Kerbart

As FUEL? What would be the oxidator? And whatever that is, how do you prevent it from reacting with the rest of the machinery and plumbing? As propellant maybe though, for some kind of nuclear engine.

The maneuver node works in two directions; it’s used to show the values as well as update those values. So the conversion needs to work in both directions. And is it really as simple as adding +1? Is the problem the same for the 24h clock as for the Kerbin 6h clock? What seems like a simple problem will likely need thorough review and testing; somebody merely jumping in and adding “+1” to the code is likely going to result in just more bugs. Not intended to burn you down, but simply to mention that what seems simple from the outside is not always that simple to fix.

We tend to think of historical processes, not in the least due to misleading terms like “Industrial Revolution” as moments in time, and not gradual transition. In the same way, future history books will probably state that “the automotive industry introduced electric cars around 2010,” and the casual reader will imagine that by 2011 ICE's were no longer in use. Instead what we see is “more of one, less of the other” as years progress. “The last oil” will in similar fashion not be extracted in a televised event with a countdown timer, but as @KSK correctly points out, as supplies start to dwindle and new wells get gradually but continuously more expensive to develop and exploit, prices will just increasingly rise. That, in turn, will (a) make alternative sources relatively more attractive and (b) as the market for those alternative sources grows, likely drive prices of those sources even further down. One can argue that for the production of electricity, solar power and wind energy have already reached that tipping point and are moving from “tree hugger” status to “economic viable choice” There are many people who say they will never buy an electric car. As certain economies start outlawing the sale of ICE cars around 2030-2040, they might even resort to buying 3 or 4 of them as to have a lifetime supply — only to discover that by 2050, as demand has dropped, gasoline is very hard to find and is now $50 per gallon as it's a niche product that no longer has a massive supply chain to support it. In short, we’re not going to see a “now what?!” world, but rather a gradual transition into a post-oil society.

You can run KSP with KSP_x64.exe -popupwindow - works just fine for me. Haven't used the launcher in ages.

This touches upon the biggest problem with Science in the game: its purpose. Initially we were all in awe with KSP; you can build your rocket, launch it, and land it somewhere else. Then the realization came: now what? Well, Science! Of course just doing Science gets boring as well if there's nothing to do with it. So we get the tech tree. Obviously we want a challenge; welcome to Grindworld! My only wish for Science in the game is that its purpose is more fluid and natural. I don't have high hopes, given how the Dev team emphasizes that they want to keep a lot of things the same, but I wish it does. In my perfect world, the solar system is randomly generated (within some boundaries). You'd still have Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, etc, but you don't know their exact orbits; they need to be discovered first, and measured. Moons? Only after putting a probe in orbit. Atmospheric parameters? Only after measuring it. And you will need that data for the right heatshield and parachute properties. Maybe sandbox mode would have everything fixed just like KSP1, but Science mode should just be that; being forced to discover what's out there.

Where does the oxygen come from? O2 has the annoying habit to bind itself pretty much to anything, with life being the only known thing to replenish it at a sufficient rate.

I see two different ways this can work out. 1. T2 really has most of the features complete an EA is truly intended as a test platform. Game goes live relatively quickly with a price hike to $75. “Why do we have to pay so much more?! It’s the same game! This is not fair!” 2. The naysayers were rght. The game will forever linger in a 0.2x state, with new fearures being introduced but not the roadmap features. Then, for murky reasons never to be clarified, the game version will jump to 0.95 and two weeks later to 1.0. Most fans will be unhappy but the naysayers celebrate. Told you it would disappoint I suspect some youtubers and twitchers will get a prerelease with an NDA so there will be an avalanche of streams and videos on day 1.

I would say use the old system but with a twist; add universities. Kerbals can enroll in a university either as student or as trainer (penalties may apply) and transfer knowledge that way. You still have to advance Jeb (or whoever) to three, four and five stars but after that you can quickly upgrade all Kerbals on the same planet. Then ship one of them off to Duna and repeat the process there on the Duna colony (unless they've split off to become the Dunian Congressional Republic of course), etc.

And that's exactly it. I'm pretty sure the OP is asking for the option to modify Kerbals as they see fit. That doesn't mean every Kerbal (or any default Kerbal) has to be that way. If you don't care about it, or even oppose it, don't modify your Kerbals. But it's nice when, if you feel this represents you, you can modify Rosita Kerman (she/her) to be flat-chested and have a beard. How would it affect anyone's enjoyment to the game if others have that option to make it more enjoyable to them?

Practice until it becomes second nature. Do it enough and the activity is as trivial as making it into orbit or landing on Mun.

One can argue though that the later added functionality allows it to be in the game without requiring mods. What the motive for that is, and if that's right is not relevant, what is, is that one can say "to do x, you no longer need a mod." Since the very point of MM is modding the game there's little need to integrate it for the sake of "now you don't need a mod for that," because clearly you're intent on applying mods (what's the point of MM otherwise).

One thing to keep in mind is that pretty much no one is happy with the current system of science, tech and How It All Relates. The question may, for KSP 2, be completely irrelevant, or solve itself as new parts become available. Without knowledge of how the new game works it's hard to make any "don't worry" claims but I suspect it's less of an issue than you'd think it is.

