Search the Community

The minimum for any space station is; comms - have an aerial on there So we can talk to it power - batteries and solar panels So the comms works! Docking port You can EVA crew between craft but you can't transfer fuel with an EVA Remote control of some form Even if it's crewed have this then you can transfer the pilot off the craft and still have control RCS and monopropellant So you can manoeuvre to dock A high efficiency rocket and fuel To de-orbit at end of life or for large scale orbit changes If you want it crewed then you need to add; Crew compartment (or lab) Cupola or similar control pod Otherwise they're jut passengers coffee machine After that it is just a case of what do you want it to do. I tend to build everything with two 2.5m docking ports so I can dock craft but not lose a docking port in the process.

Am I used to my worldview not being celebrated by popular culture? LOL Well, at least we don't have to worry about that for the near future. 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike Maybe if we're lucky they'll all get made redundant by AI. As a complete aside, I always LOL over the content filter here. My father fought the real pedants. The ones who almost conquered the world, not these lame posers that are prancing around these days. But for some reason I'm not supposed to talk about that. I could fill this thread with memes. But I like @Vanamonde, so I play nice.

Let's take a minute to talk about the lighting systems we use in our planes, spaceships, and other amazing creations. Right now, they're just not as bright as they need to be. Picture a rover on the dark side of a moon or planet. Can our developers honestly say that the light from two headlights is enough? I believe our current lighting just isn't living up to the overall quality of our game.

For my money, the most useful/interesting IG content tends to be (in decreasing order): - Patch Notes - Bug status reporting and patch Predictions - Longer term dev work and roadmap development - Dev diaries for either of the above (far more interesting to have a deep dive but it takes more effort to create so typically covers less ground. Still more please if someone has the capacity and something really interesting to talk about) - Challenges and Community Highlights vaguely entertaining but I don't have much free time to engage with them ATM) - AMA (tend to be a bit short on new information)

So you can talk about KSP1, KSP2 is not so different from the first part This is easy to do when trained specialists bring the finished line, find suppliers, hire and train personnel. It's easy to hire Nertea and take a bunch of parts from him for the game You can learn a lot from squads in 6 years. I understand it is very difficult to add anti-aliasing, parachutes for kerbals and frame rate capping to the game. It would be understandable if the developers would have difficulty adding realistic physics, but even the banal things are still not done.

unfortunatelly i dont think i can talk about the Hows to do it here, come to the KSP2MS discord server! we're more then open to help you there! https://discord.gg/ksp-2-modding-society-1078696971088433153 but about the parts JSON configuration, that is not yet as simple as modifying a file, you'd need to repack the files in unity, We on the KSP2MS are developing a ModuleManager a like for KSP2 tho!

It was Ghostii, on the Discord in late April. yes it does! Nate is actually a huge fan of HOTAS, so it is something we talk about occasionally. I think it be after 1.0 though so that the majority of the issues are ironed out

I found the quote that @Turbo Ben was referencing on the Discord, from 24 April in the ksp2_general channel: yes it does! Nate is actually a huge fan of HOTAS, so it is something we talk about occasionally. I think it be after 1.0 though so that the majority of the issues are ironed out AFAIK while there have been other statements that full controller support is on the roadmap, this is the only one that has tied it to a specific point.

Let's talk about your other point about the KSP1 documentation being lacking. I happen to agree with you there and see both the existing KSP1 docs and what we've got going for KSP2 as a necessary but not sufficient thing. Can you elaborate on what you'd really like to see in addition to the existing KSP1 documentation? I'm asking because our KSP2 docs are themselves highly extensible via articles and your feedback here would be valuable in helping us move the ball forward! What kinds of articles do you think we should add to a site like that so we can better meet the needs of the modding community?

