Dakitess

Well I actually find that it's a good thing to balance high-ISP / high efficiency system with low thrust. Ion always were way too powerful and Nuke were something like 30% too powerful as well, you would go the nuke way all the time, ignoring all the various other engine that might suit the situation better. It's cool to have this compromise separating ISP and Thrust, to me. It'll make high efficiency system more exclusive to specific situation.

This indeed, but also some milestone, I don't know how to express it correctly. Like... Exploring Jool will let you know that there is interesting gaz out there, which should lead you to send a probe in the atmo and getting it back to Kerbin, so that you finally find out the exact composition of it, which... tells the Kerbalkind that there is a way to do nuclear engine using this gaz after some chemistry transformation, chemistry which is a basic tech tree progress. So yeah, basic "points to progress" when it makes sense, let's say for 80% of the research, but also some specific meaningful milestones that relate to IRL discover / physic based comprehension. Of course an "easy mode" would lead you to this kind of discover while a hard mode would let you find it by yourself, with only contextual popup saying "oh, looks like this newly discovered giant gaz planet is different from the other, the atmosphere looks... weird and interesting !"

I really hope some depth and difficulty with the new For Science! game mode. I've only played the original KSP1 science once at the very beginning, and it really did not hold me at all. I've then seen multiple stream / videos about it, and it was really not convincing either. Not interesting, obviously, but also WAY too easy. Being able to farm science around the launch pad makes no sense. At all. Because in this case, you're kinda forces to do it because it's frustrating to voluntarily ignore easy-points. And thoses easy points are not spread in more meaningful areas. Mun/Minmus as well, are enough to research the whole tech-tree : why ? how ? It really needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of the system, to get some meaning in the experiments, some initiative from the player to "feel" what is supposed to be a valuable experiment, according to the IRL science, the physics basic. Nothing related to gate-keeping or elitism, I see you coming, just more meaning, more sense, to get a reward feeling when discovering something in the game that'll make you progress, unlock a new tech, a new knowledge.

I do hope the best, whatever the KSP2 future, hopping that it will be good even if it's in 5 years, but in any case i'll really hope the best for this community, for KSP1 at least. KSP2 damaged so much the franchise, the interest, the modding sphere, it divided users, it gave hope for a new opus that would last another decade and there is a lot of players like me that kinda can't properly return to KSP1 just because the 2 exists. I know it sounds silly for people that are not in this mindset, you do you, but I guess it's something important for a good proportion of players, it's not natural to keep playing or completely returning to the 1st game if the second one is aspiring all the momentum of the community, with a bad mood especially, if there is still hope to get it good, if we know that further dev / mods won't be as focus as before on the first one. It's an uncomfortable "In between".

Uh, even after the huge RTX 2XXX serie inflation, gaming rigs are far more affordable than they were, 12 yo, when it comes to FPS/Cost. Nowaday a 750€ desktop PC will run 60FPS 1080P Max Settings or just one compromise or two, at most. And they will do so for a year or two. Back in 2013, a 750€ rig would get you a GTX 660 that would barely hold 45 FPS in Medium 1080p. You would need a top of the line PC to get it without compromise, which was 1500-2000€. Soooo nah, definitely, the ratio that include performance / visual / framerate / price is way better now, especially thanks to 4k that is carrying the whole challenge and allow us to profit from DLSS and so on.

I really can't care less than for Kerbal names / personnas in game. I've never even considered them individually, never got attached to a Jeb, a Bob or a Valentina. Don't know why though, it simply did not hook me at all.

Indeed. Already said that multiple time : it's totally OK to find it beautiful enough for a KSP Game / for you / for now, but I can't even imagine how it can objectively considered as beautiful / up to date / etc. This is a big nuance. And yes, KSP1 fully modded is still a mile ahead of KSP2 : you can consider it "logic" or "not fair", whatever. Or you can even consider it wrong but I would not get it : this is not about aesthetic choices, you can totally prefer the look of KSP2, more cartoonish, saturated, than the KSP1 modded experience which is more aimed at photorealistic so far while keeping the original flavour to my eyes. Nah, even considering this, KSP2 aesthetic is full of flaws, of artifacts, of technical details that are definitely off, be it lightning, texture consistency, lightning, very poor / unequal terrain topology, lightning, clouds, ocean, lightning and lightning as well. This is plenty... "bad", yeah, sorry. It's definitely better than Stock KSP1 but c'mon what's even de point noticing that ?... I hate the KSP2 look by now, which is personal, and I hate the technical aspect even more, it looks like a unfinished draft with a lot of things that are done wrong, feels "beginner", and definitely not up to date, EVEN for a KSP game. And I fear that this aesthetic won't change much, except thanks to mods when it will be interesting and possible to do so, but if the game dies before, well...

