Meecrob

I bet we are all pretty smart people here to be able to get orbital mechanics and all that. I think its hilarious how people like myself can be kinda smart, but say really stupid things sometimes. Brings me back to Earth when my ego is going out of control haha. Edit: I have to say your reply makes me happy; I never meant to be mad at you, I was annoyed at the state of the game. I'm glad we get eachother.

No, dude, go back to that chart and multiply any of those numbers out. They do not add up because they do not account for R & D. They said the contract costs "x" and also the cost per flight is "y." They didn't say that they included all contract costs in the "per flight" costs. Or maybe I'm wrong and its not R & D, but something else. My point is that they never said that y times the number of flight articles equals x. I agree SLS is extremely expensive for its capabilities, but lets base our criticisms in reality. Edit: This is what I'm talking about. On 10/16/2023 at 4:16 PM, RCgothic said: 1 Exploration Upper Stage for Artemis IV Contract Value: $9.7B Number of articles: 1 Cost per SLS1B: $482m That isn't how maths works. NASA keep trying to pretend tax dollars spent on R&D don't count, but actually they do.

Could you expand on that? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you didn't give a real reply. Like I want to understand what you are saying.

I'm just breaking your balls here, but formatting!!! Don't think twice about my bad joke, I got what you meant. I think we are on the same page. And look, I'm sorry for replying to you before in a bad way...we all love KSP here...I admit I was wrong. I think we all just want this game to mature. Edit: I just realized that your formatting is probably correct, but I'm on my second computer and its got a 4:3 aspect ratio and your formatting probably is perfect for a 16:9

I'm sorry, I was a bit salty in my comment. I don't mean to pick you out, @Periple, We are just on opposite opinions...like I'm sure you are a cool person to hang out with...we just have a difference of opinion, I think. Haha laugh at me cuz I just double posted! I suck.

Oh, so its my fault that they hyped up a game that is nowhere close to release? Look at buddy on his high horse here...like c'mon man. This game is not game yet. Its an alpha riding on the coattails of its predecessor. You cannot deny the fact that they are dealing with the same issues that KSP1 did before 1.0. Like they don't seem to be able to learn from the mistakes of others. We all love flight here and one of the most well known quotes is "you don't have enough lives to make mistakes...learn from the dead." You blame us for buying into the hype, but you don't blame the people releasing this turd of a product and hyping up a turd? Let's be real here. I'm a consumer. I am willing to pay money for decent products, and this product is not decent. I remember back in the day you used to crap all over KSP1...and now KSP2 is out, it sounds like you have been bought to say it doesn't suck.

No, its not. If you were running ArianeSpace, it might be, but you aren't. Their goals are not your goals. Simple as that. Everyone tells you what reality is and you reject it. That's fine in a fantasy world, but we are talking about reality. And reality is that ArianeSpace doesn't want to do what you want them to do...and I think that's fair.

I can only speculate, but I suspect it was a slight delay in igniting one of the boosters for the boostback burn. Even a millisecond of delay means the lagging booster will always be travelling slightly slower than the leading one. Over the entire trip back, the error could stretch to a few seconds as we saw. Again, just speculation.

The contract value does not equal the Cost of Deliverables per Launch. There would be no reason for NASA to award these contracts if they could just go to the store and buy all these items off-the-shelf with zero R & D required. One of the main reasons that SLS costs so much is because they cannot just use Shuttle parts. Its probably very much akin to how Falcon heavy is not just 3 Falcon 9's strapped together.

Hey I just stumbled upon this game, Flyout, it looks really interesting, check it out:

Give me $50 worth of entertainment and I wont. Simple. This EA is not on track...or what did they say? Velocity is good? To a turtle maybe. Don't rip me off and I won't complain. Why is this a "me" problem when the game objectively is not even at pre-release KSP1 levels of features and playability? If they charged like $15 or something, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

I don't want to cause an argument. Have a great day.

Yeah, logically you are correct. But game companies like Take 2 spend hundreds of millions of dollars emotionally hyping people up to buy their games. Call me an idiot for buying into their hype, but please do not call me out for calling them out for a sub-par product.

