Search the Community

Worth listening to, interestingly Matt reached out to Nate to ask if he could say anything and he more or less just said what the others have been saying; "Can't talk now, maybe later".

When assign blame you have to look at those in key roles.. that why certain individuals have a tendency to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden for failure. Nate was the face of this product, for better or worse. I believe he genuinely thought this game would succeed bc the community would be impressed with his awesome vision, so much so that we would be willing to excuse ... certain deficiencies for extended periods of time. When everyone wanted something substantive be the foundation of all those "oooo... purdy!" It kind of fell apart a little. I understand the need for visual aide and demonstrative presentations, but you must find balance. When you hear people say things that are not accurate... they absolutely are going to get some blame for their misinformed position. If they say innacurate things without any clarification to those inconsistencies.. it seems willful. Regardless if that's the case.. the perception starts to shift to one of being intentionally misled. "Fully Funded" - massive lay off "Playable at Launch" "Actual Play Footage" These are what started to turn me off of Nate. Enthusiasm without Substance. I try not to watch any videos with him in it because of this bias. Regardless of what's really going on.. I can see some deceptive marketing material as anything but disingenuous now & view him a smarmy Narcissist. I can't help it.. I wanna be a better person with less judgement in my heart. But loading a bunch of visual content on a liquid poor foundation of code while the community that built the franchise was highly intelligent professional and gifted youths.. I had a step dad who was shaddy as he'll. He was a handyman that took jobs and never completed them.. boy he could talk a great game. I dispised his behavior growing up.. ans seem to now see him when I look at Nate. Sorry can't help it... Community Managers however were not to blame. A thankless job that was impossible to do, bc the proper tools (info) was not provided or allowed to be released.

I feel there was a balance they failed to hit (talking about direction as in the general sense of the finalized vision for the game). The heavy work on tutorials already tells you they were going for "we take this niche game and make it accessible to even more people, it'll definitely sell more." FS! followed on that by simplifying and linearizing the tech tree and having science be a single magic button, where you can absolutely skip even the timers so long as you hit it every time it flashes. Lastly, they also wanted to tell a semi-linear storyline through missions, discoverables and their lore. That part was really good, the new user onboarding was a magnitude better than KSP1. On the other hand, the game really required a strong technical foundation because by the time the difficulty curve of rocket launches and SSTOs is over, almost every player just goes big. Here is where to me they completely failed, by making a game that doesn't support this second bit. Of course now it'll all be woulds and coulds, but it's not hard to see that even without colonies we were already still finding the limits very easily (another example, another one, another). 8000 parts might sound like a lot on that bug report, but that's about a constellation of satellites, a couple rover missions, and a Jool 5 vessel. Meanwhile the game was supposed to allow you to do that on multiple star systems, whilst supporting trust under timewarp... and just no, the game could never be able to do that with the foundation it has. Also, as a last nail in the coffin, they forever handwaved the explanation of how Rask & Rusk (the binary system) were going to work. So yeah, we have a game built on flimsy foundations that they just outright refuse to talk about (remember the promises of HDRP and the system that'd replace PQS? I do), we have only the most basic stuff (yes, science and a tech tree is very basic, deal with it) implemented and none of the complex problems, and not just that but whatever little we have is already making those foundations quake... That's why you can google me saying "technologically bankrupt" multiple times. The balance they failed to implement in game by only including stuff for new people and nothing for veterans, was the same thing behind the scenes: they were doing only the easy stuff whilst completely neglecting the complex stuff and much less having the stones to talk about it. At this point I doubt they even had a plan past "cut everything down as manageable as possible", which is what net us all in one parts, gimped heating, the horrible coordinate reset on ground vehicles, and so on. I doubt they dropped anything in favor of a feature that probably never existed (yes, I saw the screenshot). I'm closer to believing they used multiplayer as an excuse to drop anything too complex/deep that might've further gimped the game's performance.

