Meecrob

I would hesitate to take legal action simply because it would give them an excuse to not develop the game. "We wanted to make the game but our funds and time were absorbed by litigation"

This is not a great argument. "Let's accept an unfinished game cuz some shareholders wanted to make money off of us" I thought this was supposed to be a long-term project? But they need to make money NOW apparently...

I give up, what is the answer...?

I don't think you can go by measurements alone as the layup/orientation of the plies is integral to the application. Unlike aluminum or other metals that are monolithic (properties like strength, ductability, brittleness, etc are uniform throughout), CFRP can be created with varying properties throughout by changing how you orient the carbon fibre. Carbon fibre is only strong along one axis, so for example if you cut two squares of it, rotated one 90* and laid it on the first and bonded them, it would be strong in two axes sort of similar to metal. Where it gets complex is you can place the plies at any angle, add in some CFD to find exactly where you need strength, and it quickly becomes much more akin to 3D printing than metallurgy. Take all that with a grain of salt since I have not worked on CFRP in a while. I have definitely forgotten some details, and the technology must have come a long way since I used it.

Whatever you say. I'm not going to argue with you.

They said KSP1 runs quite well, and in addition to running well, it also has mods that expand the features. They did not say "go play modded KSP1"

Its been a while since high school chemistry for me, do you mean an equilibrium reaction, or am I misunderstanding you? Edit: My google-fu isn't as good as yours, I keep getting results for rocky planets with water orbiting a red dwarf.

Same here. Unfortunately, I think the reason these forums were generally a chilled place was because we all have different opinions, but we all love KSP, so civility is maintained. Remove the game we all love, and this is just twitter or discord. I appreciate the attempt at transparency in communications, but I'm not sure it is aimed entirely in the correct direction. There is a lot of emotional verbiage, but nothing really that is actually quantifiable. This thread is proof of that. We are divided between those that believe the unprovable things communicated to us, and those that do not believe. Logically the solution is to communicate things that you can quantify and not those things we can only speculate on.

I would agree if this was a finished commercial product and not an experimental prototype.

And unlike KSP, there is competition.

Whatever it is, it reeks of clickbait. Also nobody listens to the US for English lessons, lol. Edit: I'm just messin'

I totally agree, @K^2, and I will declare that I do not hold anything against anyone for their plans being messed up by reality...I probably have as many plans messed up by reality as anyone else Wait you mean like how 737 hulls are contracted out, or like marine vessels?

Edit: made a bad joke...thought I could perceive as fast as I can read.

I was expecting a Breaking Bad meme, but fair enough

I get this point of view, but as other commenters have explained how game development works, some on this board are experienced in public relations. Let me be frank; If they want to pull a "No Man's Sky" and have us leave them alone, then they should express that. Only NMS can do what they did, after they did it, you are second..or third...or 20th...so just own up to it. The "novelty" has worn off. Edit: I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that certain situations attract crap if you do not explain them, but are totally understandable if you do explain them.

^^^I'm not trying to rag on the publishers, I'm trying to find a middle ground. I don't think T2 is trying to pull a make a quick buck scheme, I think that what they planned for did not line up with reality. And I think they could reduce this dissonance by providing information.

I very much doubt anyone thinks T2 is doing anything to "spite a successful property's fans." More likely, people have seen the results when a mega-conglomerate such as T2 tries to prioritize a return on shareholder investment over a quality product, and have concerns this may be happening here. To be clear, I am not saying these companies release bad products on purpose, but a quick glance at the last decade of games shows that bad products get through in what seems to be an accelerating rate. I doubt T2 would waste millions letting a bunch of incompetent devs half-ass a game but that becomes foggy when the realities of business are applied. To become as large as T2, you cannot oversee all your projects directly; you become an integrator. T2 is figuratively managing a supply chain. They have a large pool of excellent talent, but that does not mean it all magically comes together in the end. Every industry has had issues with supplier oversight. There are some egregious examples of suppliers outright lying for profit, but usually it is all in "good-faith" and the realities of the world intrude, priorities shift based on market trends, etc. I would say, however, that it is hard to believe that a company like T2 can oversee the quality of all their releases, or we wouldn't have releases like GTA: Definitive Edition. I doubt someone at T2 saw that finished product and said "Perfect! The kids will LOVE this!" rather I am guessing a certain timeline and budget was set for the project, and when it became clear the quality was not there, someone had to make the tough call to cut losses and release, or drag it out possibly throwing good money after bad/starting over with quality in mind and making way less profit than releasing the poor quality version we got. Realities intruded onto what presumably had a realistic plan before starting the project. Why would T2 tarnish the reputation of its tentpole franchise for a few bucks when a few months of people buying shark cards for GTA Online would be more profitable? Yes, they wanted to tide fans over a bit because GTA6 is a ways out from release, but I think we can agree the execution could have been better. I believe that IG/T2 have a realistic plan...on paper. I very much hope it translates to reality, however there are signs that point both directions. I am hoping for more detailed communication specifically to reduce speculation. I do not enjoy this ball pit of angry monkeys either. I think that without communication, a ball pit is inevitable, though, because without information, all we have to rely on is speculation and emotions. With the available information, you can just as easily come to the conclusion that everything is under control, or that the plug is about to be pulled. The fact that there is no common ground to me makes it logical that the discussion devolves into what we have here.

Buddy, calm down. You are putting words in my mouth. Just because I disagree with you having a very low opinion of fellow community members doesn't mean I agree that they should refurbish KSP1's codebase. My point is that IG asked for feedback. In fact, that's what they tried to sell the whole EA release on. You might have the opinion that the forums have bad suggestions...the problem is that according to official releases from IG, they disagree with you.

You cannot say this when IG specifically says they want feedback. Also, your bias is showing when you call 98% of ideas from the forum "stupid."

Lol, there's no way it could mean their workforce is cut, nosiree

I'm saying it would be nice if they didn't do a meme-like challenge...or are they just admitting its useless to try to maneuver anywhere, so just build some LOLcrafts?

I cannot say I am instilled with confidence. Being told "it should have been obvious?" I'm not sure people should be telling the community that things should be obvious, when we just want to know what is up with this game.

Yup, slowing down updates with some vague thing that roadmap milestones will be reached faster? I'd believe it if it was explained how. As is, this is like an algorithmic black box...I cannot see the moving parts underneath, so therefore I cannot gauge the progress being made...I'm just asking for some info to help me get what is being done.

@Geonovast "I doubt it considering the FH is fully expendable. It wouldn't need the landing pads. It was also supposed to launch days ago. Sending the boat out isn't something you can do on a whim. Takes days to get out there. " I mean the SES 03b launch...with regards to the NSF post stating that they can launch with the previous rocket "over the horizon" Edit: So I guess I'm not up to date; Are the FH side boosters expendable on this launch? it seems they could RTLS since there are no other range considerations today (not considering payload mass). I get the core is expendable, but I doubt they have 3 droneships in the Atlantic at once for the side boosters, plus the SES03b booster (which is where I feel I missed something).

Does this explain the Falcon landing downrange, or was the payload heavy enough that a downrange landing was necessary?