mystik

LOL, this is just... WOW, my dude, for real? OK, here it goes: IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT A 6 BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY. THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO WASTE. YOU DON'T NEED TO LINE THEIR POCKETS WITH UNDESERVED MONEY. Even, and I say this clear: EVEN IF KSP 2 GETS DROPPED. Yo, what is wrong with the world? You may like KSP a lot, but if you're willing to accept anything, you will be given barely anything in return. This is some abusive relationship stuff right here. If I work hard for my money to earn it, guess what, TAKE2 has to also work hard to earn it. You're just giving it away. I just don't understand. KSP customers have to have some dignity, if they accept this kind of behavior from this company they will not get a good game, because why would they give you a good game if you're giving easy money? I rather see KSP fail than support such travesty. This is why we ABSOLUTELY CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS, my dude.

I was calling this out way before it was even launched. I advised caution and BUYER BEWARE. The Steam store page is full of complaints. 50% negative reviews. And on top of that, there is a post from the devs that addresses (COPE) the performance issues. I mean, they never for one second said that there will be issues with the performance like these. They kept quiet and now it exploded in their face. The ones that bought it mention all the negative bugs and how it will get better (MORE COPE). Hey, I hope they don't get refunds. I will quote one review that is quite comprehensive. YIKES! Looks like they learned nothing from KSP. Especially the EULA part. You're installing spyware. And some mentions of microtransactions. I called it in my posts earlier this week. They will sell you a $5 dollar super engine that is better than any other engine and you will buy it. KSP is now technically EA. Where EA is not Early Access, but Electronic Arts. Well, it was fun, but I will stick to KSP 1 with mods. Publisher, please, do not refund any of the buyers. You get what you deserve! I will not be coming back to this section of the forum, don't care, don't want to know, the EULA is a deal breaker for me, even if they make this the best game in 10 years. Your soul is not worth selling for some cheap entertainment. I care about my privacy more than about some cash grab disguised as a game. This game will lose interest in about 1 week on Twitch and then it will be relegated to the bottom of the internet where it belongs for trying to insult gamers, when it really is a spyware bug simulator that has an entry fee of 50 bucks if you wanna become a tester / test subject for the greedy company behind it.

That's wise, but, even if they push one feature per year, multiplayer is 5 years from now. This means that they won't have to optimize performance, because 5 gpu generations from now it will make a 2060 look like an intel on board graphics card. This needs to be done now, not later when they "launch" (LOL) the game. To not optimize now would simply be dishonest. The graphics from KSP 2 are very similar, if not inferior to KSP plus mods, it doesn't justify the garbage FPS based on visual gains.

Campaign stands for tree progression. I though you would understand what a "campaign" is in KSP. The rest of your post makes no sense if you actually read my complaints. So, they ask for 50 bucks for: Coming Later Coming Later Coming Later Coming Later Coming Later Bad optimization (ahem, LAZY CODING) No collisions (but you said it is better than the original KSP and I also noticed you didn't mention the fact that PARALLAX exists, so you're not paying attention or deliberately ignoring so that you don't have to actually deal with the facts) If it was ok, 5 bucks for the garbage we have now, then extra 5 bucks when science is introduced, 5 when colonies are added, 5 for when a new solar system is added and so on. But it's not. It's all the money upfront and we'll see. We promise. And we will keep that promise like we did with all our promises. And yes, launch dates are promises, don't play smart with me. I am going to totally trust a company that failed to deliver repeatedly before with any promise at this point. And my posts were all about "Buyer Beware" I repeated this a few times. I care about the guy that will buy this hot mess way more than the company. I don't care about the company at all. I don't even care about the devs. They don't care about me. I think that's fair. Money for product. I don't see why I should go out of my way to be all empathetic and crap with people that want me to open my wallet to buy their product. Are they gonna give me a discount if I show sympathy? Are they gonna give me a good advice when I need one? Are they gonna help me carry the groceries? Are they gonna fix my car? "Constructive criticism", lol. This is ridiculous. You did. I got the receipts. Total "Bruh" moment.

