Meecrob

I'd like to give some insight as to why people are asking for more communication from you. Merely saying T2/PD are 100% behind the intercept team has no proof. Logically, if they were behind the Intercept team, they wouldn't have kneecapped the release so they could add it to their shareholder's report (or whatever that was for; it surely wasn't because the game was ready) . Let me use the example of a corporation with a supply chain that manufactures a consumer product: in order to create a certain consumer experience, you need to provide a certain level of quality. When integrating a product, you cannot directly control the quality of all your suppliers. If one of them drops their quality below a certain point as to affect the end consumer's experience, you tell that supplier about the discrepancy. That supplier then usually responds and lays out a plan to achieve the required quality. Suppliers that say "don't worry, we are 100% committed to quality" are replaced because it is basically gaslighting. If you guys don't have a plan, just say so. "Look community, with the state the game is in, we need to explore to figure out the best course of action with regards to what issues we will attack first" then follow it up when you try something. Update us when what you tried worked or failed (failures are not failures if you engage the community about what you tried). We know you aren't superhuman and this won't be fixed overnight, but the cold, hard truth is that sales are being impacted because of the poor communication. The whole world knows this release went disastrously. Stop pretending its a small bump in the road. Admit it blew up in your face, and I guarantee you people will be more open to believing you when you say you are behind the game. Truth and honesty is what is going to sell this game for you. Another cold, hard truth is that if you guys screw the pooch on KSP2, the community has enough skilled and passionate people to make a spiritual successor without you. Forward that to your higher ups at T2/PD. I'm not aiming this squarely at you, Dakota, I get you are in the in-enviable position of "messenger" but this has to be said.

My point is very simple; they did not charge money for 0.7.3 You cannot compare a free product to one that is paid for.

You seem to be replying to something I didn't say. Its a fact people were pestering the devs for years for a Dv readout for KSP1. Its a fact KSP2 as it stands on March 1st, 2023 is broken. If you disagree that it is broken, feel free to look at the thread that announces the upcoming patch, because that indicates that the dev team thinks its broken, or they wouldn't be releasing it. I am not commenting on my personal opinion, nor whether I have purchased the game or not. I am saying objective truths here. Stop telling me and others you are sorry we "don't get it" because we are not talking about whatever it is you think you are replying to.

What are you talking about? People were livid until it was added. Also we didn't expect a flawless game. We expected one that was not feature-complete, instead we got a broken one. There is a huge difference.

I'm not sure 0.7.3 is applicable because it was not a commercially available product in early access. I think a better comparison would be somewhere 0.18-0.21-ish, which are almost a different game when compared to 0.7.3.

I disagree. According to the roadmap, we were supposed to get an experience that approximates the features available in KSP1 v0.21. We did not get that. This is not my anecdotal experience either; I am clearly not the only one who thinks this way based on Steam sales figures.

I'm glad you are having a good KSP2 experience hardware wise. I think we are going to have to rely on people like you with beefy systems to separate the bugs from the lack of optimization. I wish I knew who posted it, but I read in another thread someone mentioning trying to report a bug, but the game keeps crashing when they try to reproduce, or something along those lines. Also, thanks for chiming in @PD_Dakota. I don't mean to start anything with regards to publishers in this thread.

Lets be honest, they know the bugs they have. A bug tracker would only be negative publicity now (if you take the POV of Take Two). @JoeSchmuckatelli "I'd second this. Or maybe have a dedicated 'bug' sub that does not allow whining about performance and optimization or 'my mom's 2015 Lenovo won't run KSP2'. " Says the guy dropping threads on how hes running 4K! I'm just razzing you, Joe, I do agree with your point. There is a huge difference between trying to solve a problem, and wanting to vent your emotions about a problem.

Just 48 hours ago, I would agree with you, @Sea_Kerman, but we have to understand this game is live now...so you have to assume that there are users that don't nerd out on these forums. If I bought a game, and had an issue, I'd go to the official website/forums. I would not expect an entrance exam to ask why this game is KSP 2077.

Yeah, I took a look in the thread about "stuff we like about KSP2" and found Nate: "I'm just gonna camp out in this thread today. " Nothing says "we are confident we can deliver on our promises" like only reading positive comments.

The game is better than you expected. Steam reviews suggest more than 50% of players disagree with you.

