Search the Community

I'm not an artist or graphic designer, but I'm sure there's tens, maybe even dozens of people out there who could craft a more creative texture than what's currently in the game Thanks for the fascinating and intellectually stimulating conversation! I'm sure you're a blast to talk to at parties!

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: Intel Core i5-8600K | GPU: Nvidia RTX 3070 | RAM: 64 Go So I think this is related to the following bug, but it only talk about rockets, so I'm not sure if it's the exact same bug or a very similar one: Before the bug happened I was trying to make a rover when I realized that the order you build things with structural parts plays a big role in how sturdy your rover frame is : Red dot is the root node, then construction order follow the red lines. As you can see while driving parts were either going apart or into each other. Then I decided I would make a sturdier frame, so I did this : Then as you can see in the attached video, out of 6 try : 4 resulted in immediate physic instability and violent vehicle disassembly, 1 needed a bit of help before getting attention of the mighty kraken, 1 was ignored by the kraken despite my efforts (I must conclude he is not omniscient after all). sturdy-rover-instable.mp4 sturdy-rover-instable.json

i don't need to re-read what i saw happen, i was there when the "show went down" (insert circus music). just hearing suggestions and talk about it on discord is nothing really official on post on it.. Discord talk at the end of the day from even the gods of intercept games for ksp 2 is as much value as me saying I'm a developer due to giving feedback that "might help" due to playing like 1,000 hours. my input doesn't really matter its more so the entire community, I'm like a broken record with mods that i would like to see as vanilla but i can see why it isn't in base game, things like K2D2, Flightplan, Alarmclock, Trim Control, Kerbal Headlights.. l know that alarm clock has been screamed top of the lungs, and now its even a mod. The community shows what the game is missing, and it doesn't hurt to talk to modders and ask to put mods into base game.. like alarm clock. and kerbal headlights.. etc.

Here's today's talk, no tl:dr since I don't have time to watch it right now, and it came out half an hour ago (it's nearly an hour long)

Toby Li @tobyliiiiiiiiii Jan 6 Elon Musk to provide 2024 Starship Update on January 11. Confirmed on an X livestream, @elonmusk announced he will conduct a SpaceX company talk including a Starship update next Thursday. I'm hoping to hear details regarding Starship IFT-2's post-flight analysis, plans for IFT-3 & beyond, and updates on Starship HLS milestones. https://twitter.com/tobyliiiiiiiiii/status/1743529920322846812 This is supposed to be an internal speech to SpaceX employees, but in the past was released to the public. Robert Clark

For Science! Update started off with a blast and I was eager to play it upon release! Once it released, I loved it instantly considering it levels the Game up to not only a sandbox simulator but to a full-fledged game playthrough! However, despite the many awesome and fun moments I had with this update, I feel like there is a lot of work to polish the new Science & Mission Mechanic alongside the already implemented tutorial system which I really wanted to talk about for quite some time now. First, let's start off with the Tutorials, I am personally not very good with Kerbal Space Program itself; I couldn't really understand how to create a rocket properly and usually ended up having stacks of them not launching from the pad or barely making it into orbit, let alone past Kerbin. And despite the help I got from the in-game tutorials, it did not significantly help as much as online tutorials. The section about rocketry feels obviously lacking, sure it mentions how a rocket works and the types of engines and other space components, but it does not help on how to make a proper rocket or at least understand how to make one for any specific task such as landing on the Mun or Eeloo. This can also be accounted for orbital mechanics; it leaves questions in my mind such as: "How much do you need to slowly turn your rocket over the horizon?" "Does it apply to every rocket? If no, how do I know when and how?" This is normally a major obstacle for new players like me (Kind of, started in 2016 but never really got past the Mun in KSP1 and never properly learned rocket design) because it forces us back into the drawing board by watching a couple of tutorials made from the Internet, although it isn't any bad either, it reinforces the fact the in-game tutorials really need more work. In summary, using this experience of mine, I would really like more tutorials about rocketry and an improved version of how to put your rocket past the atmosphere and prepare the steps for an orbital maneuver. Secondly, let's continue with the Missions in Mission Control, The Missions itself aren't bad, I actually found it as huge upgrade its original counterpart in KSP1, but it definitely needs more polishing. The first noticeable flaw I encountered was the mission briefing themselves, they seem way too centered on a specific scenario (mission briefing specifically) and less dynamic, by example, your ship ends up in a catastrophic failure when doing a specific mission, you absolutely do not get any major consequences rather than the loss of a crew, which normally under the default game difficulty, usually just respawn and probably also a couple of science points that you might have lost. I really wish upon a system where the missions actually do not cancel themselves when failing them, but give negative consequences such as more flavour text signifying the gravity and effect of the situation but at the same time balancing and incentivizing the player to keep continuing. Secondly, if your rocket launches, completing the first mission, and immediately goes to the atmosphere, I would really like it, instead of going again back to Mission Control and then going back to the ship to complete the second mission after the first, to simply have some way or form to complete both missions when you've done both already through one rocket launch at the start. To simply brief this, Mission Debriefing should get a separate system when the player fails the mission and you should be able to complete two missions at once without needing to go back to mission control to track the second one which went available thanks to completing to the first one in one rocket launch. Next, the Science Mechanic, which is the one here with the most need of polishing, I could also say the same for this one, the new Science mechanic is a massive overhaul to its original counterpart in KSP1. However, it definitely needs more polishing and balancing to make it less of a "Simple Magic Click and Reward" button which actually loses the value of it being a "Reward" as it gets too easy. I noticed the reports did not really have any unique flavour to them compared to KSP1 where crew observations and utilization of science equipment had unique flavour text depending where you did them (Also make the flavour texts larger and readable :D), I would actually really like if they weren't all generic and had an interesting one. I also found it quite boring when all a Kerbal can do and is meant for in a mission is simply to steer a Rocket when it's out of signal with KSC, do flags, generic crew observations and surface samples. I really wanted them to play a role on organizing Science like KSP1 rather than one magic click and it's all stored. Kerbals should perhaps have the ability to take the science reports or surface samples and store them in the Command Pod or Science Juniors. Both elements, describing flavour text and the further usage of Kerbals, would really incentivize the Player to do more frequently EVAs and learn more about science itself generally through flavour text, with some funny element in it considering Kerbals are Kerbals Anyways, apart from my feedback on how Science Points are acquired and Flavour Texts, Science Points should really get some sort of balancing because unlocking technology feels way too easy and feels really less of a reward. Maybe decrease science points on more generic tasks such as crew observations and regular planet scans or any other thing those science parts can do. Alternatively, increase the cost of the technologies in R&D. In conclusion, I would really like more flavour for generic scientific tasks and further usage of Kerbals alongside balancing on the ridiculous amounts of Science Points you'd get from 1 mission. Thanks for reading my Feedback and Suggestions if you have come this far down, I really want to hear what others think too!

