All Activity

I've always hoped that a modern planet pack like this existed! Best of luck to you, and this is an instant download!

First off, I’m glad you like the game. Your view is valid. So is mine that the game is not currently (and with the news unlikely to ever be) fun. On this quote I can agree with you. Doesn’t matter if it’s dev or publisher, the misleading communication to the community will lead to a breakdown in trust. And the publisher gave a 70ish member team longer than the indie devs got, and got less accomplished. After multiple delays. I’m with you that personal attacks and harassment is wrong, but let’s not act like the world is as black and white as dev=good and publisher=bad. They are currently missing, whatever your thoughts on nearly a week of radio silence after the news may be. The features we were told would be in the game in 2020 still aren’t. There is yet to be any new gameplay mechanic or feature that the first game didn’t have, outside of procedural parts and multiple craft in the VAB. Couldn’t disagree more. For the first time it is being reviewed as is and not based on hope for the future. Even “recommended” reviews say in their review that they wouldn’t recommend the game as is. Is KSP2 unplayable garbage? No not at all. But it’s a more expensive and buggier version of the previous game with a facelift. With the available comparison I don’t think negative reviews are surprising. An EA game is a risk, and we knew that buying it. But I don’t know of any EA game that fails to finish its roadmap that gets good reviews. That’s not an unfair reason to negatively rate the game. What’s the view comparisons to KSP1 videos? I don’t think this is a binary indication of a game being “fun” and an imperfect gradient but if we do look at it as a gradient it seems to be way less community engagement/ total fun than the predecessor. Sequels that are less good than their prior entry (even if not outright terrible as I agree there is some fun in KSP2) are usually not rated highly. This seems like straight forward victim blaming. It’s not the one unable to keep timelines and promises who is at fault, it’s the person who believed in those timelines. All of us who spent money on this game, we are why it failed. Not that it’s literally the only EA game I can even think of to only have one content update over more than a year, but the fans who noticed and complained. Is that really what you’re trying to say? Please explain further because that line of reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. These reviews are for precisely that reason. Someone not online who wants to buy this game should know that it seems highly likely development has ceased. If the publisher didn’t want this to happen they should have clearly communicated sometime in the last week. As it stands, a warning to future buyers is justified. And, idk how bad reviews for a game with no studio is how the game fails, and not the fact that the game now has no studio. Again I think you’re putting the cart in front of the horse. I never buy EA games. At least not for years. When this game came out I said that if it all went up in flames I would rather have been the fool who lost $50 and tried everything I could to support the game and have it still fail than have been a bystander. (Probably makes me an easy mark, but don’t worry there’s no other franchise I care about to this degree won’t be happening again) I bought the game knowing the risk. I did not review the game for months as the only honest review would be negative. I have been actively trying to give feedback on this game since day one. I may be grumpy sometimes but please show me where I have ever cursed out or attacked the devs or a fellow community member. Again I’m not perfect, I’m not saying I’m in but I genuinely don’t think I could be characterized as a hater. I’ve been passionate but (mostly) respectful. I apologize for all slip ups. But what more could I have done other than bought it, given a really long time before leaving a negative review, and trying to actively give all feedback I could? (Outside of bug reporting. I didn’t have interest in doing that and also paying for the product, so I’ll give you that.) But My point being is I’m giving you all of these views as an active contributor with the opposite view. I don’t think your a shill, so I hope this has fulfilled your request for honest engagement and why I personally disagree with your view that the community is at fault.

Then some people (maybe not you) would complain about how unplayable anything below 144fps is and use that ans an excuse to hate. Really some people today use everything they come up with to hate the game. I often do VTOL planes and thus have to keep close eyes on both altitude and vertical velocity. KSP2 solves that problem so I perfer its UI.

I am looking for a mod that allows converting ships into KK statics or other physics-less objects, while retaining the ability to turn them back and interact with the parts. The use case for this is alleviating ludicrous amounts of lag with ground base. Any suggestions?

lmao.

