Delay

Wait, who's side are you on now?

Oh, I thought you were going to give a section in the text that was violated. Something concrete, you know?

I don't know much about these guidelines, what in particular is KSP2EA violating?

@adsii1970 I think I understand.

I cannot determine if you're sarcastic or not? Autism strikes again! In any case, the problem is that I was notified of new posts in this thread, despite the fact I don't follow it (and also wouldn't because I'd have no clue how to help OP). I'd assume the split has something to do with it because I do follow "What funny/interesting thing happened in your life today?", so I would receive notifications for that thread.

Sorry that this is technically unrelated to this thread, but I got a notification for this thread despite the split and me obviously not following this one. Maybe that's something you guys could look into?

I don't know, looks parabolic to me. Look at the last three local maxima! Also, it should be obvious at this point that this upcoming update will not just fix game-breaking bugs, but also all kinds of other improvements. I'll simply wait for those, observe the first few versions of the game, and then decide whether to buy the game or not. The same kind of words have been spoken of KSP 1 several times. I feel I know what will happen next.

That's such a childish way to look at things that disregards the game's complexity and overall development story. I honestly don't know anymore what else to tell you at this point. You're treating the game like it's supposed to be finished right now and pretend either that the development is happening to slowly for your likings or that there is no development at all.

One's a goal, the other is a current state. HarvesteR also had a game of much smaller scope to deal with, a game where Kerbin didn't even orbit a bright singularity in the sky and spacecraft would break apart because they moved a little too quickly. Heck, Kerbin was flat at one point! Are you talking about KSP 1 or 2?

...the timeline becoming more realistic each time... Cannot comment on this. That doesn't mean they have access to that budget or anything. Why are you bringing it up? Fixing bugs can take a while. Later on you suggest zero-day fixes as if that's easy, much less possible with a program of this complexity. Hey, I can agree with that! ... never mind. We've just entered the second week of early access. The second. Week. If a fix is around in another week's time or so I'd still consider that pretty rapid, especially considering the scope of the update. It doesn't just fix one or two bugs, it promises to fix quite a lot of them from various parts of the game, all while bringing performance improvements, too! What kind of superhuman update frequency are you expecting? It can't be weekly or bi-weekly as that seems to be the schedule right now. Daily updates? Hourly, perhaps? It's ridiculous, the way you're arguing right now you might've had more success with delaying EA by a few weeks.

Early Access != Launch. Early Access provides an opportunity for the devs to ensure that their launch goals are met. Let's be honest, no matter how crazy their QA testers are, the community at large beats that. Having us be able to point out these issues now means they won't have to deal with them then, that is, at the actual, real, true game launch. I'm not trying to excuse the current state of the game as presented, but if you misinterpret quotes and then pretend that's what they meant all along then I'm not going to sit around twiddling my thumbs, either.

I like how the highlighting dismisses the overall context of the quote. Way to go.

Sure, but if I remember correctly, the first version of KSP 1 had a... dare I say, pathetically tiny scope in comparison to what the game evolved into. It's much easier to fix bugs related to interplanetary travel when interplanety travel doesn't even exist!

Any landing you can walk away from...

I'm sorry, do I have to point out just how frankly insane this sounds? As a starting point? My vessels rarely exceed 100 parts in any serious capacity.

Why's the sky so dark in this one? I mean, it looks realistic, but it's still far darker than my skies at noon.

The standard BoulderCo config, I don't know if the city lights are supposed to be this way. Maybe something broke from one KSP version to another? As for the clouds, they're custom. I wasn't happy with the sample ones, so modified them a bit.

This gives Eve the unsettling atmosphere (pun intended) that it absolutely deserves in my opinion.

Just another reminder of how much better KSP 2 looks!

Which gives me another question: Is such a cloud-heavy environment significantly worse for performance than a few clouds on Kerbin or are they about the same? Basically, I guess I'm asking how quickly performance worsens with the number of clouds to render.

Considering you've already made rain, how difficult would it be to define vortex-like motion?

Wait, there'll be tornados?

Played KSP for the first time on my new machine. I decided to fly around a little and enjoy the game on the highest settings along with Scatterer, Eve, Waterfall and TUFX. Also launched a rocket for fun. The game plays totally differently at 60fps when all you're used to are 37, tops. I don't think I'll keep the settings this high. Sure, I can run the game like this just fine now, but that doesn't mean that I have to. Maybe I'll turn them down a bit. The game never looks ugly per se, even at lower settings. Also I get to create more leeway for when the new version of Eve inevitably drops.

Hire this man!