KerikBalm

Did this include the breaking ground surface experiments? Anyway, science is basically unlimited through use of the mobile labs

+1 So, just more science to grind? Pass In what way? Why? This is a no for me +1 Agreed, it's what I do Vulcan?! An analogue for something that doesn't exist? Hamuea and Eris may be a bit redundant, perhaps Sedna too. No to lava oceans, not sure about the croissant, don't have ksp2 Not tidally locked, spin it so slow that the sun goes "backwards". No moons at all (I moved Gilly to Duna) No There are more, they have to be "discovered" to use them. No Yes to visible cities, not sure about rep hits No, patched conics ate terrible at handling binary systems, it gets worse the closer they are in size Might address the rest later, no time now

Well, I play on a scaled up system, and use 2 stage reusable spaceplanes. The first stage goes suborbital, the 2nd stage achieve LS orbit in time for me to switch back to the first stage before it gets deleted. Sometimes, I am quite far downrange, and used too much liquid fuel on the way up: so I have a mining and refueling base on the tip of that peninsula to the west of KSC. I land the first stage there, fuel it up, and head back to KSC. Putting in some oxidizer let's it go faster and get higher, out of the atmo even. It can actually save play time, rather than cruising back at ~30km altitude using 4x timewarp and a hard limit of ~1700 m/s or thereabouts... Across a 4x larger Kerbin. I've had limited but non-zero success with offshore mining rigs that extend a drill all the way to the seafloor (need to mod it so ore can be found there, normally it's not in ocean biomes), but haven't tried a floating base for servicing spaceplanes- on Kerbin. There are some shallow areas of laythe where I set up floating mining bases, but that's another topic. Also, on science/career mode, if you have excess scientists, you may as well stick them in a lab on Kerbin to generate a little extra science, but these don't need to go far from KSC. Also, mountain top relays can be helpful if you have stricter signal occlusion settings. You can also play with additional ground stations disabled, then you can build your own ground network (but honestly, a good space-based relay network is better and less time consuming)

Refueling station for airplanes Massive antenna array that outshines the KSC's DSN, etc. I build them but they serve purposes

The stock system is way too small and needs to be scaled up. I just can't go back to 1x and stand to see how small planets look from low orbit

If your computer can handle it, the visual mods, in particular, Parrallax: Also, Scatterer, and Kopernicus (if for nothing else, than a rescale using Sigma Dimensions Rescale, to go to at least 2.25x)

There's more to life than photosynthesizers. They already gave Laythe Geysers So I wouldn't be opposed to finding stuff like this: Or, you can do as I did, and put it around another star, problem solved. I never found Duna's atmosphere to be a problem with heat, primarly due to Duna being small with low gravity ,so you don't come in that fast. Note that the "fuel for decelerating into a Mars Orbit" (Duna?) will be less than fuel needed to land with less atmosphere. Whatever the density your craft can sustain without overheating, you aim for that for the aerocapture. Thicker or thinner atmosphere just changes this to a higher or lower entry corridor. It doesn't change the fuel requirements, and you can still do a direct descent. A thicker atmosphere then saves you on thrust and fuel needed for touchdown. On top of the mass savings, it also slows down the landing, and if thick enough can make it entirely passive, making it easier in terms of piloting skills. It just plain makes landing easier.

More atmosphere makes it easier to land, not harder. On my custom system, I increased its surface gravity 25%, and cut it's atmospheric density/pressure by a factor of 3 : making it a much better Mars analogue. Landing became much harder SSTO spaceplanes are still viable at 3x and 4x scale. I routinely was making ones that take >100 tons to orbit, although payload fraction was much worse than stock where it can be around 50%, the larger scales it drops down to like 10-15% Trees? No sunlight is way to weak there. That's why I moved laythe to another star entirely in my custom system.

