I don't think Blizzard is the problem. I think it's their parent company, Activision that are the 'greedy ass.' It's like EA with it's children companies. They either do what EA says or end up shut down. Look at Maxis.

KSP 1 is for all terms and purposes, a 'done' game. It will see little to no updates, besides security ones, and maybe ones to the launcher getting removed or improved. All focus is on KSP 2 right now. Once KSP 2 comes out, KSP 1 will slowly, but surely die. What happened with Overwatch, happens to all games. The old one gets abandoned, and the new one gets full favor/focus. But KSP 1 had a whole 10+ years of development. That's a long time for a game, and half of it was in early access. KSP has had its run, and it was a good one. Edit: I should clarify, that KSP 1 is done in a development standpoint. The community very well might keep it alive. Depends on how KSP 2. If KSP 2 is awesome, the community will migrate. If KSP 2 sucks, the community will stay with KSP 1 until KSP 2 is either made awesome, or modders have fixed everything wrong people have with KSP 2.

Even as spin off games, they don't work. None of the ideas you mentioned, safe for maybe a city builder, is in thr spirit of KSP.

I doubt we will ever see Kerbal Warfare Program. The devs are not about warfare, they are about peaceful space exploration. And I honestly do not want to see a KWP outside of mods. And tbh, Kerbals are too stupid to wage war imo. It just doesn't make sense. That's like saying you want to add FPS styled gameplay to the Sims. It just doesn't work. As for a City Skylines/Sim City/ Civilization style KSP colony building game, I can see that going well, if done right, and I do mean done just right. Taking a game and turning into a different genre is very hard, because now you have to redesign the core aspects of the game, while trying to stay true to the nature of the game. I can't think of any particular game off the top of my head, but generally it doesn't go well. The one game I can think of that went well enough was Halo Wars, taking an FPS and turning into an RTS. With KSP, turning into a civilization game MIGHT work, and that's a BIG 'might'. Anything else, you're asking for disaster.

All of that should stay solely in modding territory. KSP is about space, not warfare or city building or even racing. No doubt, mods will make all that possible in the main game, so there's no need for spin-offs. Realism: Most players don't really want realism. They want a challenge yes, hence why the most popular resize is 2.5/2.7. Warfare: Kerbal SPACE program. 'Nuff said. Roleplay: Can be done in main game, with mods adding first person kerbal mode. Colony / city building: That's the whole point of KSP 2, well one of. If you want something more like city skylines/sim city, then maybe I can see a spin-off game being needed for that, but KSP 2 is basically adding city building into the game with colonies.

So, I've decided I'm going to launch every probe offered in BDB, going down the list on Friznit's wiki guide. I plan to do each probe family at least once a week, but it might stretch to one family every two weeks. First up, Explorer Family. Note: Same rocket launches are not shown. I.e. Juno 2 launches are only shown once during Explorer 7's launch. Later Explorer launches do not showcase the launch. The full album for all the pictures can be found here: Imgur: The magic of the Internet Explorer 1: Explorer Beacon I: Explorer 7: Explorer 8: Explorer S46: Explorer 10: Explorer 11: Explorer 18/IMP A: Explorer 22: Explorer 33/IMP D/AIMP 1: Explorer 38/ RAE A: Explorer 48/RAE B: Next up, Transit family. And on that note, I'd like to say that I have a newfound hatred for Baby Sergeant and Scout... seriously, SRB only rockets are hard to fly, especially Scout! Not looking forward to these launches...

It would be much easier to launch an interstellar mission from around Jool/Laythe anyway, considering that Daedalus will probably use H2 or H3 as fuel. So a colony on/around Laythe/Jool will be necessary. Oh, I wonder if we could do floating colonies on Jool. They've shown that we can dive into Jool with the Jool flyby mission.

It's there. It doesn't come up under Leo for some reason. Type "Augustus" and you should find it. Or you can type "gemini".

@Rutabaga22 I think this should be the only limiting factor. No arbitrary limit because reasons, at least in single player. MO could get a limit to make fps and such more manageable for everyone. Addressing the physics limit tho, this can easily be overcome. Build out in a pyramid shape, or add tons of struts. At higher heights, engines or even RCS could be used to balance the tower and keep it stable. It would have to be mods, as iirc, Nate has said they are not looking into space elevators or space bridges. I think he has said that we can build a structure out as horizontal as we want, so unofficially, we could build a bridge that stretches out to space, but there's no dedicated parts for it. Space elevators and spin launch loops will be modding territory no doubt. Though, I don't doubt there are some Ace Combat 7 fans in the forums who will make a Kerbal Konstruct version of their space elevator and release it as a mod.

I've been pondering for a little bit about colonies. Will there be limits on the size of them? Or could be theoretically build as high or wide as we want them to? I imagine the only limitations, if there are any, will be the good ole wobble joint and materials. Additionally, life support if life support is added. If we're able to build as crazy as we want... Space Elevator from Duna's surface anyone? Also, who needs an orbital construction dock when you can just build a space elevator, put a VAB and Launchpad at the top, then launch from that? Smh, Orbital Construction is obsolete now. /joking

Huh, so it does. I was looking at the config in extras and it didn't mention any gemini parts. Well, then I would like to switch the request to the Block III/IV Service Module for Apollo. Just checked, neither have fuel cells. Not even mono prop fuel cells. I realize that they might be meant to run off batteries, (Solar panels for the Blk V ofc), but a fuel cell for long duration free flying missions would be good.

