Meecrob

I apologize in advance for not reading the whole thread, but I am bursting at the seams to say this; Does anyone else think that maybe Nate Simpson does not know what KSP is? I cannot help but shake the feeling that he thinks landing on the Mun and making an explosion is the end goal when the rest of us are trying to do a grand tour. This is not meant to be a takedown...deep in my heart I believe he was trying to do his best, but sometimes people are out of their depth, promoted beyond their abilities. The real people I am upset with are the people higher up than him that did not see the limits of his ability. I believe he would be a great member of the KSP2 team, just not the leader. Please tell me how I am wrong, I genuinely wish to be wrong on this.

I don't think so. SpaceX has the capacity to build more new boosters if there was an issue with refurbishing existing ones in time for their next launch. The fact of the matter is that its a small miracle that any rockets launch at all; so many things have to go according to plan, or you risk a RUD. Imagine what your comment would be if this Falcon Heavy blew up on the pad, or shortly after liftoff because they were not as diligent with their checks.

No, rockets scrub for a million reasons. Why do you immediately assume it is an issue with the reuse feature, without finding out what happened?

I must have not been clear with what I said. My apologies. There may be agents using balloons to do something...and the government is just saying "We want all reports of anything out of the ordinary, and we understand that there will be kooks who want the spotlight, and we will humour them, because it will encourage non kooky people to report things."

I think the recent interest in UAPs might be in part due to the Chinese balloon incident. Now the US knows it should shift some of its focus from high tech satellites and spy planes to low tech balloons, many of which can be too small for radar but are visually evident if you are in the right location to spot them. They are basically crowdsourcing aerial detection. Now this Grusch guy has come out and they don't want to just shut him out, even though he does kinda seem like a kook out for attention, because that would deter people from reporting UAPs they think might be aliens, but in reality could be spy balloons. Again, this is just a theory.

I believe they did not include heavy meal detectors on missions to the lunar south pole because we do not require heavy metals such as uranium to survive on the moon, but we do need water and other volatile organic compounds to survive. NASA is putting humans on the moon, not mining it. Keep in mind, nobody has any capacity to mine anything from space currently. Something tells me though, the agency who gets a human habitation set up first will have most of the unknowns about space mining figured out just from solving the problems of setting up a permanent base.

Its pretty clear the people in charge are the ones impressed by the idea of KSP being an "explosion simulator, and you can also glitch it to do space missions"

Nah. Would you make Doom and have the only difficulty option "Nightmare?" Just make it a mod, or if IG/T2 can get their stuff together, maybe they can make difficulty options, but I think they are kinda swamped with making the game actually work at the present time. Edit: Sorry, @VlonaldKerman, I just repeated what you said.

So to sum it all up, the "wobbliness" of KSP1 is the absolute baseline for what us players would consider playable? I'm asking to get a consensus. I agree we are all kinda arguing our own nitpics and its taking us around in circles.

I have to concede your point...I bet SpaceX is guilty of this very tactic as well.

Carbon fibre does not crack the way you think it does. it de-laminates. As said above, it is a heterogeneous material.

I think you are neglecting to consider the almost 6000psi outside the vessel. Lets pretend someone smuggled literal TNT aboard. According to : https://www.sccm.org/getattachment/cc197ca2-fe84-47c0-b3ef-7d00abd6271b/Conventional-Explosions-and-Blast-Injuries 1 Kg of TNT produces an overpressure of 33.4psi, or in other words roughly 180Kg of TNT would need to be detonated to simply equal the outside pressure. Now I realize my numbers are all rounded and I did not consider the distance of the hypothetical explosion to the hull wall, etc, but I feel confident to say that, for example, a battery exploding and tossing some shrapnel is not going through 5 inches of carbon fibre with 6000psi on the other side of it.

I'm trying my best to not be a stick in the mud, but you guys seem to be more happy talking about raises than answering questions. I think it is reasonable when you say there are not going to be weekly dev updates for an unspecified amount of time, to ask you to specify the timeframe. You are trying to sell a commercial product. This isn't a few people in their college dorm making a fun project in their spare time. You have a major studio behind you. Your product launch did not go well. Now you are telling us you are removing a "feature" of the community temporarily. Do you not see how this looks bad? Are there going to be updates in the meantime or is this quarter a write off?

Lol, just give it to the Artemis fanboys. I mean, to be quite honest, this is a very simple trick NASA pulled. "Just don't say how delayed our stuff is, and we will look good!" In other news, media literacy is at an all-time low, evidently.

You should really make the titles reflective of the content of the post and not some silly pun. Also, when are the weekly updates resuming?

Its all hes got! I imagine Bruno watching SpaceX launches, slamming his stetson down, and jumping up and down on it like Yosemite Sam.

I think we are reading too much into this "10%" thing. People have been raising the issue of no launch abort capability for years; detractors and fanboys alike. Then SpaceX brings out a design that ostensibly has the ability to perform a pad abort, and everyone is laser focused on something else. I find it hilarious, because in most other designs, the addition of a launch abort capability would decrease performance.

No, but there are probably more serious players than players who want wackyness.

Could you expand on the wobbly rockets issue? The replies are because your answer was vague.

My intuition thinks that wobbly rockets are fun for people who want zany and wacky. They are probably not the core audience of the game. People who want LOLZ probably aren't doing Jool-5 missions. Having said that, maybe you guys can get some cash deposits from casual players, but ultimately, I doubt they will be the people that form the core of the community.

I think the OP means Intel ARC budget priced add-in cards, not integrated graphics. https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/products/sku/229151/intel-arc-a770-graphics-16gb/specifications.html

So the game up to now was "measured once?" This explains so very much.

There is still something to be considered in looking at what other comparable products are charging.

I think people are mis-interpreting what I said. I did not say that the game is bad, or unworthy of attention. If you guys are happy with your purchase, then cool. I'm not here to rain on your parade. What I mean is that if I pick up a copy of say PC Gamer magazine, I can guarantee you there will not be an article saying "KSP2 is in the contention for 'most bang for your buck' award" My comment was not aimed at you fellow players, or the dev team, but rather aimed at the beancounters who chose the current price point. Edit: Why am I saying this? I feel that if the price was more in line with what was offered, more money would flow into the dev team so they could get on with making this game good. As it stands, I think it is a losing argument to try to ask people to pay this amount of money for a game that is fairly niche, at this point in development. I want KSP2 to have a steady stream of income, and I think that the high price is impeding that. To re-iterate, I am not trying to say that individual players made a poor financial decision to purchase this game, I am not trying to say that at all. I also don't think the devs were the ones who chose the price point. This update basically says "we are doing the things we said we are doing, but we have nothing to show, other than some engine renders." Which I understand is how development goes sometimes. I get that you can't squash all bugs instantly. I have this feeling that the biggest impediment to this game being good is the internal conflict between making money now and making more money later.

Not one single person has said "this game is worth $50 USD" Even the fanboys.