Search the Community

when i was digging through the files i went into squadexpansion and i found out that Breaking Ground wasn't always called that it was originally called Serenity and i thought it would be a cool thing to talk about tell me if you knew this or you didn't feel free to ask me a theory about it

However, considering a few years ago the other "government officials meeting" in Singapore - Their news is quite a lot of nighttime footage of bustling Singapore. And said that "hey look that's Singapore." Meanwhile, many of them have been to China and Russia as foreign students. So, it's very likely that what you think they're going to talk to you about, "I can't find the money for my next meal", but they actually going to talk to you about "how well DJI drones can be modified and carried".

Sorry, this jumped out to me as being surprisingly hilarious. I was reading through this dumpster fire and reached your comment - most of the stuff you said just uses different starting assumptions and places different importance on different pieces of information but I can get behind the logic (while disagreeing with most of them), but this one... an acrobatic masterpiece. Okay, an example: Object A has trait B. Type of object C has trait B. (implication...). This doesn't logically imply that the object is in that type - I have eyes. Yeah, flamingoes have eyes. The thing that makes this really funny is that you can in fact talk about things that don't exist - you can find lots of examples of very specific statements about multiplayer that aren't true. The devs could just lie - I'm reasonably certain you are aware of that fact. So, reading backwards, coming across this statement right after reading this is hilarious. Wait... They can talk about it. Yeah, you can talk about things that don't exist. (implication: They don't have multiplayer). One thing that your statement serves for is to rule out its own category; that is logically consistent. For example, if I say that I can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist and then I go on to demonstrate it, then I can't be in the category of non-existence: if p then q -> !q = !p (this doesn't work the other way btw). So, assuming that that Patch 1 was communicated truthfully (which could always be an incorrect assumption), this statement: doesn't work: You can't talk about (I'd say demonstrate) things that don't exist, the devs have talked about (and more importantly demonstrated) their QA through Patch 1, ergo the QA does not not exist. As I said at the start, I respect your opinions and logic, even the QA statement. You noticed I made different assumptions to start with (that the Patch 1 communications are true, at least the relevant part), and perhaps interpreted information differently (that the bug fixes in Patch 1 are an adequate demonstration of bugs that have been fixed without outside input), leading me to a different conclusion. However, changing those factors, I could come to your conclusion logically. I don't want this to be a serious insult, just a jab at something I found funny. Everyone slips up, I caught two obvious logical fallacies in this message (and there's probably still more if you want to find them), but this was a slip with a wonderful flourish.

I had to pay already for the privilege of play-testing and emit feedback, why would I also perform the job of a paid position on top of that? I can design you a science mechanic, come back to it with a presentation, multiple docs, spreadsheets about balance, and whatever you ask, but we've gotta talk money first. If you want stuff for free, there's plenty on the thread.

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts.. How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it. Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....

Some content has been removed, and a number of posts quoting said content have also been removed. Feel free to state your opinions as you wish. We don’t care if your opinion is for or against. It doesn’t matter. That’s what the forums are here for. What we don’t allow is to make comments about a person, or people in general. Do not tell others how to post, or what to post. Do not make comments about others motives or intent. If you disagree with another person, use facts, logic and reasoning to counter their arguments. Even then, they may still disagree with you, and that’s OK. Reasonable minds can disagree. That means we don’t need to delve into the same arguments in every thread. If a comment had been addressed in a previous thread, it’s often best to reference that thread and continue the discussion there, as the topic has been covered. Granted, given the state of the game right now, that might not give us a lot to talk about. Until we do get more stuff to talk about, rehashing the same arguments over and over won’t do any good.

Flight 1001 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-119-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill The KJ-119 is the first jet airliner built by Kerbal Spaceless Program to use more than 1 engine. In this case, it's a Wheesley and a Juno. ----------- Jeb: Good morning all Kerbs, welcome aboard to Trans Kerbin Airlines! We will be taking off shortly. Bill: Wow, they even put a second engine on this one! Talk about safety first! The Wheesley spooled up and spat to life. The Juno? Not so much. Bill: Jeb, I think the Juno failed. Hopefully we'll make it to the Island Airfield. Jeb: SIlly old Gene making us fly test planes with passengers on board. Bill: Wait a minute... you left the PA on! The passengers immediately began screaming. Jeb: Calm on guys, we've almost landed. After the landing, the passengers made their way of the plane and the other unsuspecting group of passengers entered the plane. Luckily the flight went relatively smoothly. As the passengers left, they made sure to leave their positive reviews. "They didn't even have seat cushions!" - Bingus Kerman "Where are the in-flight snacks, and why am I able to open the plane's windows?" - Doofus Kerman "This flight pulled more G's than I ever did in the Kerbin War!" - Rofel Kerman The KJ-119-1 was immediately sent to the SPH for repairs for the Juno. Hopefully this ends well.

I have played and adored nearly all of Chris's mods and they are absolutely brilliant. I don't always agree with him though when it comes to gameplay. I think efficiency and simplicity are really important but I'll return again and again to the chess vs checkers example. What makes good gameplay is not absolute simplicity, but maximizing the ratio between input rule complexity and total output creative gamespace. Sometimes a very large investment in dev work results in a very small increase in creative gameplay. Sometimes a modest investment in dev work results in a HUGE increase in creative gameplay. Every smart developer is playing these odds. I happen to think there were some decisions in KSP1 like instant scanning on polar orbit and not incorporating biome maps that were huge missed opportunities, and across the board when you talk to folks who used SCANsat the verdict is pretty unanimous that the mod did it better. Thats because it hit that sweet spot leveraging a bit more complexity in design to capture a much more robust gameplay experience. I think avoiding LoS, real-time mapping, time-based mechanics, and life support are similar kinds of missed opportunities where a modest investment in development time could leverage a much more dynamic set of design, planning, and navigation puzzles for the game.

I support this and agree with @Pthigrivi. That being said.. I feel like the devs read and listen to player opinions, but they don't confirm it. Slowly I see that gameplay decisions are made, the items on the wishlists are getting added and some things seem to be well thought out. We're all starting to have an idea about what this game wants to be. But the dev - player interaction is minimal at best. Good thing we have the CMs to talk to. Anyway, when you as a player feel like life is not fair.. remember that @Nertea's Discord handle is Destroyer of Fun. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Will KSP 3 features alien Kerbals, black holes?