- No Campaign - No Science - No Colonies - No Interstellar - No new system - No Multiplayer - bad FPS goes here - super buggy (Matt talks about the engine sounds disappearing and such) - no tree collision (my dudes, the Parallax mod for KSP has collision with objects, and that mod is made by like one or a few guys, not a full payed game dev team, he did it for free, lol) I'm sure I missed a lot of the issues. So no, GoldForrest, it's not just the FPS, you're the one focusing on that alone When modders can do things better for free and your payed dev team can't even get basic stuff done right, it deserves EVERY BIT of criticism. EVERY BIT. The Parallax mod did not cause any fps issues for me. How can that mod work just fine and add so much to the game and not require a 3080 card? Keep defending, your "acceptance" of the failures of the dev team to provide a good product by this date is just giving them more rope to hang themselves with when the brown stuff hits the maxed out GPU fan. I am not impressed. I expected more. I expected better.

Lol. Why must I give constructive feedback? Why must I be "positive", "careful", "provide a safe space"? I have a criticism of the game and I won't be "constructive" about it simply because me and the devs are not relatives, they don't feed me, don't care about me. The folk doing this are doing it form money, behind a cold corporation with steel and glass windows, which don't care about mine or your sensitivities. I can be as unconstructive as I wish, I don't have to be "nice" to some strangers that mean nothing to me, I'm talking about a transaction here. If they want me to be constructive, and give them ideas on what they can do better they can pay me, I'm not giving my time out for free. If the game sucks I say the game sucks. If the game is good, I will say it is worth the money and buy it. You might like to hear that the "game is not optimal" or whatever word soup is on the "Current Year's" menu, but I like to express what I mean exactly the way I mean it. If I ain't breaking the rules I can say as I see fit. I won't waste time being "nice" to a faceless company. Tf? This is just weird, bro, ngl.

My man nailed it exactly. It's not that the game is garbage in the current state. If it was 5 bucks I'd throw it at the screen and be like, eh, it's a complete garbage but it's cheap garbage. You're not getting a game on the 24th. What you are getting is paying 50 bucks to the developers so that you get unwillingly hired as a game tester. Weird to me that some people want to do work AND pay for that. I was a game tester years back. It's not fun. It's frustrating. You don't enjoy playing. That's why they pay people to test the games. This "pay to work" is a new thing for me. Must be a western thing, where I'm from most people would face palm so hard they would cause injury.

Unless you already have the game already I would say you're making it up. I've seen the videos. The stuttering, the absurd graphic requirements. Oh, unlike you I payed attention. Neither Scott or Matt were allowed to change the graphic settings. Looks to me like lack of transparency from the dev team. It is astonishing to see so many people defending corporations, lol. Mydudes, it's fine to criticize a company for failure to deliver, what's with all the reactionary responses? You act like you're on their payroll. It's fine if you're payed to defend them, but if you're doing it for free, that's a bit cultish behavior, mydudes. Weird. I will rag on the state of the game as much as I see fit. Yes, KSP2 as it is now is a disappointing mess of an unfinished game for which the devs are asking full price. So all that "it's just work in progress, brah, they need time to finish the game" is all fine, but nobody seems to be talking about the fact that they are asking full price before the product is even delivered. If you're going to say that the full game will be more than 50 bucks, I have one reply: HAHA! Good luck with getting people to pay 50 bucks on KSP2 even when finished, let alone now, or daring to ask something absurd like 70-80-90 bucks when it is finished. Most KSP players still have potato laptops that play on minimal settings KSP. I doubt 50 bucks is something they are gonna dish out. The state of the game is bad and the devs should feel bad for putting this substandard version out for full price. Buyer Beware!

I was promised a full game in 2019. I never wanted early access. I was promised all these features would be in the game. There is nothing here. And it costs 50 bucks. Bruh moment. I'm sitting this one out. I will let Hercules say it for me.

So, only rich kids should get into STEM, coz those graphic requirement are crazy. Also, STEM has been there before some obscure game existed and it will exist after the game becomes relegated to the "oldies" section. It's just a game. It does not have any moral obligations to society. Its purpose is to entertain. If some people get inspired by it to pursue rocket science, fine, bit that's a byproduct, not the purpose of the game. Even if the devs market the game as having higher goals, that's just marketing and PR. If they cared about STEM and "higher goals" they would give it for free to all the kids that might go into stem in the future. The fact that it is behind a paywall shows the real purpose. To make money. It is entertainment. As someone famous once sad: "They Don't Think It Be Like It Is But It Do."

