RayneCloud

April 19

Sprints are a part of SCRUM which itself is an Agile methodology. I know it, because I've used it across every game I've worked on. That was what they were using last I checked or bothered to speculate. I think things may have changed with certain people becoming Product Owners over certain feature sets and teams. The suggested MAXIMUM of Sprint planning by the way, is EIGHT HOURS for a FOUR WEEK SPRINT. https://scrumguides.org/ This would be pages 7 and 8 of the SCRUM Guide of 2020, which you can find here: https://scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2020/2020-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf#zoom=100

April 19

I very seriously doubt they've adopted SAFe @Casellina X, I am willing to be wrong, but I highly doubt it. The whole point of SAFe is to be "Agile" and Adaptable with product delivery and one of the major principles of SAFe is incremental building with rapid integration of learning cycles, like Kolb's.

April 18

6 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Actually, I was hoping if you would post something like this... Thank you for posting it.

Oh? Why me? lol

Thanks though, and yeah, of course, I love KSP as I said.

April 18

I might risk some things here, but we're half way through April, and I am disheartened and frustrated.

I have never once worked on a game that took two weeks to "Plan" for what comes next. Not even during our team wide trip to Mexico City did we take two weeks to plan out what came next. I get it, Holiday Stand down + Planning out what comes next takes up a few weeks and it's hard to get back in the saddle, but this is not it. (Unless that two week planning was a complete rebuild of team structure, and workflow, in which case, my apologies.)

As a former Community Manager I have never been so utterly disappointed in leadership as I am right now. I am not disappointed in the community team, as they can only share what they are authorized to share, so Mike and Dakota don't get any reprimands from me, they're both doing the best they can, and they have both been outstanding Community leads, but senior leadership, does.

To Senior leadership, you are doing permanent and lasting damage to the brand, the project, and the community as a whole. Changing KERB communication was a mistake. Giving us next to nothing outside a single vid we had to dig up to find with Nate and a single dev post since last year is unacceptable.

This community deserves better from you all, WE gave them better when we had the reigns during the early days, those that came after Me, Skunky, Nova, C7, Mu, Harv, etc, gave this community better.

You need to do better. You need to be better. For Kerbal Space Program, for the Community as a Whole, for the future of this franchise.

Now, I am sorry and I apologize if I being disrespectful here, but I am upset and I am voicing that here. If anyone thinks I am out of line, please tell me, and I will apologize, but I love this franchise.

I love KSP.

KSP was my first ever game, my first ever time as a CM, my first ever real shot and chance in this industry and it changed my life and left as lasting impression on me. I have changed a lot since my time as "Damion Rayne" back in the day, but I am still the same space loving, green space frog loving, spontaneous unplanned disassembly and single state to ocean loving, KSP Fan I have been since the start.

With respect, and love of Rockets and Science,
-Rayne

April 17

Honestly, I think I've finally lost faith in the project. I really truly hope to be wrong, but we'll see where the next patch goes and if Colonies is another 10 month wait just like For Science was.

April 11

On 4/10/2024 at 2:45 PM, Dakota said:

Just going to repeat that taking branch updates as any sort of sign is a bad idea. We're already trying to set expectations correctly, don't get yourself hyped up because Gwen broke something on one of the builds and we had to throw another one up for today's playtest.

With respect, we're not having expectations managed, because we're hearing very very little. One dev post about lighting since Dec 8th, and some sneak peaks and a nate vid that know one knew was out until it was linked here, is not enough. We've been told to expect more communication for 4 months and we have not gotten it to a satisfactory level, at least I will speak for me personally on this. Forgive me if I come off disrespectful here Dakota, it is not my intent, but we need more please.

March 22

We really need at least some sort of engagement here. My focus would be to rotate content based on ease of generation. Give us more sneak peaks, smaller more focused blogs from team leads / feature owners / devs, updates from you directly would be nice as well @Dakota just giving us TL:DR versions of , "This week the team did X and Y". We need more than a dead discord, a dead forum, and sparse content on the social media pipelines. We need more than a video from Nate that no one really knew about until it got posted by other community members. I for one had no idea nate had done a video. I don't want to attack here and I apologize If I'm coming off harsh, or disrespectful, but the communication issues have been present through the projects life so far.

We need better please.

(Note: I am grateful for nates vid, I am, but it was a bit off putting to not have it announced in anyway.)

March 22

The plain truth is that the promise of the Bi-Weekly KERB report was not kept at all, so how do we know that the promise of a monthly version will be maintained? The lack of clear, concise, constant communication has not helped perceptions and community morale at all.

March 14

I think I am going to have to just say it, the current communication with the community is incredibly disappointing.

March 5

The very steady and constant communication issues has been concerning, I admit.

March 5

32 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

You may have missed this post, which is understandable as it wasn't an official one.

I've not watched the video yet but the bullet-point recap later in the thread intrigues me somewhat.

Thanks

March 5

As the title says, jsut curious when we're going to get more info and a deeper dive on the next major update.

Posted January 23 · January 23

*clapping hands gif*

Good. Very good.

January 8

1 hour ago, Poodmund said:

Probably the best take in this whole thread.

So, OPM 2 then?

January 8

41 minutes ago, rjbvre said:

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want.

KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

People do love using that argument of "they're not humans" (yeah, we know) while forgetting that most all the parts in the game are based off real world versions.

January 8

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

And I actually agree with not seeing much point to interstellar. However, I will say that interstellar transfers should at least offer a different mechanism for spaceflight than normal Hohmann transfers between planets.

That the planets are already barren rocks shouldn't be a justification to add more uninteresting barren rocks, it should actually be a reason to put the work in to make them interesting, varied, and worthwhile to visit.