Flight ????: KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 1 TKA Flight Inspector The KJ-099 is the first passenger plane the KSP developed. With a passenger capacity of 4 kerbals, the KJ-099 is perfect for use for flight inspections (establishing a new flight route). The first test flight is to send an inspector about 20 km out above the ocean and fly back safely. Morty gives a little pep talk: Bill: Whatever, starting up the Wheesley... Jeb: Fly safe? That's not something we're good at! Flight Inspector: What'd you say? Jeb: Nothing... With a bit of struggling due to the bad landing gear placement, the KJ-099 somewhat flopped into the air. Luckily it seemed to like flying, so that should be okay. Flight Inspector: Why does my metal seat have no cushion? Bill: Uh... it's for cooling purposes since we don't have an air-con vent back there... Flight Inspector: I hate my job... Jeb: All kerbals please fasten your seatbelts. This landing may not be pretty. Jeb: Try to flare it a bit... Jeb: Nailed it! With the success of the first flight, the KJ-099 is immediately sent to the SPH for improvements, notably the bad wheel placement. A few days later... Flight 1000 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 3 TKA Flight Inspectors Bill: Can't believe they woke us up at 2 for this. Flight Inspector 1: Well get on with it, can you? Jeb: I think they're complaining about the legroom again. How are they so awake? Bill: I suppose it's the jet-lag. Now that the jet has arrived at the Island Airfield, the Inspectors get off to negotiate flight deals. And before long, the KJ-099 is off again. The wheel placement improvements certainly helped with takeoff. Jeb: "Friendly reminder that you are not allowed to have food fights in the cockpit" Gene knows us so well... Bill: So how'd you enjoy the landing? Flight Inspector: At least it was better than Kyanair... Now with a place to fly planes to, the KSP begins building a larger plane...

Good afternoon, Kerbonauts. This past week has been a learning experience. My last post here received a lot of comments, many of which expressed doubt, frustration, and in some cases even anger about either the seeming lack of progress on KSP2 or the perception that I am concealing some dark reality about the state of the game. Our team has been reading your comments and asking one another if there’s some way we can do better. In the past, every item in these forum posts has had to cross a threshold of certainty - I don’t want to announce some new feature or target date, only to experience a trust-eroding failure to follow through. I feel this burden especially keenly because in the past I have personally announced dates that turned out to be incorrect. For that reason, I have avoided talking about features in progress, bugs under investigation, or internal delivery deadlines. With a game this complex, nothing is ever assured until it has been thoroughly tested by QA. When you combine this "stay quiet until you’re absolutely sure" ethos with a more dispersed update cadence, what you get is long periods of silence. Now, of course I haven’t gone literally silent. I still post here every week. Before each post goes out, I meet with the production and community teams to review the past week’s progress, and a great many exciting developments are discussed. They often take the form of "we’ve made great progress on x category of super annoying bug" or "this feature looks good but we haven’t had time to fully validate it yet." By my standard of "don’t talk about it until it’s truly done," neither of those scenarios yields anything that’s safe to post about. What is safe, then? Well, for the most part, content updates (new art, new parts, new graphics improvements) come along in nice, neat little parcels that are not only visually pleasing, but also unlikely to generate an unmet expectation. They’re fun and they’re safe, and artists are always creating new content. So you see lots of that. But the other thing you see lots of is some variation on "improved stability and performance." That’s my catch-all term for that very meaningful category of progress that, because of my reluctance to write bad checks, can’t yet be talked about in detail. When I hold back on such items, I comfort myself that the less I reveal now, the more surprising the patch notes will be when we finally release them. Still, I’m questioning my choice to withhold information about systems in progress. Yes, there’s always the chance that when we talk about a feature in development, that we’re also creating an expectation that the feature will be present in the next update. Similarly daunting is the possibility that we’ll announce that we’re working on something that the community perceives as "easy" (an especially common situation when we’re working on a feature that is already functional in the original KSP), and then take such a long time delivering that feature that people may decide we don’t know what we’re doing. In such cases, we then need to take the time to explain in technical detail why the implementation of such and such a feature is non-trivial in KSP2. Increased transparency carries costs, and those costs always have to be balanced against other feature-facing work we could be doing. So what I’m going to try to do right now is to extend some trust to you. I’m going to talk about a few things that are not yet complete so that you can at least see some of the ropes we’re hauling on every day - some of which may prove to be long. This list is not exhaustive (there are dozens of people working on dozens of items simultaneously, and there are some features that we really do want to be surprises), but it will hopefully give you some visibility into the breadth of issues we’re tackling. Please do not assume that if a bug didn’t get mentioned in this list that it is unknown to us or not being worked on — this is a top-ten list. Our bug prioritization is broadly guided by the following logic: Category A: any bug that causes loss of a vehicle in flight (physics issues, trajectory instability, decoupling instability, loss of camera focus, unexpected part breakage/RUD) Category B: any bug that affects the fidelity or continuity of a saved game (rigidbody degradation, save file inflation, loss of vehicle or Kerbal during instantiation or focus switching) Category C: any bug that negatively affects the expected performance of a vehicle (drag occlusion, staging issues, thrust asymmetry, joint wobbliness, landing leg bounciness) Category D: any VAB bug that prevents the player from creating the vehicle they want to make (symmetry bugs, fairing/wing editor bugs, strut instability, inconsistent root part behavior) While there are many bugs that live outside these four categories (and in some cases, such bugs end up getting sorted out during normal feature development), the four categories above are the biggest fun killers. Until a player can envision a vehicle, create it without being impeded by VAB issues, fly it with a reasonable expectation that physical forces will be consistently applied, and save their progress at any point without worrying about the fidelity of that save, the KSP2 experience will be compromised. Obviously, now that we are layering in progression mechanics (Science gathering and transmission, missions, and R&D tech tree) in preparation for downstream Roadmap updates, the importance of addressing these issues only increases. Therefore, here are a few of the biggest issues we’re wrangling with right now: Vehicles in stable coasting orbits sometimes experience orbit instability/decay - Status: possible fix in progress Trajectories change when vehicles cross SOI boundaries - Status: fix in progress (see below) Certain inline parts cause aerodynamic drag numbers to spike - Status: under investigation Returning to craft from VAB causes craft to go underground (possibly related to Kerbals and landed vehicles dropping through terrain while being approached) - Status: possible fix being tested Decoupling events result in various issues including loss of control, incorrect controllability of decoupled subassemblies, loss of camera focus, and other issues - Status: may have many causes, but some fixes in progress (see below) Save files get bigger over time (TravelLog experiencing "landed" status spam) - Status: fix being tested Opening part manager causes major frame lag - Status: experiments ongoing Major post-liftoff frame rate lag immediately above launchpad (associated with engine exhaust lighting) - Status: fix being tested Root parts placed below decouplers cause issues with stage separation - Status: under investigation Vehicle joints unusually wobbly, some part connections unusually weak - Status: under investigation We’re tracking down some strange vehicle behaviors associated with spurious autostrut errors. As we’ve discussed here before, some radially-attached parts are reinforced by additional invisible autostruts to improve their stability. It turns out that these autostruts don’t always break cleanly during decoupling events, and may be the cause of some of our more frustrating decoupling issues (including those where detached vehicle elements appear to still affect one another’s behavior). We’re still investigating this one, but we have high hopes that its correction will result in a reduction of mission-killing errors. Finally, we have zeroed in on the cause of some of the trajectory errors we’ve been seeing - especially the situation in which a trajectory changes spontaneously when crossing an SOI boundary. This one is deep in the code and its correction may end up fixing a few other downstream issues. This is a complicated problem, however, and we may not solve it in time for the June update. We should know more about this one soon. I’ve provided the list above as a stopgap. We have been discussing internally how best to improve bug status visibility so that you have a better idea of what we’re working on. We’re looking at a lot of options right now, and I’ll update you when we’ve settled on something. We recognize the need for this transparency and we’ll come to a solution soon. ANYWAY... we have some nice content news! Update v0.1.3.0 will be the first KSP2 update to contain not only bug fixes, but a few new parts. Right now, we can confirm the arrival of the following: A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E Clamp-O-Tron shielded docking port Clamp-O-Tron Inline Docking Port MK2 Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Cornet Methalox Engine (new small extensible-nozzle orbital engine) Trumpet Methalox Engine (new medium extensible-nozzle orbital engine) Tuba Methalox Engine (new large extensible-nozzle orbital engine) S3-28800 Large Inline Methalox tank (longer version of large methalox tanks) Here’s some video of those new engines in action. The Tuba has individually-swiveling mini-nozzles that might be one of part designer Chris Adderley’s coolest ideas yet (final parts built by Pablo Ollervides, Jonathan Cooper, and Alexander Martin): new_engine_testing.mp4 We are still testing the new grid fins. Because these parts require some special part module support, engineering work is ongoing. Due to the complexity of this work, we don’t believe grid fins will make it into the v0.1.3.0 update. Last week’s challenge produced a few spiffy designs. Check out this rocket, with which user Well braved the Kraken and managed to deposit a lander at the bottom of the Mohole: Gotta respect the ingenuity of using antennae for landing legs: Thanks to those who participated! Next up, at the suggestion of @RyanHamer42 on Twitter, we’re building space stations! Your mission, should you choose to accept it: Primary goal: build a station by docking at least two Wayfarer habitat modules together in orbit above Kerbin Secondary goal: add a deployable solar panel truss and a fuel depot tank to your station Jeb-level goal: dock a transfer tug to your station and place the station in orbit above another planet Val-level goal: send a lander to your station that can be reused for down-and-up flights to the surface of the planet below Thanks for the suggestion, Ryan! Good luck, everyone!