You're absolutely right about having little recourse. And that is unfortunate. But we could have also just asked for a refund. But I'd like to address each of your points individually? 1. Expectations raised by Intercept Games: While there are plans to implement certain things in the future, I personally didn't feel like there were any false expectations made. I got exactly what I expected to get. Can you provide some specific examples of expectations that were set and not delivered upon? 2. Expectations raised by the relative high quality of KSP1: Sure, but KSP1 was not always like this. Though, Early Access wasn't technically around back then, but if it had been we might expect that it would have been around the time that KSP1 was no longer free, which was version 0.13.3 demo back in March of 2012. The latest version was 1.12.5 in January of 2023. It took 11 YEARS of active development to get KSP1 to where it is today. KSP2 only released in Early Access on Feb 23', just over a year ago. 3. EA launch at full price: A fair criticism, I agree. Most games do Early Access at some kind of reduced price - but not all. Look at Star Citizen, for example. Their "Early Access" costs $60 at the bare minimum, and in some cases is thousands of dollars, depending on the package you get, all for an incomplete, buggy game that may never release. Same as KSP2 was not that long ago. There are some MMOs that have done this too, for example, Ashes of Creation recently sold Alpha-2 access for about $350. So while it's somewhat rare for singleplayer titles, the pricing is not unheard of either. 4. IG's initial apparent attitude of "we don't care what you think and we're not in a rush to fix it. Besides, there's nothing to fix, the game is great!!": I never got this impression, especially the "we don't care what you think" part, but they may have a point about not being in a rush to fix it. It's far better to take your time and make sure you do something correctly than to try to rush it in, especially in a game with tens of thousands of lines of code, where a single change can introduce dozens of bugs in seemingly unrelated features. I'd always urge caution over speed myself as well. And I do agree, the game IS great. It is. It's not done, but what IS done, is enjoyable. 5. First update took forever and fixed very little. And then the pace went down even further.: True. I think T2 may have pushed the game to have been released in Early Access long before it was actually ready to do so. Publishers do this too often, sadly. So the team crunches to get out a minimum viable product, knowing that they really needed many more months to even come close to what they wanted to release to begin with. Communication could have been better, I agree. They might have the same "issue" that most of us developers do - assuming that your customer understands the process even a fraction as well as we do. Mostly, they don't, and we (as developers) need to be better at understanding that and communicating in a way that is clear to everyone, not just those with technical or industry knowledge.

Floor 4833: a kitten doing cute kitten things 222105072024

Banned cuz ban! 222005072024

You guys are really arguing about where the nav ball should be on a dead game?

The possible cancellation of Kerbal Space Proram would cancel several Human Space Programs based on it.

Review bombing was sourced by a couple of factors, among them: Expectations raised by Intercept Games Expectations raised by the relative high quality of KSP1 EA launch at full price IG's initial apparent attitude of "we don't care what you think and we're not in a rush to fix it. Besides, there's nothing to fix, the game is great!!" First update took forever and fixed very little. And then the pace went down even further. Customers have very little recourse when they feel wronged. Especially when their grievances on social media (the forum, discord) are seemingly ignored. They're angry. Yes, it's not productive but what else can they do?

Floor 4832: A bird with a beard.

Semi-granted. You get only one douse. I wish for optional IR and UV vision.

Banned for using both indefinite and definite articles with the plural of "n". a the ns

delta-entropy =by definition= - delta-information (in the thermodynamical sense of it)

Ya'll read the title. Silence is allowing this community that i have been a part of and loved so much to implode with panic and doom of the death of this franchise. I am starting to agree with them. For the sake of the community, @Intercept Games@Nate Simpson need to say something beyond "we are still working on the game". At least give us closure if the worst is to come, to allow us to move on and return to KSP1. Don't let this failure define this franchise.

Mi-10Krane It's a modded Mi-10.