This is a recent bug due to poor programming and even worse QA testing with nobody actually checking the code before giving the OK. Anyways, the problem is the contract and rover data not matching the id. To correct this you will need to open the sfs file with a text editor. *Make a backup and blah blah blah, your own risk, I'm not your momma, life is hard disclaimer.* Step 1: Save the game and make the save something obvious like stupid_bug_because_squad_cant_test_properly Step 2: Go to the Tracking Station and write down the rover name (mine was QWD-C0) and the contract company just in case you have multiple contracts of the same type Step 3: Close the game Step 4: Open the save file with notepad or whatever editor you have Step 5: Search for the rover name in the file Step 6: Copy the value from "persistentid" (in my case it was 1995780567 but your value might be different) Step 7: Search for "roverVslId" and replace the values (there are two entries) with the one you just copied (VERIFY THE COMPANY NAME IF YOU HAVE MORE OF THE SAME TYPE OF CONTRACT) Step 8: Copy the value from "persistentid" (eg. 1995780567) over the existing values under "roverVslId" for both entries. Step 9: Save When you load the game, switch to the rover, the contract finishes provided that you are at the right coordinates. The screenshots show the before and after values, so that it is easier to follow along because watching and searching endless rows of code is something devs get payed for and we shouldn't have to do to have a working product that we payed for, but then again look at the unsolved bugs in the bugtracker and you will see exactly the level of QA performed. None. If the QA level was a thruster it wouldn't even get off Gilly. Yeah, I said it, I stand by it. This isn't some weird bug that requires some specific steps to happen. No, this is a zero level bug, a out of the box, just play the game and you will see it. Which is why I am so annoyed after spending hours trying to fix something someone was payed to do but couldn't be bothered to do. You can link this to the KSP Bugtracker. I gave up on submitting bugs there because they never check them. I had a bug submitted for a year an nobody touched it so I can't be bothered to waste time.

Yes, but you would get a much better game because of the delay, or so I heard on the forums. The secret to a good game is as much delay as possible. Hardwork and sticking to the timetables well, it just ain't it, chief.

No, I watched plenty of videos on the topic. Out of the box, Unreal has better graphics, while Unity requires a lot of effort to upgrade the graphics. Second, Unity is a mess of bugs and garbage collection. We can see it in KSP. Playing KSP for a few hours and with 4 cores, 16GB RAM and 1060 and SSD I get slow performance when switching to anything. I don't really get similar performance issues with Unreal games. It's not just the graphics. I get that KSP was an indie game and Unity was the choice as it was beginner friendly. But see, they wanna charge AAA money on KSP2, but still use Unity? Now that seems like a ripoff to me. If you want to make big $ then use the big boy engine like the rest of the serious devs. You're not selling lemonade at the stand anymore. You can be a partisan all you want and praise the KPS2 developers all day. In the end they still have not delivered on a single promise, I don't know why people are so eager beaver about it. Delays don't mean a better game all the time, because Duke Nukem Forever exists and that took 15 years of delays and still came out as a turd. If Unity is the [snip] of developers why does the kraken exist to the point where it has become a meme? I get that you have enthusiasm +999 but I don't see why. KSP is a good game but it is horribly optimized and this is not due to lack of trying, but to the engine lacking. Now go find me more videos that favor Unity over Unreal where the best you can hear is "they're just as good", because I hear most devs saying that Unity is easy to learn like a slow unoptimized children's bike with training wheels on, but if you want to do serious grown up mountain biking, you need a serious bike that can take the beating of hours on the track.

Since the bar is so low, I will answer it for you. GRAPHICS. Graphics, buddy, among other things related to performance. Unity is a low resource, mobile and web games platform. If you want to be in the league with the big boys with eye candy, plus the features, you go with Unreal Engine.

The original game is 100% better than KSP2 because anything beats vaporware, basically, CHANGE MY MIND.

[snip] What are you talking about? I can criticize the game as much as I want. I don't care that the original KSP is great in this context. That's why I still play it. Just because KSP was great it doesn't mean that KSP2 is automatically great by default. We're talking about a sequel that is not out and that all I see is overhype for nothing. [snip]. You have listed a set of features that are not existent as it is now. I have learned from No Man's Sky to wait for the game to come out, because all the hype and promises are worth less than the HTML space they are written on. I am not mean to the developers because I haven't name any. I criticized the ideas and concepts, which, the last time I checked, are not real people. And they're not YOUR / OUR developers. They're people that make a game and get payed for it. And if the game is good then they also get recognition. But they're not YOUR developers. The wanna be PANDEMIC you write in caps lock has little to do with delays, because programming isn't a physical product, you can work from home, I do that as well. Delays occur when some marketing or project manager can't count properly 2+2 and they somehow get 3 because it looks good on paper. [snip]. As it is, I wouldn't preorder KSP 2 even a month after it is launched, [snip]. [snip]. I rather not board the hype train until it has landed on actual real world tracks, [snip]. [snip] Because that would be tragic. I'll mind my own business from now own. I wasn't even that interested in the future game, I just saw some table about delays pulled out of someone's behind with no evidence, proof, facts, and that got me ranting. I should have figured it out the table is most likely someone that is a child in the actual sense (no insults intended). I should have ignored that post and would have saved 30 minutes of my life that I won't get back and [snip]. Dude, whatever, I know the devs don't even visit the forum, because if they did we would have had a lot more improvements in the game by now. *cough* atmosphere effects *cough* - CHANGE MY MIND!