Answers to some questions we had to skip over during the AMA but I still wanted to get to: Alexoff What percentage of the parts in KSP2 was created by you personally? Depends how you measure it. Effectively zero because I don’t do the asset work, by one definition. In terms of maybe inception/concepting, in the EA release I’d say I had a hand in about 10%? What is the largest part will be in KSP2? The largest part I have in my list right now is in the 80m+ size category. It’s a lot harder to measure these colony parts versus vehicle parts though… Do you participate in the creation of parts for the colonies? I participate in the concepting and design phase yes. It’s where I’m focusing a lot of my ‘thinking time’ these days. Colony parts are both similar and different from vehicles – in what they look like, how they assemble, etc. As we get to those milestones we refine our designs from player feedback. How difficult is it to add a new part to KSP2? Is there a big difference? Is it harder than creating a new part for KSP1 for a modder? Most things in KSP2 end up being more complex than KSP1. As an example at a basic level the PBR shading model that we use requires more texture maps than KSP1. That is mitigated by having access to internal tooling and a faster iteration loop (click Play in Unity rather than load the game). Stephensan is there any more concepts for more air-breathing engines like the J-90 smaller or larger There’s been team interest in larger air breather engines, but as always that’s not so simple – adding an air breather of say, 2.5m size requires us to also look at the supporting parts in that size, like intakes and cockpits, so the player can have a good experience when using those engines. That balloons the required work significantly. I would want to push out the different technologies rather than footprints first. Nuclear jets, propellers, all unlock interesting new player stories! is there gear that is going to be angled from the fuselage not straight up and down and finally more tires/wheels in the concept stage, or even remotely thought of... We definitely have people who want that on the team . LunarMetis How will the sizes of different stars be scaled with respect to Kerbol? Will they be scaled at 1/3 their real-life analogs like Kerbol and the Sun? Specific scaling of the actual meshes is less important than defining their specific insolation numbers for input into solar panel math but yeah they’ll be Kerbol-relative. How do you plan to implement proper motion of other star systems, and how do you expect that to add to the challenges of interstellar travel? Hah, interstellar travel is going to be hard enough already. Proper motion is something we need to balance carefully there. Pthigviri Hi, Chris! Im sure you've been deep in colony part design. What are your thoughts on greenhouses and simple life support with snacks for example? How do you see conveying that colonies are both real places where kerbals live and 'working machines' much the way vessels are? Honestly I don’t like basic life support (by basic I mean something like having Kerbals on a ship consume a resource). I’ve played all* of the KSP1 mods for it, and I haven’t found something that is interesting and holds my interest beyond frustration for more than a few hours – just not my cup of warm beverage. More seriously though, systems like this need to have a bunch of considerations: - They need really carefully crafted player stories. Those stories need to support lots of different player archetypes – not just advanced players. - They often should work on a carrot rather than stick-based approach. KSP has a lot of sticks right now. - They need scalable solutions that are plannable and toolable. That’s a big thing and that’s where LS gets expensive in dev-hours We have some things in the works around Colonies that ape some of the ‘results’ of life support, which I hope will get at the idea of colonies being a little more kerbal-involved than just plunking Kerbals in a command part. * I think all? It has been a while, maybe some new ones have cropped up. PDCWolf Has the concept of heating changed at any point based on the feedback posted to its thread? I read every post in the thread, which was nontrivial because it was a long and uh, vibrant thread. The short version is no, the long version is yes but… A lot of the interesting discussions sat around things that are further down the roadmap, and they provided us with a couple additional things to consider. Interestingly, the player stories we have were well aligned with the comments that I read, but the way the player stories were addressed were not unanimously approved. That’s fine – part of the EA conversation– and in particular with a lot of discussion being on items later in the roadmap, this makes me confident in the iterative model. We’ll get the basics of the system focusing on reentry stories out to everyone. We’ll evaluate how that works with the playerbase. As we move towards the next milestones, we can use the information encoded in the thread, which I’ve collected internally, to make sure we’re making choices (engineering or design-wise) in conjunction with the feedback from reentry to get good solutions. One thing that jumped out for me was that there’s a lot of talk about macro vs micro solutions. I’ll be the first to admit that the current solution is a macro solution. So future design work will probably focus on whether there’s more microscale interaction to look at. If I know the peak or average specific heat flux a vessel is gonna go through on its final orbit/landing spot, what stops me from just adding enough negative heat flux parts to counteract it? Nothing. That’s what you should be doing. Of course, it’s not really that simple. If this is atmospheric heat from going fast, adding a big radiator is likely to just increase the amount of next flux, because it has a large surface area. Most heat mitigation tools need something else too – a radiator might need electricity, which means you need to supply that, which will enforce additional constraints. Considering its possible uses on the automated logistics network, long missions, and just straight up anything that only requires time to pass, how do you balance not timewarping versus just letting things happen in ultra-fast time? These are the best questions because they’re the hard ones. Often we trend towards supporting a player path that doesn’t reward excessive timewarping, but doesn’t exclude it either. A good case study is resource extraction and deposit concentrations. There’s definitely fun in seeking out and finding the best deposit for mining. Obviously though timewarp makes that kinda moot in timing. You could just start mining a hypothetically low-grade deposit and warp for 50 days. That tells us that time and rate -based mechanics need to have more to work well. A specific example here is that a newly accessible resource should be constrained differently – challenging location, resource transport limitations, etc. We try to move the real player decisions to things that are interesting with and without time as a mechanic. Mostly hypothetical examples, but here’s a few ways of thinking of these things on top of my head: Put a locational constraint on something. If you need to do something in orbit over a specific part of a planet, make it take longer than the average orbital cycle. This might encourage a player to put a satellite