Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '���������������������TALK:PC90���'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. The error mentioned above by @OrbitalManeuvers is caused by a typo in the Bumblebee Sensor Package config file. The typo prevents running the barometer experiment from an action group. Here is a Module Manager patch to correct the typo and let the barometer experiment work as intended. I prefer patches like this over editing the original files, but obviously it could be done that way, too. Bumblebee Sensor Package Barometer Fix // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Bumblebee Sensor Package Barometer Fix // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @PART[bb_Sensor]:NEEDS[Bumblebee] { @MODULE:HAS[#experimentID[barometerScan]] { @useActionGroups = True } } I didn't come here to talk about that, but I saw that error and had to fix it before I felt comfortable posting what I actually came here for... While I was doing a personal update on the Knes TweakScale configs, I decided to write some for Bumblebee. I always enjoyed using the electric props from Firespitter to make things like quad copters and whatnot, and when you combine that with TweakScale, you can make some pretty neat low part count stuff. TweakScale for Bumblebee seemed like something interesting to play with, so I wrote the requisite configs to do so, and I decided I might as well share them. So here they are. Note 1: Some of the parts will require the latest version of the TweakScale Beta with TweakScaleExperimental enabled, but if you're only after the props, pretty much any version of TweakScale will do. Note 2: Scaling up the size of the props exacerbates the issue of the Bumblebee props continuing to generate thrust when they run out of available EC. Rest assured the problem exists even on standard sized props without my patch installed, but the thrust values are so low that they typically wouldn't be enough to move your craft. Scaling up the size increases the size of that latent thrust. Bumblebee TweakScale Patches // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Bumblebee TweakScale Patches // -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @PART[bb_Aeroshell]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Apiary" Aeroshell { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = stack defaultScale = 2.5 } } @PART[bb_Chute]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Main Parachute { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_Core]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Drone Probe Core { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Decoupler]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Decoupler { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Decoupler]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Drogue]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Drogue Parachute { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_HGA]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Antennae" High Gain Antenna { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free_square } } @PART[bb_Prop]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Wings" Contra-Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_PropSingle]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Wing" Single Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_RTG]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee "Stinger" RTG { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Seismometer]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee "Proboscis" Deployable Seismometer { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Sensor]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee Sensor Package { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_SingleTruss]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee single-mount Truss { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Skids]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScaleExperimental] // Bumblebee "Knees" Skids { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Truss]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // Bumblebee Truss { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } @PART[bb_Dunaprop]:NEEDS[Bumblebee,TweakScale] // "Dragonfly" Low Density Contra-Propeller { #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { } %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } } Enjoy or not as you see fit
  2. The following are my thoughts, more or less on what I would do to distinguish KSP2 from KSP and make it a far greater experience if I were making the game. I'm not demanding these things, and understand that the structure and affordances of the game at a basal level may already be set in stone in many respects. Still, now is the time to talk about what can be made, while it's still a bunch of ideas in all our heads. What is KSP2 trying to surpass anyway? What is KSP1? KSP1 is a rocket simulator at its core, the "challenge" that the game entices the player with are the construction of working vehicles and the piloting of those vehicles to various destinations. There's never been much to "do" at those destinations, except take in the sights, maybe send a rescue mission, or try to build the biggest thing you can there. There didn't need to be more than that - KSP is about spacecraft design and flight, and teaches players about the challenges of spaceflight and the thrill of getting from here to there while trying to avoid blowing up. The science system acts as a simple form of guided progression, and science instruments don't provide much practical purpose except as a source of a currency for unlocking more diverse spaceship parts as a reward for traveling to new destinations with limited technology. The mission system also provides a set of design and flight challenges that act as "suggestions" if you're stumped on where you want to go next. What could KSP2 do that's "more" or "different" from that? Right now, KSP2 basically has all those things KSP1 does: The rocket simulator, the flight challenges, the unlockable parts, etc. It also has updated graphics to rival the best KSP1 mods, some slight changes to the UI, and an ecosystem of bugs almost as diverse as I'd expect to find by overturning a log in the Amazon. So KSP2 is using KSP1 as a base so far, to hopefully metamorphose into a new and different experience. There are a few main "new" aspects the devs seem to be working towards for KSP2, and while I see the beginnings of some of those inside the 'skeleton' of the game today, there are some things that have been carried over from KSP1 that I think don't help KSP2 grow to the greatest experience it can be and develop its own "personality" if they remain as they are. KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator. KSP1 helped players answer for themselves "Why should we build rockets?", to the point that the story of KSP players enrolling in aerospace engineering programs because of the game has become somewhat common. For this reason, I consider KSP to be the best game. (I myself graduated as an aerospace engineer last year, though I can't say that KSP inspired it - I was already committed to becoming an astronaut long before I heard of the game. I've had interviews with SpaceX for various positions in recent months, but no offers yet.) Where KSP1 was a "rocket" simulator, I see KSP2 as trying to be a "space program" simulator. In KSP1, the player could build powerful rockets and touch down on any body in the solar system, but it would occur in isolated missions or voyages. Where KSP1 asked players "Why should we build rockets?", KSP2 seems to want to ask a question more like "What should we USE our rockets for now that we've built them?". The colonies, base-building mechanics, and interstellar destinations seem to point to a goal of letting players create a vibrant ecosystem of space travel. Instead of singular missions and tiny labs in space, we would be creating cities on the planets and trade routes between them, with complex exchanges of resources and technology culminating in the assembly of an interstellar vessel and the opening of the wide frontier. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to teach players not just about how rockets go from here to there, but about how they gather the information while exploring that leads to scientific discoveries and better informed designs of new vessels, and about the realistic challenges of living and building on another planet, and, most importantly, about exactly what makes it worthwhile to go to all that effort of leaving our perfect blue marble behind and actually trying to live there. To that note, there are a few specific aspects of the game that are presently implemented in a way that I think will be detrimental to those goals (which I just made up in my head) if they continue to build directly off of KSP1 and the simple precursors in the game now. These are the main aspects that I think should be overhauled to make KSP2 a grand step forward from KSP1: Realistic Science Currently, science in KSP2 functions purely as a currency for unlocking new ship parts. The experiment modules themselves don't provide any useful information, and the game doesn't go out of its way to tell you what was learned from each experiment. The experiments are all packaged together in a mysterious bundle, and the only interaction from the player is a simple reaction to the blinking "science" button, to click and receive science points. This is based directly on science in KSP1, which had the same function as a currency but allowed more direct viewing of the readings from some instruments like thermometers and barometers. I think KSP2 has an opportunity to embrace science in a more realistic way, and bring a taste of actual science for players. The repeated clicking on individual experiments from KSP1 doesn't need to return for this, but perhaps an "experiment manager" window or some other form of more in-depth interaction would be warranted. What I mean by this is for the science experiments to act as sensors measuring quantitative qualities of the environment. Examples of this would be a probe dropping into the atmosphere of a planet with a barometer and thermometer and creating graphs of pressure and temperature by altitude for that planet, or a spacecraft orbiting a planet with LIDAR to map its terrain for the first time, while the player would not be able to see the surface detail up close in map view or with probes before doing that. The player could gather actual scientific data, and the game could guide them into understanding why they've learned something about the planet by doing what they've done ("See the spikes in your spectrometer reading? Those prove that there is water on Duna!" "You measured a dip in this star's brightness, that must have been caused by its planet!") I recall the devs mentioning the idea of not giving the player all the information about planets right away, and players having to "discover" at least some celestial bodies on their own. I think this idea of the player gradually building up their own "discovered world" based on their own measurements helps with that, and I hope science gains a lot more depth and realism in KSP2 in the future. Some of the science experiments I can think of: -Magnetometers that can map planets' and stars' magnetic fields over time by orbiting them, and can help forecast solar storms -Spectrometers that give spectra for stars, planet atmospheres, and surface samples, which the player can look over to characterize composition -RADAR, LIDAR, and cameras that allow the player to record detailed maps of surface topography -Telescopes with various specialized instruments and wavelength ranges for observation of deep space objects, exoplanet discovery, and mapping the stellar neighborhood Player-Driven Exploration With discovery at the forefront of the game, I think the player will have all the incentive they need to drive the direction of their space program on their own. Want to explore the Sun? Prioritize radiation and magnetic science parts. Made an unexpected fascinating discovery about Jool? Drum up the resources for a planetary probe. Prefer visiting Minmus over the Mun? Focus the game on that destination. Show the player the options, and let them choose their own goals. A big place where I feel the game falls short of this are the anomalies. Instead of encouraging the player to go to space to learn about their environment and place in the universe, about the natural beauty of the world, the game sets the main goal as learning about the ancient aliens who were in the Kerbol system. I think having those artifacts in the game is no problem at all, and can make for a really cool adventure, but no part of the game should tell us to go seek them out or visit them. I would implement them far more subtly, requiring the player to discover them through actual anomalies in the data they gather as they explore. For instance, mapping out the magnetic environment around the Mun with an orbiting probe and discovering a strong localized magnetic field that reveals the location of the Mun arch. No Keri Kerman telling us that there is an arch, no mission handed to us by the game - all the incentive and excitement can come from a pure "What's THAT?" as the player discovers a tantalizing measurement. Then, visiting the arch (which should probably be covered up to begin with until excavation is possible) could allow discovery of an actual signal, a puzzle which would need to be deciphered by the player. Another example would be finding nearby stars and exoplanets. Once the player has the technology to do parallax measurements and light curves of stars, the game shouldn't tell them where to look in the sky. They should just be able to start a sky survey or point their telescope at whichever star they like, and see what they find. They might not know about all the same planets as some other player does, and when the time comes to launch their interstellar vessel they'll choose a different star to point it at, based on what they've discovered. Resources As the game progresses into colony-building, I'm sure the focus on material resources will grow, as now it isn't there but I can see the place for it in the game. On extraplanetary bases, it's obvious that there will be a limited budget of raw materials, metals, oxygen, etc. with which to build rockets, buildings, and other machines, with that budget coming from resource extractors and mining of the surface through combing, excavating, and drilling the planets. Other planets would also have alternate materials available like regolith for buildings, roads, and launch pads. On Kerbin, presumably advanced industry elsewhere on the planet is able to supply KSC with an "allowance" of materials and parts, which don't necessarily need to be limited by cost in money units, but could be limited by quantity available, especially for specialized parts like probe cores and science instruments. For instance, "There are 6 FL-T200 fuel tanks available" or "There are 3 probe cores and 1 capsule available". Part of the player's directive for exploration could be the strategization of prioritizing production/purchase of certain kinds of parts and materials. Probes vs. space station modules, longer range antennas, different types of experiments...These would make every player's "space program" unique and personalized. Conclusion This is basically my outline for what I personally imagine KSP2 could be like in the future. The main aspects I see in this "speculative" version of KSP2 are: Science experiments functioning in a realistic way, as sensors that observe the environment, and conclusions about the universe being drawn from those observations, as well as useful information for designing and piloting vehicles in those environments Player-driven exploration, with much less direction coming from the mission system as to what to focus on or find important A focus on material resources for production of parts, vehicles, buildings, and missions that is adaptable to the player's self-determined goals There are a few places in the game where I see gameplay mechanics that I think will prevent KSP2 from achieving these aspects if they are left as they are and taken for granted. Mainly these are copied from KSP1: The "science point" system and its dynamic with the tech tree Exploration being driven by "missions" where the game tells you where you should go and what aspects of space exploration you should consider important I think those aspects from KSP1, which themselves were added after the core identity and function of the game were fairly well established, should be rethought and reworked to better fit the mission of KSP2. I'm not demanding that they be changed or made to fit what I've described here, my only request is that they not be taken for granted just because they're the status quo. I know this is just my idea, and I'm sure the actual game could turn out very differently from what I've described and still be a very good game. The devs have no doubt been thinking and shooting ideas around about these very topics for years longer than I have, too. Developers, thanks for listening to the community, and thanks for your dedication and commitment to trying to make something even greater than the best game ever.