Okay okay, I know, my take is probably a bit of the "underdog" here. But for a moment, I'd like us to be a bit objective. Was the Early Access launch plagued by performance issues and unusably wobbly rockets? Yes, it was. But that was fixed. Sure, maybe not on a timeline that many were happy with, but as a software engineer, I can tell you that development is HARD. That's not "apologetics", it's a fact. Unforeseen issues and technical challenges come up ALL THE TIME in development. You don't know what it is that you don't know until you hit those issues. Besides just development hitches, which are normal and expected, it does also seem quite likely that the timelines were being dictated by Take-Two, who as the publisher, has their own agenda (and very little understanding of actual software development). Often times, these large publishers push development teams to hit release dates and patch windows which are just not feasible, and to make announcements that such things will be released in a certain period of time. But in reality, that's not how that works. Sure, Nate (and others) may have been pushed by T2 to say things like "x feature is coming in y months or so", when in reality that feature could realistically require a year (or more) to flesh out properly. So again and again, he (at their direction) makes statements, and those statements turn out to be impossible to deliver on time. And the team ends up crunching to hit those deadlines, which causes bugs to be introduced, and things to work all "janky". I've also been on the Project/Program Manager side of development, so I am confident in saying these things. The developers truly care about getting working features out. For the dev team (Intercept), the product is something they (we) take pride in. We WANT it to work, and we WANT you to enjoy it. The PMs and Publishers, on the other hand, only care about quotas, deadlines, and margins. So it's pretty easy to see where the blame lays, regarding those bugs and "missed" (unrealistic) expectations that were set. Now, with that out of the way, let's look at KSP2 as a whole. Forget the "missing" features, because they are not "missing", they are "planned". Just because they are not there yet, does not change the quality of what we have. And what we have is a really nice, now well-performing, beautiful, user-friendly KSP2, with tech trees and progressions, a large number of parts to play with, and a lovely Kerbolar system to fly around in. Those things that are there, for the vast part, work as intended, and are a joy to use. I myself now have nearly 550 hours in game, and an enjoying the hell out of it. I play it almost daily, for a few hours at a time. I've not had any game-breaking bugs, or anything else that prevents me from honestly enjoying it, exactly as it is. Also, the game IS modable. Personally, I am using the K2D2, Flight Plan, Science Arkive, Micro Engineer, CommNext, and Orbital Survey mods, all under BepInEx and SpaceWarp. And they too work nicely, providing an expanded experience to my game. With these mods, and the "For Science!" addition, we have PLENTY to do. And so, I am not exactly sure why this game has such negative reviews... Do I want the Colonies, the Interstaller Update, and additional star systems to go explore in? Obviously! That stuff would all be really cool! But we didn't have those in KSP1 either; only mods allowed that to happen. Really, the only core feature that we do not have in KSP2 that was in the original is a career more, and that (if I recall correctly) was never going to be added into KSP2 anyhow, and thus is a moot point. So it seems, to me at least, that all these negative reviews (which are supposed to be of THE GAME) are not warranted. From reading the reviews, it's not the state of the game itself which is/was being reviewed negatively, but rather, either the way that communication regarding progress was handled, or, peoples misunderstanding of what Early Access IS and means. Regarding the first point - communication - that's understandably frustrating, but unfortunately, these communications were in large part dictated by what the publisher (T2) wanted said, and when and how they wanted it to be said. If false promises were made regarding release dates and timelines - that's the publisher. If communications were not as frequent as they otherwise should have been - that's also the publisher's decision. Secondly, is Early Access. Now, we can make all the arguments that we want, but what we paid for is exactly what we got. It's right there in the name! "Early. Access". We bought "Access" to play a game "Early". Which means "before it's ready". Obviously, it may (will) have bugs. YES, we ARE participating in their beta testing. YES, our feedback IS needed to incrementally improve the game. YES, there likely WILL be plenty of broken things, missing features, performance issues, and other challenges which can make the game less enjoyable to play. But that was our choice. WE chose to buy "Early. Access" to this game, because we didn't want to wait for it to be ready. We didn't want to wait for release, when all of the planned features were done, and polished, and the game ran like butter, and all that jazz. WE wanted to play it, and we wanted to play it NOW. Early. In "Early. Access.". We did NOT pay for a completed working product with all of it's planned features. We did pay to play the development builds of this game, early. And we got what we paid for. I am sorry if some of us had a different expectation of what "Early" "Access" means. But it's generally been a pretty clear term to most people involved with video games for a number of years now. Steam even attempts to make sure we know by requiring every game to require a disclaimer regarding "Early Access". That's directly from Steam, and it's on every Early Access title's store page. We knew what we were buying. And if you didn't... somehow... after all of that... well, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty clear to most of us. But I digress. Anyways, NEITHER of those two reasons (for the negative reviews) change the fact that we have (currently) a very enjoyable to play successor to KSP1. Plenty of YouTubers have been playing it for literally thousands of hours now, and have built their entire channels off of it. If the game "sucked" that much, they wouldn't waste their time. - let's just be real about that, okay? So, if the game itself isn't the problem, why did it fail? In my opinion, the community. Us. Review bombing the game, writing angry posts, lashing out at other community members, trash talking the development team and community managers, personal attacks against Nate Simpson, etc.... NONE of this lent itself towards a positive outcome for KSP2. What did we EXPECT would happen? We left a crap-ton of negative reviews on the "EARLY ACCESS" game on Steam, and absolutely demolished it in the discussions threads, both of which are the first place that perspective new buyers look, causing otherwise interested buyers to stay away, hurting sales numbers, and ultimately making the game fail. So yes, I will forever blame the community for causing this outcome. And it's not to point a finger and take out my frustration; it's so that hopefully, we look at ourselves a little closer, and realize that maybe our interactions have a larger impact than we thought. And maybe WE should take more care to support the games we care about, and those involved in making them. Now, please let's be kind and respectful in any comments below. Let's act like adults, and show everyone (and each other) that we know how to be civil. If you disagree with what I've said, that's fine, I am happy to discuss our differences in opinions. But let's HAVE a discussion. A real one. Let's use as much objectivity as possible, and try to not let emotions get in the way? Also, please do me a favor? If you DO agree, and you haven't already given Kerbal Space Program 2 a positive review (on Steam), go do that now. Show Kerbin some love. Show the developers your support. Show Take-Two that they are wrong. NOTE: I am in no way affiliated with Take-Two Interactive, Private Division, or Intercept Games, other than just being a long time fan of the Kerbal Space Program series, and an (otherwise, except for the development cancelation) very satisfied player of a game I dearly enjoy.

