Meecrob

I think overall, it is safe to say that its kinda not cool to say there will be an update on the progress last week, and the update is "we are working on it for next month" The point was made that they don't want to give false expectations. They already gave us false expectations. And by now giving us no expectations, they are not giving a reason to be excited for the patch. As of right now, I know we might be getting gridfins and we might be getting some bugfixes. Which ones? I guess we will find out. I am the opposite of hyped.

From the wiki: "Planetary Annihilation received a mixed reception upon release. The game was praised for its ambitious concept, but criticized for playability and overall incompleteness. Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Brendan Caldwell writes: "Planetary Annihilation is a slick, modernised RTS, engineered from the ground up to appeal to the fast-paced, competitive, hotkey-loving esports crowd".[29] PC Gamer's Emanuel Maiberg, experiencing hard to learn gameplay unaided by proper tutorials and disrupted by technical issues, states: "I know there's a great, massive RTS beneath all these issues. I've seen glimpses of it when everything works correctly, but at the moment I can't recommend Planetary Annihilation without a warning that it's bound to disappoint and frustrate, even if you do teach yourself to play it".[30] IGN's Rob Zacny summarizes: "A cool idea about robot armies battling across an entire solar system breaks apart when the realities of controlling multiple worlds at the same time set in" Reviews are: Metacritic: 62/100 Eurogamer: 6/10 IGN: 4.8/10 I sincerely hope that KSP2 turns out better than PA, but I have to be realistic here.

I think they are trying to get at the fact that its exceedingly easy not fail at something when you don't tell anyone what your goals are. Yes, we have the roadmap...but we aren't even out of the driveway yet though. There are multiple debates over whether they should fix bugs first or add features first, for example. They said vaguely they are doing both...so therefore they cannot fail. And this is precisely why people are asking for info. I would rather they focus on something, tell us what their goal is, try, and fail, than have some namby-pamby "we are working hard and everything looks good" type of answer. I don't understand why it is so difficult to admit things did not work out as planned. I mean, everyone fails...the successful people fail and learn from it, the unsuccessful people fail and try to make excuses or try to go on thinking everything is okay.

You might want to read the whole list of guidelines, not the cherry picked one that supports your point https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess Edit: "Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release." It is not worth $50USD currently. "Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product. You should not use Early Access solely to fund development. If you are counting on selling a specific number of units to complete your game, then you need to think carefully about what it would mean for you or your team if you don't sell that many units. Are you willing to continue developing the game without any sales? Are you willing to seek other forms of investment?" Many feel the game was released in this state to continue funding for development. "Make sure you set expectations properly everywhere you talk about your game. Be transparent with your community. For example, if you know your updates during Early Access will break save files, make sure you tell players up front. And say this everywhere you sell your Steam keys." Expectations were wildly overhyped. "Don't launch in Early Access without a playable game. If you have a tech demo, but not much gameplay yet, then it’s probably too early to launch in Early Access." Not much gameplay to be had here.

So an announcement that you will sometime in the future make an announcement, huh? Is anyone else reminded of that "Curb Your Enthusiasm" where Jason Alexander and Larry David argue over their meeting to plan a meeting?

I believe the 777 engines are able to have the fan disassembled from the core and are carried as main deck cargo on two separate pallets.

Duplicate, please delete.

Umm. Either you calculate where the oceans will be when returning or you don't, and its a surprise...clouds or no clouds

Last time I checked the buck stops at Gwynne Shotwell, not Elon. Edit: What I mean is that its cool to hate on Elon and all, but that seems to be clouding peoples judgement.

In a roundabout way, improving thrust/chamber pressure increases reliability because it allows them an equivalent TWR with less engines. Now, many might say that this sounds like a band aid solution, but if SpaceX knows it will take (hypothetically) two years to get raptor reliability to where they want it for testing, are they just going to shut flight test down until the engines are ready or start building flight data with imperfect engines? Also, I imagine flight data from engines will help narrow down the causes of the reliability issues.

It boggles my mind...like nobody said GTA: San Andreas was a pile of crap when they released a new GTA....I know, I know..IV is divided, but nobody would dare say San Andreas sucks because GTA V exists. [snip]

Agreed. It feels like there are changes for the sake of changing things, rather than optimization.