Remember when this game was supposed to come out this year? I don't get the excitement of a game that is already delayed. What is this CONSOOMER nonsense? KSP 2 is delayed already and there is no "coming out on time". Once you delay, you delay. The delay isn't the new normal, it's the delay. I am not looking forward too much to the new game. The HYPE train is going a bit too fast for my taste and it seems to be fueled just by people's imagination. So far they have little to show for this new game. When KSP came out they did a release when the game wasn't even ready, they did a beta launch basically. Because they had something to show for it. Devs that believe in their product are not afraid to do beta releases to public. The only company I trust to do a good job without ever releasing beta to public are Rockstar. The original KSP seems to be a madlad's dream. [snip] I'll believe it when I see it. No money for you until you prove yourself. Especially since they price it at AAA range. People must be mad to ask that much for an indie game. Also, if KSP2 doesn't come on something more useful like Unreal Engine I won't even bother. I am not interested in the colonization aspect of the game they propose, so for me, less is more, I like what the initial KSP is doing with empty space and more fun and less space tycoon stuff pls. I have enough bugs with Unity as is, I don't need another game with more parts in the mix.

I was never able to just log into the game after an update and have the basic stuff like atmosphere (clouds, scatterer), planet shine, X-Science, Chatterer and other things that should be in the game by default but the devs never care for adding into the resources of the game. [Snip] You don't need to make a monstrosity to do that. I managed to complete a Grand Tour of all the planets with mainly 3 ships. I did it first with this: There is a newer version available that is somewhat easier to control but harder to master. I has nowhere near 1000 parts. For Eve just use the ship above to stay in orbit and then use this to land and return to orbit. https://kerbalx.com/mystik/Dart-V31-Eve-Lander-with-Rover-and-return-Pod-to-Eve-orbit Yes, the Dart is a bit of a silly ship, but that's only because I never bothered to make something lighter, like I did with the Arrow. I can make something better if there is a demand for it. It works, it's a bit buggy but it gets the job done. It doesn't offer too much flexibility to explore around the planet and the rover on top is terribly underpowered for mountain terrain. I suggest to use a propeller plane with tilt rotors and electrical engines to explore EVE. I might integrate something into Dart that would meet the criteria since Eve works great with propellers.