Hello! It’s been a while! I know that many of you have been wondering about the status of KSP2, so I thought I’d give you an update on how things are going. We have an incremental update on the way! The v0.2.2.0 update will address a number of common user experience issues, some of which have been causing frustration for quite a while. In many cases, a thing that was reported as a single bug (Delta-V calculations being incorrect, or trajectory lines being broken) were actually half a dozen or more closely related bugs. We identified a series of issues that we believed were negatively impacting moment-to-moment gameplay and the first-time user experience, and we dug deep into those bug clusters to make meaningful improvements. Some of those issues include: Parachutes don’t deploy reliably (doubly true when fairings are in the mix) Fairings don’t protect their contents from heating Trajectory lines in the map view sometimes disappear (often related to erroneous designation of craft as “landed” when in flight) Landed vehicles fall through terrain during time warp Maneuver nodes refuse to allow the player to plan beyond the calculated Delta-V allowance, which in many cases is an incorrect value We’ve submitted changes to address a number of these issues – in the case of the last one, we’ll just be letting you plan beyond your current dV allowance while we continue to improve our Delta-V accuracy over the longer term (there’s a very challenging set of problems to solve in the pursuit of accurate Delta-V projections for every possible vehicle that a player can make, so this is something we’ll likely be refining for quite a while). For this update, we’ve also prioritized a new kind of issue: in some cases, the first-time user experience is undermined by a failure of the UI to clearly communicate how to progress between phases of gameplay – put simply, we sometimes put new players in a position where they don’t know what they’re supposed to do next. We’ve received a huge quantity of very helpful user feedback in this area since the For Science! Update. For example, since most of us are seasoned KSP veterans, it never occurred to us that we hadn’t fully communicated that “revert to VAB” is a very different thing from “return to VAB.” We received a rash of bug reports from people who were confused about having lost progress after completing their missions and reverting to VAB. Yikes! Similarly, the lack of a clear call to action when a vehicle can be recovered frequently left new players staring at a landed vehicle and not knowing there were more steps to follow. We’ve made some UI changes to address issues like this, and we think the flow has improved as a result. Another usability issue that even catches me out on occasion -- trying to do illegal actions (for example, parachute deployment) while in time warp states other than 1x. In fact, we believe quite a few bug reports we’ve gotten about actions being broken have actually been the result of people attempting to do things under time warp that weren’t allowed. This is an area of ongoing work for us – not only do we need to do a better job of communicating to the player when they’re warping, but we also need to make clear what actions are and are not allowed under both physics and on-rails time warp. We’ve made some small UI changes to increase the player’s awareness of their time warp state, and we’re looking forward to seeing if those changes feel good to you. I know we talk a lot about the value of Early Access, but this is a great example of how your reporting helps us target our efforts. We still haven’t nailed down the exact date for this update, but we’ll notify you here once we’re on final approach. Most of our team continues to be pointed squarely at the Colonies update. We’re making a lot of progress this month on colony founding, the colony assembly experience, and colony gameplay mechanics. There are lots of interesting problems to solve here – some are super obvious (colony parts exist at a wide range of scales, and the Base Assembly Editor – the colony version of a VAB - needs to feel equally good when you’re connecting a small truss or a giant hab module). Other issues – for example, how vehicles interact with colonies on both the systems and physics levels – come with a lot of edge cases that need to be satisfied. We remain very excited about the ways colony gameplay will move KSP2 into completely new territory, and we’re definitely eager to see what our legendarily creative players do with these new systems. In parallel with our colony work, we’re continuing to find significant opportunities to improve performance and stability. We just made a change to PQS decals that got us huge memory usage improvements – mostly VRAM (this one is still being tested, so it won’t go into the v0.2.2.0 update – but I was just so excited about the improvement that I had to share): And of course, while all this work is going on, Ghassen Lahmar (aka Blackrack) continues to make big strides with clouds. Here’s a peek at some of the improvements he’s working on today (yep, that’s multiple layers)! And because the VFX team can’t ever stop making things better, they’ve begun an overhaul of exhaust plumes to bring them more in line with reality (which thankfully is also quite beautiful): Thanks as always for sticking with us as we work through each challenge – we couldn’t be more grateful to have your support as we move toward the Colonies era! Nate

Yes, Nate also said that this parallel workflow was speeding up subsequent releases versus the cadence of bugfixes... and that didn't happen, with 2 proposed bugfix releases before colonies having failed to even show up let alone have a date for the first one 4 months down the road. That's what I mean with "don't exist": They weren't there, even if under "muh parallel development" they were supposed to start working on stuff as soon as FS! left the dock. Once again, all they could show from colonies was static assets on editor scenes., same kind of hot air they were showing before release saying they had a full game. Allegedly, and that being considered only as a way to have some compassion to their work. Even if this is something they've actively denied and the people working on whatever was scrapped was... themselves still under the same leadership. Sure you could talk licenses, but it's useless if we don't know how much really was lost, that's a magnitude order more conjecture than whether KSP2 is currently dead. This + things like using the same middleware, and hitting the same walls as the prequel with the fuel flow calculations were heavily worrying.

KSP 1.12.x Kerbal Atomics [1.3.3] Last Updated January 22, 2022 This part pack is designed to provide some new nuclear thermal rockets for your spaceship-building pleasure. There are eight new engines, one in the 3.75m size class, four in the 2.5m size class, two in the 1.25m size class and one in the 0.625m size class. They are fuelled with LiquidHydrogen, and in some cases can use Oxidizer to boost their thrust at the cost of specific impulse. Liquid Hydrogen is less dense than liquid fuel, so for the same Delta-V, you will need more tank volume. To store your liquid hydrogen fuels, I've provided ModuleManager/B9PartSwitch configs that allow you to change the contents of stock tanks between LF/O, LH2/O, LF, O and LH2. These should work with most mod tanks, but no promises. However, Liquid Hydrogen is very temperamental and without the proper storage it will slowly evaporate ("boil off"). Therefore, I provide special cryogenic tanks bundled with the mod, that use a small amount of Electric Charge to stop the evaporation. This mod is designed to synergize well with Cryogenic Engines, and with the various Near Future Technologies mods I make. It is also fully integrated into the Community Tech Tree. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: RealFuels support? A: Talk to RealFuels people, not my issue. Q: Oxidizer isn't LOX, it's something else! A: You are completely free to do whatever you like and change it Q: How do I stop the engines from using LH2 and use LF instead? A: Install the NTRsUseLF patch in the Extras folder. Q: Why can't I refuel the Emancipator? A: It's a cheaty engine. It has a disadvantage. If you want to refuel it, you need to download NF Electrical and install the high complexity reactor integration patch. Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source If you appreciate this project, please consider contributing to my caffeine addiction! I really appreciate it, and also helps justify this time sink to my wife , which results directly in more models.