in GEO orbit over that place. If you do the work to put it in GEO, you get the benefit of being able to timewarp. Use binaries instead of gradients. Does ore concentration really benefit from a really detailed gradient from 0.0001% to 100%, or can you look at it as a yes/no? Trade that, see if you’re damaging player stories with that simplification. Use supporting systems. Sure, you could mine that deposit at high timewarp. But the deposit is on a planet with a day length of 200 days, and you need power, and the area has no fissionables. How are you going to power it? If you solve this problem, it is satisfying and you get a cookie. You did the work, enjoy your timewarpable extraction! These are really big problems we look at for all of the more complex systems because hey, an interstellar transfer could be 100 years. Players will timewarp that and that’s… the whole length of a KSP1 campaign. Fun with and without timewarping like this is essential. Socraticat What are your favorite tips and tools for new modders? My biggest tip is to do what you want to do and not focus on what others want. Lots of the most creative KSP1 mods didn’t hitch themselves to any one concept of the game, and that’s what made KSP1 modding so successful. You want RO? You’ve got RO. You want to launch kerbals in a cardboard box rocket? That’s there too. You want life support? Oh hey there’s about 5 different concepts out there to pick from. Also don’t try to form a team day 1 . Get some experience, release some stuff, and the team will come to you! Tools - Blender is an amazing piece of free software, and there are a ton of good coding tools out there for the software-minded as well. It has never been a better time to be an independent purveyor of these kind of things, you don’t need to suffer through e.g. gmax or the trial version of Milkshape3D anymore. Royalswissarmyknife Is there any consideration of 1.875 meter parts Building out a whole family of 1.875m parts that includes the core stuff (engines and tanks) plus the necessary ancillaries is a lot of work and not something the team is committing to right now. Strawberry While we do know it wont be added in the short term, the team has previously been wishy washy if radiation/life support will make it into the game. Are these topics something that the team has decided wont be in the game until maybe after 1.0, something the team has a firm answer on what they want to do with but does not wish to disclose it (though if you do wish to disclose please do), or something that the team is geniunely undecided on See answer to Pthigviri about LS stuff. Radiation is a bit more interesting to me because I have a fair bit of history in mods with it, and I’ve eagerly assimilated the early concept work the team has done for KSP2. There are two tradespaces in terms of vessel design, point sources and ambient radiation that we at least nominally want to think about including. Ambient radiation is basically a time trade. How long can you spend in a radioactive environment? You can throw things like radiation shielding, storm shelters, etc but ultimately it all comes down to time to Bad Things. It’s harder to help a player to plan. You have to give them tools to determine how much radiation there is around somewhere and how to figure out how long they can spend there, etc. Point radiation is nuclear engines and reactors. This is harder to implement but is definitely relevant in terms of craft design, because it is a big part of why fictional interstellar ships look the way they do. Interestingly it is easier to model and communicate to the player because you know lots of the variables at vessel build time. One of the messy things here though is that as soon as you throw in radiation, you railroad players into building ships with nuclear engines in a very specific way. We have to craft a solution that hits a nice middle ground. See this comment. I’m candidly going to say that we don’t have the ideal solution in the bag right now – but that’s what EA is all about. I’m sure I’ll write some kinda discourse on radiation eventually for a dev blog and everyone can weigh in on why I’m wrong :P. Pokaia Are there any features you modded into KSP 1 that you are bringing into KSP2? What is your favorite? I wouldn’t want to port anything specific without a good justification, but I really want to bring in more planning tools. The only ones I built were around heat and power management, but yeah. Something like that. One of the cool things about this job is that I get to start again, so to speak, with the support of people who have been in the industry for a while. So if I want to bring in nuclear reactors, I can take my concepts from Near Future Electrical, talk to some Real Designers ™ and get their opinions on what works and what didn’t work, and make something cleaner for KSP2. Filip Hudak What are next parts that are comming into the game? Science parts! But also those gridfins we teased a while ago should appear. stoup Are there any kinds of parts you're going to be adding to KSP2, that as far as you know, weren't even really available as mods in KSP1? Some unexpected bits and bobs, maybe The entire colony loop is more or less stuff that was never really available in KSP1 mods from a system perspective. Modding KSP1 was really wide though – hard for me to say. Kalessin1 Are all parts from Your mods to KSP1 will be implemented in KSP2? Especially large solar panels, station parts & MK4 spaceplane? Hah, no not at all. I like to re-use concepts, but this is a great opportunity to start afresh and to fix some stupid things I did in development of those in my mods. Gotta somehow get more Thunderbirds in the game though. Cocoscacao Will we get all size variants for all parts? Example, hydrogen tank with the smallest radius, only has long option. Why "semi procedural" parts weren't considered, where you can select a tank and set its lenght/radius to some of the predsfined available values? You definitely have me to blame for no smaller hydrogen tanks – just don’t think they’re useful with the low density. Why wobblyness still exists? What are design choices and reasons to keep it, if there is a way to remove it? If there is indeed a way to remove it... I have a post on my thoughts about this as a player. Generally though – it’s not where we want it to be and we’re trying to figure out how to get it there. That’s extremely non-trivial, there are various posts in the forum that do a good job of explaining some of the whys. SAP KSP How advanced will the Kerbal's technology be, will there be very advanced parts such as anti-particle devices? We’ll definitely get way up there in the tech tree. I do want to keep those under wraps for now tho. Infinite Aerospace Are you able to tell us 'something' about science and career modes, there's been an alarming lack of any real information regarding the two. Well! Science mode is cool. It is designed to be a progression-based mode that takes the aspects of KSP1’s Science mode that we like and build upon them to create a solid progression experience that has higher level of agency and approachability. You can expect the return of the experiment loop, with changes, and the inclusion of a very different mission paradigm from Career. One of the fiddlier aspects of the last few months has been taking our full set of concepts from KSP2 1.0 and figuring out how they break down into the early access structure. Delving