What's your most controversial KSP opinion

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, Royale37 said:

That's my opinion though - it shouldn't be.

Which you didn't actually state in your first post.  All you said was the it was too similar to our own, which is not an opinion but a fact.  You should have stated that, while similar to our own, you didn't care for it and think it should be vastly different.  Or something along those lines.

2 hours ago, Royale37 said:

My point is that proper nouns that aren't the name of something well-known (so not Einstein or Detroit or something) should not be red-underlined. 

Again, just my opinion. 

That's not an opinion on KSP.  In fact, that's not an opinion at all.  Proper nouns/names that aren't included in the dictionary of your web browser will underline red as they aren't known or, potentially, spelled right.  That's just a fact of life.

[Gargamel]

5 hours ago, Royale37 said:

My point is that proper nouns that aren't the name of something well-known (so not Einstein or Detroit or something) should not be red-underlined. 

This is neither a KSP nor forum related opinion.   It's a function of your machine.  Let's stick to the topic please.

[Grenartia]

13 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The "turn KSP 1 into what KSP 2 promised" modpacks will never be complete unless modders can implement the features KSP 2's dev team said would be required to avoid the late game being a milk run slog.

That'd probably require a whole mod just to put it in a different engine (maybe Unreal?)

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Grenartia said:

That'd probably require a whole mod just to put it in a different engine (maybe Unreal?)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Rocketwerkz could probably finish KSA and the bespoke space simulation engine it runs on before modders can decompile KSP, port it to Unreal, and convince the new IP owners to allow its distribution.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Nate Simpson was a man of sweeping vision, single handedly elevating the KSP name to unprecedented levels of media attention.

His refusal to compromise or adapt his vision is a true mark of artistic excellence—who needs a working game when you have ambition?

Edited November 22, 2024 by Fizzlebop Smith

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

Nate Simpson was a man of sweeping vision, single handedly elevating the KSP name to unprecedented levels of media attention.

His refusal to compromise or adapt his vision is a true mark of artistic excellence—who needs a working game when you have ambition?

That's actually one part truth and one part opinion.  He absolutely was responsible for generating hype around the game and getting it more noticed.

[Grenartia]

16 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Rocketwerkz could probably finish KSA and the bespoke space simulation engine it runs on before modders can decompile KSP, port it to Unreal, and convince the new IP owners to allow its distribution.

Probably, yeah. But most of that would probably be convincing the new IP owners to allow it. 

[timmy kerman]

my controversial opinion:

dres aint that bad

[Lisias]

KSP2 can be salvageable - but I doubt it would be profitable.

KSP¹ can be profitable - but I doubt it would be salvageable... without opening the Source somehow.

[KerbolExplorer]

Since the ksp2 team hated it so much, I'll take that this opinion is somewhat unpopular.

Career mode is fun, yes the contract system needed a lot of work, but when you slap a couple of mods on top of it, it actually creates a pretty fun experience. I never play ksp without career mode.

[Hobbesian]

Most of my controversial opinions are less big picture and more nit-picky. I'll just list them here.

• KSP 2's engine plumes don't look that good
• They should've swapped Dres and the Mun
• A lot of stock rocket parts are quite ugly, even after the redesign
• It's fine to not want to leave the Kerbin system
• Kerbin should have more deserts
• Jool should be blue

I do however have my own opinion on the whole Mechjeb debate that happened some time ago here.

I think it's absolutely fine to use MJ.  While I do prefer manually flying my craft to orbit, (atleast in stock since I'd rather eat a brick than do that in RSS) MJ has saved so much unneeded hassle in building my stations or docking certain craft, as well as rendezvous which has always been a nightmare for me. When I play stock, I like to let MJ do the first part of the ascent, which gets me on target to my station (usually at an inclination), keeps my craft stable, and helps me launch at the right time to get a rendezvous. @Grenartia summed up my feelings very well with their long division analogy. People should know and should learn to get places without MJ, but it is ultimately easier to just use MJ once you do this routinely, keeping an eye on things just to make sure MJ hasn't pulled some funny business while you weren't paying attention. (Which can be the case, like the numerous times while docking that it just, didn't.)

Edited 23 hours ago by Hobbesian
clarification with the beginning

[Mr. Kerbin]

Just now, Hobbesian said:

People should know and should learn to get places without MJ, but it is ultimately easier to just use MJ once you do this routinely, keeping an eye on things just to make sure MJ hasn't pulled some funny business while you weren't paying attention. (Which can be the case, like the numerous times while docking that it just, didn't.)

Okay, I can get behind that.

When I said “no MJ” I meant because I see a lot of new players use it.

[Hobbesian]

1 minute ago, Mr. Kerbin said:

Okay, I can get behind that.

When I said “no MJ” I meant because I see a lot of new players use it.

Oh that's absolutely fair in my eyes. New players who are just starting out should 100% learn how to get to orbit and perform basic manoeuvres without automation. 

It's very much like school, could you just punch numbers in first grade math? Yes, doesn't mean you should though. 

Once you do very repetitive missions that's when I would highly recommend MJ to take the edge off, like say, building a large station in LKO, and keeping it supplied and crewed. 

[Grenartia]

4 hours ago, Mr. Kerbin said:

Okay, I can get behind that.

When I said “no MJ” I meant because I see a lot of new players use it.

I think its fine for new players to use it, because if you're actually paying attention while its doing something like docking, you can learn the general procedure until you can try it manually. And I think we as a community should encourage that. 

I had to learn from a friend who explained it (and he learned by reading Buzz Aldrin's thesis as a flex), but it was honestly pretty intimidating to try for myself until I saw MJ doing it enough that I realized I could do it.

[AlamoVampire]

4 hours ago, Mr. Kerbin said:

When I said “no MJ” I meant because I see a lot of new players use it.

I would not be playing KSP today over 11 YEARS since I found it with out MechJeb. I find it abhorrent that Squad failed, yes FAILED, to have a MechJeb like functionality in the game. Same way I find stock fairings abhorrent when Procedural Fairings are objectively better in all ways to stock. Do stock fairings get the job done? Yes. Barely. Do Procedural Fairings do it objectively better? Yes. Ok back to MechJeb. I could not dock to save my life. Read tutorials here, watched countless video tutorials. Not one of them helped. MechJeb showed and taught me how MY rockets flew and how MY build style worked in game. Now I use it to handle the mundane repetitive tasks like launches, routine docking, and other stuff that automation is better suited for. 
 

181802072025

[Iapetus7342]

I like Dres for what it is - Barren, small, airless and boring. It's a nice break from the heavily varied terrain and conditions of the Kerbol system, and it makes for a neat interplanetary destination post-Duna/Eve landing! The canyon and Drestroid Belt save it from being completely boring though, but i still like that.