This is the updated version of the Arrow V3 / Bow V3. See initial thread at https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/160475-arrow-bow-archer-dual-ssto-can-reach-all-planets/. Using the Arrow V5 and Bow V5 you are able to visit all planets and land on most of them with the Arrow. The same chart applies as per the V3 with some in most part: Object Can it reach this orbit? Can it land on it? Which part can land? How difficult is it? Kerbol Yes (fly by only) No N/A Very hard Moho Yes Yes Both Hard Eve Yes No N/A Impossible* Gilly Yes Yes Both Easy Kerbin Yes Yes Arrow only Medium Mun Yes Yes Both Easy Minmus Yes Yes Both Easy Duna Yes Yes Both Medium Ike Yes Yes Both Easy Dres Yes Yes Both Hard Jool Yes (fly by only) No N/A Medium Laythe Yes Yes Arrow only Medium Vall Yes Yes Both Medium Tylo Yes Yes Arrow only Very hard Pol Yes Yes Both Easy Bop Yes Yes Both Easy Eeloo Yes Yes Both Medium Asteroids No No N/A Impossible* *The new version no longer supports Asteroids landing / catching since this is a very rarely scenario anyways and just adds weight. You can modify the Bow V5 to install the Claw. Not recommended unless this is a common scenario you need. DO NOT attempt to land any of the ships on Eve as they were not designed for it. Use a different ship to visit Eve. The Arrow V5 does not have the needed dv to reach orbit from the surface of Eve. What's been updated: Arrow V5 Redesigned Arrow V3. The new model keeps most of the traits of the old one but it has been optimized to make it more maneuverable and balanced. The difference is listed in the table below: Ship Arrow V5 Arrow V3 Type SSTO / SSTA (w/ Bow) SSTO / SSTA (w/ Bow) Range Short Short DV (Atm) 15000m/s 18000m/s DV (Vac) 2600m/s 3000m/s Weight Class Medium Heavy Weight (Max) 99t 120t Weight (Min) 42t 44t Crew (cabin + extra seats) 4+2 4+2 Mining config 1 Large Drill + Large ISRU (5 days refuel time) 1 Large Drill + Small ISRU (50 days refuel time) The main reason to redesign the Arrow V5 was the long refuel time, which would take up to 50 days, due to the small ISRU used. The new version refuels in about 5 days, 10 times faster, allowing for easier navigation when planning travel from planet to planet. The reduced weight allows for better control especially in atmospheric conditions. The big downside is the somewhat reduced dv which now makes landing on Tylo more challenging. In order to land on Tylo you can use the Bow V5 to drop the trajectory to surface, then decouple the Arrow V5 and circularize the Bow V5 again. Such maneuvers should be done between 15000-30000m because any higher or lower orbits interfere with the dv reserves or may cause to hit the ground too early. For expert players landing with 2600m/s can be done with 100-200m/s dv to spare without the use of the Bow V5. The Arrow V5 has dropped all RCS controls as they are heavy and are not needed. Use the Matt Lowne docking method instead. It takes practice but it saves a lot of weight if no RCS is used. If you find it too difficult then use the Arrow V3 instead but expect longer waiting times to refuel. If you use the Arrow V3 you need to use the Bow V3 also since the V5 is not recommended to be used with older versions and should not be mixed. Instructions on getting to orbit are available in the imgur album at https://imgur.com/a/fGer9Og Do not change the fuel loadout when taking off from base. To get to orbit in atmospheric conditions you will need to have 100% Lf and 50% Ox loadout. Otherwise it will be too heavy to get to orbit and will have unused Ox. Bow V5 The redesigned Bow V5 (top ship in the picture) is also lighter than the V3 model and is represented by the ship at the top. Due to the reduced weight on the Arrow V5 the requirements have also been updated. The difference is listed in the table below: Ship Bow V5 Bow V3 Type SSTA (w/ Arrow) SSTA (w/ Arrow) Range Long Long DV (Atm) 0m/s 0m/s DV (Vac) 9500m/s 9000m/s Weight Class Very heavy Super heavy Weight (Max) 355t 493t Weight (Min) 82t 120t Crew 0 3 Mining config 3 Large Drills + Large ISRU 4 Large Drills + large ISRU The main reason for redesigning the Bow V5 is the lower requirements for pushing the Arrow V5. The Bow V5 should not be used with the older Arrow models. Despite the better dv, the TWR is lower and will struggle with the older heavier Arrow models. One disadvantage that can be seen compared to the older versions is the somewhat lower TWR which will result in longer burn times. TWR can be improved when burning the Lf+Ox (Rhino) first then the Lf (Nerva) after. For going to Moho this requires careful planning since the usage of Lf + Of (Rhino) is required to land on Moho. Other planets or moons require less dv and can be landed on with Lf (Nerva) only. Launching is tricky due to top heavy ship. Instructions on getting to orbit are available in the imgur album at https://imgur.com/a/wVAlRwW Do not change the fuel loadout when taking off from base. It has been optimized for reaching orbit and then Minmus for refueling with the Arrow V5 attached. The controls have been updated as well Controls Arrow V5 Bow V5 1 Rapier toggle N/A 2 Rapier mode toggle N/A 3 Vector toggle N/A 4 Aerospike toggle* N/A 5 N/A NERVA toggle 6 N/A Rhino toggle 7 Fuel cells, cargo bay doors toggle, lights on Fuel cells toggle, lights on 8 Converter, drills, radiators toggle, shutdown all engines Converter, drills, radiators