I was about to edit my comment to say I was joking, same as you. I'm still trying to find reasons to believe this game will turn out well anymore.

Yeah, I said two years. And i think you are painting yourself into a corner here. Like if this game isn't good in two years, you are wrong, I was just guessing, lol.

I approve it...but I'm clearly on the detractors side. Your comment is very valuable...its your first (Welcome!) and you decided to state you are kinda not pleased. I also had higher expectations. Lots of us did. Like its almost even not the price, even though it stings, it that this is a cheap facsimile of KSP. I just want the franchise done justice.

Exactly. We are upset because we want to see this game be amazing and there does not seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. Edit: I think need to remind people that KSP1 had a messed up road to 1.0 including obvious shortcuts taken to make a date. This is eerily similar to KSP2, only this time its a proper video game studio, not a media company that had a game land in their lap with no prior experience in games. I only say it so someone doesn't reply with "but KSP1 was this and that"

Look, I totally agree with you on like 95% of EA games. This one, however, seems to be in trouble. I've bought a couple others that ran into problems. The symptoms are uncannily similar with KSP2. It would be different if KSP2 was literally only KSP1 and we were complaining there are no colonies or multiplayer. Remember, we are currently arguing about a game about orbital mechanics that cannot even get orbital mechanics correct. A game about rockets, that cannot make them rigid. A game where the first one encouraged exploration at the launch complex, and this one doesn't even have colliders for the stairs. A game that basically put all its eggs in the basket of attracting new players with slick tutorials, but forgot the game. Debate what you want to call it all you want. Personally, I think its a turd in its current state. I know I'm not some outlier with my opinion. "Active development" is very generous. Let me ask you a question; when do you think 1.0 will drop?

Nah, he presents it as if it is a third party. He never says "I've expanded upon my opinion, link here," he slides it in like its someone else came up with his hypotheses, and he is just relaying information. Also: Dude, what? They need more money and you suggest they blow the bank on a manned program? You realize they can't just "Lego" an existing capsule to Ariane 6, right? Exactly. The government thinks something is worth throwing money at. The point is not immediate commercialized ROI at all. Europe wants the ability to toss up satellites and not have to tell anyone what their business is. That costs money, and even though they are probably kicking themselves for not developing reusable tech, they are willing to maintain the capability no matter the cost. Its a government organization. Expect them to make moves when the commercial players prove or disprove reusable methods in the near future.

I think ArianeSpace is in the position they are in because it is a jobs program and not a commercial for-profit organization. The point of Ariane 6 isn't to compete with Falcon 9, it is to maintain a knowledge base for rocketry in Europe. I'd venture a guess that if you make a rocket reusable from the get go, it will be cheaper than Ariane 6 no matter what engine choices they make. Also, you cannot use your own blog as a reference. "According to me, I am correct" is not how science works.

So basically you expected a turd of a game? Thats cool bro. Most people get upset when they spend $50 on a turd. You can say "EA" all you want, but after all this time, there is not any noticeable movement on the roadmap. I honestly wouldn't even be upset if they came clean and said something like "we need 2 years to fix this" then at least we would have a real roadmap. Don't abuse your fans. Tell them the truth. Its not difficult.

Its a valid concern given the price of the "game." What is being funded? The money we tossed at this project was supposed to help it get developed. We have seen very, very little progress after almost a year. Edit: I'm not sure why anyone trusts Nate on anything. I mean I get you have done a born again KSP2 enthusiast thing, but it is fact that what Nate says has little bearing on reality.

If it was a disconnect, I'll drop it also, I hate running in circles. I get not caring anymore. Look, somehow both of us are here now...I just hope you have a good night...same with everyone else who reads this! Lets pretend I am correct for a second, its not much fun being correct with nothing to do about it. I cannot say I have a better idea...like nothing nobody else hasn't thought of before. I cannot claim anything here.

Um, no. Put your strawman away. I don't think its KSP yet. You think it is...that's cool, I won't argue.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. As a consumer, I am buying a game for my amusement. whatever else is extra. I'm happy if devs have fun making the game, but like come to reality bro..I don't expect my clients to understand my side, I just give them a good experience. That's kinda the point of being paid for your services...Clients are happy...