deeper, what can we expect from science mode, is it the same ‘click and reward’ setup as KSP1 or are you going for a ‘science over time’ sorta approach more akin to Kerbalism? The system as designed is independent from things like Kerbalism, but you could say there’s some concepts that aren’t dissimilar in there. It has been a while since I have played with that mod tough. We definitely want to get to more player agency in science. Instead of it effectively being mandatory to hide 4 tiny science experiments on every craft you send anywhere, we want you to make a more informed decision about what you take with you, and make the actions you take a bit more specific too. I should write a little dev blog on this. What sort of part numbers are we looking at, is there going to be the same sorta number of experiments as KSP1, or significantly more? What does that entail, are the experiments something more dynamic this time, looking at things like NASA’s GRACE mission for example? I should definitely write a little dev blog on this. Similar number, more impactful. In terms of career mode, is there a more dynamic contract system in place rather than the rather ‘rinse and repeat’ system of KSP1? There’s still going to be funding, reputation? I believe we are on record about not using the same framework there. Funding and reputation weren’t our favorite systems and didn’t have the gameplay impact we wanted. As a side question, stations and bases. Are these going to have something of a real use this time around, given that stations were limited to more or less just fuel depots in KSP1. I'm thinking more along the lines of long term research projects, with big pay-off for significant durations of time. Is there some sort of requirement to resupply the stations, perhaps required crew rotation, stuff like that? The progression we want to deliver for bases and stations mirrors IRL conceptions about how these things should work. You will start out with outposts that have limited utility – let’s call that KSP1-like. Fuel depots, maybe comms relays, etc. As you progress through the tech tree, you’ll get access to stuff that provides them with greater utility. That’s shipyards and docks, fuel factories, launch pads, etc. Eventually you’ll get the biggest parts, which are mostly focused on giving you the full capabilities of the KSC at a colony. A core piece of the utility in my mind comes with resource gathering (which is a ways off in the roadmap,) when the specific positioning and configuration of a colony becomes really important. Placing a colony with good access to progression-related resources and having easy access to heat management/power sources will allow you to build specific functions and cool vibes into each colony. Crew rotations and resupply are not currently something we would want to enforce. I hope that when we get resources and delivery routes fully operational though, that this is something modders will hit really hard because the framework of stuff like delivery routes will be there. TheAziz Pineapple on pizza or not? I don’t like it, but recently I was made aware that liking baked potato pizza was weird so I can’t really judge. Superfluous J Having done both, what do you think are the main differences between adding a part (or set of parts) to the game as a modder, vs as a paid member of the team? Accountability and justification are big. It’s easy enough to incept a new part as a generalist modder. I just say that I want it and make the time to model/integrate/QA it myself. In a professional context, that involves the use of studio resources and we have to balance that versus other work we want the staff that would be executing that work to do. A new part needs a concept, it needs artist time, it needs designer time, and it needs QA time. We have to really be sure we want a part before we do it. Pat2099 Will the salt water nuclear engine make a return? I’d like instead introduce the artisanal nuclear fresh water engine, using only the purest Vall-ian glacial meltwater and hand-centrifuged Pol-ian uranium. But yes. TwoCalories You've made several mods for KSP1 in the past. Will parts from any of those mods, like Restock, Far Future Tech, Near Future Tech, and Stockalike Station Parts make a comeback in KSP2? Never exactly, though there’s similar roles. I have a 3.75m command pod in Near Future Spacecraft that is pretty similar in role and profile to one in KSP2, for example. What was the transition like going from being a modder (or, more honestly, a pillar of the modding community) to working on the development team? It was really weird to come into the project and find pictures of my work as references in the team wiki. But it has been great. We have a really solid team working to replicate what amounts to 10 years of hard KSP1 development work. Ways to go though. Justspace103 Is the same approach to design & diameter consistency going to be applied to KSP2, similar to what you did with ReStock? This is already ongoing – we sneak in consistency work where we can depending on the team’s bandwidth. We’ve sorted at least a dozen parts since EA release. The part-ists are probably sick of my hOw’S tHe SiDe CoUnT questions. Mushylog Hello Chris Adderley. How detailed will the reentry VFX be, on the vessel's parts? Will we be able to see the heat propagate relative to what part of the ship is hitting atmosphere the most? (As in, will there be a glow on the entire vessel that spreads as atmosphere becomes more dense, in a reentry? Or will the heating visuals display in every single parts of the vessel individually?) I will leave this one completely to allow future dev communication to represent it. It’s really cool and I think the path to get to what we think is our final solution would be a fun thing to tell people about. Heretic391 What steps is the development team taking to make KSP2 accessible and appealing to new players who may not have played the previous game or are new to the genre? Obviously, the tutorialization we worked into EA will continue as we add new systems. Eventually though we want to enable players to do more with the same skill level. There’s some really big difficulty jumps in the game, and while we are more confident in the ‘get into orbit’ jump, we still need tools and strategies to tackle the next one, which I’d peg as going to another planet. After that, go to another solar system. I saw a really cool concept from the UX team about this last week which made me squeal in happiness. I hope we get to it. VlonaldKerman Can you give some more detail on the supply route system? Can you automate the construction of supply vessels, or does a vessel have to be built to assign an automated route to it? In other words, when the route is finished, does the vessel have to be intact? That system is a ways off and while I think our concepts are pretty solid, they have to survive another round of detailed design, and the EA feedback we get through that time period. So let’s save that for a dev diary later. Intactness is an interesting thing that the system does need to consider. On the one hand, we obviously want you to not crash your ship to create a delivery route. However, we also don’t want to disallow multi-stage approaches to routes. You should be able to create a delivery route with a two-stage rocket. It won’t be as resource effective as a single stage one, but particularly for routes that launch from high G or atmospheric