So we all know that regions are currently pausing certain science experiments as they change underneath the flying or orbiting crafts. There has been talk that is a bug anyway, and that the regional part will be removed, but I think it could stay as it is with the following idea. This simple suggestion would be for the regions to have their own 'buckets' within each experiment so rather than pausing the experiment it just starts filling up the next bucket. As a working example - the orbital survey experiment around Kerbin will cover the 7 regions, each of which class as a different experiment. As you orbit conducting the experiment, it starts over water, so the generated science points start to fill the 'water bucket'. We can arbitrarily assign 100 points to each bucket, so we could say that the bucket gets filled up to 58 points, and then the orbiting craft goes over the highlands. Rather than pausing, it now just starts filling the 'highlands bucket'. Again it manages to fill 15 points and then it goes over water again and starts to fill the 'water bucket' again. Eventually, after many orbits the buckets will get full and will complete the experiments for each region. In a game where time can be fast forwarded, it would be easy to just send up an orbtiing craft, speed up time and all experiments will complete. I think this defeats the object of running the science so it could be that it only collects science when in no more than 3x time warp, or whatever number the desginers choose. The bucket idea can work for other region specific experiments. As a slight tangent, I also think that the science generated by orbiting craft should be non completing. The orbital survey experiment itself would be as once a planet is surveyed, they don't tend to change significantly, but there could be a science research exepriment (there may be one, I may just not have reached that point yet) that runs continually. Again there may be issues with time warping to generate science, so the same previous suggestion could be implemented.

I know it's too early to talk about real life cadence, but launching in February or March would put the time between two launches on par with that of the Saturn V I think. The average between Saturn V launches prior to Apollo 13 was something like every 3-4 months (I think, it's been awhile since I looked at the list of launches in detail). Meanwhile, prior to the second launch that destroyed the launchpad, the N1 took five months to launch two rockets. Not counting Shuttle, the only other SHLV to fly more than one time, Energia, had a year inbetween its two launches. SLS... even if Artemis II launches in 2025, who knows how long it will be until Artemis III? If it takes three years between two flights, how are they supposed to jump to once a year? By the way, this may be a dumb question, but will this launch license process be required once Starship is actually flying payloads? Or will things become more streamlined? The time between each test flight feels very guda guda (グダグダ), which translates as tedious or sluggish. Will people be watching the regulatory process when operational flights begin? They don't do that for F9 right now, as far as I can tell.

I missed the specifics I guess. I remembered the alternate seating arraignments, just not that the exact thickness of the trim would have to be different, even for a never seen latch. There's a flush outside latch on the real doors, for example, maybe just that one exists? A friend's dad (died years ago) was a Los Alamos physicist. Had done bomb testing back in the day, he was a detector guy, working on super high speed photography at one point (like blast starting to break the bomb casing fast). He also worked on other stuff, nothing he could talk about... Anyway, after he died, my buddy was going through boxes and found explosives in a few of them (C4 I think). He used to experiment with shaped charges in the backyard, apparently. He had notebooks with his experiments kept track of. Was a different time. Back in the 80s we'd head up to visit his parents' house (and get fed!), and his dad would have work spread out on the table on the other room. A couple decades later taking a laptop with work offsite gets you prison.