Fair enough, I'm doing more searches now, and there does seem to be quite some variety in the scope responsibility of that job title, so there is some ambiguity. If Nate wasn't the boss of KSP2 like I thought he was, ie the person directly between the team and their T2 overlords, the. His responsibility is much lower. If there was a separate technical director that kept promising him capability X that would serve the creative goals, but he kept failing to deliver, then it seems Nate would be in the position escalating the issue up the hierarchy, or reducing the scope and such to align with the (crappy) capacity being delivered by the technical director

Who hired the coders? Who lead the team? Who didn't ensure that steps were taken to fix the code? That's like saying that the captain of the Titanic wasn't responsible for the sinking because he wasn't the helmsman, nor the lookout, nor the radio operator. The "creative director" does more than just set the aesthetic style. He was supposed to oversee the whole development of the game to ensure his creative vision came to fruition. This encompasses not just the art and graphics, but the game engine and its performance. If he didn't recognize the poor performance of the engine, and take steps to rectify it, that's his fault If he did recognize the poor performance of the engine, but didn't know which steps to take to rectify it, that is his fault too. If he did recognize the poor performance of the engine, and did know which steps to take to rectify it, then he clearly failed to actually implement those steps, because the game engine as not fixed, so that's his fault too. No way out of it. He led the team, for years, and it ended in disaster. He is the person most responsible for its success or failure, as it failed, that's on him. My claim was that the code was an unsalvageable mess. I am referring not to aesthetics, but to function. The problem is at the very core of the code. While it may be neatly formatted and look neat now, it would be a mess to try and fix, by that I mean a very arduous and complex task. I maintain that the code is unsalvageable. It was built on a bad foundation. As the years went on, building on the bad foundation, the situation only got worse and worse as it would get harder and harder to fix the foundation without tearing down everything built on top of it. Had he acted properly, early on he would have refocused what resources he had into fixing the problem with the game engine. Instead, it seems he focused most of his resources on graphics and aesthetics. KSP2 could have succeeded at a much lower scale if it just provided a solid game engine, especially considering the modding community for KSP. All he needed to provide was a "platform", and people would have bought it. Instead, he provieed a rotten foundation, but tried to put a nice coat of paint on it. Yes it is, he was responsible for the coding team It's a fact that Nate led the team, whether or not he wrote a single line of code, he had authority over the coding team, and the means to see that the code was resulting in a very buggy and poorly optimized game engine. He failed to have the code fixed (by making the team fix it, or firing them and hiring those who could). It is his fault. He was responsible for the scope and vision, he was the creative director. His fault lay not in failng to stick to a previous scope or vision, but failing to adequately adjust his vision and manage his team and resources to a point that what his team was producing and his vision aligned. It seems like he just viewed himself as the idea guy, and completely failed on the management of his team and resources.

I am still blaming Nate, the guy clearly mismanaged his resources, focusing too much on looks and neglecting the game engine. It's his fault that the code is an unsalvageable mess. I can't blame T2 for cutting their losses after what he did.

To be clear, the KSP1 devs that moved to KSP2 are gone now. As far as it is known, nobody is working on KSP2, and the only hope is that some company buys the rights and completes the development. This last possibility is a pipe-dream

Well, I ended up wanting to make a binary star system in memory of the dream that was KSP2, so I got a bit distracted, but have changed up the kerbol system. See my post here: Soong is getting Ike and Minmus (Duna gets Gilly instead, and Eve gets nothing), and procedural asteroids. Soong uses Saturn's color map, and is smaller than jool, in that same proportion as Saturn to Jupiter. Don't have the rings working quite right yet

1x scale is too small, but after 3x, then 4x, then 6.25x, it got too tedious, I would rescale the system to 2.25x (1.5x scaling to orbital periods/dV requirements) Tilt the entire system 8 degrees so that kerbin has seasons and it's a little more complicated to go interplanetary Make it a binary star system, with star #2 1'000 to 2'000 "KU" out. Add a Saturn and Uranus/Neptune analogue. See my linked thread for more details

This sounds like a terrible idea. Every sale now is a sale that won't happen after further development. Any developer (TT or a buyer) is going to do complex financial calculations that basically come down to: "If I invest X in further development, I expect Y in returns, I want to maximize Y-X". You may see more sales now as sending a message that the market is out there and you may hope that it makes a developer estimate a larger value for Y. I think they are going to look at the market for the developed product, estimate the total sales, and then subtract the amount of sales that have already occurred, to reach the number of expected additional sales. Buying more may make them estimate a higher total sales number, but my guess is that for every 10 additional sales now, they are going to estimate a total sales number that is between 0-9 higher, and thus total sales - current sales will decrease. Aside from rewarding failure, it may make people estimate that sales for KSP2 are saturated, and actually lower the financial incentive for further development. Best case scenario is that the IP is undervalued, and sold off to someone who will do right by it and make a nice profit for theirselves in the process.