Are you talking about the automated drone Gemini or the Big G cargo parts? Both are still there. @Rodger Though, the Augustus drone pod doesn't show up with the Leo tag. Also, could you look into fixing the Fuel Cells patch in extras? The one that adds hydrogen and oxygen to the pods so they don't waste mono for fuel cells. Edit, nvm, they seem to be working again. In that case, could be get hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells added to Gemini?

They are still there. Type "Leo" in the search, should bring the parts up.

Ah, is it using the shortened S-II?

@Beccab Where did you get the station parts? And I'm going to guess they're tweakscaled?

Well, we know for sure that there are 4 landing pads for rocket to land on, so landing legs and airbrakes/grid fins should be in game. We're already see the new giant landing legs. If they are putting reusability in the game, then they probably are putting in some form of FMRS system, or at least making the despawn range a lot longer.

Okay, so I just realized something, and instead of starting a new thread, I'm just going to add it on to this one since it is pretty much on topic. So, I just realized that we don't know anything about communications technology. Obvious we'll need new tech, but what are they going to give us? What's possible in the 'near future' and isn't 'magic'? Daedalus was supposedly going to act as a laser transmission antenna when not in use for propulsion, or something to the effect, don't remember the exact details. MEV for KSP 1 mimics this by giving the Daedalus engine comms capability. I'm hoping that KSP 2 will mimic this as well, allowing for lightspeed transmission. Other than that, what other possible methods will we see from Intercept Games? Or is optical communication the best that can be done outside of wormholes, "subspace" and the like? If optical is the best, I'm assuming we'll see different levels of optical communication dishes?

Yes, but if LS is added, I don't think it should cause death. Also, there are no IRL interstellar rescue missions. You could totally do an interstellar rescue mission. Hell, people do Mun rescue missions all the time, and IRL moon rescues are near impossible.

I stand by what I said. It's more rewarding to rescue, then to lose, an entire crew. And that image does not compare to sending a spacecraft to rescue another one. That image, they lost trucks, and rescue for the driver in the cab was literally feet away should something go wrong like getting stuck in the cabin. In KSP 2, rescue could be literally lightyears away, and no one will be able to rescue them within seconds.

There's no rescue mission if the Kerbals are dead. Death is more punishing because, you don't get to have a reward. It's just, "Sorry, try again." If the Kerbals hibernated, then you could launch a rescue mission. Yes, it's probably just as punishing, but there's a reward at the end, unlike death. A sense of accomplishment when you do rescue those Kerbals, so the punishment is worth it.

KSP 1 can already bring craft files from other saves into the one you're working on, and I imagine KSP 2 will do the same thing. And IIRC, the devs did confirm that your workspace will remain unchanged when you load in a new craft, so you can load up multiple craft. As for versioning, again, too much space for such a small feature. The only way I see this being a thing is cloud saves to either steam or a dedicated Intercept server. I understand that versioning has some pros, but they are so little in comparison to the cons, like space. I think the best solution to 1 and 2 is just make separate saves yourself. Jool Moon Lander 1, 2, 3, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Alternatively, if we put a hard limit on craft versioning, then it wouldn't be a problem. Say, 5 versions or so.

I disagree. I think killing the Kerbals is more punishing, because then you have to start the mission all over again, and you lose like 10 to 100 kerbals in the process. If you put them into hibernation, the player will be able to rescue them, saving them from having to launch a whole other craft for the same mission. Both are learning experiences either way, but I feel rescue missions have even MORE to teach than simply, "Oh well, your kerbals are all dead, oh well. Learn from your mistakes. Add more life support." With a rescue mission, not only will they have to carry life support for the ship that's stranded, but they also have to take life support for the rescuers, assuming they send a manned craft and not a drone. If they use a drone to deliver the life support supplies, then it still teaches them a valuable lesson, because they are still going to need to learn how to rendezvous with a craft, that is possibly around Kerbol or on an interstellar trajectory. If they are on an interstellar trajectory, they have to now make a craft that can catch up to the ship BEFORE it reaches its destination, otherwise, the kerbals are doomed to float around space endlessly now.

I think the folder system works just fine, if you want to make iterative designs, just save them the craft file as "Jool Spaceplane 1.0", "Jool Spaceplane 1.1", "Jool Spaceplane 1.2 (Science focus)" Though, I will admit that the save system could be improved. It lags out badly once you get past 100 craft or so. Again, just make separate saves of the same craft. 1.0, 1.1. 1.2, 1.1 science, 1.1 cargo, etc. Besides, some people make 100s of design changes to a single craft, and saving ALL those files is going to use up space. Better to just name the craft 1.#, overwrite the save with any future changes, and if you want to go back to a certain look, just remake the plane how you want. No need to save unneccsarily large number of versions which most will never be used again. Why keep an obsolete version of a craft for a mission? If you add new science modules to a spaceplane, why go back to the version with the old modules? Makes no sense. Just overwrite your craft save and be done with it. If you want the old science back on the plane, put it there. No need to use up space. I don't understand this one. Do you want it to change craft that are in flight, or simple change the craft in multiple save locations? Either, way, that's not a good idea. I mean, what if you don't want your Jool mission craft changed because you saved over your Duna craft? Or you don't want Save 1 to effect Save 2? I disagree. It should be up to the player to design his or her own folder structure. What works for you might not work for the next person. Some people like no structure at all. Some people go ballistic with folder structures. We're all different. A default system should consist of how KSP 1 handles it. VAB and SPH folders. That's it. From there, it should be up to the player.