toggle, shutdown all engines 9 Surface harvester toggle / collect all science data** Surface harvester toggle 0 Turn off converter, drills, radiators, lights, fuel cells, retract antenna and ladders, toggle bay door Turn off converter, drills, radiators, fuel cells lights, retract antenna B Brakes Brakes G Gear Gear U Lights Lights Abort Button Fuel drain*** N/A * The Aerospike is only to be used when trying to take off vertically on high gravity objects (Tylo) where it would be risky to go too fast on the surface. Fire the Aerospike to tilt the Arrow V5 vertically then use the rear engines. Shut down the Aerospike right away to avoid being tipped over. ** This button allows the option to collect all data from the instruments without having to do it manually (for convenience purposes or when it is too dangerous to collect it manually). All the data is stored in the main control unit located in the first bay just before the Junior Science module. The data can then be collected or transferred from there if needed later on. *** The fuel drain valve can be configured to drain either Lf or Ox or both. It should only be used if it is needed to lose weight. Such a scenario is a landing on difficult terrain in atmospheric conditions where you need maximum lift and low weight or when you need to take off a planet with oxygen but you loaded too much Ox and thus are too heavy to reach orbit (Lf should be 100% and Ox should be 50% in such conditions). There is no such option on the Bow since the Arrow can be used to transfer and then drain any excess fuel. Also, it's not very common to need to perform such an action on the Bow since it should be landing only on low gravity objects where the excess fuel should not be a problem. For Moho you will need all the fuel you can spare. The completed Bow V5 and Arrow V5 ships should look like this and you should get anywhere between 7500-7800m/s. Unfortunately due to bugs in the interface this value is calculated incorrectly in the game. It is enough to get you from Gilly to Moho and land with some careful planning (average skill, nothing too fancy, no Scott Manley level required). You can get to Moho and land with either the Arrow V5, the Bow V5 or both depending on how conservative you have been with the route planning. Once you land with at least one you can then refuel and return to orbit to fuel the other and enable it to land as well. Before departing Moho you should dock in orbit, then land them docked and refuel and start from there to make sure you have the maximum available fuel. Refueling: To refuel the Arrow V5, Bow V5 or both docked where possible follow the following procedure: 1. Land; 2. Press 7; 3. Press 8; 4. Wait 10 seconds for the drills to extend; 5. Press 9 and wait for the refuel to complete (you can time warp safely); 6. Press 0 to stop the refueling which automatically resets the ship refueling and can be started all over again using the same steps. Downloads: Arrow V5 https://kerbalx.com/mystik/Arrow-V5 Bow V5 https://kerbalx.com/mystik/Bow-V5 Known issues/bugs Q: The Bow is difficult to get to orbit and it tilts on the way every time. A: This happens because the ship is very top heavy. To get it into orbit is tricky but not too difficult. Instructions are available in the album at https://imgur.com/a/wVAlRwW. The idea is to get a small angle at start of 1-2 degrees and keep it to prograde (use the prograde inteface button) until you reach orbit. It may take a few tries but it can be done. I tried many models but they ended up being worse than the original and decided to keep this one despite the stability flaws. Q: The dv indicator is all wrong in Kerbal Engineer during flight. A: This is a possible bug in the game and / or KER. If this occurs on the Arrow V5, toggle the engines on / switch modes until the value is shown correctly. If this occurs on the Bow V5 when the Arrow V5 is docked then try enabling / disabling the fuel crossfeed at the docking ports until the correct value is shown. If the fuel crossfeed is disabled please note that the ships may not automatically transfer fuel in flight or during the refuel (if both are connected when landed and the Bow V5 is doing the refueling of both). You may need to transfer fuel manually. I was not able to determine where the bug is coming from with the incorrect dv but this has worked in restoring the values during flight. Q: I can't manage to dock the two crafts together without RCS. A: Docking two crafts in KSP is difficult for beginners and advanced players alike. It takes practice and understanding of orbital dynamics. I found that the RCS engines are quite heavy and without them the overall size and weight of the ship could be greatly improved. A single Vernor engine weighs 80kg and the Arrow V5 would require 12-16 of them to make any difference which means an extra 960kg-1280kg just to gain some easier docking maneuvers plus the atmospheric drag that comes with them. On top of this the Vernor would use precious Lf + Ox and would degrade the overall range of the ship. If Monoprop would be used instead that would require additional weight for storage and the added weight of the additional engines. The decision was made that it would be better to drop all RCS on both ships. To dock easily use the Matt Lowne docking method. He describes it here: https://youtu.be/toulv4suzNw?t=750

