jost

It's one thing to be angry about the work of the developers of KSP2 or their management. I don't think it's helpful or healthy but at least understandable. I don't understand why people expect that modders (who are developing mods in their free time as hobby) will start developing mods when KSP2 doesn't even have official support and API for them.

Last time I checked customers were not forced with a gun on their head to buy anything. If a game suck: Don't buy it, don't play it.

Ouch, this hurts just from reading. I hope your salary compensates at least a little bit for this pain.

That's not the point. Of course everybody is entitled to ask any questions. This doesn't mean that it's smart to ask any question. And like verybody is entitled to his questions and opinions I'm entitled to think that some questions and opinions are dumber than others. Maybe it's because I'm not a teenager anymore but I don't see the point in asking dumb questions just for the sake of asking. And any question like "When will you guys finally admit that your game sucks, your developers sucks and your company sucks?" is a dumb question because nobody will answer such question without risking their job. Which most people won't do no matter how much they hate their job, their company, their boss or their companys products. A smart question would be something like: Given the current issues with the graphic subsystem how do you expect to implement colonies with a decent performance? Or: There is a ongoing debate on multiplayer and timewrap in the community. Some kerbals are concerned that timewrap and multiplayer won't play nice together. Can you say anything how you want to address such issues? The answer will still be mostly PR, but there would be at least a chance in given some insights (let's say 5 to 10 % of the answer) and it would still be a critical question.

This is a stupid question in any case. Do someone really expect that a team member will say anything bad about their companys products? Most companys don't like workers who tell the customers "Our product is crap at the moment" and would fire them. I really don't understand why people ask such silly questions: First (see above) the answer will always be that everythings gonna be allright. But even if the answer would be a more honest one: What's actually the benefit of getting such an answer? The state of the game is not improved in both cases.

Sorry to spoil your fun but I used that opinion because there wasn't a "I'm not interested in multiplayer and don't want to play it ever".

This was already discussed in the prelaunch forum several times: And at several other threads I don't bother to link here. And even in this section: Sorry to crash the party but I stick to my prelaunch opinion: It's not worth the hassle if it impacts development speed and performance too much (which is to be expected if the simulation is big enough to actually make gameplay more interesting). The current state of the game didn't helped to change my opinion.

Thanks a lot, I woudn't call it a big off-topic rant. This is the kind of insight and well-reasoned criticism I can appreciate and understand. You are making some good points it will be interesting to see how things will develop. At the moment I don't even own KSP2 (due to my old potato there wouldn't be a point) so I'm hoping for improvements (in the game and my economical resources ). In the meantime I'm just hanging around in the KSP2 part of this forum.

Do you have any reference for this (e.G. data mining)? Some people claimed this after EA-launch but they didn't give any arguments expect their (relatable) disappointment on the state of the game. So I didn't take them too seriously. You however have some street creds in modding KSP and already made some rational technical arguments so I'm interested how you came to this conclusion. BTW: Big thanks for your work on KSP Community Fixes and Kerbalism, I'm doing a Science mode run with Kerbalism and hadn't this much fun with KSP in a long time.

I'm sorry, I didn't wanted to annoy you in any way. I actually agree with you that the forum design is not really worth much of a debate anyway

This is nothing unusual and quite easy to understand: Everybody has a more or less good reason to argue why a certain forum theme has it's merits or not. To talk about KSP2 you have to know some insights into IG2s development process (which we don't and won't know) or at least some background in software development. Or alternatively speculate from the bits of informations we have which is not everybodys cup of tea. Or as Parkinson said: It's easier to discuss the merits of a certain color or material of a bike shed than about the building of a nuclear plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality In the FreeBSD project (a Unix open source operating system, similiar goals like Linux but quite a different origin and philosophy look up wikipedia for Details) the term Bikeshedding for such discussions was coined by one of their developers Poul-Henning Kamp: http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed/ It orginated when his fellow developers debated about the implementation of the sleep command. If you type sleep 1 in a Linux or BSD command prompt, sleep starts, do nothing for one second and exits afterwards. If you type sleep 5 it do the same just for five seconds etc. This is quite useful for some automation tasks. There was a proposal that you can enter fraction of seconds e.g. sleep 1.5 Since everybody at some point used this in their scripts and the actual implementation is quite simple (at least compared to more challening programming tasks) there was a lot of discussion and controversy although (like every big project) FreeBSD had also a lot of more serious challenges to solve. Kamp seemed to be annyoed at some point and send his fellow developers some information on Parkinsons law. For the details I recommend reading Kampss website ( http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed/ ) He explains the whole thing a lot better than me and also a lot funnier in his original mail. Thus: I understand your pain but It's not surprising but just human.