Unfortunately, things are still rolling on the rest of the industry too. Banner Saga Publisher Has Shut Down and Laid Off . On Xmas Eve… https://gamerant.com/versus-evil-banner-saga-publisher-shut-down-lay-offs/ Stray Souls developer Jukai Studio announces closure https://www.gamesindustry.biz/stray-souls-developer-jukai-studio-announces-closure Archiact, the veteran studio known for a host of VR titles, announced it’s laying off a portion of its staff. https://www.roadtovr.com/doom-3-vr-studio-layoffs/ And not only on gaming. Things are escalating pretty badly also on the Big Techs… https://www.axios.com/2024/01/03/tech-layoffs-google-microsoft-employees-impact-anxiety There's a light in the end of the tunnels, however (let's hope it doesn't "peeweee" on us): https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/it-hiring-starts-to-pick-up-after-a-lull-for-two-quarters/articleshow/105999713.cms Traditional, "boring" and less glamorous jobs appears to be the future biggest employers in the industry. I think there're some lessons to be learnt on this whole ordeal - and this includes, indirectly, who KSP¹ and KSP2 will gather traction on the modding scene in the next months (or years?). But I think is still a bit soon to talk about, I want to observe the new Zeitgeist before risking opening my big mouth.

North American X-15 "Your one to talk. The most dangerous flyby you've ever done is over football game."

The door was plugged. As in blanked out with a piece of sheet metal to put it bluntly. The capacity the seating was configured to did not require the exit to be in operation. Evidently, the exit thought otherwise! Look, I forgot the laughing emoji. Please understand I'm joking around with you, not trying to be some internet detective or something lol. You don't need to talk down to me. I apologize I did not explain plug vs door to you, but you clearly did not watch the video that lays out the details of the incident that is posted upthread. Its not my fault you are unaware of the details of the incident.

F/A-18E Super Hornet "You're one to talk about range, since all you do is go to airshows and pull Cobras in front of a crowd."

It is. My computer did the not alive (which wasn't surprising) and it'll be a longwhile before Im up to getting a replacement. Fortunately, as this isn't the first time this has happened, I do have the data backed up so nothing is lost. That said, I do keep thinking on it and while I have other things Im focused on, I probably will come back around to it. Particularly because now I have a pretty well developed eye for game design, and I think I could come up with some clever stuff given that. But that'd have to come after I get another computer, and that'll be a while as I have other priorities that require my money atm. Like having functional eyesight and personal transportation Fortunately, at least barring some horrible disaster coming out of nowhere, I don't suspect it'll be too long. This has been the longest I've been stable in nearly a decade, and thats saying something. Pretty well. The game is called Labyrinthian, and I've had a heck of a time working on it. Its still in a proto stage, as its a pretty big game by rpg standards, but its coming along. In terms of a game pitch, its a game about shaping your character's legend. In other games you'd find cool lore about these wild characters that did things way cooler than what you can do in the game; in Labyrinthian, you get to be those wild characters other games use as background lore. You see that dragon over there, by that mountain? You can suplex that dragon, and break the mountain with it. But it goes farther than that, as the game seeks to deliver a truly reactive, living world where, even if you and your party decide to just be fantasy Bakers (and they can, its fully supported!), the world will change and develop around them as they play. And if they do decide to get involved, then they can start forging a legacy that will persist even past their own lifetimes. Your character's great grandchildren could very well still be dealing with the fallout of your original choices. Feature wise, we got: Tactical, fast-paced combat that scales cleanly, and effortlessly, from the grit of 1v1 Duels to the dire slaying of complex boss monsters, to epic slug fests between the tens of thousands amongst the forces of Good and Evil. You will witness the reality of warfare in a world of high magic. Featuring a core system revolving around the Combat Grid, inspired by the Tactical Grid of the upcoming game Hollows and featuring a hybrid of Position and Zone play, Combat is an intricate tactics game thats easy to learn and effortlessly fun. An expansive and wide open character building system that hybridizes classic Class systems with an Elder Scrolls style Skill+Perk system. Make a character in minutes, and realize their potential in how you play. 20 Base Classes and 80 Subclasses, all of which can be mix and matched and built up in any order you choose. You want to take all the subclasses at once? Go for it, its balanced. Crafting - Inspired by Tears of the Kingdom, the game will feature an elaborate, and relatively realistic, crafting and gathering system, allowing you an unprecedented amount of expression in what your character will make of the things they find in the world. A sword is no mere combination of a couple ingots and some leather strips, but of potentially many different metals, leathers, woods, and oils, all of which will provide unique and emergent properties as you combine them. The cost of your creations is that they won't last forever, but this is a good thing; as your equipment degrades, you'll be able to repair them and add new materials to gain temporary abilities, and if you let your weapons break (or, with the right Skill, do so deliberately), you can add these new abilities permanently. Sprinkle some Springhorn into your sword as you sharpen it, and it'll gain the Boomerang property, and will fly back to your hand after being thrown at a target a few times. Reforge your broken sword with it, and you'll be able to do it forever. And all this before we even start talking about Magic! A True Exploration System - Exploring the world is the bread and butter of an adventure in Labyrinthian, and as you learn more about the world, your characters will find Inspiration in their knowledge, and will be able to leverage what they've learned not just to succeed in the challenges they find out there, but in the greater schemes of play. Seek out and discover new places to build, to gather, and to explore, or don't! Exploring is about more than just striking out into the wilderness; its about learning. Find out that big bad evil guy is weak to bananas? You're Exploring! A Systemic Living World - Building out from very simple mechanics governing the passage of Time, the gameworld will come alive as play continues, and narratives begin to emerge. Entire Cultures could rise and fall and change, and heroes and villains will come forth to inevitably face each other. Your characters Reputations will invite challengers and pleas for help, and as you affect others they'll affect you back, whether they be Rivals or Allies. Full Integration of Improv - Its an open secret that much of whats enjoyable about RPGs is just improv; we call it roleplaying, but there's a whole lot more we can do than just pretend to be elves. Improvisation is useful and supported in nearly every sector of the game, from Combat to Exploration to Questing. Easy Set Up - The game only needs a World map and the Combat Grid, and new characters can be drawn up in minutes. World Keepers, the Game Masters, will need a bit more, but the game has your back, with innovative tools to get you in the game. The Quantum Statblocks and Quantum Quest Blocks will help you improvise enemies and entire questlines all on the fly, and the gameworld is designed to be easily managed with nothing more than a Calendar and a handful of Region Sheets. Easy Integration with all Playstyles - Don't want to just play with an abstract grid and some tokens? The game's got you; you can build as elaborate a set up as you want and the Combat Grid is easily applied to it. Don't want to engage with this elaborate living world? Thats fine too; the game will only break if you stop playing it. Want to play without a World Keeper? Co-op is easy. Want to just play by yourself? Go solo! ===== But anyway, yeah lol. I'm under no delusion that I'll perfectly nail all of this, but so far I've nailed a hell of a lot of it, and when its ready to be playtested publically, I'm confident I'll be able to refine it to a fine sheen, so to speak. I also didn't even elaborate on everything that's going into the game, but I'm always happy to talk about my ideas if anyones curious.