KSP 1.12.x Near Future Propulsion [1.3.5] Last Updated August 26, 2021 This pack contains advanced electric engines for deep space travel. Generally engines split into the following categories: Gridded Ion Engines: like the stock Dawn, they have low TWR and great Isp. They run on Xenon fuel. Hall Effect Thrusters: similar to Gridded thrusters, but with better TWR at the cost of some Isp. They run on Argon fuel and are pretty cheap! Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters: with the best TWR of all electric engines, these engines are very power-hungry. They run on Lithium fuel. Pulsed Inductive Thrusters: similar to Hall thrusters, they run on Argon fuel and have the unique ability to dump extra electricity into the engine, increasing Isp but generating more heat. VASIMR Engines: high tech and fancy, these engines run on either Xenon or Argon fuel. They can be tuned for high-thrust, low Isp operation, or low-thrust, high-Isp operation These engines are all very power hungry - use nuclear reactors or high intensity solar to get the power you need. Their balance has been finely tuned to work with stock mechanics and to extend the KSP experience, particularly in combination with the Community Tech Tree. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Q: The mod album shows parts that look old/don't exist. What's up with that? A: Keeping the gallery up to date is not super easy. I have it as an action item in the future but this takes time away from real modding. Q: Does this work well with KSPI-E? A: Talk to FreeThinker about this, he manages KSPI-E and its compatibility with NFT Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Community Resource Pack Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (Github) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future Electrical [1.2.3] Last Updated July 21, 2021 Ever wanted some futuristic energy generation that wasn't too... futuristic? I have you covered here. This pack contains: Nuclear Reactors: Turn Uranium into power! Attach nuclear reactors to your vessel and generate large amount of electricity. Ensure that you have enough cooling capacity with radiators for your reactors to work properly. Refuelling Parts: store extra uranium, reprocess it and extract it from Ore with containers and reprocessors. Capacitors: discharge for a burst of power! These parts can be charge up with normal generating capacity, and once activated will deliver a large amount of power to your ship's electricity banks. Very mass efficient! Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Does this work well with KSPI-E? A: Talk to FreeThinker about this, he manages KSPI-E and its compatibility with NFT. Q: The mod album shows parts that look old/don't exist. What's up with that? A: Keeping the gallery up to date is not super easy. I have it as an action item in the future but this takes time away from real modding. Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Community Resource Pack Dynamic Battery Storage Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future Solar [1.3.2] Last Updated July 21, 2021 This pack contains many concept solar panels to use on your ships and stations. There are many sizes ranging from small form-factor panels up to gigantic solar arrays. Additionally, some wraparaound solar panels are provided, for coolness. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.11.x Near Future Construction [1.3.1] Last Updated December 26, 2020 This pack contains a good number of skeletal trusses and construction type parts for building those near-futurish ships you see in concept art. You'll enjoy: A 1.25m size class triangular truss set A 2.5m size class octagonal truss set A 3.75m size class square truss set A 5m size class annular truss set Adapters and connectors galore! Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Q: The mod album shows parts that look old/don't exist. What's up with that? A: Keeping the gallery up to date is not super easy. I have it as an action item in the future but this takes time away from real modding. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future Spacecraft [1.4.3] Last Updated August 26, 2021 This pack contains a variety of parts for making crewed spacecraft. This means command pods. Pretty much just command pods, but also monopropellant engines in many sizes! Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Q: What is up with the RPM IVAs? A: Some exist but now require the ASET props pack to work. They only function for the older (Mk4-1, Mk3-9, PPD-1) pods. Q: The mod album shows parts that look old/don't exist. What's up with that? A: Keeping the gallery up to date is not super easy. I have it as an action item in the future but this takes time away from real modding. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Near Future Props Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future Launch Vehicles [2.2.0] Last Updated July 21, 2021 The latest and greatest (for size, perhaps) in launch vehicle components. This pack includes 5.0m Parts: a balanced and extensive part set that provides a new size of rocket parts. Comes with tanks, adapters, utility parts and specialized components for engine clustering. 7.5m Parts: an extra-large set of rocket parts for those huge constructions. Includes adapters, clustering, cargo and utility parts. Advanced Engines: several new rocket engines based on a whole set of concepts in the 0.625 to 3.75m sizes. Support Parts: new supporting parts that help enhance the large rocket experience, like heavy RCS thrusters. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch DeployableEngines Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future eXploration [1.1.2] Last Updated July 21, 2021 This pack contains a set of parts to help enhance and improve the KSP probe experience, particularly in the later game with larger probes. You will find: More Probe Cores: A set of eight new probe cores in medium (1.25m) and larger (1.875m) sizes. Probe Bus Parts: Cargo bay-like parts that match the footprints of most probe cores (stock and NFX). Useful for storing batteries, fuel and the like Probe Fuel Tanks: New multi-fuel probe tanks in stack and radial sizes that are in the vein of the stock Dumpling and Baguette More Direct and Relay Antennae: More antennae that seamlessly fit into the KSP CommNet system to fill in missing ranges and add more interesting options. Reflector Antennae: A new type of antenna that does nothing on its own, but instead bounces signal from another antenna to amplify its range. Point antenna at a deployed reflector to recieve the bonus. Available in many sizes. Small Probe Parts: A few small probe parts (battery, reaction wheel) to fill out the probe range Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Q: I'm using Remote Tech and something doesn't work! A: This mod is not compatible with RemoteTech. Some aspects may work but the reflector/feeder system would need to be reimplemented by the RT devs. Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (Github) Issue Tracking and Source KSP 1.12.x Near Future Aeronautics [2.1.1] Last Updated July 21, 2021 This pack contains large and powerful aerospace parts, such as jet engines, intakes, and nacelles. It was preciously part of the MkIV Spaceplane system but has been split off. Large Multimode Engines: Big (2.5m), powerful RAPIER-like engines for your wildest spaceplane needs. Large Jet Engines: Hefty 2.5m engines - turbofans and turbojets for big aircraft. Advanced Propeller Engines: Super-efficient low speed propfans and turboprops. Lift Fans: Designed specifically for efficient VTOL and available in many sizes, these engines can run on LiquidFuel and air, or be driven electrically for flight in oxygenless atmospheres. Nuclear Jet Engines: Massive, rewarding engines that let you fly almost forever! Large Nacelles and Intakes: Of course, 2.5m nacelles, engine pods, precoolers and advanced intakes to help out. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: CKAN Support Questions? A: Talk to CKAN folks, CKAN is not supported. This is because KerbalActuators, a dependency of this mod, is specifically NOT listed on CKAN. Q: Will you add a part I want? A: I have defined this mod as feature complete, and bugfixes are all I plan to add. Q: I don't like the balance of *thisPart* A: I appreciate suggestions from experience aeronauts for engine balance, it's not really my specialty (Sith lords are). Dependencies (Required and Bundled) Module Manager B9 Part Switch Community Resource Pack KerbalActuators DeployableEngines Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source Special Thanks A big hand to @Streetwind , who basically designed the balance for the whole NFT suite. If you appreciate this project, please consider contributing to my caffeine addiction! I really appreciate it, and also helps justify this time sink to my wife , which results directly in more models.

