Pecan

I know, that's why I said well done!!!

Exactly so. Thankfully, you've always understood that it's a subjective decision, which is why I included "for/to me" clauses.

Hoorah, congratulations and well done. (Some forum bug or something, I can't "like" your post). Just remember, all those people claiming to have made a SSTO that isn't a rocket are lying, otherwise they wouldn't be able to maneuver in space.

Thank you for an amusing calculation of cost. Let's also discuss value. In the pub I often compare the cost of computer games to other forms of entertainment and, especially, how cost-effective KSP has been for me. While that continues to be true, why on earth or anywhere else do I 'need' to pay double or more for one particular game compared to others? > KSP 2 will be (at least) twice the cost of competing games and four times the price I originally paid for KSP 1. > KSP 2 offers minimal utility-value (I'm probably not going to spend another 4,000 hours on it, or learn much more about spaceflight) > The additional functionality of KSP 2 can already be provided, free, by KSP 1 mods. > At best what is left is a better-looking, better optimised and hopefully less buggy, version of a game I've already got (plus free mods). So it has a very high comparative cost and a very low utility-value, for something I already own. I didn't update Farming Simulator 2013 to 15 either, although I did get 17, then not 19. (Note FS 19 is half the price of KSP 2). It remains 'when', not 'if' I will get KSP 2. KSP 1 is definitely due for replacement but not at that price, until the new-version bugs and glitches have been worked out and we can judge the new regime's attitude to patches, updates, DLC, 'optional' extras, etc. By waiting I get a lower-cost and better-value product. And the opportunity to learn whether T2 => Private Division => Star Theory are even people with whom I wish to do business. Meanwhile, KSP 1 remains plus I'll buy and play four or more other games/genres using the money and time KSP 2 would require. (* Oops, I got drunk once and bought the A10 for DCS. GBP £50 for one plane that I've perhaps spent 3 hours learning to operate! I also remember that I've bought KSP 1 twice; originally direct from Squad and then in a Steam sale. Still half the cost of KSP 2).

Since KSP 1 was redesigned as Kerbal Aircraft Program so people could fly planes to the moon it's all been ridiculously easy anyway unless you restrain yourself. It could be worse, if it went all Hollywood 'space' like Elite or SC but 'hard' is only ever going to be a matter of what dV and thrust you can get from an engine.

Er, no it's not, it's "what would stop you from playing it". Obviously, not buying (or otherwise obtaining) it would be a blocker but once someone has it the availability of features, mods, etc. will be known and decisive. The way DLC, season passes and other 'optional' money-grabs are handled will also be known and are a perfectly legitimate reason for deciding whether to support KSP 2 or not. As I've said before, I just don't think it'll offer enough to be worth the launch cost but intend to get it once it's half that - unless they dick around with price-gouging. USD $60 already looks cynical, 'extras' could be a killer. T2 have a bad reputation (not quite as bad as EA but close) so they shouldn't be surprised that people hesitate to buy their goods.

This was in fact originally intended by Squad when the science mode was introduced. There was quite a fierce debate about it on this forum simply because it would make comparing and contrasting engines impossible, let alone sharing them. Just look at how many questions are asked about craft design or engine choice every week. For a start you'd have to give designs for people using sandbox versus science/career modes, then for those that have certain amounts of 'spare' science points AND want to spend them on certain design improvements. Nevertheless it would, as you say, be an interesting and realistic feature. The developers themselves thought so and, regardless, of course you're allowed to suggest whatever you want.

+1 wonderfully unobtrusive but gives you all the information you need except separation distance.

Snark, your answers are brilliantly comprehensive and well written. :-)

[snip] I do not recognise (with an 's') that USD $60 is the 'de facto' standard price for games. My posts detailed exactly why that is. [snip]

Which is all very well but the price has doubled (quadrupled from when I purchased it) and T2/PD are still pulling the strings. They might be 'content' with 2x price at the moment but by the time it's cheap enough for me to consider it could have degenerated. We shall see. I said I didn't think it's likely but I also say it would be a blocker.