The error mentioned above by @OrbitalManeuvers is caused by a typo in the Bumblebee Sensor Package config file. The typo prevents running the barometer experiment from an action group. Here is a Module Manager patch to correct the typo and let the barometer experiment work as intended. I prefer patches like this over editing the original files, but obviously it could be done that way, too. Bumblebee Sensor Package Barometer Fix // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Bumblebee Sensor Package Barometer Fix // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @PART[bb_Sensor]:NEEDS[Bumblebee] { @MODULE:HAS[#experimentID[barometerScan]] { @useActionGroups = True } } I didn't come here to talk about that, but I saw that error and had to fix it before I felt comfortable posting what I actually came here for... While I was doing a personal update on the Knes TweakScale configs, I decided to write some for Bumblebee. I always enjoyed using the electric props from Firespitter to make things like quad copters and whatnot, and when you combine that with TweakScale, you can make some pretty neat low part count stuff. TweakScale for Bumblebee seemed like something interesting to play with, so I wrote the requisite configs to do so, and I decided I might as well share them. So here they are. Note 1: Some of the parts will require the latest version of the TweakScale Beta with TweakScaleExperimental enabled, but if you're only after the props, pretty much any version of TweakScale will do. Note 2: Scaling up the size of the props exacerbates the issue of the Bumblebee props continuing to generate thrust when they run out of available EC. Rest assured the problem exists even on standard sized props without my patch installed, but the thrust values are so low that they typically wouldn't be enough to move your craft. Scaling up the size increases the size of that latent thrust. Bumblebee TweakScale Patches // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Bumblebee TweakScale Patches // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @PART[bb_Aeroshell]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Apiary" Aeroshell { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = stack defaultScale = 2.5 } } @PART[bb_Chute]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Main Parachute { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_Core]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Drone Probe Core { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Decoupler]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Decoupler { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Decoupler]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Drogue]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Drogue Parachute { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_HGA]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Antennae" High Gain Antenna { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_Prop]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Wings" Contra-Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_PropSingle]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Wing" Single Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_RTG]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Stinger" RTG { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Seismometer]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee "Proboscis" Deployable Seismometer { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Sensor]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee Sensor Package { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_SingleTruss]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee single-mount Truss { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Skids]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee "Knees" Skids { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Truss]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Truss { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Dunaprop]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // "Dragonfly" Low Density Contra-Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } Enjoy or not as you see fit

