MechBFP

The only people giving it a pass are the people you have made up in your mind. No one is going to give it a pass if the game leaves Early Access like that.

That is fair, although they still have consider that pushing out all the roadmap content is not a great idea if the players ultimately don't want to engage with it because the game becomes too irritating/frustrating to bother with. They absolutely still need to address some of the main pain points in stride with the roadmap.

I would say Friday at around 5PM their local time based on past experience.

When they fix the camera

Your questions are silly because they are perpetually unanswerable. They answer the question, and 1 minute goes by and "are you still working on x? Tell us!".

Thanks, I hadn't found that thread yet.

Like you said, given the apparently slower than normal progress lately and absolutely radio silence from IG, what else can we assume?

More? Or are you talking about the ones reported in March 2023? Nevermind: https://www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/layoffs-at-rockstar-games-owner-2k-and-private-division-a-number/z36c46

For all intents and purposes in my mind the game has only been getting properly developed for 2 years. So take that how you will regarding timelines.

I am waiting for a time when the game is more or less feature complete from a single player perspective and is of an equal or higher level of polish than KSP1. Then I can actually sit down and enjoy it without getting irritated by it.

That sums it up in a nut shell. If they had just come clean about the delayed state of the game back in 2022/2023 (even if they couldn't say why it happened) most of this issue with managing expectations wouldn't be a problem for people except for the handful of critics that you can normally expect anyway no matter what you do. I can really only assume some stupid and/or malicious overlord had better ideas how to run things and the team is unfortunately along for the ride.

Try turning VSYNC on in the game options. I get large boost in FPS for some strange reason that makes no sense to me. However in my case I have a GSYNC compatible monitor and am using GSYNC, so not sure if that is related or not. If you are running a normal 60HZ monitor and you can’t maintain an FPS above 60 however then VSYNC will just chop it down to 30 anyway so that won’t help. EDIT: Also worth a shot is force VSYNC off in your graphics control panel but still turn it on in the game options. Even though it shouldn’t do anything I think there is a bug related to it being turned off in game.

Only if you are running on high graphics. If you have a minimum spec card then run the game on minimum settings and you will see the improvement. Even those running ancient GTX cards have seen massive improvements. And I do recall telling you this before, so not sure why you keep bringing this up when the cause of your issue here is the direct result of your own choice in refusing to run on appropriate settings for your hardware. Maybe when the game hits 1.0 they can optimize things better for low end cards even when running on high settings, but that is certainly not a priority now.

There is definitely some rabble rousing going on here. It’s a single thread, and stuff like that happens as people are only human and ain’t psychic or omnipotent.

This is exactly why I have told them multiple times in the past why they need to sit down and just play the game, organically, like any other player. No amount of silo'ed test cases will make this kind of thing apparent to the testers who clearly have no prior KSP experience. They do appear to be actually doing this now, so hopefully in time it will bear fruit.

Because that is how burden of proof works champ. The person making the claim has to prove it. No one here has proved that the issue isn’t fixed, all I have seen is some vague hand waving of “what about this theoretical situation that no one knows anything about?”

No, it is definitely fixed.

The million dollar question right there.

The first 5 to 10 kilometers of Eve really are a tricky thing. What is most efficient at sea level rapidly changes over what is really a handful of seconds as you gain altitude. I find it is more efficient to be less efficient at sea level in order to simply get through the thickest part of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. Any losses at those lower altitudes are quickly made up with increased efficiency of the following stages thanks to the increased ISP. For all my sea level Eve launchers I have always used darts+vector for the initial launch, and then drop the darts+tanks soon after launch since as your pointed out their benefit compared to the other engines quickly diminishes.

Lowest bidder contractor

It is hard to put into words what exactly I am feeling regarding their communication to date, but the terms “consistency”, “accuracy”, “reliability”, “lip-service”, “honesty”, “quality”, and “intentions” would all play into a rather lengthy post if I was going to get into it over the years. I think the main point is that their overall communication has been all over the map that it is pretty difficult to take anything they say at face value anymore and that won’t change without them maintaining a base level of consistency.

That is generally my take as well. As a veteran player it is simply not enough yet for the asking price for me.

Yup that is my guess as well with the exception being sandbox mode.

We would need a graph of single burns done at different attitudes between the two ships when capturing into an orbit to see if/when there is a trade off between the two. I highly doubt that burning at a higher orbit (which reduces the Oberth effect but improves the maneuver efficiency) with the higher ISP engines would be worse in the majority of that graph. I suspect that you would almost always be better off in the vast majority of that graph in fact.

I think their usage will be much more applicable once resources are in the game, as presumably nukes will be more difficult to obtain resources for.