How hard can it be?

100%. Without the knowledge of this being the case (we have 2023 for that), I suspect this is exactly what makes development hard. Those complaining that it takes so long are looking at the sandbox game, figure the optimizations to run more parts and things looking pretty are already there, so what's taking so long. To conceptualize that, consider the classic Harvest [x] kg of resources on the surface of [y] and bring it to Kerbin. We all know that after mining the resources all you need to do is put a ship on the launchpad with the right amount and walla. So, when designing the data structures that represent ships and their cargo, you need some way of tagging the load so this trick won't work. Fix that, and two weeks later someone discovers an unintended consequence of the fix put in place. (Once you completed the first 90% of the work you discover that the rest is the other 90% of the work...) This is not GTA5 or Fallout 4. It's the 2nd release of a complex game that had serious issues on both the technical design and the gameplay, and both of them needed to be redone from scratch to a large extend. Why people think this is a routine process with perfectly dependable timelines remains a mystery to me.

Maybe it's meant in a literal sense: modding support. You can mod from day 1, but don't expect fleshed out API documentation and SDK's until all other functionality is there. First of all, only then will someone on the dev team have time to work on it, and secondly up until that point things can change based on feedback.

Well, they're people who are seriously upset that when they got the game ten years ago for $15, and after playing with it for thousands (no hyperbole) of hours, they actually have to pay for KSP2 (BuT wE WeRe PrOmIsEd FrEe UpGrAdEs FoR LiFe). Not only that, but now that release is Early Access instead of a full blown game (which I am very happy about, it means a lot more excitement spread out over years to come). I mean first we had the Ever Given stuck in the Suez Canal, then an ugly war in Eastern Europe and now this? Have some understanding for the absolute horror these people have to go through. It's just one disappointment after another. I suspect the nay-sayers are really hoping the game gets cancelled so they can say told you so. Now that it's not going to happen there's just bitter resentment.

And let's not forget that as of now we have no clue how "science" and "resources" are implemented in the game. It might be the same way, or something wildly different.

I love the Early Access plan. One of the things I really enjoyed about KSP (1) was the Early Access program. Every few months a new version, with hype, twitch streams with tons of audience, a splurge of videos showingnew content. There is some great content being generated right now, but nothing beats the excitement of streams and video that uncover new game territory.It’s going to be February 24 six times next year! The one positive difference with the original is the roadmap (even if we didn’t know what’s on it) — unlike KSP 1 development where gameplay was bolted on to parts that were bolted on themselves, the core engine and game mechanics have been designed from the ground up with that functionality in mind. And for those who wonder why feature X before Y (although Nate already touched on that), consider the possibility that the dev team actually thought this over. Finally “after all that time we only get a bare EA version for starters,” it will be a lot more complete than the 0.18 version a lot of us started with. Remember? Just an (ugly) VAB & launch pad, no real space complex An “souposphere” that allowed reentries of 90° entry angles at 3000m/s, and a soft touchdown using chutes only Speaking of atmosphere: no fairings. Not that they were needed. And pancake designs were your best bet for stable launch configurations Kerbals had to EVA to move from one part to another Rover wheels were bad Contracts started life as a mod, and science was implemented as an afterthought. They were great improvements but no one really likes the game mechanics, which are limited as it’s “bolted on” It’s easy to continue the list. The point is, even if there’s no Science in the first release system, game mechanics have been designed with it in mind. It won’t be limited by a design that started life as a rudimentary 2D simulator. A lot of the game will be there, we just don’t see it, because the core mechanics need some hardcore testing by us. And any fixes that are needed for exotic issues we come up with should not be impossible — or make impossible — planned features.

Yeaj I just wish they'd give up and never publish it. That would be soooo much better.

March 1st? To celebrate the German invasion of Bulgaria? Why pick that date?

I get your point and I must admit that it's an aspect few consider (I didn't). However, in the end this is a game that allows you to do rocket science with (a reasonable approximation of) real world physics, so most of will take the coding aspect for granted. We're kinda used to miracles! "What you want to allow" — and I'm sure it's not intended as such — might suggest to the casual observer that it's intended to trivialize the problem. But it's still a big challenge. There are probably a dozen ways time warp can integrate with multiplayer, diametrically opposed to each other. The problem is not can they but how and then specifically and not the way those troglodytes on the forum want it, but the way I want it. That's what everyone is curious about. Good point on the criticality of timing issues in MP though.

But nowhere do they say "development is going smoothly and on schedule," doesn't that implicitly say "we're struggling with the core mechanics?" (/s if that wasn't clear)

I'm really rooting for interdimensional portals that are gateways to alternate timelines and universes with different physics.

Not to nitpick here but the forum software is set up (unlike most implementations) to support superscript and things look just so much better with it: The Jool volume is 904 607 999 999 999 900 000 m3 then we get 1.34016×1022 and that means 13 401 600 000 000 000 000 000 Note that I also prefer using the unicode multiplication sign × over an ordinary "x" But more importantly you taught us that there's 13 sextillion (and a bit, if "401 quintillion" can be considered "a bit") that fit inside Jool. Thank you for that!

Waiting ten years for the sequel.