The following are my thoughts, more or less on what I would do to distinguish KSP2 from KSP and make it a far greater experience if I were making the game. I'm not demanding these things, and understand that the structure and affordances of the game at a basal level may already be set in stone in many respects. Still, now is the time to talk about what can be made, while it's still a bunch of ideas in all our heads. What is KSP2 trying to surpass anyway? What is KSP1? KSP1 is a rocket simulator at its core, the "challenge" that the game entices the player with are the construction of working vehicles and the piloting of those vehicles to various destinations. There's never been much to "do" at those destinations, except take in the sights, maybe send a rescue mission, or try to build the biggest thing you can there. There didn't need to be more than that - KSP is about spacecraft design and flight, and teaches players about the challenges of spaceflight and the thrill of getting from here to there while trying to avoid blowing up. The science system acts as a simple form of guided progression, and science instruments don't provide much practical purpose except as a source of a currency for unlocking more diverse spaceship parts as a reward for traveling to new destinations with limited technology. The mission system also provides a set of design and flight challenges that act as "suggestions" if you're stumped on where you want to go next. What could KSP2 do that's "more" or "different" from that? Right now, KSP2 basically has all those things KSP1 does: The rocket simulator, the flight challenges, the unlockable parts, etc. It also has updated graphics to rival the best KSP1 mods, some slight changes to the UI, and an ecosystem of bugs almost as diverse as I'd expect to find by overturning a log in the Amazon. So KSP2 is using KSP1 as a base so far, to hopefully metamorphose into a new and different experience. There are a few main "new" aspects the devs seem to be working towards for KSP2, and while I see the beginnings of some of those inside the 'skeleton' of the game today, there are some things that have been carried over from KSP1 that I think don't help KSP2 grow to the greatest experience it can be and develop its own "personality" if they remain as they are. KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator. KSP1 helped players answer for themselves "Why should we build rockets?", to the point that the story of KSP players enrolling in aerospace engineering programs because of the game has become somewhat common. For this reason, I consider KSP to be the best game. (I myself graduated as an aerospace engineer last year, though I can't say that KSP inspired it - I was already committed to becoming an astronaut long before I heard of the game. I've had interviews with SpaceX for various positions in recent months, but no offers yet.) Where KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator, I see KSP2 as trying to be a "space program" simulator. In KSP1, the player could build powerful rockets and touch down on any body in the solar system, but it would occur in isolated missions or voyages. Where KSP1 asked players "Why should we build rockets?", KSP2 seems to want to ask a question more like "What should we USE our rockets for now that we've built them?". The colonies, base-building mechanics, and interstellar destinations seem to point to a goal of letting players create a vibrant ecosystem of space travel. Instead of singular missions and tiny labs in space, we would be creating cities on the planets and trade routes between them, with complex exchanges of resources and technology culminating in the assembly of an interstellar vessel and the opening of the wide frontier. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to teach players not just about how rockets go from here to there, but about how they gather the information while exploring that leads to scientific discoveries and better informed designs of new vessels, and about the realistic challenges of living and building on another planet, and, most importantly, about exactly what makes it worthwhile to go to all that effort of leaving our perfect blue marble behind and actually trying to live there. To that note, there are a few specific aspects of the game that are presently implemented in a way that I think will be detrimental to those goals (which I just made up in my head) if they continue to build directly off of KSP1 and the simple precursors in the game now. These are the main aspects that I think should be overhauled to make KSP2 a grand step forward from KSP1: Realistic Science Currently, science in KSP2 functions purely as a currency for unlocking new ship parts. The experiment modules themselves don't provide any useful information, and the game doesn't go out of its way to tell you what was learned from each experiment. The experiments are all packaged together in a mysterious bundle, and the only interaction from the player is a simple reaction to the blinking "science" button, to click and receive science points. This is based directly on science in KSP1, which had the same function as a currency but allowed more direct viewing of the readings from some instruments like thermometers and barometers. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to embrace science in a more realistic way, and bring a taste of actual science for players. The repeated clicking on individual experiments from KSP1 doesn't need to return for this, but perhaps an "experiment manager" window or some other form of more in-depth interaction would be warranted. What I mean by this is for the science experiments to act as sensors measuring quantitative qualities of the environment. Examples of this would be a probe dropping into the atmosphere of a planet with a barometer and thermometer and creating graphs of pressure and temperature by altitude for that planet, or a spacecraft orbiting a planet with LIDAR to map its terrain for the first time, while the player would not be able to see the surface detail up close in map view or with probes before doing that. The player could gather actual scientific data, and the game could guide them into understanding why they've learned something about the planet by doing what they've done ("See the spikes in your spectrometer reading? Those prove that there is water on Duna!" "You measured a dip in this star's brightness, that must have been caused by its planet!") I recall the devs mentioning the idea of