Kerbart

Ah! My bad! So this will be the "A TOGGLE BUTTON THAT CAN BE OPERATED BY THE PLAYER TO TURN ON AND OFF A FEATURE THAT IS INTENDED FOR PEOPLE WHO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE PLAYING THE GAME WITH SOME ADDITIONAL HELP AND TRAINING" button then? But we do need to talk about the "A TOGGLE BUTTON THAT CAN BE OPERATED BY THE PLAYER TO TURN ON AND OFF A FEATURE THAT IS INTENDED FOR PEOPLE WHO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE PLAYING THE GAME WITH SOME ADDITIONAL HELP AND TRAINING" button popup text balloon text in that case...

I don't like it. It's imprecise "A toggle button that can be operated by the player to turn on and off a feature that is intended for people who feel more comfortable playing the game with some additional help and training" It's still not perfect but I feel we're getting closer to what the little popup showing what this button does should be. Also, four pages down into this thread, the game must be in great shape when we're discussing this. That's interesting... @Just Jim please take note. I've been living in the US for over 20 years and it's normal to me, but the point that it might not be vernacular for foreign speakers is certainly something that should be taken into account. It's also the reason you won't see something like "spaceflight 101" in the tutorial—for Americans it's a clear reference to college classes that are numbered but for the rest of the world it's fairly meaningless, I'd guess.

Ah, the "FU" acronym gave me a different vibe, that's why I was asking. Who came up with that monstrosity anyway? Way not call it something that denotes more fun, like Space Cadet Orientation?

There's no reason to call me ugly names. What does FTUE stand for, anyway?

As my late dad would say, "That's as dry as the [redacted] of Santa Claus!" It's a game. We need to have fun. Yes, we can call it super-functional, super boring Tutorial Mode. But I think that Space Cadet Orientation tells me exactly the same thing, and gives me Disney-style Space Mountain vibes. I read boring reports for work all day long. Give me some fun, please.

I don't really care for Lagrange points but I always felt that this was a rather obvious solution to having them with patched conics. Glad to see someone took the effort to figure out how to make it work! I suspect they act like tiny gravity wells without an actual surface?

Remind me never to set foot on a yacht you pilot. Ramming another ship shouldn't be called "plain sailing"

I suspet that Advanced Robotics will be a DLC feature just as in KSP1. But the more advanced it is, the better the chances to get the essentials—hinges and rotors—in the base game and Robot Sensors (pressure, altimeter, velocity, proximity, etc) would be an amazing addition. Together with triggering of a specific stage, not just “any”

Consider trying KSP1, but with that i3, 8 GB and integrated GPU that machine has no chance of running KSP2.

I don't pretend to be a mod but it certainly would be nice if the Navball discussion gets it's own thread. *cough* Although really it seems to come down to opposing views on where it should be and how many pixels of screen estate it should take up, suggesting that making that customizable is the best way forward.

There would only be one real docking point. The others would be kept together by their "magnetic force," which is how multi-port docking currently works. I'm sure it's possible to convert that to some strut-like connection when docking but I'm not an expert.

Plz fix. The game is unplayable until this is resolved.