  3. We didn't have those tools in KSP1 either, without mods. There are extant calculators for resonant orbits already, so parity with KSP1 is a reasonable ask. As explained, main purpose of this is getting them from "we might talk about it again later" to "we WILL fix this by 1.0."
  4. When are you guys putting an alarm clock app into KSP2? Hopefully not after 1.0 like KSP1 did, that's a pretty crucial feature. I've been hoping to do a completely modless playthrough in KSP2, something I never really did in KSP1 because so much of my playtime was pre-1.0. Anyway, have a happy new year and keep up the great work! Your start on exploration mode and the current science gameplay is excellent, a much better experience than I expected given the talk of how similar to KSP1 it was going to be.
  5. Please stop constantly harassing me. You have all my arguments above about why there's a better learning progression with Stayputnik, a small SRB and control surfaces and why the Starting Rocketry node is currently bad. If you want to talk, bring counter-arguments. I've been very explicit and clear in my reasoning.
  6. Was that because their vessel had lost all control due to loss of electricity, or did it crash into terrain due to lack of a parachute? Oh wait, that can only happen with probes. Sorry? Also batteries, solar panels, antennas, even more reaction wheels because probe's own is way too weak to control much more than its own core. Weird how you forgot about those. And if you omit parachutes and experiments, what's your probe for then? It won't gather science (the only purpose of those first few flights) and even if it did, it will crash because no parachute, so you'll end up with nothing anyway. Your first flight is nothing more than a waste of time. Besides, there's one thing you keep forgetting when you talk about how "hard" it is to learn basics - there are friggin tutorials right there. Yes there isn't many of them and they don't cover all the basics but there's nothing harder about methalox engine than there is about an SRB. I'd say it's easier because the Swivel gives the player some control over the rocket, with SRB you shoot straight up... And that's about it. I'd like to refer again to the Science Deep Dive video where it's all explained.
  7. There is a long life left ahead for KSP 1. A long, and happy left before the rot you talk about hits. Tho, I have some small measure of faith that if it needed it, that IG would put out some sort of 1.12.6+ update to maintain KSP 1 and keep it from dying out entirely.
  8. There are two threads here which get you around your problem. Docking ports are a new gadget. You can work out how to building them and test them on the ground. You can make them with the same materials you already use to build the rocket. You just need to do that in space to prove you can, ie Soyuz 4 or Gemini VIII. Going somewhere and finding something new is what gives you big step changes in capability. Perhaps a new material that allows a more efficient or lighter engine, or a different fuel compound that means you can fit more dv in a given volume (yep, sorry, variations on a theme. others will have better ideas). Maybe you could get there without leaving the Kerbal SOI, but it would take a heap longer. This is an issue in KSP1 - the power of the science labs means you don't really need to. This sounds a lot like 'science points'. However, following PDCWolf's train of thought, you don't exactly see the tree, just the outputs from your general intended direction. On this point, we can agree. If nothing else, all this talk of science has had me doing some basic reading into what did happen, when and how in the '50s through '70s. I know I've had to rethink some of my ideas on tech progression.
  9. Well, I've crossed the 200 hours total time spent in KSP 2, so the game is worth my time. Surprisingly, it was not the exploration that got me hooked.. but actually building first stages of various sizes and tonnage to LKO and also designing more and more complex science return missions. So basically most of my enjoyment came from the VAB. Executing those missions is somewhat painful - from bad dV data to bad maneuver node control, buggy RCS which makes docking a PAIN.. which means that for me KSP2 is up to the level of KSP1 Science Mode but just below designing multi-vehicle missions which require orbital assembly and refueling. Besides bugfixes and QoL improvements, what I feel is missing: - more edge, spice, adult humor - many more discoverables & asteroids-comets - better terrain and environment graphics + weather visuals - better science utility and planetary discovery and survey progression - CommNet missions which require launching satellite constellations to have unoccluded signal in a SOI - extra survival gameplay mechanisms like radiation - being resource constrained and a resource collection game loop - previous and next points are closely related to delivery routes - more reasons to build vehicles other than rockets, probes, pods and landers - the orbital colony system + EVA construction to make building in space easier and faster. Only when the game will have all this will it really be just above KSP 1's level. And only after that does it make sense to talk about interstellar exploration.