not giving the player all the information about planets right away, and players having to "discover" at least some celestial bodies on their own. I think this idea of the player gradually building up their own "discovered world" based on their own measurements helps with that, and I hope science gains a lot more depth and realism in KSP2 in the future. Some of the science experiments I can think of: -Magnetometers that can map planets' and stars' magnetic fields over time by orbiting them, and can help forecast solar storms -Spectrometers that give spectra for stars, planet atmospheres, and surface samples, which the player can look over to characterize composition -RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras that allow the player to record detailed maps of surface topography -Telescopes with various specialized instruments and wavelength ranges for observation of deep space objects, exoplanet discovery, and mapping the stellar neighborhood Player-Driven Exploration With discovery at the forefront of the game, I think the player will have all the incentive they need to drive the direction of their space program on their own. Want to explore the Sun? Prioritize radiation and magnetic science parts. Made an unexpected fascinating discovery about Jool? Drum up the resources for a planetary probe. Prefer visiting Minmus over the Mun? Focus the game on that destination. Show the player the options, and let them choose their own goals. A big place where I feel the game falls short of this are the anomalies. Instead of encouraging the player to go to space to learn about their environment and place in the universe, about the natural beauty of the world, the game sets the main goal as learning about the ancient aliens who were in the Kerbol system. I think having those artifacts in the game is no problem at all, and can make for a really cool adventure, but no part of the game should tell us to go seek them out or visit them. I would implement them far more subtly, requiring the player to discover them through actual anomalies in the data they gather as they explore. For instance, mapping out the magnetic environment around the Mun with an orbiting probe and discovering a strong localized magnetic field that reveals the location of the Mun arch. No Keri Kerman telling us that there is an arch, no mission handed to us by the game - all the incentive and excitement can come from a pure "What's THAT?" as the player discovers a tantalizing measurement. Then, visiting the arch (which should probably be covered up to begin with until excavation is possible) could allow discovery of an actual signal, a puzzle which would need to be deciphered by the player. Another example would be finding nearby stars and exoplanets. Once the player has the technology to do parallax measurements and light curves of stars, the game shouldn't tell them where to look in the sky. They should just be able to start a sky survey or point their telescope at whichever star they like, and see what they find. They might not know about all the same planets as some other player does, and when the time comes to launch their interstellar vessel they'll choose a different star to point it at, based on what they've discovered. Resources As the game progresses into colony-building, I'm sure the focus on material resources will grow, as now it isn't there but I can see the place for it in the game. On extraplanetary bases, it's obvious that there will be a limited budget of raw materials, metals, oxygen, etc. with which to build rockets, buildings, and other machines, with that budget coming from resource extractors and mining of the surface through combing, excavating, and drilling the planets. Other planets would also have alternate materials available like regolith for buildings, roads, and launch pads. On Kerbin, presumably advanced industry elsewhere on the planet is able to supply KSC with an "allowance" of materials and parts, which don't necessarily need to be limited by cost in money units, but could be limited by quantity available, especially for specialized parts like probe cores and science instruments. For instance, "There are 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks available" or "There are 3 probe cores and 1 capsule available". Part of the player's directive for exploration could be the strategization of prioritizing production/purchase of certain kinds of parts and materials. Probes vs. space station modules, longer range antennas, different types of experiments...These would make every player's "space program" unique and personalized. Conclusion This is basically my outline for what I personally imagine KSP2 could be like in the future. The main aspects I see in this "speculative" version of KSP2 are: Science experiments functioning in a realistic way, as sensors that observe the environment, and conclusions about the universe being drawn from those observations, as well as useful information for designing and piloting vehicles in those environments Player-driven exploration, with much less direction coming from the mission system as to what to focus on or find important A focus on material resources for production of parts, vehicles, buildings, and missions that is adaptable to the player's self-determined goals There are a few places in the game where I see gameplay mechanics that I think will prevent KSP2 from achieving these aspects if they are left as they are and taken for granted. Mainly these are copied from KSP1: The "science point" system and its dynamic with the tech tree Exploration being driven by "missions" where the game tells you where you should go and what aspects of space exploration you should consider important I think those aspects from KSP1, which themselves were added after the core identity and function of the game were fairly well established, should be rethought and reworked to better fit the mission of KSP2. I'm not demanding that they be changed or made to fit what I've described here, my only request is that they not be taken for granted just because they're the status quo. I know this is just my idea, and I'm sure the actual game could turn out very differently from what I've described and still be a very good game. The devs have no doubt been thinking and shooting ideas around about these very topics for years longer than I have, too. Developers, thanks for listening to the community, and thanks for your dedication and commitment to trying to make something even greater than the best game ever.