planets, we need to have a design that eventually supports this. It is possible that this could be delivered in phases for effective development – consider a V1 of routes that focuses on single-stage-to-place deliveries and a V2 that is more comprehensive. Also, will metal to build basic rockets and methalox fuel be limited in the early game, or will there be infinite fuel on Kerbin? If so, how is this balanced against the ability to send an arbitrary number of refueling ships to a colony, as opposed to what I think you probably want to encourage, which is ISRU? If you want to create an interstellar empire based on shipping methalox light years from Kerbin, I don’t want to discourage that. That’s kinda cool and would be a big investment in player time and resources, so we would reward that by not constraining it. You’re also probably not going interstellar on methalox… so you are going to be incentivized to not do that in a particular way. Psycho_zs In KSP1 some realism enhancements can be achieved with a relatively simple MM patch, because those mechanics are already in the game, but not used in stock (i.e. engine spool up time, throttle depth limits). Are there any realism mechanics that you wanted to put into KSP2, but couldn't because of the gameplay balance? Any of those that you or somebody else sneaked in for config tinkerers to find? What are the limits of stock realism options and will there be something extra under the hood, in a space between stock and full blown mods? Yeah some of those do exist in the game. Part of that comes in the engine module that supports most of the ‘fancy’ stuff from KSP1 like spool up. As for new things, yeah I’m pretty sure there are some things we’ve asked for but not ended up using. I can’t really think of them off the top of my head. NovaRaptorTV What's your favorite part of the game to work on? I really enjoy the small part of my job that’s artistic – making sketches, concept models and stuff to pass over to the team is quite fun. I also like to make the project plan go brr, ticking off things on milestones makes me happy. M4D_Mat7 Will there be hydrolox fuel type given how we already have hydrogen as a fuel type for nuclear engines? If we get the NERV-US in that will be a need for Hydrolox there. jaypegiscool Are there going to be more design challenges implemented with more fuel tanks and such? E.g. will there be fuel tanks that don't have a centered COM? Fuel tanks are a basic component of ships that we don’t want to have players need to manage too much. There are some interesting trades about that for far future fuel types though. As we get there we’ll examine if they’re interesting to support or whether to leave it to the modding community. norminaluser Are there plans for adding nostalgia/legacy parts? aka, adding some revamps of the KSP1 parts? I mean, some old users would be delighted with these. I’d argue that anytime we have a part that comes from KSP1 it is already a revamp, so I’d be interested to understand what that actually means to you. barrackar In the upcoming Science update - does conducting experiments give you science points? Will there be a tech tree? There will certainly be a tech tree, and science points! For colonies, do we know if/how lifesupport will work? Simple colony expansion or more complicated management of individual resource routes? Will users be surveyed for whether or not we want lifesupport? See answer about life support from Pthigviri. For interstellar, will there be astronomy aspects required to detect/map the other system(s)? Fun things for the future! I can’t be more specific at this time. poodmund Why Quenya and not Sindarin, Telerin or Noldorin? Do you have something against Elves that went to Middle Earth? By the Ninth, I must know the answer. The real answer is that the corpus of Quenya is a lot more complete than say, Sindarin, so when I went to try to learn it, that’s where I went. piotr.__ What real life concept / scientific work gave you the most headache? Is there something you are really proud of, that your creations will introduce to players? Heat and radiation are the hardest concepts to map to gameplay, so I’ll say those. Every time we get a system that is showing a new scientific or engineering reality I get excited. Example - with 0.1.3’s new extensible engines, we’re showing the community that doesn’t follow aerospace precisely than extending engines exist and are useful in some ways. bygermanknight#0 (554725693590732801) Are we going to get some engines like the Orbital Maneuvering System from the Space Shuttle because the current (and only) monopropellant engine is not very liked among the community. The Puff is pretty OMS-like. I’d turn that around and say that something more conventional in terms of attachment modality is probably more useful than something that tries to ape the OMS a lot. M4D_Mat7 When will we see more interiors for the command parts? We want to fully define the IVA system and experience before we commit to more interiors so we limit possible rework. Will the team add RCS to the space shuttle front cockpit section eventually? This is not planned. suppise How do you go about balancing new engines with twr/isp/cost/size/etc? Check out the Engine Archetypes dev blog for the framework – but the overall concepts we use are related to… · Spreadsheeting versus comparables, · Looking sneakily at how mods have done things when possible, · PLAYTESTING Follow up question, with the full 1.0 tech tree, aside from cost/resources, will there be a reason to still use the basic methalox atmo/vac engines we have now, over newer engines/fuel types? Resources accessible to a colony will drive this. Say you’re mining a frozen ice ball of a planet with water ice – that’ll be something that would drive you to hydrogen engines. However, maybe you’ve got a colony on a world with trace atmosphere of CO2 – that might make methalox attractive. mgb125 I routinely exceed 150 parts for spacecraft in KSP 1, would the team consider a higher baseline for the “typical” vehicle? Do you have stats on how many parts players use for their EA KSP 2 craft? We are building our analytics pipeline to give us that data. We have lots of legacy data from KSP1 to help us in the meantime. sylvifisthaug So someone in the KSP2_general channel have pointed out that the "brass line" vacuum engines in KSP2 have some resemblance to your previous modded content as Nertea. How is the process like with implementing these similar designs into KSP2? Do you do it entirely by yourself, texturing and all? Do you do 3D models, coding, or maybe nothing? You just manage the team to do it? I do very little of those things. Effectively I… 1. Try to incept the concept and discuss its utility with the rest of the team, 2. Make sure we can support it with the engineering that has been done, a. There’s a whole side thread about when we need to ask for new gameplay functions. 3. Make concept models, 4. Hand it off to the art team, 5. Coordinate other things we might need for the model – VFX, SFX, animations, 6. Come back once we’ve got all that sorted and do the final integration into the game, and some tuning later on. If you as a team manager delegate others to recreate your parts, how does it feel to let others rummage with your own engines? To be clear, we’re not really recreating parts – when things are similar, there’s often just convergent evolution. But our art team is equal to the task!