  10. Okay here are my UI notes. Overall the UI is really pretty solid, Im just listing the items for improvement to keep the list shorter. I'm still getting started honestly so let me know if there's something I've just misunderstood. Many of these have been mentioned previously, just adding data points. General: - It would help to have color consistency on "Training Center" + "Mission control" in the escape menu--just pick a color for each and use in both words. - In settings generally "graphics" is next to "audio" in most games. - I might have missed it but I'd like to be able to rename my agency and set a new flag - Several buildings are missing return to KSC/Go to Mission Control/VAB. Only hitting escape lets us transfer between - As noted highlight/text contrast is so low when renaming vessels in the Tracking Station its impossible to read. - Many menus have very low contrast, especially the handles/ dismiss button at the top. - (Bug) Several General settings are listed as both "on" and "off" until mouse over. Tutorials: - Im wondering if there's a way to interconnect missions and tutorials in a tighter way? Maybe there could be links in between before and after certain stages? - It might just be the nature of the beast but the tutorials seem to jump around a lot--introducing stages in flight before going back and showing staging in the VAB, etc. Would it be better if there was more linear continuity? - It seems like the navball is introduced very late. Again there's a lot to talk about so maybe thats okay. - Science and reentry tutorials are great but perhaps some mention of parts exposed outside the heat shield and recommendations on safe reentry angles? - I figured it out eventually but a tutorial on transmission + estimating power needs would be useful. - Im sure these are WIP but we should have tutorials on plane changes, Radial/Normal burns, intercept + docking, vacuum + precise landing, (and more Im sure) VAB: - Trip Planner should show dV to LKO when "Kerbin" is selected as destination. This could be the default unless another body is selected. - Trip Planner should also be more dynamic, allowing us to select + add up destinations in a more custom way. - I'd love the ability to eyedrop colors in the color manager. - Id like a way to group-select in the Parts manager, especially for setting action groups - I might be missing something but how can we see through fairings? I liked KSP1's explode/transparency on mouse over. - I think its because of atmo vs vac calculations but dV readout in VAB doesn't match when you go to the launchpad. Maybe save the settings? Flight: - Escape should pause the game - Maybe "Go" button should change to say "Stage" after initial launch? - It also took a long time to find the Kerbal Manager... maybe some of these menus should be covered in the tutorials? - Id also like to be able to rename and recover vessels in flight without having to go to the Tracking Station - (Bug) When UI is scaled up the Research Inventory appears in a place that it cant be moved or dismissed because the top is above the frame - Pinned Ap/Pe markers should stay pinned when switching between flight + map view. Focus should also stay fixed. - Probably a bug but vessel icon scaling goes crazy when switching focus sometimes. - (Bug) Time-warp seems to lose count when warping to maneuver - becomes paused when not indicating pause. - I would love to see time to reentry, time to impact, + time to intercept readouts—basically time to whatever is next with more specificity. This is super important for an alarm clock if/when implemented. - Add a ‘toggle antennas’ button next to solar action group. - Safe parachute deploy speed is a bit opaque to me. What is the unsafe deploy speed? - The Navball itself is a bit busy. Target markers should be in a different color (not white) to stand out. - Agreed with others that the maneuver nodes are tough to use and labels frequently overlap and make manipulation + navigation difficult. Definitely add fine-maneuver tool with graphic + numeric input. - Also agreed we should be able to place maneuver nodes when paused and in other SOIs. - The burn-bar should have squared off rather than rounded ends so its visually clear when you've completed the burn. Also agreed^ it should say "burn remaining" and tick down. - Burn countdown lights are great but the colors are confusing. Make it more clear you're hitting Z at zero. - (Bug) I like the warp to maneuver feature but warp-stop notification says warp canceled because of proximity to celestial body. - I would LOVE the ability to snap maneuvers to Ap/Pe/An/Dn. Maybe a right-click option? - Id love if the science button had a subtle audio cue when lit/ new science available. - Research inventory should list experiments from newest to oldest so recent experiments appear at the top of the list. - Agreed^ many experiments are repeating even after being submitted. "Transmit all" should also be greyed out when there's nothing to transmit. - We absolutely need biome maps at the least. Topography would be nice too. - Agreed the SOI transition graphic is handy but a bit overbearing. - I'd love to get more diverse vessel icons back in map mode, and then some. Again Im really pleased with the progress thus far. Im sure a lot of this can be solved in the next year or so. Thanks for all you do, devs!
  11. I refuse to judge KSP2 based on the dreams of community members. Heck, it's finally a pretty mainstream opinion even in the forums that it is not reasonable to 100% believe the official statements either. That's 8 months of building trust right there. It'll stop being a non sequitur when people start actually playing the game for real on long term science/exploration saves. But hey, you can talk about future imagined optimizations and I can't talk about a very real issue that's currently in the game waiting to explode? (did once already, too). May I know what you call nonsensical placements? You mean the navball and vital information such as speed right in the center as it exists on almost every plane or spacecraft cockpit? Again, altitude I give to you, that's bad. I mean, if you're talking from a different timeline, might as well make it clear now, because you seem to live on a completely different reality. Probably born from not leaving the forums, which is a common problem. Normal cockpits might have a compass, altitude and speed tape, yet again, in real life they know those elements are not there to be pretty, and they should communicate information in a fast, compact and concise way: In real life, on a PFD, the speed tape exists to communicate overspeed, selected speed, current speed, and even acceleration. In KSP2 the speed tape does nothing but exist behind the one useful number it shows. The compass tape also communicates other elements, like selected heading. In KSP2 the compass tape exists as a huge useless element and the one thing it should communicate is a number which in KSP2 is sitting outside the tape, not even in it. An altitude tape shows your current altitude, selected altitude, vertical speed, and in some cases terrain altitude too. In KSP2 you need to hide one number to show the other, and the altitude tape exists only as a background element that does nothing useful. In real life, all these elements are presented in a compact way, on a single square screen that doesn't waste any space, yet shows all the useful information without overwhelming the pilot. In KSP2 it looks like someone hit the explode button, with every element taking useless space for no reason. Here's a real life PFD as an example. It sits centered in your view, so you just look down and see it, and can derive all your information from it. In the worst case, it's on one of two or more screens, but you can select on which to display it. It's the same engine, but don't worry, hating on Squad and KSP1 after getting thousands of hours on it is the only cope that has been found to justify KSP2, even though KSP2 is still the worse product of the two.