This. Some people would like to build 1000 Part ships in KSP too. I unterstand where they come from but I beg to differ: One should not have to build such Monsters, the game should provide ( procedural and weldable ) parts and tools making high-parts-crafts unneccesary. Same is true for auto-strut. I'm still stuck to KSP1 on my potato thus my opinion shouldn't be taken too serious

I didn't participate in the poll since I think the second and third question is actually a bit pointless from my point of view. In my opinion it shouldn't be needed to run 1000 parts ships with a reasonable frame rate. Instead the game should provide the tools and parts to build crafts without high part counts but the same result from a gameplay point of view. With other words: There should be options to weld docking ports or subassemblys. There should be parts which combine a lot of functions (e.G. docking ports, rotation wheels, battery etc). There should be procedural parts so you don't need to make one drop tank out of several small ones etc pp. I'm not sure whether KSP2 will do this (I fear not) but the second and third question of the poll don't have anything to do with my argument thus I didn't participated in the poll

It doesn't matter what anybody of us or from the ksp team wants. Today more gamers are using discord than forums thus the ksp cms focus on discord. Or live we say in Germany: "Wenn der Berg nicht zum Propheten kommt, muss der Prophet halt zum Berg kommen" ("the mountain does not come to the prophet, the prophet must come to the mountain.") I don't like this either ( I would prefer a newsgroup) but that's the way things are today.

This looks like a steam forum screenshot. To avoid any confusion or missunderstanding: I didn't see anybody making this claim in this forum. Thanks for the screen and link though: I will continue to ignore discord and steam forums

As far I'm aware nobody ever claimed this. "Former ksp 1 community manager" is quite clear since IG never did anything with KSP1.

Thanks for your insight in plane maintenance. I'm happy I was never responsible for something the live of people relied on. Regarding "developer crunch" and "burnout" culture: At some point of above mentioned project we were expected to work every saturday and do overtime work during the week to resulting in 50-60 hour weeks.I finally pulled the plug and switched to another job. Some developers did too (as already said: I wasn't one). Now what's the point of my story telling (or like we say in Germany: Grandpa tells stories from war nobody wants to hear "Opa erzählt von Krieg" ): I suppose that the developers already do overtime work since the project is obviouvsly in a critical state. The last thing managment should to to order them to do even more overtime work: Even with the current wave of layoffs in tech industry any competent developer will find another job (he/she might need to move to another city though) if he thinks that IG expects to much. The question is whether somebody will be available for hire to replace him/her: If I would look for a job as game developer I woudn't join a studio which flagship product is in a high risk state. There is already twitter for people who likes to work "full hardcore", most people don't want this and I can't blame them.

This . It's part of management jobs to give the developers space so they can focus on important issues. And reading and reacting to social is not important if you want to actually fix the issues. There is a reason why in automotive software the project managers of customers talk with the project managers of the software studio. For the same reasons gaming studios have community managers: Developers have more important things to do than throwing themselves in ashes in front of disappointed players.