Yeah, it's not so much about how much money the studio can make, but about how much money it can be making in the nearest future. If a studio made a ton of money in the past, but has just released a game and will release the next one in 3-4 years, they'll still get the axe. The problem is that over the past few years, borrowing money was basically free for large businesses. If you weren't borrowing to open up a studio and spin up another project, you were leaving money on the table. Over the past year and a half or so, the fed rates climbed to a fairly high level. Suddenly, all these studios aren't free anymore - you're paying significant interest against the money you've borrowed, and anything that's not generating revenue right now basically becomes a significant drain. Consequently studios get cut left and right despite the publishers taking in a lot of money from sales. The only real conclusion we can make about the IG situation is that nobody expected them to release a polished, revenue-generating game within a year or so. And we sort of knew that from the state of Early Access. There's a game there, but it's not ready for the main marketing push, and won't be ready soon enough to offset the ongoing development costs if you have to pay interest on it. It's hard to say what exactly this means for the future of KSP2 without looking at the overall cash flow of T2, and hey, look at that, earnings call is coming up in a few days. They'll probably talk about IG and R7, but even if not, based on what they have in flight, what's bringing in money, and how much is going to the studios they currently have operating, we'll be able to get an idea of how much money T2 has to spend on smaller projects. Two likely possibilities is that either a) they've cut enough to have a small stream to afford a smaller 3rd party studio to take on KSP2 or b) they are waiting for some upcoming releases to bring in more cash. At the latest, we're looking GTA VI release, as that will inject a lot of capital to spend on other projects. That would mean development resuming in 2025-2026, though, with v1.0 coming in in 2026-2028? But unless the game just straight up gets canceled, which right now it doesn't sound like it will be, that's the worst case scenario. A lot of things can speed it up, and there might be a smaller studio PD is already talking to in regards to KSP2. We should have some idea soon. There is a grim possibility that KSP2 is already effectively canceled, and T2 just didn't want to make the announcement before the earnings call. In that case, we'll also know about it soon. I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I'd be remiss not to acknowledge it.

Including Iridium Next, New Horizons, Haven-1 and soon many more! (Check roadmap for what is coming) Join me on Discord! (DEV talk only) Tundra Exploration pics: Tundra Technologies pics: Planned features Roadmap Known issues "No tank type named 'RR_CryoMLOX' exists" means you have RR but not CRP, or you have RR, CRP, and WBI classic stock, and the WBI feature isn't working right. Make sure you have RR 1.16! Required Mods Kerbal Reusability Expansion (For the F9 legs and grid fins) B9 Part Switch (For part switching) Module manager (For all your module manager needs) Recommended Mods FreeIVA (So you can fly around inside Rodan and Gaira-1 parts! Modular Launch Pads (For those awesome towers) Waterfall (For those amazing plumes) Smokescreen (Realplume NOT required!) Flight Manager for Reusable Stages (For landing your F9 first stage) Omega482's Stockalike Structures NTR (For your Ghidorah landing needs) Basic DeltaV - Basic Orbit by DMagic (For better understanding of how much fuel you have to land all your crafts safely back) Tundra's Space Center (To launch from LC-40!) Near Future Solar (For the Solar Panel plugin if you want full 180 degree tracking) Not supported Mods Atmospheric autopilot FAR (Version 7.0 looks to perform a lot better) Beta versions on GitHub A very special thanks to @Beale, @CobaltWolf and @Nertea for the help and advise they gave me to make something awesome. And @DiscoSlelge for creating those awesome patches! And a massive thanks to @ValiZockt, @Rock3tman_, @Nessus_, @JadeOfMaar, @Starwaster, @neistridlar, @SofieBrink and @Infinite Monkeys for the help they gave me making this mod perfect! Changelog: Any of the configs are distributed under CC-NC-SA-4.0 License. All Textures/models/plugins are distributed under All Right Reserved License. SootyShaderLoader is based on the custom shader importer by shadowmage and modyfied by DMagic with custom modules and settings.