Robotics, like @Scarecrow71 mentioned. Maybe not the fully programmable gamut that we saw in the KSP1 DLC (I'm sure that will be DLC for KSP2 as well) but a simple set of controllable hinges and rotators would greatly help in making spaceflight real - things fold out all the time in reality. If Wobbly rockets are such a big deal, help us by removing the need for 15m diameter fairings at the top. Construction, even if it's just the ability to place struts on a flying aircraft. This would make large stations (in orbit or on the surface) so much more stable Add inclination to the navball, where we have AP and PE Add latitude and longitude to the navball. For everything else there can be mods but being able to see where you are is helpful for so many things that it'd be a shame you'd need a mod for that. Make the KSC the adventure-land it was before! The sneak previews on the docks allude to "work on the KSC" but I really hope this includes colliders everywhere so you can truly explore, climb stairways, discover hidden details on buildings, etc Make the KSC alive - moving antenna dishes, waving flags, a few scattered vehicles (preferably moving but that might be too much to ask) and not the scene of a 1950s horror flick "The Day After It Happened" Vehicle couplers/decouplers. Not static parts like docking ports but flexible, allowing you to pull multiple carts or surface base components in place Edit: I forgot one!! Thank you @Pthigrivi for the balute suggestion, that reminded me. It's related but different, so... Larger parachutes / parachutes integrated with docking ports. Right now, if you want to use a Mk III capsule with a docking port, you end up spamming the craft with radial parachutes as they're tiny. Not only does it look unrealistic but we also get deprived of the wonderful animation of Mk16(? the nosecone-shaped one for S size) deploying gracefully. If you use that one you can't have a docking port and there goes your Apollo-style mun landing. Either have it integrate with a docking port, or have a similar sized parachute available as a radial chute

For sure we’ll get buoancy. The question is: positive, negative or neutral? And a way to control it?

Because we get a pretty good idea what we get based on pretty pictures, Nate’s sweet voice and wild speculation. I’m sure reality will reconcile wonderfully with that. Why wait?

It’s not the parts. It’s how they interact with progression mode. We will find out once 0.2 goes live. Hopefully it will be awesome.

Ah, I thought they put thatone through. Didn’t realize it was only a concept. Lucky you, I didn’t keep up with the speelling reforms for Dutch after I left the country Apparently it’s simoler except when you didn’t grow up with it, hahaha

Given the distances you’d be covering interstellar space at max timewarp. At that point colliding with a small moon will be a challenge, compared to flying straightthrough it. Unless there is automatic wear & tear interstellar debris is unlikely to interfere — and if it does it likely will annihilate the ship?

We now have ap/pe markers on the navball but for the longest time that info wasn’t available in a readout ((KSP1), so if you’re keeping an eye on velocity when launching to orbit (2270 is the magic number) then the equatorial rotation velocity of Kerbin (or any body you’re on) gives a considerable offset. Also, beginning players would be completely unaware of the difference and wouldn’t know you have to switch over. Making it an option is very likely a good idea but it can be argued that the existing setting should be the default to aid new players (and those who’ve come to be used to it).

Dutch uses the digraph IJ extensively, but it's usually typed as two letters: IJ. If you have a Dutch (typewriter) keyboard, there's a separate key for it, together with a key for the trema (two dots above a vowel, like ë). When computers and their keyboards were expensive and the Dutch market was very small, practically no one cared about selling Dutch keyboards so entire generations grew up with the standard US layout. By the time technology advanced and equipping computers with a "national" keyboard became feasible, no one really wanted it anymore. To the point where when you put a Dutchman or woman behind a Dutch keyboard they'll usually curse you because all the special characters are in the wrong place. But in most cases national layouts are just a matter of tradition and nothing is worse than using a keyboard with a different layout than everyone else (especially if it's just a few keys). So the French stick to AZERTY, the Germans stick to QWERTZ, because it's generally not beneficial to use an international layout; none of the keyboards you encounter are like that. And nowadays they can be mapped easily through software anyway. On a side note, I think the German spelling reform to prefer an e instead of an umlaut (ueber instead of über) was fed by a need to make it easier to use international keyboards for those pesky umlauts and es-zets, but the legislative machine moves slow so by the time that was finalized you could easily add them on any computer anyway. But I wonder if some Germans on the forum can shine a light on that (out of curiosity).

...announcements about deadlines which generally aren't met. Yes, there are "it's different now" promises, and "development is going to speed up from now" promises. There also was a promise to release the game—the full game, not Early Access—in 2021. Until we actually see those updates being delivered as promised I don't think cynicism about Intercept Games' ability to deliver on time is misplaced.