In the video you linked we see Nate Simpson talking about modding (and representing Star Theory, not yet IG). I played it multiple times and listened carefully, but did not hear where he promised documentation specifically. Scott Manley says things like "make it easy, not have to decompile, un obfuscate large parts of the code", and Nate is clearly nodding his head emphatically through that part. Nate answered by saying "That's one of the nice things about knowing exactly what you're gonna make when you start making it, so we can really make some core architectural decisions to make sure that it's highly moddable, highly stable, highly expandable, ... we wanna see a platform that has a life... I mean the original game's continued to evolve over nearly a decade..." That said, I've yet to hear anything from IG other than that they want to support modding. I'd be quite surprised if they don't deliver some sort of documentation at some point, but what I see and hear in this video is a clear articulation of support in general, not a specific promise of documentation. For that matter, I'd say based on what I've seen that they have, in fact, delivered much of what they said they want to do in this video. We do have a highly moddable game with a core architecture that reflects their design choices to make it so. In the three patches (4 counting the hot fix) that have come out so far there have been only very minimal impact to mods - though a good portion of the credit for that belongs to people like @munix and @cheese3660 wisely making design decisions at our end to ensure there's minimal impact. Let's talk about the other point you made where you seemed to be implying that we're practicing some form of piracy and may in fact be in violation of this forum's rules. Did you visit the site we linked? If so, did you happen to notice the long and detailed article I wrote there meticulously describing the process we followed? If not, then I'd like to encourage you to please read it. https://schlosrat.github.io/articles/HowMade.html The site we've got is made without decompiling the game's code. The information presented is the same as what you'd get from Visual Studio if you dropped an untouched copy of the Assembly-CSharp.dll in as a dependency and then wrote your own code to use it. All we've got is the publically available API interface that the code itself presents. There's not a single line of source code from the game. You might want to give that a gander before suggesting that piracy is a foot, my friend.

No, those two sentences are the exact ones they have to use when asked about stuff they can't talk about, by a myriad of reasons. In fact, those are the phrases they should've used when the community mentions "1000 parts" or when they were asked in the interview. Did you listen to the podcast? Since you ask about context, we can move a minute back, starting from around 1:12:00 and end after the full quote. Nate and Paul are (were, since Paul got fired) a team, and it seems to me you're assuming they went in blind and got assaulted with questions and were incapable of saying no to this one question in particular, or for Nate to be incapable of stopping Paul. Well, not only do I not believe any of that, but they're also a team representing the same company and product, so what one ways, unless the other interjects and denies, goes. Interviewer: You kinda touched on this earlier. Have any features from mods inspired features in KSP2? Answer (Nate): Yes, the easiest answer is visual fidelity, it needs to feel epic, and there've been a number of visual mods for KSP that have raised the bar regarding what's possible. [...] Eve and Scatterer [...] at least show what the minimum should be and we want to exceed that drastically. We talked about parts mods as well, and when you're making a game that has a bunch of interstellar class engines, Nertea has set the bar very high. We need to be about as realistic and detailed. Is there anything else that pops into your head Paul? Paul at 1:13:35: We're working with some graphics engineers not only to make our game more beautiful but again performant, we've got some numbers in this week for what our expectations are on machines and holy **** it looks great and performs great. [...] Interviewer: That's awesome, specially when you have these massive arrays of rigidbody parts. If you have a 1000 parts craft in KSP1 your computer is not gonna be having a good time, no matter what computer it is. Paul again: That's one of the big boulders we're breaking apart on the engineering team, making sure that framerate performance does not suffer, I mean look, the scale of KSP2 is so much larger than KSP1, with so many more orbital bodies and potentially so many more ships and colonies doing autonomous background systems there's so much more to maintain, there's so many more systems that are just living in simulation, so we've gotta make sure the thing you're seeing on screen is behaving in a physically accurate and interesting and educational manner that makes sense and is still fun gameplay, but then all these things in the background are still doing what they're doing, is something is in some geosynchronous orbit and you back to it a year later it has be in the right place considering where it is in time, no matter how many times you're timewarping, no matter how many other colonies you have, how many other ships you have or are being built. So making sure all of that feels consistent while the thing that you're doing right now: to have fun or explore or build or launch or blow up in some spectacular fashion is also also there and awesome and feels tactile and realistic, like that is the number one challenge for the engineering team right now. I mean if you just change my example to say whatever else, yeah, sure. That's not what happened, and you have the quote up there to read, and years of evidence of them promising a finished, performant product all over. Sony is not half as demanding as you make it sound though, even for first party titles (Bloodborne comes to mind), heck, even the KSP1 port on the PS4 was painful. Yes, but they've decided to not say anything happened, so since we're working with their textual words to discount "1000 part ships" promises and others, we can't quote them saying something happened, we can only quote them saying KSP2 will come out performant, or if you ignore the last year, a full product and performant.