From a couple of versions before 1.0 it became clear that more and more people want to concentrate on aircraft, spaceplanes and Kerbin ground vehicles. That's fine, for them. However, it was also clear after that that a lot of effort was being put into making planes easier and comparatively little into rocketry/space exploration. I'm thinking here of the period where we got the Mk2 series, all sorts of air-breathing engines, all the wings, etc. At the same time part-balance, especially engines, was changed to make atmospheric operations easier. As we know, most people (~90% IIRC) never go beyond Kerbin SOI and some even never passed LKO. Again, that's fine for them but I think "Kerbal Aeroplane Program" should be a different game. Similarly, the distant-sci fi interstellar stuff is fine, for those that want it. I'm all for different solar systems so we can fly 'classic' Kerbal, real Sol or anything else so I suppose it makes sense to tie them together with some handwavium. It's probably better than loading a new solar systems from scratch. The thing is, neither Kerbin ground or atmospheric nor interstellar travel are the focus I'm looking for in a 'real science' (sort of) 'space' game/simulator. Both KSP 1 DLCs were exactly what I was looking for - real(ish) historical parts and more exploration stuff. It is of course good that a company try to give its customers what they want but there's room for T2 to just treat KSP as a milk-cow and keep doing cash-grabs by dumbing it down more and more to appeal to masses of people who aren't interested in a space science game. TL;DR "We choose to do these things ... not because they are easy but because they are hard". I don't think it's likely but I worry that KSP 2 could become "hey kids, why not fly to Altair in this simple spaceplane". Rip-off pricing and T2's reputation don't reassure me.

Yes it is. Double points for pulling my leg / kidding / teasing / joking in a foreign language :-)

Price Kerbal Aeroplane Progam* (*The way KSP 1 became steadily more biased towards aircraft and further from 'space program')

As I have said elsewhere, I'm not prepared to pay USD $60 for any game, even though I'd pay more for KSP 2 than for almost any other. As such, I'll stick with KSP 1 until a) it's a lot cheaper, b) it's been patched a few times and c) essential mods are available*. Once I have bought 2 though - and it's "when" not "if" - it's unlikely I'll ever come back to 1. (*I have no idea what will be essential at the moment but a KAC-equivalent would be one, if it's not built-in).

You got me. I thought you were kidding with the first one but took the second seriously ^^

No, I would have left hand for WASDQE (+RT) and right for IJKLHN. Touch-typing 'home keys' are ASDF and JKL; (semi-colon at the end there). The only information not given by the navball is the separation distance, so there's really no need to manipulate the camera or look at anything else until you're on final approach. If you're using NavyFish's docking alignment mod that gives you the separation too, doesn't it? If so, you'd never need to look at anything but the docking window. In any case, since I'd only possibly look away from the navball/docking window a few times and, since that would be between manoeuvres, it's easy to move right hand from keyboard to mouse, adjust camera, and replace my hand on the keyboard home keys*. Traditionally, that's how a copy-typist would turn the page of the copy from which they were typing. Even without being a touch typist though, think how rarely you need to adjust the camera and, unless you're really rushing things at close quarters, how much time you have to move and replace your hand. Shouldn't be a problem. (*if you feel the F and J keys on your keyboard there is still usually a notch or bump on the keycap or it has a deeper well than the other keys. That's so a touch-typist can feel when they've got their index fingers on the correct home keys, so the others fit naturally onto the others, without having to look).

Right conceeded. I've been a touch-typist since I was 15 and can't bring myself to use left hand on right half of the keyboard!

