Jump to content

t_v

Members
  • Posts

    1,051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,533 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry, this jumped out to me as being surprisingly hilarious. I was reading through this dumpster fire and reached your comment - most of the stuff you said just uses different starting assumptions and places different importance on different pieces of information but I can get behind the logic (while disagreeing with most of them), but this one... an acrobatic masterpiece. Okay, an example: Object A has trait B. Type of object C has trait B. (implication...). This doesn't logically imply that the object is in that type - I have eyes. Yeah, flamingoes have eyes. The thing that makes this really funny is that you can in fact talk about things that don't exist - you can find lots of examples of very specific statements about multiplayer that aren't true. The devs could just lie - I'm reasonably certain you are aware of that fact. So, reading backwards, coming across this statement right after reading this is hilarious. Wait... They can talk about it. Yeah, you can talk about things that don't exist. (implication: They don't have multiplayer). One thing that your statement serves for is to rule out its own category; that is logically consistent. For example, if I say that I can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist and then I go on to demonstrate it, then I can't be in the category of non-existence: if p then q -> !q = !p (this doesn't work the other way btw). So, assuming that that Patch 1 was communicated truthfully (which could always be an incorrect assumption), this statement: doesn't work: You can't talk about (I'd say demonstrate) things that don't exist, the devs have talked about (and more importantly demonstrated) their QA through Patch 1, ergo the QA does not not exist. As I said at the start, I respect your opinions and logic, even the QA statement. You noticed I made different assumptions to start with (that the Patch 1 communications are true, at least the relevant part), and perhaps interpreted information differently (that the bug fixes in Patch 1 are an adequate demonstration of bugs that have been fixed without outside input), leading me to a different conclusion. However, changing those factors, I could come to your conclusion logically. I don't want this to be a serious insult, just a jab at something I found funny. Everyone slips up, I caught two obvious logical fallacies in this message (and there's probably still more if you want to find them), but this was a slip with a wonderful flourish.
  2. The magnetic boots are still there, there was a bug where kerbals would stick to everything (rocks, trees, buildings), and now they just stick to craft
  3. Your comment made me realize something: The thrust got deflected backwards (and I'm assuming there was some funky math on how much thrust should be applied based on where the deflecting surface is), does this mean there is functionality for directing thrust by bouncing it off of surfaces of the craft? I can't test it myself, but that opens some interesting possibilities if so.
  4. Hey, I like my wobbly rockets Other things aside, this looks like an immense patch, it’s hard to believe all of these changes were fit into a few weeks. Looking forward to seeing if it now runs through the performance hit of an emulator!
  5. We don't know the exact specifics, but this issue may be at least partially addressed in the first patch:
  6. Despite the concerning noises of metal grinding, we might still be on track. And if we are indeed derailed, hopefully the engineers can get the rocket boosters working in time - rocket trains can get through anything!(citation needed)
  7. That would definitely explain the similarities. Whether it follows NovaSilisko's lore or does its own thing, it'll be a cool story to figure out. All I can hope for is that the scientific discoveries are also fleshed out (and that kerbals never manage to get that Stargate working).
  8. What I'm interested in is why the statues have some Kerbal features. If some other civilization passed by a while ago and made them, it would probably make sense to represent their people accurately, even if not scientifically. These statues definitely look like they were made by ancient Kerbals. Did kerbals lose spacefaring capabilities that they had a long time ago and are just now regaining them?
  9. One of the most important details that I personally noticed is that between the interview and article, there was a mention of one player being away (presumably not time warping), another player doing something and the player coming back to see that thing done. There was no mention of whether that player would have to time warp to see the up-to-date world, but at least I can still hold out hope that things are interactive without an extra time warp step.
  10. I think that there won't be an aerodynamic difference between low and high sweep wings, long and thin versus short and fat wings. I think that upon EA release, the only factor that will matter is wing area, like in KSP 1. Hopefully it is a placeholder before a more interesting system, but I don't think that this new design consideration will definitely exist upon launch.
  11. I'm estimating 215. I imagine it'll also be quite a bit longer upon full release, given that each update has hype-worthy features!