We didn't have those tools in KSP1 either, without mods. There are extant calculators for resonant orbits already, so parity with KSP1 is a reasonable ask. As explained, main purpose of this is getting them from "we might talk about it again later" to "we WILL fix this by 1.0."

When are you guys putting an alarm clock app into KSP2? Hopefully not after 1.0 like KSP1 did, that's a pretty crucial feature. I've been hoping to do a completely modless playthrough in KSP2, something I never really did in KSP1 because so much of my playtime was pre-1.0. Anyway, have a happy new year and keep up the great work! Your start on exploration mode and the current science gameplay is excellent, a much better experience than I expected given the talk of how similar to KSP1 it was going to be.

We had a lot riding on the For Science! update that we released two weeks ago — it’s been a long first year of Early Access, filled with the arduous and mostly unglamorous pursuit of bugs, stability improvements, and performance gains. This update, the first of our major Roadmap Updates, had to achieve some big new goals for KSP2: it had to round out the core game loop with re-entry heating and buoyancy; it had to introduce a whole new progression system via the R&D Center and Mission Control; it had to introduce Science collection, Science parts, and dozens of new points of interest; and of course it needed to continue to deliver quality of life improvements (banishing wobbly rockets) and performance improvements. Also: there are boat docks now! In a nutshell, the addition of Exploration Mode transformed KSP2 from a sandbox experience into a proper long-form game. Working on something with so many moving parts, there’s always a little trepidation when we release a new build to the public - especially when there are so many new systems in play. We do our best to test every possible scenario, but there’s always a chance that something terrifying will rear its head once we’ve got thousands of people playing the game. It was with this fear lurking in the backs of our heads that we sat together in our own mission control room and waited for confirmation that For Science! had been released into the world. We nervously watched the first review videos appear on YouTube, and were relieved to discover that veteran players like Carnasa and Matt Lowne were excited about what they found in the new update. We cycled between the livestreams of Everyday Astronaut, EJ_SA, and Giantwaffle, discovering to our delight that all three were not only having fun, but were having trouble putting the game down! By the time we did our own livestream that evening, it was clear that we’d succeeded in creating a more stable and realistic universe, and that we’d given players some compelling goals to pursue within that universe. Our stream ran over an hour longer than planned because we, too, had a bit of trouble putting it down. That’s a story we’re hearing a lot - you sit down to play this game for an hour, and before you know it the sun’s coming up. Over the last couple of weeks, a clear picture has emerged - there are still some bugs, as well as some big opportunities to improve the player experience - but for the most part, those rough edges have not gotten in the way of some very ambitious exploratory missions. I’ll talk more about those bugs in a bit, but first I’d like to highlight some of this update’s biggest wins: The music. Yes, you all love Howard Mostrom. We’re going to need a bigger inbox for all his fan mail. The tutorials and first-time user experience have paved the way for a new group of first-time Kerbal players, and we’re not only seeing lots of you get to space, we’re also seeing a lot more players doing interplanetary missions. In many ways, the original justification for KSP2’s existence was to find a way to welcome more new players to Kerbal, and we’re very excited to see that this work has begun to bear fruit. We knew that bringing rocket science to the masses wasn’t going to be easy, and there’s still a lot more work to do in this area... but we’re making progress! Folks are enjoying the missions! We’re excited to continue adding new missions to the game via upcoming updates, and we’d love to hear your suggestions for compelling new exploration goals. In general, we’re beginning to see the flourishing of player creativity that we knew would take place once the most critical performance and usability issues had been ironed out. It’s been a pleasure to visit r/kerbalspaceprogram and our #bestof Discord channel and just bask in the awesomeness. People are making magnificent things, and it feels so nice to see all that imagination unleashed. Look at this stuff! Courtesy of Aravir Courtesy of Flypig07UA Courtesy of Dr. Seno Courtesy of BioticKeen Of course, one key benefit to our game being in Early Access is that we get detailed bug reports and feedback from a wide variety of players, and boy, did we get a big helping after releasing this update. Check out the spike we saw on our K.E.R.B. bug submissions at the end of December: There are some annoying bugs and usability issues in the mix - some are new, some have been around for a while but have risen in prominence now that other more consequential problems have been addressed. Areas of frustration include font scale and legibility, the maneuver node interface, thermal system tuning (including the propensity of some parts to explode even when they’re shielded and the insufficiency of fairings to protect their contents), as well as a few weird one-off stability issues (most of which can be corrected by reloading or restarting). We are triaging and trying to reproduce issues related to things like parachutes failing to deploy, trajectories vanishing from the map view, and Delta-V accuracy (which given the dependency of maneuver plans on accurate Delta-V projection, can result in being blocked from planning a maneuver). We’ve also noted some user experience gaps, most notably the game’s failure to properly communicate to new players that "Revert to VAB" is different from "Return to VAB" - an oversight that has led some newcomers to lose their progress after completing a mission. I’ll also take this moment to offer a new protip that I learned today after complaining to Chris Adderley about my spaceplane wings being destroyed on re-entry: while the heavier wings are more heat-resistant, the volume of every wing (and especially the wing’s thickness) affects its thermal mass. A thicker wing will be more resistant to destruction via heat! I’ll be trying out the "fat wings" approach tonight after work. Procedural wings sure are cool. Anyway, back to bugs. If you’re one of the people who have come up against a truly blocking or fun-destroying issue, please do take the time to share that information with us via the bug report subforum. We’re seeing much less of this after the For Science! update, but it’s still something we want to investigate aggressively when it’s encountered. We’re already hard at work on the v0.2.1.0 incremental update to address as many of these issues as we can, and we’ll update you here as soon as we know the exact timing and contents of that update. In the meantime, thank you for continuing to share your bug reports and feedback - your detailed reporting continues to play a huge role in helping us to improve the game. Another exciting new development: modders have started to produce some extremely cool augmentations for KSP2, including Orbital Survey, an alarm clock mod, and there’s even some planet modding underway! Our team is especially happy to see that the extensible tech tree file format created with future moddability in mind has paved the way for things like the new Tech Tree Manager mod. The Orbital Survey mod The 2.5x Kerbolar System mod The next major Roadmap Update, which will bring colonies to the game, is now also in progress. In the meantime, the current plan is to sneak a few additional missions into the next incremental update, just to keep things fresh. Now that there are interesting things to do in the game, we’re very excited about all the ways that we can continue adding new layers to that experience in the coming year while knocking out the bugs that remain. 2024 is going to be a very exciting year for KSP2, both for the players and for us developers! Nate