Quite right and I apologise for the tone. Everyone who can choose decides for themselves what is entertaining and what it is worth to them. My original point was that USD $60 AAA pricing is not worth it to me because there are plenty of better games, in fact every game I've ever bought, that are half that price or less. In the case of KSP 2 I don't believe it will be sufficiently different/improved from 1 to warrant the price (to me) so I will continue with 1 for the time being. My "would you really" question to you was just amazement that anyone would think a sequel, even to awesome KSP, would be worth as much as any 3 top-priced alternatives, or 6 times as much as KSP 1/any other USD $30 game. If you do, then I hope you enjoy it. Yes I am. I judge that USD $60 for a PC game is very, very overpriced and only goes to keep T2 executives earning millions, not developing good games. I judge KSP 2 pricing to be a cynical under-valued cash-grab. Note the list of the games I've played most - which I accept is entirely subjective - and their prices. If you pay lots for console games then good luck; there's no reason I should do the same on PC. [snip] I didn't say I couldn't afford it, I said I didn't believe it to be worth it. Neither did I attempt to label people throwing USD $60 - $180 as irresponsible kids for doing so. [snip]

Why would I want to do that? As I said, I've never paid £60 for a game and I have no intention of paying £60 for a game. KSP 2 may be worth that to some people, it isn't to me. The four single-player games I've spent over 1,000 hours on are: KSP 4,000+ hrs, £15 Rimworld 1,200 hrs, £19 Mount & Blade: Warband 1,020 hrs, £15 Rome: Total War 1,009 hrs, £25 Oblivion was possibly the most expensive game I have ever bought - about £28 IIRC, on DVD, with feelies. Good luck to those price-gouging. Good luck, even, to @MechBFP who wants to be gouged and seems to be 'informed' about something those of us who have been playing KSP since early alpha are not. @coyotesfrontier; note that I did not say "KSP is bad because Unity", "KSP is bad" or "KSP 2 will be bad". I just think that there will be nothing revolutionary in the new version that would justify AAA headline franchise pricing. Mostly because, as above, I don't think that pricing is ever justifiable anyway. @Galileo would you really pay USD $180 for a game though, however good? Assuming you have KSP 1 do you really think 2 will be $180 better? Three times as good as any other game you could buy even? How many people in the world do you think USD $180 could feed, that you'd "easily pay" for a game? KSP 1 will comfortably last me until I can get 2 for a sensible price.

Controverially, I think I've decided not to buy KSP 2 for a while. I've never paid GBP £60 for a game and I certainly don't intend to start with one that is sounding more and more like a £20 DLC. As a re-write and tidy sequel it doesn't have the excuse of 'years of AAA' development to pay for, not that that was ever valid anyway. Still using Unity. Still using single-core. Bundling some new parts- and planets- mods. Call me back when it's on sale for £30.

Hoorah! So we're all agreed? Normal mode (although I recommend 'fine' controls (capslock on PC)) Left hand = rotation = WASDQE using reaction wheels. Disable RCS and SAS (R and T) Right hand = translation = IJKLHN using monopropellant. Enable RCS and SAS (ditto) That plus take it slowly and be patient! It still takes a lot of practice but once you 'get it' it becomes smooth as silk. I usually reckon to dock from any situation using less than 5 units of monopropellant*. (*Rotation doesn't use any and BIG translation changes can be done with main engines. Only small translation thrusts need to be done using monoprop).

As BudgetHedgeHog said, the WASDQE keys still rotate the vehicle exactly as they do without RCS. The specific IJKLHN RCS keys are for translation - where rotation is unwanted and, usually, only a side-effect of unbalanced RCS thrusters. Generally rotation is a waste of monopropellant though. Rotate: Disable RCS and SAS, use WASDQE and reaction wheels Translate: Enable RCS and SAS, use IJKLHN and monopropellant Swap between both until within final few metres then ensure RCS and SAS are both disabled so the docking magnets have free control.

There is, or was, an even more minimalist version called the Navball Docking Alignment Indicator. I really liked that one because all it did was add another symbol to the navball instead of displaying a big window. Don't know if it's still maintained though.

"Interplanetary"? "SSTO"? "Single Stage TO ORBIT"? "Interplanetary"? Oh yeah - that's easy. Stick a small probe core, battery, etc. on a xenon tank and dawn engine for your interplanetary vehicle, add a decoupler and build your SSTO launch vehicle underneath it. A few FL-T800s and a swivel should do for that, with fins and fairing. Launch, SSTO, decouple, interplanetary. Easy 5km/s ready to go.