Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Yellowburn10

  1. It really is appreciated that these updates are being more transparent. I can understand being hesitant about sharing such details with the community, but having greater understanding of the current progress of things can put to ease the minds of many people. Even if you guys don't have a fix for something right now, or don't have it all ironed out yet, it's still assuring to know that it's being worked on.

  2. 3 hours ago, Stoup said:

    Just wanna pitch in that I've experienced this bug too from day 1 and it's one of the biggest bugs keeping me disinterested from digging into any projects in the game

    I feel ya. I was attempting to do an apollo mission for one of my first missions, and my lander's delta v was only enough to do a return to low mun orbit, which complicate things if any low mun orbit is constantly shifting. That and having kerbals go EVA can sometimes disintegrate your craft.

  3. 13 hours ago, FirroSeranel said:

    Same. Also same with disabling SAS altogether.

    Yet in Munar orbit, the oribits do degrade faster if I rotate the craft in various directions with reaction wheels. My guess is something isn't respecting the craft's overall center of mass and there's a phantom force, with the phantom force responsible for the always-on orbit wandering, and the CoM issue (similar to the old wobble kraken drive in KSP1) responsible for the faster decay while rotating.

    It also seems to be related to the bug in which coming out of rails-warp gives a big impulse kick to the ship. The faster the orbital wander is happening, the harder the kick. Around Kerbin, coming out of time warp maybe nudges the nose aside a bit and SAS brings it right back, barely even a wobble. Around the Mun at low altitude (10-15km orbit), coming out of warp kicks the Pe to -10,000m or more, and sets the ship spinning at ~100 RPM.

    Then again, if it were a phantom force, why would it go away above a certain altitude? And why would it _not_ be happening near the surface? When I'm going in to land, it feels perfectly normal, no 20 m/s/s accelerations from nowhere. Very odd...

    My gut feeling is that it's to do with whatever implementation they did of the floating reference point system that lets KSP have both fine spatial resolution for crafts, but also billions of kilometers of "open world" game area... which is also the source of classic KSP tropes like orbit line jitter, and many of the "Kraken" bugs.

    And maybe near the surface, it engages a higher-precision mode? And at high-orbit a semi-rails mode?

    For now, I guess I'll use higher parking orbits, and call it an unintentional feature instead of a bug! :D

    Like... an accidental implementation of relativistic frame dragging, amplified in gleeful mischievousness by the Kraken.

    I had something like that happen to me when I loaded a save of a craft in low mun orbit, the thing was suddenly spinning wildly when it loaded in. I had a passing thought that maybe the two bugs were connected, but it's only just a thought.

    I'm going to be trying a few other tests soon just to try to recreate the bug in different scenarios, such as if inclination or highly eccentric orbits make any differences.

  4. So, I've been having this constant problem whenever I visit the Mun where my orbit is constantly changing on it's own, at least when I don't have time warp on. I've made a few tests with different kinds of vessels and have had the same issue. It's strange because I don't have the problem when I orbit kerbin, and while I haven't tested this anywhere else yet I'll be trying soon. Anyone else experiencing similar?

  5. I feel ya. After I had managed to get a working craft to launch, get to space and go to the mun, I caught glimpses of what this game is really supposed to be. I honestly haven't felt something like this in a long time playing ksp, the only other time I think comes close was when I first played ksp1, watching the sunrise from space from my first orbit. It really just shows me that there is in fact a diamond in this ruff.

  6. 7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Remember when the forum was begging every day for KSP 2 to do open beta testing? Me too :D

    KSP fans: "Please do some kind of open beta testing!"

    Also KSP fans: "Ew this game is so unpolished and so much is missing why would I want to buy this?"

  7. On 2/21/2023 at 8:59 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

    Fallout 76, No Mans Sky, CP 2077, etc.... have left a lot of players cynical to the point of being jaded. It hurts, getting your hopes up that much only to have them demolished unreasonably before you. Its just a problem with modern game development and not only at the fault of devs or the mega corp distributors that own who they work for. Games today just have a lot going on and are really complicated and I don't think we as a community or the distributors for that matter are ready for how long game production takes to make finished products with genuinely innovative or expansive games, qualities KSP 2 shows it carries in spades.

    I can certainly understand having such cynicism in this day and age, but we at the very least know that KSP2 is coming to us purposely unfinished, unlike those other titles that either failed to deliver fully on their first releases or promised things that were way out of scope for them at the time.

  8. I'm actually excited to test the game as a whole with my current pc. Not all of my specs reach the recommended, or even the minimum in some cases, but I'm a believer that early access is the place to truly put these things to the test for myself.

  9. I haven't seen this in any preview videos yet, so I'd like to suggest having more odd number symmetries for the editor, seeing the only one we have is 3-times symmetry. It would just be a nice touch if, say for instance, you were trying to build certain rocket replicas that have 5 or 7 boosters strapped to it's sides. Having that built in would make things much easier. It's a small feature but one I think would be very appreciated.