  12. Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: windows 10 | CPU: Intel i5 4690K | GPU: NVIDEA GTX 1070 | RAM: 16gb When throttling up before you should, PAIGE goes beatbox mode. She can only talk when thrust is 0, but as soon as there's thrust she gets in a loop of starting to talk https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1039965578754007060/1149998890121187368/Kerbal_Space_Program_2_2023-09-09_11-24-26.mp4
  13. First off, I would like to say that For Science! has made the game massively more playable, fun, and performant. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of IG when some of the player base (myself included) went from not just critical, but skeptical that we would even see the promised features. The science update proved that skepticism wrong, and I want to sincerely thank the IG team for their persistence. I say this because while part of this post may sound negative, it’s coming from someone who’s genuinely a fan of the game, wants the game to succeed, and appreciates the massive step forward this last update was. All that said, after playing it long enough where I feel I can give a solid opinion, I must say For Science! still hasn’t reached the tipping point of being fun to play for fun’s sake yet. As a tester, and an EA player seeing the game grow, yes. But KSP1 remains more fun at this point. I really would like to share my feedback on the game, but it’s hard to do with the specifics of future features still largely unknown. For instance, how much are resources going to affect the early, mid, and late game restrictions of exploration mode, if at all? There’s a lot of feedback I can give here, but without details on the roadmap beyond just the highest level concepts, most of that feedback is meaningless. KSP1 had a lot of janky complexity. I loved it dearly but career mode was hodgepodged together for sure. KSP2 (seemingly so far) didn’t so much streamline the complexity as outright remove it. It’s rather simple to get to anywhere in the system without unlocking any tech nodes as there’s no restrictions on size, part count, or funds/resources. (I personally prefer no funds and the limiting factor to be resources, as I believe to be the plan.) How I feel those restrictions could be added in an engaging game play loop is something I’d love to talk about, but currently it’s unclear if any such limitations are even being considered. The new and zombie bugs did also sadly affect my gameplay, both with the resurgence of the orbital decay and the loss of orbital lines. Those I see have been clearly communicated to the devs and it is clear they are a priority. I would personally, at this point in development with a “game” now in the sandbox game, rather they focus on bugs for a bit. My larger point with this thought though is that bugs can be clearly communicated, and then addressed. Larger framework decisions and feedback much less so without knowing exactly the plan for interstellar, colonies, and isru. The devs have clearly asked for feedback, and I’m happy to provide it. I just feel it’s hard to give good, actionable or even considerable feedback with so many unknowns for the player community. Had KSP2 launched in this state into EA I feel there would’ve been much less criticism. The game, while buggy and feature lacking, has clear potential, details of quality in the surfaces of the planet, audio design and other areas. Most EA games are very clear about the development process, and I fully understand why they went so quiet with the harsh criticism they were receiving. They knew the only way to win back trust was to deliver, and while there’s still a ways to go for me personally they delivered a great update that won my trust. Now that we have that trust, I feel like it is the time to open up more about the specifics, and then recieve, consider, and implement as they see best fit player feedback. This would include the plans changing slightly as the game progresses and in response to the feedback, and trusting the community to be understanding of that. Again, I don’t want to be too negative. My pessimistic outlook was solidly proven wrong, I’m excited and passionate about KSP and am way happier now having my pessimism be proven wrong and having a fun KSP2. I just please ask that now that trust has been rebuilt some thought is put into how much of the specifics of the coming features can be shared with the community so we can give quality feedback.
  14. when i was digging through the files i went into squadexpansion and i found out that Breaking Ground wasn't always called that it was originally called Serenity and i thought it would be a cool thing to talk about tell me if you knew this or you didn't feel free to ask me a theory about it
  15. Fair enough. If we want support from the layman, we need to make them a bit less layman! Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, I looked for someone (way better English fluent than me) that had done it nicely. And I not only found one, but it talks explicitly about how the Source Game can help gaming! The importance of having access to KSP¹'s source code was already discussed ad nauseam on this thread, I suggest to read this bunch o links to have a thoughtful explanation - you may want to read some other posts of mine too. But, in a nutshell, having access to the Source Code is essentially why we have Internet nowadays - the whole TCP/IP stack (the thingy that allows computers to talk to each other on this big network we call Internet) is Open Source, and it's the reason that everything including the kitchen's sink (LITERALLY) can talk to Internet - as there's no need to rewrite it from scratch for every new device (or pay someone to do it), what would drive the costs to the stratosphere. That said, not everything need to be Open Source in order to succeed. Most games are an example of that. But sometimes, some games get relevant enough to demand a higher level of support that perhaps may not be under the reach of the publisher! Some people may be willing to port the thingy into ARM processors, some other may want to run it on RISC-V dev boards, perhaps a new lightweight, energy efficient and powerful (but pretty expensive) tablet is being launched somewhere in the World and NASA would love to have it on the Space Station running KSP. It would not be feasible economically to KSP's publisher to spend all that money themselves, neither reasonable they start to charge people that run KSP on PCs to fund such development. If KSP¹'s source code would be available, interested people (as NASA engineers) would be able to do the port themselves using their free time. Now we need to talk about something else: what Source Code is not. As it was said above, having access to the Source Code is not the same as being able to relaunch a version of the Game yourself and make some bucks from it. Images, characters, lore, sounds, animations, missions, all of this is also Intelectual Property, and they are not part of the Source Code. So, unless KSP¹'s published decides to release everything as Public Domain (as did by the Fables author!), you may recompile the thing, and (depending of the license) perhaps redistribute the compiled code to whoever may want it- but not the rest of the game. The dude that would download that code would need to buy KSP¹ the same (if not had done it already), because the compiled code by itself is not enough to play the game. Being pragmatic, the real need for the KSP¹'s source code is to fix the bugs. For years KSP¹ is being plagued by bugs that were not fixed - or were poorly fixed, leading to yet more bugs). Obviously, such bugs are not going to be properly fixed anymore now that the KSP¹'s development cycle is finished. Having access to this Source Code will allow us, Authors, to be able to properly fix or work around these bugs without creating new ones, because we will be able to check on the Source Code (and by debugging sessions) exactly what's happening under the bonnet, and so be able to do something about. (I will not discuss, again, about shaddy ways to get access to that Source Code and that's being already exploited on the wild - we aim to be EULA and Forum compliant on this task, some of us are professionals where it's unethical to do such things, as it may affect negatively our careers). Completely unrelated to KSP¹ but affecting it, recently Unity Technologies decided to go the Racketeer way and virtually almost killed their game scene. It was really that bad, and perhaps will keep being that way. The Worst didn't happened (yet?), but if things had really gone down trough the tubes, having access to KSP¹'s source code would improve the chances of having it ported to something else by the Community (porting things is where Open Source guys really shine). On the other hand, if KSP¹ were made using an already Open Source engine like Godot (or anything else that could suit them better), all that drama would just not affect them - because it's plain impossible to go rogue on the customers that are using Open Source themselves. One can withdraw support for the object of the contract, but can't prevent someone else from offering a replacement contract (see the last Red Hat drama). — — — I have noticed that someone (I forgot who, sorry!) is using my Banner on their Signature: But just miniaturising the image made it ugly due the white text being illegible and screwing the aesthetics. So I rendered a new one, without the white text, in a small "form factor": Whoever you are (and everybody else), fell free to use it instead! Cheers!