I make no connection between the argument in KSP and real spaceflight, however IRL even barren rocks can tell us a lot of things that help a myriad of disciplines from geography to chemistry, biology, astrophysics and everything inbetween. In KSP not only can't you represent that, but also the way the game is actually emphasizes how empty and barren those worlds are.

in KSP, what makes a landing on Gilly different from one on Pol and Bop? Maybe the color of the terrain, one of them having the Kraken, and now whatever discoverables are out there. Other than that, once you did one there's almost nothing to gain from landing on any of the other two besides completionism.

So, why not just have KSP be kerbin and the mun and nothing else?

January 8

OPM changes where Eeloo is located @rjbvre -

Cause yeah, it wouldn't make sense for it to stay where it is. Also, I suggest trying OPM in KSP 1 with nothing but stock parts and see if the whole "there's no extra challenge or considerations" sentiment from others is correct or not

January 8

I mean, sorry for being a bit snippy here... but that whole "they're barren rocks with nothing on them" argument just really grinds me up because it's a non argument for space flight games like KSP, etc. It's also used to shut down space flight IRL. "Why go there? It's barren and empty."

Nasa estimates there's something like 290 celestials around most major planets and dwarf planets in our solar system,

95 around Jupiter
146 at Saturn
27 at Uranus
14 at Neptune
5 orbitals around dwarf planet pluto

This type of argument means, we never go to any of them. Because there's just, "no reason, they're all barren rocks" There's nothing to learn, nothing to do, no advancements to be made and that's the same thing here in KSP...

I don't play Stock KSP 1 without OPM, because going out past Jool, out in to the deep solar system, requires even more engineering in terms of mission planning, vehicle design, etc. For me personally, tho I suppose someone else will just jump in here and go "I play OPM stock and can get to pluto with nothing but 1 engine you're a noob" to shut me down on that, but oh well.

January 8

8 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Whilst I agree with GP2 and beyond (an actually well made asteroid system that can be used to create Oort cloud bodies too please?), there's also a harsh reality that is new players not leaving the vicinity of Kerbin. Even if KSP2 has much more incentive, we still don't know if that's changed, or will change. Plus it's not like most planets aren't barren an uninsteresting already save for hand-planted "discoverables" strewn around. What makes more planets not just be more barren wastelands, which we already have plenty of?

So, why have interstellar at all then? Because that's just more "barren planets" to go visit for, I dunno, no reason what so ever? If we're going by that logic then every planet is a boring barren rock with no reason to go to it, so why have a space game about going to those places, there's nothing there yeah? No resources, no science, no mission and vehicle design challenges, no discoverable to explore, no landscapes and amazing vistas to see, no reason really to go to space or do things in space because it's all barren planets.

Ya know, IRL, there's 95 celestial objects around Jupiter (That we know of), I'm sure there's no reason for us to go to any of them. Uninteresting barren lifeless rocks that they are. *shrug*

January 8

So, umm, where does one actually download KSRSS these days? The gitlab? Because the "releases" just say source code... so confused if we're supposed to compile something or that's just the naming of the folders..

January 8

I simply don't agree, not even remotely.

We're talking about teaching the player how to set up and prepare true deep space missions before leaving the local solar system as missions to outer gas giants and pluto analogs are even harder to plan in modded KSP1 using KSRSS/OPM/RSS, than Jupiter/Jool and it's moons are. Have you ever even given it any consideration at all?

January 8

Some of you, might remember, a very very long time ago when I was a part of the KSP 1 team as a community manager that I spoke about and petitioned my co-workers to add analogs to Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as a means of creating deep space challenges that Jool and its moons simply couldn't support. Now, I was shut down for a multitude of reasons, mostly that adding analogs to the outer planets and some of their most well known moons would have the following impacts,

Memory Issues (KSP was 32 bit at the time)
We'd need to rebalance stock parts and create new parts
Extended Tech tree requirements

These among a few other issues were why I was shut down, but for those of you here back in the day you might remember one @NovaSilisko talking about new planets.. Such as,

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Gas_planet_2

And a proposed Gas Planet 3 , with moons and changes to the kerbolar system.

So, why bring this up now with KSP 2? Because I feel that KSP 2 could really benefit from having a true Solar System full planet catalog of analogs to explore and conquer before deep space and interstellar travel. That and lets be honest, OPM is one of the most popular planet mods ever made for KSP1. With a 64bit game, engine updates, etc, adding in analogs for the big 3 and pluto and some new moons could prepare players for true deep space missions before finally reaching out in to the great beyond.

So please, at least, consider it?

January 8

2 hours ago, Periple said:

I'm more bothered by the fact that they appear to have abandoned it and haven't announced that. It's not cool to keep people hanging.

"Appear" is not "Fact" it may appear that they have ,but until an official statement comes out, "Everything in motions stays in motion."

Anyway, great job team! Looking forward to what comes next!

January 7

1 minute ago, Sushut said:

Oh i see, the min values are for individual systems just like the max values.

Ohhh, I thought it was across all systems generated, that's on me then, ty.

January 7

49 minutes ago, Sushut said:

Do you have parallax installed? I've had similar issues with planet packs and I honestly cannot ever pinpoint the issue with it. Nevertheless, can you send the KSP logs + Kopernicus Logs in Kerbal Space Program/Logs/Logs-Kopernicus.zip (just send the entire zip file)

You can either do it on discord to Sushut or send it via google drive

Are the min values higher than the max values you set? That usually breaks everything. If not, then I guess I just broke that function... Oops.

I set 7 planets and 3 moons, which I thought meant, 7 planets per system max and 3 moons per planet max... and then I thought the min moon and min planets setting set the min for the overall generation of all systems put together?

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by RayneCloud