This is a pretty simple thread, you just talk about what you did today. It can be in games, but not ksp as there is a thread already for that. I went to our local mall because I have money from Christmas and wanted to see what I could get. I looked around, my indecisiveness led to me not getting anything. After that I looked for DnD books at a book store near us. I didn't do much else, a lot of sitting on youtube. I also have a bit of a sickness.

A digression about Factorio has been moved here. If you want to talk about that game, please take the discussion there.

Right. That's how business works. T2 will say nothing more until then, and there's no-one left at IG who is a position to talk: anyone still at their desk will be focused on tying up the loose ends and under a strict NDA. So - sad to say, but we have to twiddle our thumbs for at least another week.

TBH I do not understand this kind of stuff. A lot of people here talk like "the community" is a magical thing. I have read a lot of stuff how "this community is not toxic" or something. This community is not a static thing and changes because of external influences. Like the development of KSP2. Honestly the amount of praise "the communitiy" is giving themselves over here is next level cringe. And feels totally out of touch with realitiy.

The problem is that correlation between studio doing a good job with the resources they have and the revenue math is negligible. I mean, it's possible to very clearly and unambiguously be bad at things. If you took publisher money and went on a drinking spree and had absolutely nothing to show for it, yeah, sure. But drawing the correlation the other way, from failed projects to the quality of the team overall, is pretty much statistical noise. In practice, a lot more is determined by the conditions of the project and the IP. Did PD trust your project enough to give you a budget to hire the best people in the field? No? You're kind of boned. People the Intercept hired for physics were just out of academia and had very little game dev experience. They were good at physics, but very, very green in games. Networking engineers they had also never had to work with a game like KSP2. I don't think that's because Intercept just didn't know how to find talented people. They didn't have the budget to hire people who could hit the ground running on absolutely everything. Finally, the engine. The only reason it's a Unity game is because heavy reuse of the KSP assets and code was promised by Star Theory, like, seven years ago, and it's been sunk costs ever since. That limits people you can hire to a specific set of skills, because you make certain kinds of games on Unity, and they aren't KSP. It's a big part of why Intercept ended up having to hire modders. They knew how to work with Unity, how to make things for KSP, and they were probably within budget. Clearly PD wanted to make a game cheap. And the ambition they were sold on was not of a cheap game to make. Not a lot of it is on the studio that was created years after the decisions were made. Some of it is on the people who were at Star Theory from the start, but the majority of it has been PD decisions on how much they value the IP. And the game was still happening. It was a buggy mess, it was wildly off schedule, but we were seeing a game being built. Just not fast enough. Not selling enough EA copies. Not getting glowing enough reviews. Given the same constraints, I don't know if it was possible to do better. You can make a strong argument that people who ended up in charge of the Intercept should not have attempted to make KSP2 with these constraints. And, yeah, maybe? But to say they are a studio that deserved closing more than another studio because they decided to try is at a minimum a very cynical thing to claim. And I would argue unfair. And then there are so many factors on top of that. It's not just about money you've earned it's how much you're going to earn soon. Again, Tango Gameworks are a great example. Hi-Fi Rush went above and beyond. Critical success, glowing user reviews, and it recouped its development costs several times over. Studio gets shut down. At the same time, the studio working on Fallout 76, whose beta launch makes KSP2 EA look good and who are running a bill tens of times higher are allowed to keep going. Because they are maintaining a title that continues to make money, and Tango Gameworks would have to start working on another game that will maybe be as successful as Hi-Fi Rush four years from now. So a studio that performed great got shutdown, and a studio that's been making mediocre work, taking years to put 76 back on track and massively over budget is allowed to keep going. It ain't about the the studio's performance. It's about the resources, and IP, and a type of project, and what the higher management thinks it means in terms of revenue over the next couple of quarters tops. There are additional considerations and backroom talk that makes me think that some of the criticism towards Intercept leadership is deserved. But I would not have drawn this conclusion purely from how the development of KSP2 has been going. Knowing everything we've learned about the project over, eh, 2023 or so, they were always going to have to fight uphill. Some of it through more thorns than another studio, perhaps, but I have no reason to believe that any other studio working on the same budget would be able to make KSP2 good enough to not be cut at this point. And that's all that matters here. The rest is fluff and victim-blaming. [snip]