  16. I had to pay already for the privilege of play-testing and emit feedback, why would I also perform the job of a paid position on top of that? I can design you a science mechanic, come back to it with a presentation, multiple docs, spreadsheets about balance, and whatever you ask, but we've gotta talk money first. If you want stuff for free, there's plenty on the thread.
  17. I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts.. How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it. Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....
  18. Flight 1001 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-119-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill The KJ-119 is the first jet airliner built by Kerbal Spaceless Program to use more than 1 engine. In this case, it's a Wheesley and a Juno. ----------- Jeb: Good morning all Kerbs, welcome aboard to Trans Kerbin Airlines! We will be taking off shortly. Bill: Wow, they even put a second engine on this one! Talk about safety first! The Wheesley spooled up and spat to life. The Juno? Not so much. Bill: Jeb, I think the Juno failed. Hopefully we'll make it to the Island Airfield. Jeb: SIlly old Gene making us fly test planes with passengers on board. Bill: Wait a minute... you left the PA on! The passengers immediately began screaming. Jeb: Calm on guys, we've almost landed. After the landing, the passengers made their way of the plane and the other unsuspecting group of passengers entered the plane. Luckily the flight went relatively smoothly. As the passengers left, they made sure to leave their positive reviews. "They didn't even have seat cushions!" - Bingus Kerman "Where are the in-flight snacks, and why am I able to open the plane's windows?" - Doofus Kerman "This flight pulled more G's than I ever did in the Kerbin War!" - Rofel Kerman The KJ-119-1 was immediately sent to the SPH for repairs for the Juno. Hopefully this ends well.
  19. I have played and adored nearly all of Chris's mods and they are absolutely brilliant. I don't always agree with him though when it comes to gameplay. I think efficiency and simplicity are really important but I'll return again and again to the chess vs checkers example. What makes good gameplay is not absolute simplicity, but maximizing the ratio between input rule complexity and total output creative gamespace. Sometimes a very large investment in dev work results in a very small increase in creative gameplay. Sometimes a modest investment in dev work results in a HUGE increase in creative gameplay. Every smart developer is playing these odds. I happen to think there were some decisions in KSP1 like instant scanning on polar orbit and not incorporating biome maps that were huge missed opportunities, and across the board when you talk to folks who used SCANsat the verdict is pretty unanimous that the mod did it better. Thats because it hit that sweet spot leveraging a bit more complexity in design to capture a much more robust gameplay experience. I think avoiding LoS, real-time mapping, time-based mechanics, and life support are similar kinds of missed opportunities where a modest investment in development time could leverage a much more dynamic set of design, planning, and navigation puzzles for the game.
  20. I support this and agree with @Pthigrivi. That being said.. I feel like the devs read and listen to player opinions, but they don't confirm it. Slowly I see that gameplay decisions are made, the items on the wishlists are getting added and some things seem to be well thought out. We're all starting to have an idea about what this game wants to be. But the dev - player interaction is minimal at best. Good thing we have the CMs to talk to. Anyway, when you as a player feel like life is not fair.. remember that @Nertea's Discord handle is Destroyer of Fun. That should tell you everything you need to know.
  21. Flight ????: KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 1 TKA Flight Inspector The KJ-099 is the first passenger plane the KSP developed. With a passenger capacity of 4 kerbals, the KJ-099 is perfect for use for flight inspections (establishing a new flight route). The first test flight is to send an inspector about 20 km out above the ocean and fly back safely. Morty gives a little pep talk: Bill: Whatever, starting up the Wheesley... Jeb: Fly safe? That's not something we're good at! Flight Inspector: What'd you say? Jeb: Nothing... With a bit of struggling due to the bad landing gear placement, the KJ-099 somewhat flopped into the air. Luckily it seemed to like flying, so that should be okay. Flight Inspector: Why does my metal seat have no cushion? Bill: Uh... it's for cooling purposes since we don't have an air-con vent back there... Flight Inspector: I hate my job... Jeb: All kerbals please fasten your seatbelts. This landing may not be pretty. Jeb: Try to flare it a bit... Jeb: Nailed it! With the success of the first flight, the KJ-099 is immediately sent to the SPH for improvements, notably the bad wheel placement. A few days later... Flight 1000 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 3 TKA Flight Inspectors Bill: Can't believe they woke us up at 2 for this. Flight Inspector 1: Well get on with it, can you? Jeb: I think they're complaining about the legroom again. How are they so awake? Bill: I suppose it's the jet-lag. Now that the jet has arrived at the Island Airfield, the Inspectors get off to negotiate flight deals. And before long, the KJ-099 is off again. The wheel placement improvements certainly helped with takeoff. Jeb: "Friendly reminder that you are not allowed to have food fights in the cockpit" Gene knows us so well... Bill: So how'd you enjoy the landing? Flight Inspector: At least it was better than Kyanair... Now with a place to fly planes to, the KSP begins building a larger plane...