The amount of "we can't talk about that" and "no comments", and the average (low) quality and seemingly improvised nature of most of Nate interviews makes me think otherwise. Here they're talking on a podcast that was new at the time, not CNN. Implies it's Nate talking. Implies it's only one person saying all of this, and that person being Nate. Conveniently you've also cut out all the discussion about the background simulation. That's misleading at best. There's a whole argument to be had about the gaming community making up Devs promises and then getting angry at things they've imagined while they over-hyped themselves to oblivion. A big part of it is that anyone trying to deflate hype and debunk fake lies is seen as an enemy twice at first then they don't blindly believe at everything the hype machine says, pointing out that nobody ever talked about something, or confirmed anything. And then after the game released when they say that the thing they where hyped about was never even mentioned by any actual dev. Then someone makes a list of lies on Reddit, or Crowbcat makes a video, both of which will be 90% wrong, but still saying it automatically puts you in a "you're the enemy" position. I'm still not saying that it's the case here, I'm more than open to receive a definitive piece of evidence, a recording or post from Nate saying "100000+ parts", but weirdly enough while everyone seems to agree that that was promised, the only examples are 2 interviews in which the devs clearly evade the question and are very careful at not committing to anything. Interviewer: "Mr. Dev, will your car have 5 doors?" Mr. Dev: "Well, doors, uh? It's a thing we're working on... You see, you can't have a car without doors, and we're working on this new type of hinges that will optimize the door utilization, allowing us to have a number doors on our car." The community: "You've heard that? They said the car will have 10 doors! And that hinges must be needed to flap the doors and fly, so fully autonomous flight capabilities too" The car releases, it has 3 doors, the community is mad because it can't fly.

I ban you right back to your starting point from my last ban, only now there are 500,000 times the mosquitos and 1 sentient gator that wants to talk to you about your cars extended warranty and an exciting time share opportunity. But wait theres more! He has an opportunity for you in his mlm! 011507082023

Talk about colony parts and other star systems has me excited. It means they aren't going "We all work on Stage One, then we all work on Stage Two". I know we've been told that already, but finding out about progress on the Roadmap gives me hope that the delays are in bugfixing the 'Foundation', so that the rest of the Roadmap will be faster.

If you talk about this: He mentions how some of the change that we'll see is disabling some graphics for low settings to allow even more people playing the game (alongside other optimization for everyone). We can already see some examples of these changes in the previous patches: No ETA on other optimization though (beside the occasional ones each patch), especially the new terrain system. I hope we'll get some news on this (I think it will take several months but I would like to know if their implementation is getting good results).

@adsii1970, I want to add that I think your tireless effort in curating the TOTM is also a worthy and great contribution to our community. I may have come across as overly harsh in my post above, and so I want to publicly apologize for that. One of the best things about KSP (1 or 2) has always been the community and how we work to help each other. Your work helps others to spot and find interesting, helpful, and fun threads - and as such your work here deserves to be celebrated! I just hope you might reconsider your position on the use of mods. It really does make me sad to see someone with a platform saying they're not going to use or even talk about KSP2 mods. If you would like a hand installing any to try them out I would be delighted to personally spend my time helping you.

The clarification you made it's nice and a bit reassuring, but It would be nice if the KSP2 dev team would stop shooting themselves on the foot every week. You're like 2 years behind schedule, the game is a demo at best, and someone decided it was a good idea to talk about having DRM on a Kerbal Game? I don't want to be rude, but the mere suggestion of it, on this timeline, suggest some of the dev team is spending too much time on Eelo and too little time on Earth.

July 20th, 2029 For 7 years now, the Artemis Program has been going strong. Artemis Base Camp has been set up, the Lunar Gateway has grown considerably, and several more countries have joined the Artemis Program. Including China! This why today, on the 60th anniversary of the Moon Landing, NASA announced something ground breaking- the first mission to Mars. The media is unable to talk about anything else. The technology is proven, international relations are good, and the support is strong. It's time for humanity to make the next giant leap. Artemis 13 on the launchpad, a few weeks from launch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- People have done recreations of humans on Mars in the 1980s, people have done recreations of the Constellation program. But I'm doing an idea of what could be. Provided the Artemis Program goes well with 2 launches per year, and the U.S. and China get over their pointless quarrels, this is a future that can be! Expect the first post either tomorrow or a couple days from now, I need to smooth out a couple bumps with the SLS. Inspired by these threads: One Giant Leap | An Alternate History of Space Exploration by @track The Hyperion Program: Kerbalkind's Return to Space - It's Back (Again)! by @Autochrome Kānāwai: Ares to Mars by @Jay The Amazing Toaster The Integrated Program Plan | A reconstruction of NASA's follow up to the Apollo program from 1969 by @Beccab

I didn't talk about most people's position, what most people want can be found in the outcome of the poll when concerning wobbly rockets.

Hey Untoldwind, I think it would be easier to discuss and help improve this mod if we have a discord server where we can discuss changes, bugs, and showcase what we made. Here is the link: https://discord.gg/wMpSergFKc Join if you want to showcase your projects/talk about the mod. Hopefully Untoldwind joins so we can more efficiently give suggestions and report bugs.