This is probably why many people are worried. How are they going to fund development to v1.0 if its getting mixed reviews on Steam? Just because KSP1 got developed for so long is no indication Take Two will have the same patience. Of course, nobody knows the answer, but that uncertainty is why people are upset. People aren't trying to crap on KSP2, thy are worried it will make it to v0.2 or 0.3 and have the plug pulled on it because it didn't meet sales targets. I hope I speak for everyone when I say that I do not enjoy saying negative things about my favourite game. I guess its like parenting...I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

You don't get it. I'm perfectly capable of choosing where to spend my money. I'm saying you made a statement that is condescending and misses the point. And now you are being condescending to me. Go enjoy KSP2 and let us express our opinions as well. None of this affects your enjoyment of the game. People are upset. I'm glad you enjoy the game. Please understand none of us are trying to impinge on your enjoyment of the game.

What I am saying is your statement is not fair. Beta tester is a job. Sometimes its paid, sometimes its voluntary, but its never a commercial product you can buy from Steam. So for you to say that a certain user "Isn't cut out to be a beta tester" is not only insulting, but wrong. They never signed up to be a beta tester. They paid money for an early access game. Show me where it is stated this release is specifically to beta test the game.

To be fair, beta testers typically don't have to pay $50 to become a beta tester.

This isn't the answer you want, but I'd make a flashy prop batmobile as bait, and pull up in a regular car once everyone starts targeting the batmobile. I'd also not dress up in a suit that instantly identifies me as well.

I'm not sure we can fly a vehicle that uses an airfoil for lift at the Karman Line on Earth. The (paraphrased) definition of the "Karman Line" is "the altitude at which the atmospheric pressure is assumed to be zero." Given that definition, Kerbin's Karman Line is 70km. (https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-altitude-does-atmospheric-pressure-become-zero) Also, if an object is flying at orbital speed, by definition, it does not require aerodynamic lift, since it is just falling around the planet. Objects require lift (or some other force like one provided by a a rocket engine) to maintain altitude when operating at less than orbital velocity.

I'm glad there are proper tutorials so I don't have to drop links of 50 videos to get new players started when I suggest they play KSP.

We only get the Kerbolar system so far in EA. Let them get that system working before they give us essentially cheat code engines meant to go interstellar distances in the late game.

I'm not so sure that is a framerate drop, and not just a really bad thrust to weight ratio. The scene aside from the rocket appears to be smooth fps.

OK, yeah I read that part. So what if I don't want to max the graphics settings cuz my computer isn't a beast? I get zero information. All they did was confirm that people with high end computers will be able to run the game, but they ALREADY knew they could run the game. Everyone with a setup on the borderline is left with "Maybe, buy it and find out!" Basically they posted only the Recommended Specs for two resolutions, and did not post minimum requirements. People are going to get upset if you tell them: Here are the minimum requirements* *not indicative of minimum requirements

Ok let me try a different way. Say we have a pen stood on end vertically. It is stable, all forces are balanced. If I tip it slightly from the vertical axis, it will fall over because the forces are now unbalanced. Now imagine I do the same experiment, only the surface I am conducting this experiment on can accelerate upwards and also rotate (pitch) so that it is always acting through the longitudinal axis of the pen as it tips. The pen still tips as in the first experiment. The only difference as far as the pen is concerned between the first and second experiments is that in the second, the pen is now moving upwards and/or downrange...there is no force to prevent the pen from tipping. There is no force to restore the pen to a stable condition.

Looks like I'm pretty crap at explaining things I don't mean gimballing or anything of the sort. Basically I'm saying something is pushing the aft end up (the engine) while there is no balancing force on the nose once away from vertical orientation. The engine acts through the longitudinal axis while gravity pulls straight down from the CoM. Wiki doesn't say much, but there is a free body diagram there. It looks like I explained it backwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn#Downrange_acceleration

"A gravity turn or zero-lift turn is a maneuver used in launching a spacecraft into, or descending from, an orbit around a celestial body such as a planet or a moon. It is a trajectory optimization that uses gravity to steer the vehicle onto its desired trajectory." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn No atmosphere required...hence why the gravity turn is usually done when above the majority of the atmosphere. Just think about it like a free body diagram; gravity pulls the rocket towards the "ground" through the CoM. With the rocket's engine engaged, we have another force applied to the vehicle. Divide this force into horizontal and vertical components. Now we have one downward force acting through the CoM and one upward force acting through the engine nozzle. This is an imbalance and the rocket will rotate nose down.

Perhaps audience engagement? I found this: https://press.discovery.com/us/dsc/programs/space-launch-live-america-returns-space-hits-ratin/