  22. Welp, I don't have KSP 2 at the moment (current hardware can't run it and I really can't afford it). But skimming here tells me the KSP 2 gamesave system is confusing some really good KSP players. Whether it's UI or something internal or both, it's not quite right. And it really isn't explained to the player, when its complexity indicates it should be explained. That's not making KSP 2 look good to me. Talk about barely being alpha grade, but KSP 2 has been released (even if Early Access), but a save/restore system is a core game mechanic that shouldn't be in this state at this time.
  23. What makes an RCS thruster good is closely correlated to what makes a rocket engine good, but the engineering requirements of simplicity, storability, fast start from cold and repeatability change that. Low specific impulse can be forgiven if the rest of the hardware is simple and lightweight. Cold-gas is used, even though it's not that powerful or efficient, because it fulfils all those requirements. If we talk about solid propellant, monopropellant, bipropellant, arcjets and resistojets, we'll be here all day. Instead, if you want to dive deep into about 5,000 different substances used on one satellite or another: On the selection of propellants for cold/warm gas propulsion systems
  24. (Take two on convincing the community to be nice (take one) because the first one did not work and I’m more stressed about it this time) Ok so, as it seems, I’m not having an easy time motivating myself to stay active on this community. You may be familiar with my first post. The schism is still here, and therefore I still have more stuff to complain about. So, I’m going to make another post, even longer this time, hopefully this time with better formatting and active correction to remove bias. I really just want this whole thing to calm down. the schism As everyone who’s ever poked KSP2 or these forums with a 39-and-a-half-foot-pole has noticed, there’s a big schism in the community between what is basically two parties engaging in passive aggressive discourse on basically every single forum topic in this entire freaking subforum, even on other sections of the greater forums as a whole. The two sides, as I see it, are: On one side, there are people who have trust in the developers, and believe in a future for the development of KSP2. They see patience as a necessity to a good community, despite the fact a full release was expected 3 years ago. They think the devs aren’t bad people, and they deserve trust and patience. The vision they dreamed of for KSP2 is coming, and all they need is to sit tight and encourage the developers. Eventually, one day, the version of KSP2 they get heart palpitations just thinking about will be here. A few (not all!) members of this side deny there is anything wrong with KSP2, and see genuine constructive criticism as bad. On the other side, there are people who have little to no trust in the developer team’s competency. They see the 6 months of little tangible feature development as a sign that KSP2 is dead, dying, or doomed. The devs did an awful job launching, and the game probably won’t survive very long before T2 pulls the plug on funding. They typically provide genuine constructive criticism of the game, usually with tone issues. Often they think the developers overpromised or are otherwise incapable of meeting their promises, and that the dev team is inefficient or slow at development. A few (not all!) members of this side think KSP2 is a cash grab scheme, or think everyone who bought into the game early has been intentionally misled and can’t see reality. Where do I stand? Well, in the past, I’ve been pretty firmly in the first group, and I think I still am to some degree. However, as I step back a bit, I see the development is going really rough. The game is certainly lackluster in comparison to modding its predecessor, and I enjoy and play KSP1 way more right now. The devs are doing all they can to maintain a positive public image, and can’t, because let’s be honest, the launch was really frickityfracking awful. Communication issues, performance scares, and the incredibly buggy nature of the release has huge and long-lasting effects. Player count is not going up. Things are Not Great. But, how I see it, in my personal opinion, the devs still deserve some slack. The devs faced extreme hardships, and they deserve patience. In my opinion, any predatory release tactics are probably T2’s fault (like, honestly, it’s kinda like, their whole identity at this point in the gaming community). KSP2 is objectively not very good right now, but recently the devs have managed to remove a TON of huge and pressing bugs. Performance has freaking skyrocketed, pun intended, and multiple people I know are now capable of running it on their machines. Foundations have been getting put in place for future updates. I have trust in the developers and a good belief that KSP2 will, one day, a year or three down the line, meet its promises, and I will be encouraging and patient. But honestly I’m not here to talk about all that. I’ve got like, a much more pressing problem to talk about. the actual issue of the schism I’m not here to focus and fixate on the squabbles. I hate to participate in them, they make me feel icky. I don’t want to fuel the fire, because it’s an objectively really really big and long-winded fire that I subjectively just want to see the end of. I think my last post contributed to the fire, because more of it than I’d like was centered around “no guys devs actually good”, but I realize standing behind my opinion and tainting the possibility of neutrality of my post probably detracted a lot from it and was in general disagreeable to the side I wasn’t a part of. That’s why I’ve cut down on that, and I’ll be spending the next obscene number of pages focusing on this community. The fact there’s a schism at all is harrowing, is it not? Let’s think about what both sides have in common: we’re all fans of KSP or KSP2. We’re all astrophysics majors, rocket scientists, dorky nerds who like space, armchair engineers, computer scientists, and geeky nerds who play with model rockets in their backyard. We all are disappointed by the state of KSP2. We all looked at the trailer and probably died of heart attack at least three times each. Nobody can say that KSP2 is really superior to KSP1 with mods, in terms of performance, features, playability, stability, support, customizability and in some cases even graphics too. We all have been impacted by the really awful launch. We all participate in the community, regardless of whether we argue or just chat or just lurk, and want to play a fun game. What differences do we have? Well, one side thinks KSP2 will be good and the devs deserve slack, and one side thinks KSP2 won’t be good or that the devs are meanies. Well, when you stack it up like that, it seems kinda silly how we’ve driven a wedge between the two parties who both just wish they could enjoy KSP2 as much as the release trailer promised. We’re all KSP dorks who just wanted a cool sequel like the one in the trailer. We can all agree we don’t have that yet. Is it coming? Depends on who you ask. I think so, but my opinion is not relevant to this part of the post. I’ve stayed off the forums for a while. I’ve lurked a lot, checking the forums basically daily, since my last post. Most of my interactions with the community since then have been posting youtube videos and responding to