The CMs certainly are not at fault. They only acted within the scope of their abilities at any given time. Thay must have been a pretty excrementsty burden to bear... wanting to talk about really cool stuff thay was almost ready .. just need to figure this out or that.. and not getting to talk about it at all. I feel like the CMs kinda got the crappiest deal of all. The industry has exploded since early 00's. A vote based system to enter EA is longer relevant. And I know nothing is perfect.. a large group of angry incels could still slam whatever feature and initiate unfair action. But with people behind the oversight, this would be obvious. This sentiment has been fermenting for a bit over a couple (one) other titles I wanted to be excited about but feel developers employed less than genuine approach to EA. It may shape up to be alright in the end.. the massive breach of trust doesn't occur in the community over singular incidents. It's not like we freaked out over price, or routine delays in communication, then postponed delays of communication, lack of technical dev blogs, incinere AMAs... it was a culmination effect. @chefsbrian obviously titles with awesome customer relations and positive review rating would not be one brought to question. im not asking anyone to adopt a unilateral set of qualifiers for EA. Merely adhere to the standard each puts forth on their own EA store page. Each one answers certain questions about what EA means to them & how they intend to approach various benchmarks for the guidelines. There isn't even a scope set forth in the guidleines with a set of minimum acceptance criteria.. beyond game must be playable & not provide blatantly inaccurate info. There is no minimum required engagement for the community feedback nor a set bar for how frequent we should get announcements of any kind. But the development staff sets that expectation when they fill out the little questionnaire & it enters into writing. That is the first step of a relationship where trust Is a factor. That trust is based on what we read on that page. (Very few read anything outside the Steam page)

I totally agree, had another post above that Moonship was oversize for the initial landings. Now I would use another Moonship with an orbital module for the orbital moon station, it would be an fuel depot and even an rescue ship. But the BO lander is probably more practical but might likely more expensive / slower, SpaceX is testing Starship. Yes New Glen is less ambitions but its not SS more like falcon heavy as I understand. So you use your 18 wheel truck to buy an burger as its cheaper / faster than other options like taxi or meal delivery services. You obviously want SS for the base, they should also be pretty easy to turn into base modules. Then the talk ISRU and hydrolox become more relevant again.

Somebody had already ninja'd me on Reddit. But what about her box with husband's things. A pair of very small boots, and something like "He was fond of caring of this, could talk about them for hours" (at least in translation). Was her husband a leprechaun?

Well, truth be told I may be taking a little shortcut. We're getting close to whatever the end is, and frankly it's just more efficient if the main people who need to talk next can do it in the same room. Especially when getting visual effects right can mean an hour of flying people around in jetpacks, dealing with helmet bugs, and trying to orient bridge sets sunny-side up for better lighting etc., for just a couple of panels. If there's any concern about continuity etc., well I did hang a lampshade with the thread title. I was considering having Evil Bob throw even more snark than his "abusing crew transfers" comment by pointing out that the "turbolifts" are just part-clipped lander cans, and why couldn't he just transfer into a docked landing craft? Well if he could do that, why did the boarding parties have to burn through bulkheads etc. to get aboard? I'm certainly not going to explain it! This is why the author's crew compartment is as well-stocked with lampshades as KSP craft are with flags and EVA propellant. Who's to say? A couple of thoughts from a similarly mirrored situation: (1) It is far easier for civilized [kerbs] to behave like barbarians than it is for barbarians to behave like civilized [kerbs], BUT, (2) ruthlessly evil or not, it is possible to be a "[kerb] of integrity" in more than one universe.