I see what you are getting at, and I'll gladly admit that KSP1 was not some AAA polished experience. What I am getting at is there seems to be this sentiment of you have to be in one camp or the other: KSP1 or KSP2, and I think that is a silly thought. There are obvious differences with the development of both games and to compare them seems to be lacking intellectually. Edit: In any case, I have de-railed this thread enough, sorry about that.

@regexIf I did quote you, I feel stupid. I meant to not quote you, so I apologize that i did. It was my mistake. The rest of what I said was NOT aimed at you. You don't need to itemize what I said and attack my points. I mean its a free country, so do what you want, but I'm not trying to specifically attack you. I was saying in general that there are some themes that keep being presented and I was questioning those themes, not you. Edit to ruin my non-existant credibility: Its funny seeing who comes out of the woodwork to to tell me I'm wrong when I wasn't trying to talk to them in the first place. Many people have taken up the point that KSP1 sucks hardcore and we should be glad KSP2 exists. I disagree. I'm happy to discuss this in a format that does not involve personal attacks. Edit 2: The fact that we are discussing such menial tings means that KSP2 has nothing positive to discuss, or we would be discussing it. I mean that in the best of ways. It feels like being disappointed at your kid at this point...I'm not even mad. I just want the best for this franchise and when I see things that actively erode that, I say things.

@Bej KermanAre you serious? The fact there is a second version of something means the first one was bad? I feel that you are purposefully missing my point.

Let me be clear: I'm not trying to call you out specifically. Your post just made my mind think my question. Thats why I didn't quote you. My point is more that its odd to me that there are lots of people who in 2018 would say KSP1 is their favourite game of all time, but now they are like "pfft, KSP1 was some cobbled together pile of crap." There is a reason we are all here on this board and it wasn't because KSP1 was some disaster of a game. It makes me sad that for such a niche game, people are actively destroying the legacy the game has. If the game was so bad, why would Take Two purchase the IP? If the game was so bad, why aren't people saying "oh hey, play simple rockets/JUNO" but instead they say play KSP1.

[snip] Why do people who like KSP2 try to say KSP1 is bad so therefore KSP2 must be good?

There are orders of magnitudes of players that prefer KSP1 over KSP2. Why do people who want to support KSP2 think a sound tactic is to say KSP1 sucks?

Yeah, its not a good move to claim that "the community" thinks something when its clearly divided. I know the devs don't like my advice, but seriously, in order to build trust, say things you can accomplish, then accomplish them. Don't just say things.

Please stop. You have zero information.

Hey could we get an update on how science will work? Or expected timeline? It sounds like 0.1.3 will be bugfixes? So science is later?

I'm not trying to dole out blame, I'm just saying that bringing a legal case is likely to be detrimental to KSP2's development, even though many people are at the point where they would like to see a legal case brought. There are not many avenues that people who are unhappy about the state of the game at time of posting can go down to be satisfied and it is human nature to want *someone* to blame when something does not live up to expectations. I'm included in that last sentence...at least my lizard brain is. We do not know if this is the fault of Private Division, but something tells me they are not needing KSP2 to sell to remain solvent.

It makes the connection to the kraken stronger lol. I'm just joking, but seriously, to the OP, I don't know exactly how you are building this rocket, but generally, if you want a part to drop off your vehicle, you have to have a decoupler of some sort. If you clip it in, it won't be able to be dropped when empty.

[snip] No, you don't clip radial boosters into the central stage, you place radial decouplers on the central stage and attach radial boosters to them. How else do you stage them when they are empty? Also you describe "asparagus staging" this is a strategy that many employ, but is not necessary to make a rocket with a core stage and radial boosters.

Oh, I agree totally. Take Two has more than enough money, but it still gives them the excuse. I mean look at what they have tried to tell us so far. I think litigation would be the straw that breaks this camel's back. Shareholders would not stand for it, or at least they would be very displeased. Having said that, I wish companies could be taken to court over issues like this without repercussions. We want them to just make the game they said they would make, but legal issues may make them just declare bankruptcy since IG has nothing else going on. Its easier to just close the studio from Take Two's perspective.