Welp, I don't have KSP 2 at the moment (current hardware can't run it and I really can't afford it). But skimming here tells me the KSP 2 gamesave system is confusing some really good KSP players. Whether it's UI or something internal or both, it's not quite right. And it really isn't explained to the player, when its complexity indicates it should be explained. That's not making KSP 2 look good to me. Talk about barely being alpha grade, but KSP 2 has been released (even if Early Access), but a save/restore system is a core game mechanic that shouldn't be in this state at this time.

What makes an RCS thruster good is closely correlated to what makes a rocket engine good, but the engineering requirements of simplicity, storability, fast start from cold and repeatability change that. Low specific impulse can be forgiven if the rest of the hardware is simple and lightweight. Cold-gas is used, even though it's not that powerful or efficient, because it fulfils all those requirements. If we talk about solid propellant, monopropellant, bipropellant, arcjets and resistojets, we'll be here all day. Instead, if you want to dive deep into about 5,000 different substances used on one satellite or another: On the selection of propellants for cold/warm gas propulsion systems

I'm pretty sure it's not weird to talk about the very next step of the roadmap. Especially when the devs have claimed the time between major updates will shorten.

When you attach an XS engine to an S fuel tank and then add and S decoupler under it, the fairing becomes a cone. It would make more sense to size the fairing to the S fuel tank so the shape of the rocket is consistent and decouplers become regular interstages. At the moment, you have to add an extra payload fairing underneath the decoupler to acheive the same effect. I can think of no advantge to having the decoupler size to the engine you are attaching it to and not the surrounding fuel tank sizes. Maybe even an option in the parts menu to choose a fairing size. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Kerbal ragdolling was half the fun of Kerbal 1.

I mean out of the other roadmap items: Multiplayer was always gonna be last because having to QA both singleplayer and multiplayer with each major update would be a huge increased weight on dev time/resources. Interstellar ready engines have been stated to require resource gathering if you want to build them in career mode Resource gathering has been stated to no longer be ISRU and require Colonies and trade routes So... unless anything new has come up, the OG roadmap was already arranged in the order of "the order things need to be developed in" anyway. Probably not a bad idea to assume it'll still be more or less in that order. Although given the talk of the imminent upgrade to using HDRP, I could see that getting a major release update number.

Hi, You may know me as an insane person that plays ksp 2, but imma cut the chase. Been playing KSP 2 For Science update, and I got a few actual bones to pick with how the missions work and behave.. Settings I play on. TLDR, Hard. but revert and quicksaving due to skill issues/bugs (many) I been playing ksp 2 new update for a while, and let me say, there is a huge hard wall/brick that comes with this update in gathering science, I play rather simply, each object I created in this save has a purpose to further progress my game. It usually does a main mission, or a side mission, if not completing a few while doing both on the same craft... So, lets get to it. i have done a few missions about 12 hours~ or so in this update ( I have about two hours I forgot to stream ) but it was just simply building and testing a craft. yup amazing, playing about 10 hours, with zero views, its a fashion statement at this point with how little traction I have. during this time progression was fine if not perfect pace for 50%, this was until I saw, and seen the big four Duna Monument Wheelin and Dealin LIL CHONKER Keostationary Orbit let me just quote my discord post(s) For me there is a huge (quite a few) gaps in how research is earned, and how main mission's skill slope is way to aggressive. as of now, I'm quite stumped as behaving as a general player trying to follow the loose primary/story missions, there were 3 steps to complete missions of getting a lot of research to progress For me, each main mission required a vehicle, so did land on X object, "weird signal" created a probe/sat, and then landing a craft near the objective, while this craft needed to also (optional) land at each biome and get science/etc. Now, with the stop of nonsense rambling There should at least 2 or 4 more missions before landing on duna for me this is too aggressive (no idea if it's like this for other missions I haven't progressed that far) Put a satellite into a high duna orbit Put a satellite around dunas moon Do a prob X parts and land safely create a Craft to go to the monument Duna, in the way mission control is set up, is the FIRST post kerbin sphere of influence, it has a Moon, Atmosphere... Why in the name of Bob Kermin do we need to be thrown directly into the duna's monument when other things should be taught / more research to be given out. As of right now with 1 secondary mission that is a little to silly Lil Chonker, 1 mission simply not working, Wheelin, And Dealing, the only option to further progress is to do keostationary orbit, or do off "story" missions.. there is way to large of a gap in what is needed to be learned when going from minmus to duna. Second talk Doing a lot of sidequests of gathering ground science, flying science etc, there is simply just not enough Science points to be given out without finding the secret POI's as also stated in my discord post.. these missions might feel fine with normal research speeds and you have loads of of SP to get into deeper into the second tech tree without not completing the first tech tree, but for me, its hard. There needs to be a way to have like camera satellites, to find POI's on certain planets something like the surface scanner, but in a few tiers, with the weakest only finding the largest/most noticeable and the strongest just finding everything as a part both slowly in days(months) in game depending on range, geostation orbit/ polar orbit/ etc I really didn't want to do this post cause I'm not feeling well and I'm going sound like a complete mad man when I have what I want to say in my head, but out loud its just me spouting nonsense/broken english. personally, I that even doing premium+ missions that i need to be very picky on what i need to further progress the game, if the game had what i said above being able to get the few extra 100's of SP needed for a competent build should need to happen let alone teaching players that after getting to X planet they might have moons, or a atmosphere etc... i really hope the rest of the main story isn't like this, i don't know what I'm going to do honestly but the aggressiveness slope is to high from minmus to duna. please understand I'm really trying to say something that my brain isn't able to process due to being sick, and well, not able to do it in the first place without like 9 English to english translators.. also if anyone is able to translate this right now into something that is more, like readable I will edit this post make it better, but there is at least some points I'm trying to give out.

Also I don't recall NASA having to string together a road of relays between Earth and the Kuiper Belt in order to talk to the Voyagers (or any other distant probes), and probes that have to land on the far side of objects tend to be smart enough to do this autonomously. Point being, I think probes being 10x more reliant on communications than any real probe is silly, and I would much rather Commnet just be a mod or set to off by default.