Please stop constantly harassing me. You have all my arguments above about why there's a better learning progression with Stayputnik, a small SRB and control surfaces and why the Starting Rocketry node is currently bad. If you want to talk, bring counter-arguments. I've been very explicit and clear in my reasoning.

Was that because their vessel had lost all control due to loss of electricity, or did it crash into terrain due to lack of a parachute? Oh wait, that can only happen with probes. Sorry? Also batteries, solar panels, antennas, even more reaction wheels because probe's own is way too weak to control much more than its own core. Weird how you forgot about those. And if you omit parachutes and experiments, what's your probe for then? It won't gather science (the only purpose of those first few flights) and even if it did, it will crash because no parachute, so you'll end up with nothing anyway. Your first flight is nothing more than a waste of time. Besides, there's one thing you keep forgetting when you talk about how "hard" it is to learn basics - there are friggin tutorials right there. Yes there isn't many of them and they don't cover all the basics but there's nothing harder about methalox engine than there is about an SRB. I'd say it's easier because the Swivel gives the player some control over the rocket, with SRB you shoot straight up... And that's about it. I'd like to refer again to the Science Deep Dive video where it's all explained.

There is a long life left ahead for KSP 1. A long, and happy left before the rot you talk about hits. Tho, I have some small measure of faith that if it needed it, that IG would put out some sort of 1.12.6+ update to maintain KSP 1 and keep it from dying out entirely.

There are two threads here which get you around your problem. Docking ports are a new gadget. You can work out how to building them and test them on the ground. You can make them with the same materials you already use to build the rocket. You just need to do that in space to prove you can, ie Soyuz 4 or Gemini VIII. Going somewhere and finding something new is what gives you big step changes in capability. Perhaps a new material that allows a more efficient or lighter engine, or a different fuel compound that means you can fit more dv in a given volume (yep, sorry, variations on a theme. others will have better ideas). Maybe you could get there without leaving the Kerbal SOI, but it would take a heap longer. This is an issue in KSP1 - the power of the science labs means you don't really need to. This sounds a lot like 'science points'. However, following PDCWolf's train of thought, you don't exactly see the tree, just the outputs from your general intended direction. On this point, we can agree. If nothing else, all this talk of science has had me doing some basic reading into what did happen, when and how in the '50s through '70s. I know I've had to rethink some of my ideas on tech progression.

I was wondering when all the talk about precision fermentation would go mainstream…

Well, I've crossed the 200 hours total time spent in KSP 2, so the game is worth my time. Surprisingly, it was not the exploration that got me hooked.. but actually building first stages of various sizes and tonnage to LKO and also designing more and more complex science return missions. So basically most of my enjoyment came from the VAB. Executing those missions is somewhat painful - from bad dV data to bad maneuver node control, buggy RCS which makes docking a PAIN.. which means that for me KSP2 is up to the level of KSP1 Science Mode but just below designing multi-vehicle missions which require orbital assembly and refueling. Besides bugfixes and QoL improvements, what I feel is missing: - more edge, spice, adult humor - many more discoverables & asteroids-comets - better terrain and environment graphics + weather visuals - better science utility and planetary discovery and survey progression - CommNet missions which require launching satellite constellations to have unoccluded signal in a SOI - extra survival gameplay mechanisms like radiation - being resource constrained and a resource collection game loop - previous and next points are closely related to delivery routes - more reasons to build vehicles other than rockets, probes, pods and landers - the orbital colony system + EVA construction to make building in space easier and faster. Only when the game will have all this will it really be just above KSP 1's level. And only after that does it make sense to talk about interstellar exploration.