I'd say they both did about as poorly, just that the amateurs were spared an axe dangling above them.

To a lot of people. I'm juggling games because they both show ways to tackle the same basic interface, and KSP 2 happens to do a better job. Goodbye

Only Starliner relevant because it's the payload, this is a ULA issue:

I'll take a stab. The gaming development amateurs shot for the building across the street (the original plan was 2 dimensional and the first released game didn't have an actual Sun) and missed, hitting the moon (which was actually in the game along with Kerbin, that was about it). They just kept tacking on new stuff until the game was so big and unwieldy, they had no choice but to stop. The pro studio [sic ] saw what the goofball amateurs did and thought they could make a game 4 times bigger with massive interconnected systems. They started from the standpoint where the game had to be ready for all these systems before it was ever released... and they never ever got there. It may be just that it can't be done (at that scale, though dialing back maybe it would work). It may be that it can but they can't do it (though I see no one else stepping up). All I do know is that it didn't happen. Maybe in 10 more years someone will try again. Maybe computers will be good enough then to run it. Maybe maybe maybe.

*To you. Once again though, you started this by bemoaning the KSP1 navball so lets either stick to that or just knock it on the head because you're juggling games like it's a cirus to try and 'win'. EDIT: Yeah, I will just knock it on the head. This will all be gone in the morning and it's just a waste of keypresses at this point... Stay happy @Bej Kerman

System specs? The only thing the log shows is that you have a GTX 1050... and not even the Ti version. Just strictly guessing off of your GPU, I'm assuming your CPU is fairly underpowered for KSP and you're probably struggling with a very small amount of RAM. (Would also be helpful if you supplied the KSP.log)

But placing it to the side was an improvement.