Not visible at all so far. It seems to just have new bugs, and even unfixed bugs that KSP1 had fixed. It broke things in new ways, such as orbital decay even when things should be on rails, iirc. Its based on multiple sources, and evident in the team's imbalance towards artists vs software engineers.

I'm going to have to disagree. While Take 2 seems to have made some boneheaded decisions, it can't be denied that they did provide substantial resources. They clearly invested tens of millions. I saw one estimate of 50 million. I think Nate deserves his share of the blame for misallocation of the resources he did get. It seems he was entirely too focused on the visuals and not focused enough on core engine and gamplay considerations. He doesn't deserve all the blame, but he's certainly not free from blame either.

At what scale do you feel the need to nerf? It's hard to come to a good number. I figure real chemical rockets can get 450 Isp, and in stock, you get 350, so that's a 7/9 dV multiplier, and dV needed scales with the sqrt of the size multiplier, so no nerf needed at 6x (roughly 60% RSS scale) Except that stock tank mass ratios, engine TWRs, and assorted part dry weight are terrible compared to real stuff. It's why I settled on 4x, and was happy with that until I added the system 1000 KU away.... takes a long time to get there, even at max time warp with a ship packing 120km/s of dV (60 km to get there, 60km to stop) Going to 2.25x already cut that by almost half and made everything less grindy For a career, I plan on duplicating the nuclear lightbulb engine, calling it an Epstein drive, and using KRnD to buff it, and only it - the buffs only go towards the interstellar engine Interstellar here is a weak sauce version, but something not to ambitious. From what I've read, most multi-star systems are much closer (too close to have a solar system like ours around one of them). On the other hand, Proxima centauri is 13000 AU away from Alpa centauri, so 1000 KU seems like a reasonable compromise to me given gameplay limitations

I'm just wondering, of the people on the forum, how many out there still use the stock system. If you don't what do you use? Myself, I use my own custom system, that I've slowly built up over time, the whole thing overall is 2.25x rescaled: * I initially was using 3x rescale, then 4x, then it felt too grindy, and I settled on 2.25x when I added bodies really far away, and when I needed higher time warp

Yeah something like this could work, as well as each controlling a craft after a separation event (like air launch to orbit) It would be like soliciting a guest pilot to help with a specific mission. I don't see a MMO style multiplayer as viable

Nah, I plan on making my own custom system I may or may not add life support, undecided Cool base parts are not a priority for me, on site construction so I don't have to send everything to the new star system with a >100 year delay and 120 km/s of dV just to get it there on that timescale

I'm thinking I may reinstall kpbs just for aesthetics. Definitely going to instal that physics hold mod Then, I guess I'll go with simple construction, and moar kerbals. Then it's just interstellar via the atomic age nuclear lightbulb buffed by KRnD, parallax, and my own kopernicus system mods, and I think I'll have the gist of what I wanted KSP2 to be

KSP1 didn't have the problem with decaying orbits (or at least rarely did), and I'm not talking about when vessels are placed on rails. What changed between the two of them? I think this was all going in the wrong direction. Reduce the scope of interstellar. Instead of looking at Sol to Alpha Centauri, look at going from Alpha Centauria A-B to Proxima Centauri - 13'000 AU. Also, I was really hoping for interstellar to be more realistic than 1g torchships. I was hoping to be able to do months long burns with accelerations in the milli-Gs. I recently modded in a star at 4'000 KU in KSP1, infinite fuel cheated, and headed for an intercept at about 60 km/sec, would take about 100 in game years https://imgur.com/BVX4n2k Then I built a MPD powered craft in Children of a dead earth with (probably OPd) nuclear reactors and 120k m/s of dV, but acceleration in the milliG's, with burns requiring months, I figured that's the sort of tech level that interstellar should become viable in KSP2. Nuclear electric, mllliG propulsion, to companion stars mere thousands of AU away. Its a smaller scope, but it seems that KSP2 was lead by artists who let the scope go way beyond what they were capable of

@Krazy1 what mods did you use, particularly for Duna?

Sounds plausible This is not plausible. They will likely announce that KSP2 is dead (development has ended), after everyone has already forgotten about it, and right before announcing good news that makes investors and others forget all about KSP2's failure. The announcement will get lost/buried by other news so that it's negative impact is minimal. Right, but as per my above comment: they aren't going to be falling for the sunk cost fallacy and pouring more money into the burn pit