Ike legacy: basically the darkest object in the system, unattractive and ugly. Ike revamped: dark, unattractive and ugly but in HD textures. YAY! Hype Hype Hype. Flashing gif.gif

Because people have agency. More than they think they do. Because I can and want to. Is that a good answer or is it too libertarian for you? I wasn't dismissing his experience, I was pointing out that he is more responsible of his choices than the game is, but you have to be willing to read. Anyways, I shall end it here. The contest is bad, the prizes are bad, the "I'll do it for free while you get to monetize on it" attitude is bad. Had it been pro bono and for a charity I'd be praising it. As it is, it's just a cash grab at the expense of naivety. But do not let things like reason and arguments get in your way. Ban, bash, hide under the rug. It's they way things are done here.

Legal terms and conditions: 99% of the text. Prize description 1%. Actual prize 0%. Luckily you will get enough people that want a "shot at fame" that are willing to spend time doing your job as a developer and get 0 in return. I guess marketing works on the lesser "aware" folks. No. YOU changed your life. Because YOU purchased this game. Had it been granted to you for free by the developers, then they could take the credit. As far as I see, you owe nothing to the developers as you have payed the exact worth to them when you purchased the game. A game [snip] is a product. What it means to you is different than what it means to the developer. "This game changed my life". Bruh, that sounds like a testimonial from a cult member, or at least some early morning infomercial. Congrats on your career path tho. I know I'll get some lame warning point, have my post deleted, get some cult members... err... fans that will lash at me for daring to criticize anything about the game, squad or the forum. The irony? I'll get banned for "bullying" by some authoritarian bully that thinks nobody should say things he doesn't like. It has happened before and will happen again. As it happens I couldn't care less. <Insert meme here> I don't often post on KSP forums. But when I do, it's to criticize some negative aspect, but I always get banned. I guess this is the vacuous world we live in where everybody must fall in line or get shot.

They're not? Then why are they promoting a competing game development studio? You think Squad isn't raking in the cash for the sale of the idea to another studio? It's so lazy too. Using the same boring ass Unity engine. Wanna bet that the same developers will be working on KSP2? Because I think if that was not the case you'd have some proper developers working on something more modern, like Unreal, which seems that is something even amateur developers can work with but not the developers of KSP, no matter which studio it is. There are some gems made in Unreal engine. But KSP remains to the old and outdated Unity. You know what, I broke my promise and replied again, I promise to be the last one here because I really don't like the new KSP idea at 60 USD after paying that amount already on the original game and DLC only to be asked the same price just for the initial game, not counting the future releases of DLC. No thank you, either offer proper discounts for veterans or it's sailing the high seas for this one as far as I'm concerned. So the devs have to decide whether they want to make some money or no money from my side. I'm willing to pay for my games, but I'm not willing to be insulted or taken for a fool that can't tell the difference between a deal and ripoff.

60 USD for a rehashed version of KSP? That's the price of AAA games. This is definitely not it. You could have made HD texture in the current one and add atmospheric and lighting effects. What's the matter? Did the sales of the original drop so low that you need to go the Activision way, by rehashing the same idea over and over again to artificially boost revenue? Looking into turning this into the next Call of Duty? You haven't even ironed out the old KSP by the looks of the bugtracker. I would only pay 20 USD (full price) for this game especially given the track record of laziness of the KSP team in implementing useful mods in the game. Until I see a reasonable pricing or you give a significant discount to the users that already bought the original and all its DLC and stop this insane pricing I think I leave this one for "sailing the high seas". I didn't ever plan on ever posting on this forum again. To post this I had to accept a warning point from Vanamonde for calling someone a fanboi, which is an insult only for those that really want to feel insulted and search for any lame excuse to feel insulted, so I guess feelings over facts is more important for the lesser ones. Anyways, I made my point, if you push this ridiculous price for a rehashed version of KSP you will lose me as a paying customer.

[snip] Also, I already established that the reason these mods should be stock is the period between update and the mods being updated making the game unplayable for weeks until everyone catches up. People are too fragile and sensitive around here. Anyways, we've established that a lot of people don't have mirrors in their house and the graphics still suck so we can swipe this thread under the rug. The game has been fixed through the power of ignorance. This is my last post here. I mean, I saw some posts that understood what I am saying, [snip]. I'll go post on Steam, where we can get actual feedback that's not constantly coming from the likes of "I'll gladly accept anything for the money I payed because I like all things and all things are always great and #allgraphicschipsetareequal #nogpuhate #thisgameisperfect and such" crowd.