Sound like you took it very personally haha, maybe my message did not sound the way I intended, sorry for that then ^^ I just had the feeling and indeed it's only a feeling, that your craft / rules does not allow much room for improvements / skills, because of the wheel speed limitation. It's perfectly clear, normal and legit that rovers and rovers wheel in general are not meant to go ever faster than 1m/s haha.

@Socraticat Nice video but it's very slow, nah ? I feel it would be more fun with some more speed, some drift, etc. It does not feel like there is any challenge or way to improve things on your try, just because you're limited by the wheel speed and that's it. I've organized plural "Race Against Time" on KSP1, and the last one looked like this, I still have the record haha, even if it's still far from perfect. Both the craft design and the pilot skills are equally very important here :

Because of the state of KSP2 and the very bad momentum it gave to the franchise and the community, no, I don't see that coming. Which is what is heartening me the most and why I speaking about "dreaming" than hopping : KSP2 failure would not mean a bad KSP, but the end of it, or barely, while damaging the first one. Dang. I don't know if getting a "proper" KSP2 by 2025 would be enough to ensure a KSP3, be it in 2035 or more. Like, if a roadmap-finished and somewhat working KSP2 but not fantastic by any means, would help turning the page. I feel it needs to overcome the status of being simply "finished" and completed, with all it went through, or no one would ever risk trying a KSP3 dev.

Yeah I don't see that happening either, for the reasons you mentioned... Ha, let me dream of a KSP3 then :p

I'll be sincere, I'd love an official statement saying that they'll start again from scratch on a whole new modern engine, even if they announce it to be EA in 2030. I don't see KSP2 being worth the "2" before 2 good years at least, and it would still be very very limited compared to what a "KSP2" can / should / must be. And it very well might be a final point to the KSP History which would be unfortunate. So yeah, since I can't expect any serious KSP3 being developed, even for 2035, because of the massive failure of KSP2, I would really be hyped by a "Sorry, ignore everything of the past months, we'll start it again, see you in a few years, you'll trust us again". It would at least give some hope about KSP being something for coming decade, rather than this drastically diminishing interest, still going down, and taking down KSP1 with it unfortunately. This is not sardonic by any mean, just a true feeling, I would really see this as a good news.

I would not mind at all having difficulties to built SSTO or to make them more benefitable than classical rockets. Since it's KSP, with all its approximations and forgiveness, there is no doubt we would still be able to build SSTOs in Real Scale with Kerbal-rated parts. We would just had to stick to high efficiency design, waaaaay smaller Payload mass ratio, rather that the actual 50% which is... well, it's fun and all, but its way way way way way too much to let the basic rocket has their own interest. With the real bonus of getting back the entire vessel in IRL and KSP, and without the real malus of being sure it returns well, don't diminush too hard the reliability, and is not hell of expensive to maintain in operational condition that we would not have in KSP (or would we ? It would still be very interesting !), there is no doubt about their interest, with an additionnal challenge. And in addition, it would totally make Two-Stages craft a real thing to explore, as it would be the perfect sweet spot that we don't explore today, except when we Role-Play. I know, I know, this kind of considerations were held as "gate-keeping" when we first discussed about it, some months ago, especially on Discord. This is nothing like elitism, like, really, just some insight about challenge, difficuly spread along start-mid-end game etc. Edit : there is so many typo and grammatical error that I won't correct them, sorry, had a very tough night

Ha, I must say that I've 'ever thought about the Gravity homogeneity ! Indeed, it would make no sense to get same SeaLevel Gs on a real scale earth than on our tiny Kerbin.

Definitely doable, already did it just like a bunch of other players in RSS. Clearly not ideal and it will put a hard limit on tiny payload and efficient crafts, but this is nothing like impossible. You know, EVE was about 10km/s of DeltaV, with a crushing atmosphere, and you had to get there, land, before being able to take off, which mean a WHOLE lot more difficulty as you had to launch from Kerbin a... rocket embedding a payload able to do this 10km/s. With Stock Parts. And thick atmo that would destroy your ISP. So yeah, far from impossible. And quite interesting to me to actually get this end-game need to streamline the craft, to think them differently because of the new constraints : yeah, if Kerbin had been 10 times bigger, you would have never been able to get to another star system, or simply to colonize the whole kerbal system "so easily". And, as said, there is no problem to then get some end-game scalable parts, adapted to the new Real Scale environment.

I really really really would like to see the Real Solar System as an end-game interstellar destination. With the same parts and all, to represent a whole new challenge for KerbalKind, and maybe some additionnal bigger ones as an extension or (obviously) mods. But it would be so fun to get to Solar System with some lore maybe, like dozens of thousand years after nowadays, humanking disappeared but left some artifacts, etc I don't see how it won't happen through mods anyway ! ^^ After having fun for hundreds of hours spent on the original system and maybe 2 or 3 other "normal kerbal sized" system, it would be a big WOW factor to get the Real Scale solar one, very different that actually starting on it with RSS.

