Bej Kerman

Well it was.

Yes. We all saw how that one panned out.

To claim the developers are not being transparent when they are posting frequent updates and calling out non-existent visual bugs is not criticism, it's just a tantrum.

The news people claim isn't being put out by the devs?

This is just incorrect. Ironic. Well you are getting transparency. Hell, it's stupid how many people claim the devs are radio silent as if we're not getting more dev posts than we ever got during KSP 1's tenure. [snip]

And a few years ago, people were rightfully complaining about Squad not giving enough attention to bug fixes and performance improvements. Now people complain Intercept is doing things the right way? For a game that needs these patches? Can this community make its mind up on whether it wants these bugs fixing or not?

It's really, truly sad that Squad acknowledged reusability gameplay with one of their scenarios but didn't pull their fingers out and add parts for that kind of gameplay. This is amazing! When can we expect airbrake wings, like those on Starship for maintaining high AoAs?

You haven't adressed any other part of my post. I've addressed the bit I needed to address. The game hinges on engines, not IVA. Two completely different things that can't be compared.

Depending on how narrowly you define "vital features," all the vital features are a capsule, a fuel tank How about we stop there? IVA has never made a vessel operate any differently, additional engines have.

Everything you can do in KSP you'll be able to do without IVA. That's textbook cosmetic.

Sorry but you don't seem an authoritative source on what's vital or what isn't. IVA's existence only justifies itself. It does not reach into any gameplay loops and that remains true whether anyone has said authority or not.

It has literally 0 impact on the game besides existing, unlike vital features.

Almost like it's an early access title.

[snip] Then again, your criteria of graphical problems is unusual.

The slime's coming home

Because it's a game and they want to incentivize recovering things. Because Kerbals and Humans are notoriously bad at being able to measure the pressure around them, compared to a sensor.

Which is impossible, but go on.

But I'm not the one asking for ETAs and firm dates, they were the ones telling me release dates for a full release for 3 years. And you expect the developers to magically pluck a complete product out of their bottoms if they can't keep up with T2's ridiculous deadlines? Again, get that daft idea out of your system. You're in the real world and things take time. Sit down.

I'm not thinking of anything they didn't tell us to think about. I.E. a full release, for 3 years. Development isn't a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA regardless.

Yep. You summed up my quote and fixed the wording I used to make the KSP 2 EA sound like it is more broken than it has the right to be, but I outright misquoted you, claiming you said "bad EAs". I apologise for that. It's alright

Stop thinking of development as a completely linear sequence of events with a solid ETA.

Like EAs tend to be?

You paid for EA, you got EA. Beggars can't be choosers nor can you complain about getting what you paid for. It really should go without saying that buying into EA is a risk. I think KSP 2 is good enough for what I bought it for, but if it's not good enough for you, that's your cross to bear.

Or they can complete several cockpits fairly quickly, but won't right now because it's not important.

You're totally free to walk away, and never think about it. Your life doesn't depend on it. Be happy. I've said before, but these people make games too important in their lives. Telling them to not make said decade revolve entirely around something they're waiting for is impossible.