You're still adding hundreds of dollars of cost, even to lightweight products, so there needs to be a really good reason to manufacture in zero-g. And once that reason exists, I bet even thousands of dollars launch cost will be acceptable. So while dropping launch costs will make things possible I don't think they will have to drop that low for it to happen.

And your own code, of course, looks like it was written by someone else after three months...

I would have agreed with that statement a year ago. They are completely revaming the game structure and they will have something else in place that make Experience less relevant But seeing what has been delivered so far, and what we've pieced together from Science at this point, revamped is really just tweaked. Of all the gameplay elements we have—tech tree, contracts, science—experience and traits worked the best, giving useful boosts where needed and adding the challenge of do I add a noob to my team with a long term payoff. If anything the implementation was too simple—you can send a bus with twelf rookies and an experienced pilot on a tour around the Kerbin system and they miraculously come back as three-star experts—but scrapping the whole thing isn't the right way to solve that. I agree that removing things isn't watering down by definition, but pretty much any change we've seen so far is watering down.

I thought the interview went very well. Tough questions were asked, and what seemed like honest answers were given. I've become pretty cynical about what we heard and this interview was by far the best thing, as Nate did a good job in trying to manage expectations. I got a better feeling from the interview than from the SpaceCreator presentation itself, TBH Will the answer change anything to the current state? Maybe saying that's all water under the bridge is a bit too easy, but right now, in regards to KSP2, my biggest concern is if For Science will live up to the hype (and I truly hope it does). Maybe one day we'll find out. It's probably an exploding dev team, politics, and a project restart due to resetting the goal posts. Likely a mix. No evil conspiracy or lizard lord influence, but perhaps the Spanish Inquisition showed up unexpectedly. Funnily enough, for me it's the area of least concern. You can start a project like this with working of the existing code base and refactor the sweet mangojuice out of it, or you can start from scratch and it appears to me that restarted from scratch. There's a reason so many things don't work. The claim if no systems were cloned is one for semantics, I guess. I have little doubt that a "simulation clock cycle" was indeed written from the ground up (updating fuel status, forces, velocity, etc). That, in my mind, is a "system" and to facilitate the desired features into the game, I think it's safe to assume that it would actually be easier to start from scratch then to shoehorn it into existing KSP1 code with all the new functionality and data structures bolted on. But "determine the normal vector based on current orbital parameters" is a well defined problem for which existing code exists, likely with some non-trivial exception handling that you wouldn't think of the first time you wrote that from scratch. Of course you can expect that kind of code to be copy & pasted. Why wouldn't they? Also, I doubt the bugs do come from those instances as it's generally code that has been refined and tested over the course of years (which is why you'd use such a code block in the first place). And as @ShadowZonepointed out, there's also middleware that is used in both products that might do things in a certain way, perceived as a bug (whether it's a feature or not). Yes, the bug gets reproduced, but that doesn't mean it's because Intercept copied code. Finally in a system with similar input and similar desired output, code might be similar and coders might walk into similar pitfalls I actually likes this part for two reasons: Shadowzone kept at the topic (I think Matt was easier guided away from his "hard topics") Nate clearly didn't want to get caught in a lie (a good step forward in regaining community trust) There's likely two parts to as why he doesn't want to give the answer. First of all there are likely part-timers and/or independent contractors. Maybe there's this really expensive unity expert on phong shading that you only hire a few hours per week to work on things no one else can do, as needed. That makes it hard to give an exact answer, especially if you've hired those coders for extended amounts of time for the sprint, but now you're putting that on hold when the work is delivered. I think he really doesn't know what the exact FTE count is as it's a number that changes week-to-week. The second part is embarrassment; it becomes very clear that the answer is "closer to 20 than to 50" as well as that it's not in between the two. With all the critique on work progressing slowly I'd be reluctant to admit he only has a dozen engineers at his disposal as well (total staff is likely more - artists, game desing, management, quality assurance, etc). Likely outside his control, and it is what it is, but not a number you want to send into the world when everyone is questioning (based on past experiences) the ability to deliver on time.