This. I used to work in a software engineering company who developed an infotainment systems for cars. Our flagship product had a lot of issues during development resulting from two incompatible wishes of our managment and the customers managment: The customer always wanted more features but also wanted to have a stable (meaning: A crash is only allowed every 10000 kilo metres ) navigation system (which was the core function of our product). At some point it was agreed to reduce features to have a stable product at the release date (aka beginning of assembly of the new cars the software was supposed to run on) and adding the other features with later maintenance patches. So I guess there were similiar discussions between TakeTwo and Intercept Games although with a much more disappointing result for every envolved party. Frankly: Neither the community nor the KSP2 developers nor the publisher can be happy with the current state but now they have to deal with it somehow. Edit: Just to avoid misunderstanding: I wasn't a software developer but part of the integration/infrastructure team (we were responsible for tools the developer needed to actually do their work. Think of it as a kind of corporate github).

This. Of course I'm just speaking for myself, in the end it's up to JacobJHC. When the challenge was started it was even harder (since at that time there ISRU didn't exist) and most mods were forbidden. You had to ask explicitly to get a permission for a certain mod. You also need to put the kerbals in a crew compartmend/pod/capsule/whatever during the interstellar voyage so you coudn't do everything just with a space chair. (1) When JacobJHC took over he decided to change these rules (space chairs are allowed for interplanetary voyage too, most mods are allowed with some expections). Some mods are still forbidden and Jacobs reasoning is quite understandable: If there is nothing to judge there is not an archivement, if the mods are to powerful too. Jool5 is a different game when you can use an Orion device. However my Jool5 entry was also part of my submission to the Kerpollo Challenge. That challenge has it's own scoreboard for "rogue" entries (one entry used KOS violating a challenge rule but getting a kind of honourable mention since KOS is it's own challenge). However as far I remember you didn't got the badge in that way (ok one entry of the rogue list did but he didn't violated any rules, he just completed the challenge in two (!) of the needed nine missions, continuing with the remaining missions for fun) So if JacobJHC like to add such a thing this might be a compromise. However I would prefer that these entries don't warrant the same badge (different one would be fine) since as I said: Jool5 with a kraken device or a Orion engine is a different thing. Edit: I feel stupid now. This challenge has already such a list: @kspnerd122 Why don't you just do something cool and submit it for the gatecrashers list? This seems like the right place for it. Regards, Jost. (1) Don't get this in the wrong way: With the old rule extreme low mass entry (14 tons and below) woudn't be possible so the new rule isn't a bad thing per se. Some folks however seem to see it as reason to "go the easy" route although they clearly have the skills to do it with regular compartments. Low mass is a different beast: It need's a lot of skill to pull these things off. I don't have these skills so much respect and kudos to the low mass engineers

Germany stopped mining black cool some years ago since it's not economical any more.

Well you can run ISRU unmanned it just takes awfully long. However you don't have to take life support or things like this (if you play with LS mods, I do) in account so I would say the negative sides outweight the negatives. Plus the fact that an unmanned mission will need a lot less weight (at least if you don't want to use the chair for kerbals) and you can easily build a lander which will be enough for Pol, Bop and Val. So unmanned Jool5 will still be a challenge but still a lot easier than manned.

If you have the Claw you could build a rescue vessel for docking and transferring the Crew. Otherwise your battery plan should work too if you have an engineer for EVA construction

Even If they use Unity 2021 LTS (might be true if they got early access and the information that it would be LTS soon) this doesn't need to mean that this will mean graphics/clouds etc like in the other referenced games/demos. Obviously this doesn't say it won't include them too. Of course this argument works in both directions. Personally I think that the most likely reason for the delays is that they had problems with implementing their intended main goals for KSP2 and quality assurance (aka testing and bug fixing). Since they had multiple delays I don't think it's likely that they implementend stuff like in the demos when they still had other work to do. But we can't be sure: Of course the other reason for the delay might be that they wanted to use the shiny new features and needed the time. Since none of the developers will talk about it (they want to keep their job and propably signed NDAs on their first day on the project) we won't know before the actual release of KSP2. Either way: This demos actually don't proof anything.

But why? I started again after a break and just wanted to slap me for don't playing so long. Can't you try to join some online communitys/classes/workshops. There are a lot for dulcimer so I would except that there is a lot for fiddle/violins too. To bad I live in Germany so I always sleep when the online events start