I don't like when they cluster multiple parts together, especially when it's functional ones. I've never used the Apollo-ish pod that embed the RCS thrusters, the tanks, etc, for that reason, it does not feel KSP at all. That's all personal of course. It helps dealing with part counts by a lazy way. When I see the whole gravity ring that has been advertised, I really hope we won't get more and more "all-in-one parts" like this. It will kill creativity, thinking out of the box, emergent gameplay, etc.

It's good to get various feedback about perceived quality of the past KSP1. It's pretty sure we are glowing up how KSP1 was by any time, be it 0.18, 0.25, 0.90 or after 1.0 releases, so it's nice to have people saying in all honesty what they remember about it : there is no need to sacralize KSP1 to criticize KSP2

I really can't recall of KSP being like we have currently in KSP2 : as you said, we've had some bugs along the dev, now that you quote them I remember having them : craft falling into the ground or bouncing on it when entering the physis bubble, encounters cursors getting mad, and the terribly frustrating stuttering that was a really pain in the ass. But the 2 first items were far from systematic, like, I've only rage quit because of it once in about 3000h of gameplay by that time ! It happened but really really really really less often than KSP2 which cumulate far more other concerns in addition of having them way more systematic. Do you really honestly feel that the current KSP2 state is better than any post 1.0 KSP1 version ?... Sincere question, you might be right and me wrong, just to ask if there is any kind of exageration

Do you remember what version of KSP you start playing with ? In all honesty, I can't remember of anything Game-Breaking when I played in 0.18, and I think I started in 0.13 as well but probably not that much. Back in 0.18, I can remember spending about 3-5 hours a day for months, real, and I don't recall the game being broken, like, even a bit. But i'm also pretty sure that i'm forgot about it haha, It was certainly not perfect, far from that. But like, I built and flew sooooooo many weird things, I did not remember being frustrated at all by bugs !

This is sooooooo opposite to what make the charm and the interest of KSP1... I would really hate it to generalize some "big assembly" part just to cheat on Part Count while limiting us a lot about personal construction, crazy contraption, etc, everything that make craft in KSP1 so unic and personnal. Gimme engine, hinge, free weel, gimme habitat modules, science ones, etc, I'll make my Lego as we always did. Theses big assemblies are totally fine in mods. But I don't see them as legitimate at all in Stock, it broke the whole spirit and it'll make crafts looking very much the same

Really like the reentry effect as previously stated but the screenshot of thé Mountain and the Bones-ish one the beach, wah... Although it's a welcome hope to get some scenery, which is absolutely mandatory to me for a game like KSP (did I ever mention the importance of scenery ?... XD), I must say that they look terrible as shown. Just like the whole actual terrain. A catastrophic lack of triangles, details, stretched textures, no tesselation, weird lightning and no adéquation to the terrain surrounding... I really see myself trying to climb it in a Tomb Raider game from 2008, sorry Please, give us proper 2020+ scenery. Please...

The effect looks actually nice, well animated, but way overkill. It might be a specific pic situation though. I hope it to be less "everything" but they look nice. I also hope them to appear at higher treshold, higher speed / higher air density, less often to summarize, to avoid the whole Gravity Turn fire ball issue. Even if means a less often visual effect it's fine to me

Oh ? Please, tell us about Science, with source, please.

@gluckez Ha, the Toxic Refrain, again. Won't answer to that, sorry, you lost me there. @Vl3d Yeah, yeah, there is some positive things, fortunately, some glimpse of hope, this is why I don't abandon the whole KSP2 idea, why I keep coming to read the Patch logs, etc. But it's very very fainted to me, everything you've listed would be perfectly fine (well, maybe not perfect haha) for a game different than KSP2 which... Succeed to KSP1 ! It has almost everything in common with it, yet being devevelopped by a pro team for multiples years, having the whole feedback, the whole experience, the whole wishes of the community, all the dead end to avoid, all the mandatory things to improve, etc etc etc BUT... It's far from what is expected, being barely better than KSP1 in the rare novelties while noticeably worst in many other main subjects. It can't be right ! It's not a new game ! It's not a new opus with a whole new basis ! It's just KSP1 so far, everyone wonder where the "dev from scratch" has gone, the solid basis, the technically updated foundation, nah, we just have already dead end that are know for a decade Framerate, tree-structured crafts, poor terrain, weird artifacts, wobble, orbital decay, and the list go on. C'mon... This is all very well known issues, there is not point doing a new KSP that would inherit so many limits as soon as it's launched ! You just can't ignore the fact that it's totally based on KSP1 which means A LOT, and its actual state is like a new born game that would not succeed to a decade-old very well established and community active game. I don't know how it's defendable.