comments on the original post. I tried to come back and have a good time, but the sense there was this unkillable beast of flame wars and tension writhing in one of the most active categories of this forum is at least a little unsettling. It says a lot about the lack of coherence and unity in the community if people can split themselves for OVER HALF A YEAR over an issue like this. And don’t get me wrong, it’s a huge and stressful issue. But how I see it, this is no excuse for how we (me included) have been treating others on the forum. we are the schism. that's us. Here’s a friendly reminder: Community is everyone. Community is you specifically. Community is also me. Community is also my friend Steve. Community is also the mod & dev teams. Community is every member who reads this page or responds. Community is a Lot of people. In fact, community, as it so happens, is all of us. We did this. Nobody is at not at fault to some degree. We’re to blame. We’re responsible for fixing this, me included, you included, and we’re responsible for being nice to the community (this includes everyone in the community). As a community it is OUR duty and responsibility to not be mean or blind about it. WE are the community. Please take a second to just read over this paragraph and internalize it. This post here is the next chapter of my participation in trying to patch the schism, but no one single dweebus such as myself can do this alone. But seeing the state of these forums doesn’t give me confidence we can recover naturally anyways. We’ve already torn this huge gap in the community, and if we don’t close it, that gap will stay there. If it’s announced tomorrow that funding gets slashed severely, there will still be individuals who claim that the devs will rise from the ashes and miraculously make one of the most ambitious video games in gaming history. If KSP2 miraculously gets an update tomorrow that makes it completely exactly how we all wanted it, colonies and interstellar included, hundreds of handcrafted star systems, there will still be individuals who claim it doesn’t meet standards and bash it on the forums. Not one year ago, the KSP forums community was a freaking amazing place to be. We’d all go screw around with silly mods, make cool videos, share epic screenshots, say “guys won’t KSP2 be so cool when it releases” while ogling at some dev videos, and collaborate together with massive and elaborate community projects, and I would be hard pressed to find a single genuine insult anywhere on the forums, which still had like bajillions of active members. I really miss that community. I want it back, if that’s okay with you guys. I don’t like this place very much right now, and I can’t convince myself to stay active here for very long, because I simply don’t like the vibes that like 40% of the forums radiates and the other 60% is actively trying to ignore or pretend isn't a problem. Multiple people have left the forums before my eyes due to this issue, some even having directly contacted me to talk to me about it, because what I described in my first post is exactly why they left. This is a genuine issue. These forums are not as fun to stay in as they used to be, and the sense of unity and community and fun is severely damaged. This is a genuine concern I genuinely raise about the genuine state and genuine future of these forums. I don’t know how else to emphasize “guys this is a problem, we should fix it together”. If this post hasn’t convinced you “maybe we should be nicer to eachother” then I don’t know what to do, since this is the last thing I can think of to do, unless I wanna write four thousand words next time I make a big post. Which I don’t feel like doing. Please don’t make me have to write another post. I have carpal tunnel. ok, cool, whatever, so what do you propose we do then, dweebus? I genuinely don’t know. My guess is to start along the lines of “be nice” but that’s a lot easier said than done. I’ve seen a lot of mean comments thrown at people. I’ve seen a lot of passive aggressive ickiness from both sides. I’ve seen a lot of people just joke and make fun of other people for having an opinion that is not theirs. I’ve seen people start cursing out eachother or even hurling slurs over something as silly as “should there be this thing in this silly computer program about silly green aliens doing rocketry” or perhaps “why isn’t this thing here in this silly computer program yet”. And, mind you, this is all the stuff I’ve seen AFTER the moderation team filtered out the worst and most rulebreaking attacks. I’m not a mod, so I have absolutely no clue what the worst of the worst looks like. All I know is what I’ve seen can only be the tip of the iceberg. So what I propose is maybe just like, let’s all collectively resist the urge to yell at people who don’t share our opinion. Let’s also collectively resist the urge to yell at people who yell at us. Those usually are conducive to a good community, I would assume. Maybe we can set some collective terms for what we want, such as “constructive criticism is good but let’s be nice about it”, or maybe “let’s all agree KSP2 isn’t perfect yet”, or even perhaps the apparently very controversial and difficult to understand “i don’t like to be called a [insert long string of swear words]”. Those seem like reasonable demands to make of our friends and allies here in the community. But I don’t have a good idea of what we as a community should do. These situations probably have a lot more nuance to them than I can immediately think of, and my solutions aren't easy nor universal. I don't have an objectively untinted view of the situation, and I don't have a bird's eye view like moderators or developers might. I, as a dweebus member of the forums with no qualifications, really do want you all to collaborate and work together to find a way to make things better here. I want people to start thinking of ways to make the community a less toxic and flame-infested place, and I can’t do it alone. I'm not that good with people. Plus, you can’t do it alone either, since you too are just one person. Can we perhaps do this together please? I’d like to think this post is less of “i’m complaining, but loudly, and then some people agreed with me” like last time, and more “call to action to help actually make the community less mean to eachother” or perhaps even “open letter” in style and purpose. Like seriously I really just want me and everyone else to be able to enjoy the community like we did before. I really want us to be a unified, collaborative community again. It really hurts to see people just being like this to eachother. a conclusion i guess Ok, so, to recap: we’re all being mean to eachother, despite the fact we’re pretty similar in the end. This is bad, because being nice to eachother is good. We should all make an effort to be nicer, so that people stop leaving and people start enjoying the forums more. Nobody likes to be insulted, and we are all friends here on the forums. I propose we collaborate to do this, since we can’t really do all this alone. Please help us help eachother, which would include you. Stay tuned next time, for in 4 months I'll write 5k words on this exact same issue!! (this is a joke) (this post is prone to edits for grammar, spelling and tone. it is open to polite constructive criticism. please do not insult me or anyone else in the comments for the love of heck.) TL;DR: please be nice thanks
×
×
  • Create New...