  12. The two explanations I see being more likely than most are that 1) it is intentional, there are structures of some sort that are shining lights, or 2) it is unintentional, and something about rendering that location (which might have structures) is causing those flashes (because we haven’t seen them in any other location)
  13. I generally agree with your speculations. I'm currently witnessing a big software project about to launch - it is a mad scramble to get features that were promised all along in for a deadline that was pushed as long as possible, and the software is still not going to be complete. I think that with practically any software project above a certain size, this problem happens where things are missing. Very likely, any "finished" software is just software that reached its deadline and then spent a few months wrapping up the features in-progress before calling it a day. Software under active development doesn't do this, and instead will always have unfinished features being worked on, meaning that it will always be unfinished. As a result, the time of release isn't dictated as much by the completion of the game, but instead by other pressures such as money or, in this case, shareholder promises. As you said, there is no chance that they would leave out re-entry heating if they had any option to develop it in time. And if the developers set their own EA release date based on readiness, they would make sure that such a feature made it in. Development isn't perfect and features more often than not take vastly more time to develop than anticipated, but at some point along development it is possible to make a reasonably good prediction of when features will be complete, and that point probably hadn't been reached by the time the release date was set. For example, if you already have a semi-workable heating model and you set the release date, you can kind of know how long it is going to take and use that to inform the deadline. But if you set a deadline and then start working on the heating model to try to fit it in, your best predictions might be off and the feature will be incomplete on release. If it is any consolation for that particular thing, you only have to put up with it for "a very short period" before a week-one patch probably implements all of the features that were almost done. One good thing is that even if funding for KSP 2 is cut immediately upon launch (which would be terrible because a lot of people wouldn't get the features they might have bought the game expecting, don't get me wrong), the features that are in this intermediary state will likely make it into the game just because a few patches will be released to shore it up before the devs are relocated to other projects. We can't really say much about how likely T2 is to shut down the project and what amount of sales will mitigate it by how much, and speculations ranged from 'they will fund continued development until full release for sure and then very likely further' up to 'there is no chance that we will get even the first roadmap item unless the game sells 1 million copies, and development will absolutely end with 1.0'. I have to say I appreciate that you are taking your observations and presenting your predictions as what they are - predictions, and not the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached. In the past, a lot of both positive and negative speculation was stated as fact, and that created some issue. For my own stance, I am speculating that short of a coordinated boycott, the game will have enough sales to make it further into development and will follow a tenuous path à la No Man's Sky, hopefully making it to 1.0 with enough users to continue development through both updates and DLCs. But the most important thing is to withhold final judgement until we have something concrete on whether the game will be canceled or not. This post is already incredibly long, but here's a few notes on specific portions of your post: The release date may be dictated largely by money, but after the initial patches, the game will probably be in a state fit for some feedback. EA is never exclusively for feedback or money, but I think that if/as development gets past the first few weeks, feedback will be more important to the EA. I think those features may fall into the realm of wish-list goals which, as you said, will be implemented only after the core gameplay features are in, but I think that even if players aren't actively crying out for them (which they are), these features will eventually be implemented. They might be really low priority though, below the fan-requested features even.
  14. I was thinking, if the tutorial person is supposed to be an AI, adding a voice effect to indicate the digital nature of the speaker might place the voice-over on the other side of the uncanny valley, making it less relatable but also making us judge it less as a person's voice. No matter how annoying Mario's voice might be if it was in real life, we don't judge it the same way because it is separated from reality. Maybe KSP 2's tutorials can work the same way.
  15. What makes up your definition of a 'core gameplay element'?To be clear, I would rather have better water and aero before robotics, but having robotics can be very central to the gameplay, just as much as the way that craft move through air and water.
×
×
  • Create New...