Hi, I'm currently trying to modify an existing IVA, but I'm new to unity/blender in general. I followed the instructions from KSPparttools post, but sadly I can't unity to import spaces or props (errors : "cannot load space") I talk about the post linked at the bottom of this message. I'm replying here since you talk about blender and .mu addon, which I have installed succesfully afaik. Is it possible to load an exisitin IVA, with its props, and modify it directly in blender ? (note this is for personnal use). Because I tried loading up a .mu file, and the result was this : I guess I need to load additional files, to display the props/texturing ? But I don't know how to do it, if it's possible.. So I'm hopefully seing this as an alternative to Unity, which for now doesn't work for me... Thanks a lot for your help ! Just the said post for reference : EDIT : SOLVED !! I posted the solution found in the above linked thread. : )

@Dakota, I wasn't the poster who called it 'PR fluff', but it definitely came off a little too stage managed. My suggestions for the next would be to 1) have someone other than an Intercept Games employee moderating and asking the questions, and 2) do the talk while the subject of the session is playing the current build of the game live. Here's an interview Scott Manley did years ago with the developers of KSP1 - Talking With The Developers Of Kerbal Space Program At GDC 2014 - YouTube It's certainly not perfect - you can see the Squad Community Manager hovering awkwardly in the background recording the session, and the devs are a bit guarded at times talking about upcoming features in the game (ion engine thrust and acceleration under timewarp it appears were still being discussed). But by having an independent journalist or fan asking the questions does give it a better feel of authenticity. With 1), obviously I get why you would instinctively want to keep control of the process as much as possible. But remember - the person doing the AMA can always answer "no comment" or "I'm not sure about the answer to that" if a question comes up that might be outside of their remit. And 2), the part about seeing the developers playing the game live, we really haven't seen enough of this throughout KSP2's development history - we've instead been seeing a bit too much of screengrabs, still images, pre-rendered trailers, storyboards etc. Even the art director here loading up some of her creations in the VAB would have been much nicer to see.

It's "ask me anything", not "I will answer everything". Answering to them all even with "not my area of expertise" or "can't talk about it" when there's hundreds of questions asked and the available time is just over an hour, would make it pretty much impossible. And boring. Yes, the questions are picked because they have to be when time is limited and the answers are expected to have any substance. Asking every single dev from every department why rockets are wobbly (for example) will lead to disap.. I mean, "disappointment". People have roles. And will answer according to their roles. And honestly, as a person who's more on the artsy side, rather than engineering, I very much enjoyed the AMA with all the chosen questions. As for live posted questions, scrolling through twitch chat spam ain't interesting. Especially when there are people crying about why their questions weren't picked like if that was the worst thing that ever happened in their lives.

well @Dakota nothing against the host or anybody in particular but i would like to see a honest non PR fluff true AMA (ask me anything) ksp 2 type questions that are on the fly or asked in a chat room during the live event. I dont think a bunch of users in a discord asking questions and those questions going into a pool of sorts where they are then cherry-picked and only the "good ones" are addressed is the way to go and just seems a bit dishonest or fake. To me a true AMA event should be exactly that "Ask me anything" in regards to KSP2. And that includes the hard questions as well such as "When is the next patch due out ?" "Why was the game released in the condition it was ?" When will This bug or that bug be fixed ?" THESE are the REAL questions people want to ask. Now granted if some of those are covered by NDA then be honest and say "NDA, I cant talk about that !" people respect that more than PR double-speak and evasion of the question OR the question not being asked at all. And to solve the problem of multiple questions of the same topic being answered repeatedly perhaps when each question is asked AND answered then the question with the answer should be posted or pinned in the chat for late joining people or people that refuse to read can see it. And after that if someone does come in the chat asking a question that has been asked and is pinned then you can expect the other people in the chat to correct that person at which time the moderators of the chat will take care of the punishments of repeat offenders just trying to troll. Other people may add more to this if they like i just thinking off the top of my head. Perhaps this question or topic deserves its own thread. Ill leave that to the very capable moderators in this forum to decide. Lets see how it goes. EDIT: After thinking about it i came up with an example. Have you ever watched sitcom on tv and its not in front of a live audience? They add that what they call "canned laughter' to the program and you get the sound of laughter when the joke they telling wasnt even funny. THATS what im talking about. We need something more genuine. More down to earth. A REAL connection between the people at IG and its player base. Anyways yeah umm if more people want to add to this agree or disagree or better ideas please respond to this. They want to hear from us. Tell em nows your chance

As the one who has been championing these and produced the new video version, what would make you want to tune in? Honestly, we did it because we think Ness is great and wanted her to have a platform to talk about her art and how things work behind-the-scenes - not really for any PR reason.