(Not directly related to KSP2, but rather, the community's reaction to it.) I haven't been active on the forum recently, and I wanted to talk about some cool stuff I was doing in the (absolutely amazing) Planet Jam 2 pack for KSP1. I browse a little in the KSP2 forums just to see what's going on, and I'm gonna be real: thinly veiled tension or outright hostility seems to be the norm in the KSP2 subforums, and this has on occasion leaked over to the KSP1 or offtopic subforums too. Look, I get it, I really do, KSP2 simply is very much not what it was announced to be all the way back in 2019. There's a ton of missing features on the early access alpha launch, which notably arrived 3 years after it was originally scheduled to release. Most computers can't manage 30fps right now. I myself, since the launch of KSP2, have been completely unable to even go to the Mun and back without some mission ending bug destroying the craft, squiggling my orbits, disintegrating my kerbals, or so many other tiny and silly things that somehow break a mission (for example, just last week, after planting a flag on the Mun, I simply was not allowed to board back into the craft). All of my recent forum topics are me complaining about KSP2 bugs. I too was a bit disappointed after paying $50 and not getting a stable experience that was reliably enjoyable. I too was real annoyed at the several missing parts and features that you can just find in stock KSP1. I do not play KSP2 regularly. However. I feel like a schism is being driven in the KSP community about the state of KSP2 due to the incomplete state of the game. Tensions are rising specifically because some users feel cheated or scammed out of their $50 which they could've used for better things. This tension wasn't there before KSP2 (obviously), and as a forum user who hasn't done a whole lot here since KSP2's release, the contrast between the lovely, unified, and supportive community of old KSP1 (i say "old" relatively, I joined in like 2019), and the tense, warring community of modern day KSP2. This community doesn't feel the same anymore. A lot of people blame the developers, which I think is definitely a little out of place. The developers have gone through some serious hardships (Take Two pulling the contract from Star Theory and causing internal stresses, as well as severe stresses from COVID, both happening at nearly the same time), and are still working hard. There's evidence in the game files and code that long-term future features, such as interstellar travel or colonies, are definitely being actively worked on. The developers have seemed like genuinely nice people over the forums and over live interviews and stuff like that, and they admit the shortcomings of the game and are actively trying to improve the state of things, so I don't think they're being superficial with their interactions with the community. (To me, their interactions seem more like they're going "ah heck, this early access release isn't going great." than "I'm going to maliciously convince every player to like the game even though it isn't good.") Ultimately, the choice to release KSP2 in early access in this kind of state, with these kinds of specs, with those kinds of missing features, was inevitably going to be controversial. I don't think this is the fault of the developers themselves though. I think it's the fault of the conditions in which the game was developed, and the circumstances and difficult situations the developers have gone through. But if it's the fault of anyone, I'd probably blame the publishers, who choose things like release dates, pricing, announcements, and advertisement, and I don't think the individual developers had too much say in it (especially with how far the game was already delayed). Another major contributing factor to this schism I feel has been lack of communication between the developers and the community before, during, and directly following launch, which I feel has mostly or entirely improved since then. This lack of communication did a lot of damage, convincing a lot of people that the developers were just trying to get a quick 50 bucks and a rise out of the KSP community. I genuinely do feel like things can be better now if we calmed down a bit about the state of KSP2 and listened to eachother and to the developers. Nate Simpson and his crew of dedicated and talented game developers genuinely seem like they're trying to interact with the community and make sure everyone's in the loop on all the stuff happening behind the scenes, and everyone involved seems genuinely passionate about their job, their project, the community, and the future. When I bought this game, my ideas was, "if I buy this game now, not only will I save $10 in a few years, but also, I'll get to watch the game grow alongside me." My goal was to watch the development of the game, interact with it hands on as it grew, provide feedback when I can, and sit there and witness it become the game we've all been hoping for. I don't know what everyone else was expecting when they bought KSP2. I do know some people went in with the expectations it was a full, polished, addictive game the trailer promised which they could sink thousands of hours into. I don't mean to be blunt, but we all bought into a public early access alpha build. We shouldn't've expected something completely up to triple-A standards. While the communication issues I mentioned perhaps hindered our understanding of just how rough this game was going to be, I still feel like "early access" should be enough of an indicator as to how patient and tolerant we'd have to be. I know a lot of people have expressed concerns relating to the future of the project, and don't anticipate the game fully reaching its promises. I, however, would like to note that Take Two, despite all their interesting and peculiar business strategies relating to KSP2, have indicated they're in this for the long run, and Nate's also indicated this project isn't dying any time soon, and has expressed confidence in the team's ability to (eventually) meet what they promised so many years ago. I don't anticipate this project's death. I don't expect it to be done any time soon, so I understand waiting a long time probably won't be super fun, but honestly, we kinda need to figure out this whole patience thing really quick. I don't think the KSP community as a whole is doing too great specifically because of this controversy. I'm gonna be honest with y'all. A lot of comments on developers' updates have been short-tempered, cold, and all in all just kinda awful to the developers. This obviously doesn't include whatever's had to be removed by the moderators. I've read things on the KSP subreddit (which is currently down for some reason?) actively vilifying the developers (often specifically Nate since he's the face of the team), which I see to just be completely unfair. Some people are going to the point of accusing anyone who doesn't blame the developers for stealing $50 from you as a shill, which is truly an accusation of all time. (I swear to whatever you want me to swear to that, instead of being paid to say "KSP2 is kinda cool guys", I actually had to pay to say those words.) I've seen YouTube videos accusing KSP2 of being a permanent failure and a disgrace because of its rickety launch, and I find that really quite awful. I'm having fun with multiple aspects of KSP2, despite all its obvious yet temporary issues. I like spaceplanes now mostly because of KSP2's procedural wings. I write this in the hopes that, maybe, just maybe, this post impacts the community slightly in such a way that helps us cool down and engage in civil discussion instead of arguing and bantering endlessly until we all get tired of hanging out here in this cool forum. I genuinely think the outlook for the forum's community as a whole, at least in present times (and maybe moreso a few months ago), is worse than the outlook for KSP2. At this point, the only thing we can do about KSP2 as a fanbase is to wait, listen, provide meaningful and constructive feedback for the developers to listen to, and be nice enough for the community to still be fun to hang out in once KSP2's all done. I'm probably overstating the threat to the forum community as a whole, and I don't think many people will fully leave the forums due to KSP2 controversy, but it sure isn't fun to sit through, and it would be a way more pleasant forum experience if we all just stuck together, waited patiently, and made sure to keep things civil and calm for the time being. We can panic if huge and bad news on the game's forecast comes. (this took me an hour to write! i should go to bed) TL;DR: Lads, lasses, everyone in between, can we for the love of heck cool down a little about the state of KSP2, and just wait a little?

Talk about loaded questions. My biggest gripe with the talk about performance is that 90% of all the "gains" comes from removing elements from screen. Take a look at how low graphics looked in 0.1.0 vs 0.1.4 and it's pretty damning that there's been minimal performance gains, only fidelity losses.

everything else is hidden sorry cause i actually talked in all of those, a lot.. a lot a lot, if I wasn't commentary about what I was doing and why, Im insane.. its "prob not talk unless someone asks"... speaking out aloud on every other one ,a lot, with the only person was my mom.. yes my mom watched, the last one, and me checking if the stream was working. i felt its just not worth keeping them up cause i sound insane.. hope that helps :3

Here, here. If the ISS can continue functioning with all that is happening, this forum can surely do the same. I bet they don't talk politics much on the ISS