I've been working on a CubeSat for the past 2 years, mostly software and testing, and we uploaded the final code onto it yesterday, it is flying to Texas for integration in a few hours, and will be launching into space on Cygnus NG-21 probably sometime in August, and ejected from the International Space Station probably in Fall or early Winter. (picture was very zoomed out, that's why it is a bit fuzzy, I zoomed in) This is CySat-1, a mission to prove the viability of measuring Earth's soil moisture levels using a software defined radiometer (and also to prove that an undergraduate led satellite program at our university is viable). There's many subsytems involved: Endurosat OBC, tells everything else what to do Endurosat UHF antenna and transceiver, how we talk to the satellite, has the worst documentation of any of the modules and took us a long time to figure out how to use. CubeSpace ADCS, has magneto-torquers, star trackers, Earth sensors, a magnetometer, GPS, and a reaction wheel to figure out where the satellite is and point it in the right direction. Endurosat EPS, manages power collection, the batteries, and power distribution throughout the satellite A breakout board with numerous electronic components soldered onto it for toggling power and converting voltages PumpkinSpace solar panels, we bought them (really expensive) after failing to build our own Analog Devices AD9361-Z7035 FPGA/SDR/SOM/whatever you want to call it. Power hungry computer that is only on sometimes, and runs our scientific program using GNU Radio and Python on an Analog Devices Linux Distro Analog Devices ADRV1CRR-BOB Carrier Board, holds the other Analog Devices board and distributes power and data to and from it Mini-Circuits Low Noise Amplifiers and Bandpass Filters to amplify the signals from the radiometer antenna A custom antenna for the radiometer And on the ground: An Ubuntu desktop computer running a GNU Radio flowgraph to talk to the satellite A software defined radio and antenna (we will get a bigger antenna in the next few months, the one we have is temporary) A Windows laptop running a python program (the ground station front end/GUI) to communicate with the Linux server I have been a programmer for CySat-1 for the past four semesters, programming lead for the past three semesters, and the only programmer for the last semester. My job has been to get these 7 computers made by 4 different manufacturers running 3.5 different operating systems in 2 separate programming languages talking with each other seamlessly. For the most part, we have succeeded, and the satellite has worked during short term ground testing. Unfortunately, we ran out of time for long term testing due to an issue with charging the batteries. This project has been one relentless string of failures and setbacks and frustrations, so long I'll probably make a video essay about it at some point. It felt like bashing my head up against a wall repeatedly only to find another wall on the other side, over and over and over again. I'm not very optimistic about our chances for successfully completing the mission, we have at least one possibly unresolved critical bug with no leads (and no time to fix), and given that we were discovering bugs literally up to and including the very last day, there's probably more we don't know about. But I learned a lot, enough that success is one of the possible outcomes. While it is supposed to do a lot more than beeping, I will be happy if it beeps. I'll be even happier if it will beep on command. Anything after that is purely bonus in my mind, especially given that half of university CubeSats don't even get a beep back, so I'm told. I'm proud of how much we managed to overcome, and that this thing finally got shipped off after years of delays, the satellite having been originally conceived sometime between 2002 and 2017 depending on what you take as the start date. That picture is an expression of equal parts "We finally finished it!" "Oh boy, what if I forgot something? What if it fails because I forgot to change a line of code, and I won't know for another six months!" and "What now? This has been my big thing for 2 years, where do I go from here?" In a really roundabout way, KSP is one of the reasons I found myself on this project. Part of that was just because it awakened my love for space, but another part of it was that the organization that manages CySat has a bunch of other project teams, one of which was a KSP simpit. I was on that project for one semester because a friend told me about it. When the KSP simpit project shut down, that same friend invited me to join CySat. It has certainly been an adventure that took me far outside my comfort zone. When I started, I didn't know a lick of C, and barely knew two licks of Python. I came in wanting to do structures/CAD stuff, as I felt that would be what I would suck the least at. But through a quirk of fate, got put on programming instead, something I did not at all feel confident doing. After a lot of pain and a lot of learning , the inter-computer links fell one by one, and we got it to a point where everything (discounting the single use stuff we weren't able to test) works in short term ground testing. While obviously we would have preferred to do more extensive testing, at this point, for a variety of reasons, we've just got to send it. About eleven years and about two weeks ago, I launched my first Kerbal into the sky, and now, a spacecraft I worked on is getting launched for real. Hopefully, when it gets up there, it shows up as a probe and not as debris!

The $20M is for just the launch, not the payloads. Several years ago, a SpaceX engineer giving a talk at a conference said their marginal internal cost was ~$25M a launch (I posted the vid here at the time, but it was pulled down—possibly because he talked about those numbers). This was long before they were flying 20 times+, and before they recovered fairings much if at all. So $20M seems pretty reasonable as a current ballpark.

Like the majority of the community, I am sickened by what is happening. I feel like we got bamboozled, even worse now than when TT put the game on sale 3 months after selling it at a premium price. I was pretty vocal then that it smelled fishy, and that it reeked of greed that the company would sell it at $50 to those of us who wanted it right away, but then decreased the price as a "sale" to get more buyers. It sounded like they were fishing for more revenue to justify keeping the lights on, and some of us were pretty loud about that. Couple that with the complete lack of communication we had to go through. EA, at its core, is supposed to be a way for developers and consumers to interact while a product is being developed, right? They push out an incomplete game, we buy it, we give feedback, they communicate that they've received feedback and are implementing x fixes, we get the updates, we give more feedback, they talk to us, round and round we go. Right? Not here. Not with KSP2. We begged for the company to talk to us. Tell it to us straight; we aren't going to be upset if you have to delay or come back and say that things aren't going the way you wanted them to. Just talk to us. That's all we asked. And they refused. They got our money and then left us in silence. Sure, we got a dev blog about this lighting issue, or eclipses. We had, at one point, the KERB to tell us what they were working on...but then they took issues off that list before stopping it altogether. All told, we were taken for a ride. And we paid for that privilege. The company said "Hey, we've got this thing that isn't done yet, but give us cash and we'll call it EA and you'll eventually be rewarded". And like horses to water, we lined up and shelled out our hard-earned money. Which they took, and then gave very little - if anything - in return. We paid for the right to be ignored and shut out of development news. We paid to have the community fractured, friends yelling at each other, and the company laughing at us the whole way. We paid to go through this. This exercise is exactly why I didn't get into EA releases with other games that are in my library. I only 1 time before entered EA or a beta-playing phase of a game before, and that was for Harebrained Schemes' Shadowrun. Which went off without a hitch, by the way. But even with that good experience, I had read too many times where things just fell apart and didn't work. Heck, I was close to going in on Cyberpunk, and I'm glad I didn't. But KSP? I couldn't resist. My better senses were telling me to wait, but my heart over-rode them. And Take Two broke it. All told, and to finally respond to what you wrote (I took long enough to get there, didn't I?), I doubt anyone gets a refund. Doesn't matter if you went Epic or Steam, the refund "rules" are pretty clear: less than 2 hours played, less than 2 weeks after purchase. And TT will hide behind that as a way to make sure they don't have to fork the cash back over to Steam or Epic. It would be a nice gesture if they did...but it won't happen. That money is already pocketed and spent (so to speak). So what can we do? Nothing. Not a damned thing. Sure, we can post and protest. Sign one of the petitions going around right now. Take up coding and try to create your own game if you must (even I downloaded the Unreal Engine last night and am going to give it a whirl). But nothing we do is going to amount to anything. We aren't going to change their minds, we aren't going to get our money back, we aren't going to be able to save the franchise or the studio or the employees who are out of jobs. Nothing we do in the end will matter. Where does that leave us? Hopefully being cool to one another. Perhaps talking about KSP1. Maybe finding other games to enjoy. But KSP2? Gone before your time, and we barely knew ye.

I think my main concern that causes me to question definitions of harm is people being overbearing. I think people (above the age of consent/legality or whatever) should be allowed to make their own decisions, but given a good education of the pluses and minuses of the possible choices at hand. Unfortunately I feel people (at least my age, early 20s) don’t really get taught the skills necessary to properly weigh pros and cons and end up going more with their emotions. It’s hard to find the balance between a warning and an order. I am terribly sorry but I must now correct myself. I was using the wrong term. Some families in Nepal practice polyandry, not polygamy, although polygamy can be found in Nepal too, it is not what I studied about. The way it works is one wife usually marries an entire family’s brothers. The husbands are not drawn from different families. Tension is mainly around personal issues. It’s been several months since the anthropology class and I don’t seem to have taken notes on the subject, but I recall that having two males helps raise lots of farm hands and keep the population stable. I’ve found the TED Talk I watched during my studies. I don’t know if it’s okay to post it, so just Google “Are five husbands better than one TED Talk” and you can find it if you’re interested.

This is something I and others said multiple times throughout EA. I think a lot of anger at the communication/CMs was misplaced disappointment with the development speed. If the game was fun and developing quickly they could’ve talked as much or as little as they wanted. You don’t really need to have a big dev interview once a month if there’s a content update once a month to show what the devs have been up to. A KERB update post is easily replaced by weekly patches with detailed patch notes. Then they can talk a lot, nearly not at all, be sassy like the Wendy’s Twitter, be very proper or whatever other style they want and it wouldn’t really matter. The frustration always stemmed from this being the slowest progressing EA game I think any of us have ever played. With the devs not active (for the most part) interacting with the community that frustration was expressed to the CMs, and eventually it became (unfairly) frustration at the CMs.

Did you really put the "Terrain Implementation" along the Pros of this game ? Damn, it looks so aged, so outdated, so clunky, so weird, inhomogeneous, unaesthetic, etc. Especially with the harsh lightning which got quite improved by the last Blackrack efforts, but I find the terrain to be so 2015, technically speaking, and very not beautiful as an art decision (which is more personal opinion). The only way to get it "OK-Ish" is to compare it to Stock KSP1. But doing so, well, I won't elaborate further, it is nonsense to me as it's just the literal bare minimum. Terrain is very precisely what I was expected the most, because it would mean a LOT for this game, even gameplay wise, with proper collision, scenery, landscape to discover, etc etc, I've already repeated that so many time and now there no point to get to it again. Really, terrain and scenery is the key for a proper KSP2... Everything else fade out compared to what it can bring to the table. Look at the trailer again if you want to talk about it, I don't find much people sharing my opinion so I would gladly elaborate again, finally, if there is some people who want to debate that subject.

At this point, not surprised, just disappointed. I knew this was a mess on launch but I gave them my $50 anyway because I wanted to support it. But clearly someone high up said to shove this out to early access way too early and unstable and feature incomplete to inject cash into someone's pocket. It should have been at least as feature complete as KSP1 before launch, if not have 1 of the new flagship features or 2, like multiplayer or colonies, or physicalized asteroid belts, you know, the trailer bait. I hope the project lives on in some productive fashion, either in another studio or made open source. From the offset though for my part the problem seemed to be Unity and how it was implemented. KSP2 never made significant stability changes to how KSP1 worked, large craft would still bring supercomputers to a crawl etc. and it didn't help that the game implementation was, hey, stack 30 of this same part together and let it all wobble every tick. There didn't seem to be much tricks used under the hood to make the game stable, because it can't decide if it's a space crash simulator or a space program game. So lo and behold, let's calculate all these trusses every tick, let's not lightweight these parts/payloads hidden behind a faring at launch, and watch framerate go poo and watch things spontaneously wiggle themselves into a billion pieces, let's make it practically impossible to maintain fixed orbits for all your relay sats because of floating point error, etc. - those kinda issues bug me more than a lack of multiplayer and colonies, the base game should be running and operating a lot smoother, and a lot more like a refined game that knows what it wants to be. Extremely Weird. It leaves the community to run wild with our thoughts and no direction, and the silence is deafening. If there was short term hopefulness for the direction of the game you'd anticipate an official word from someone at the studio other than the boilerplate 'talk when we can lol' that we have. It leads to deductive inferences, like either nobody at the studio can talk competently about the future of the project, or because they are part of the layoff, they don't want to, like the community manager appears to have effectively said 'no, I'm not polishing this turd for the higher ups anymore, I'm mentally checked out, have to figure out how I'm going to eat this July.' And that would be completely understandable, despite frustrating as a supporter? backer? gamer? customer? victim? mark? In this debacle. And the corpo statement just reads as 'no no no this wasn't a rugpull, please don't delist our game and issue millions of dollars of refunds, new infrastructure update in 2 weeks! Make Kerbal Great Again!' For all we know it boils down to putting the game in maintenance mode and keeping it propped up like Bernie from Weekend at Bernies.