  10. 1 hour ago, R-T-B said:

    The optimism of this forum on what they admitted is an early access product is what frightened me.  You won't even be getting KSP1's level of polish on day 1, IMO.  You SHOULD get a better foundation though.

    I didn't expect much., so my dissapointment isn't large  I'll be playing/modding KSP1 largely until it's done, and just dabbling in KSP2.  It'll get there, just give it some time.

    I'm not sure optimism is the right word here. I had my expectations tempered as well with the ea announcement, and I'm still very optimistic for the game. I think it's more that people are keeping too high of expectations for the game's current state, and not taking into consideration on how not ready this game is for a full release, even after the development time it's had so far.

  11. I guess this is more of a subjective take, but re-watching the tutorial again didn't give off any condescending vibes for me. It certainly came across though that the point of this tutorial was to teach those who knew absolutely nothing about flying a rocket, and the voice in question sounded a bit too enthusiastic in my opinion, but I found nothing about it or said voice offensive. But still, if you don't like it that's your opinion. I'm sure it's not going to stop others on the internet from making their own, giving you and others tutorials that more so tickles your fancy.

    With that being said, a point that you made here frankly just doesn't make sense. Case in point:

    1 hour ago, Tweeker said:

    The franchise has never had any problem brining in new players, in fact it was popular enough to warrant a sequel. Maybe appealing to the existing user base would be a good  approach? 

    While the first part may be true, despite it's popularity KSP is still somewhat of a niche game with a brick wall for a learning curve, and it doesn't help player retention to have to learn so much when the game gives you so little in comparison. Giving them even a little bit of interactive help goes a long way to have them enjoy the game longer.

    For that second part, let me ask you this; What would be the point of catering to the existing player base, as in, the folks who already know how to play the game, for tutorials? I can guarantee you that the majority of returning players are only going to look at the tutorials just for the sake of them being new and shiny, and once they see them they'll say, "Ok, neat," (or in your case, "That's dumb,") and move on to the actual game. They'll have no bearing on how any of us will enjoy the rest of the game, so why should they appeal to us when we need them the least?

  12. 4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

    I'm surprised by the reactions. With hindsight, I shouldn't be, since the theme of the hype, for a large segment, has been unrealistic expectations. Screenshots that looked absolutely fine to me were burned with comments like "haven't seen it this bad since Doom, worse than KSP1, not of this day and age"

    Then there were comments like "there's no specs, what should I buy to run this game" — and when Intercept delivered and said "buy this" there were complaints that, while demanding a game representative of this day and age, Intercept had the sheer audacity to suggest you run it on hardware of this day and age.

    And this is not an ivory-tower comment from someone who comfortable exceeds recommended specs. Yes, it's sad that by the looks of it, the game won't even run on my PC but that wasn't entirely unexpected. But specs are usually flexible. We still don't know what the game really looks and feels like. Or how it runs on different hardware. So instead of complaining "even my gaming rig that I bought for $800 5 years ago at Best Buy won't run this, this is insane!" why not just wait and see? We can expect streamer content as early and Monday, and the latest by Friday? Why not reserve the outrage for then, when the game truly is worse than KSP (0.18, I assume), worse than Doom, perhaps even worse than FS4? Or perhaps, when at that point things don't seem to be that bad at all, and emotions have died down, start thinking, if the game seems worth upgrading your hardware, to what extend?

    I would just add on top of this that, with how some people are reacting, you would think they were talking about the full release of the game, but we're not. This is still in fact an early access release, with everything subject to change. Things could be buggy. Things might not run too well right now. Stuff won't look as polished. The game currently lacks many of the features promised to us. My PC might need an upgrade or 2 to fully experience the game. My expectations were fully tempered and I have expected or planned for all these things and more. And yet, it still hasn't hampered my excitement for this game to come out next week, or my optimism about the game's future. Is that me just having wishful thinking and being a bit naïve? Perhaps, but frankly at this point I don't care. 

  13. Considering that what I have currently in my PC could be considered low-mid to midrange (specs below for reference), I'll be curious to see how well things will be running for me.


     CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 overclocked to 3.8 GHz, GPU: MSI GeForce 1650 Super, RAM; 32 gigs, and 2 tb hard drive



  14. Just would like to point out the small detail of the cockpit and nosecone paintjob. Nice touch that we'll be able to do that and have craft that at least look like they have heat shielding. Or perhaps there will be an option to have that paint act as a real heat shield in exchange for some extra weight or something.

  15. As I see  us get closer and closer to the release of ksp2 early access, it has started to awaken some dormant memories of the hype trains of old. I have to admit, if this thread gets even a small part of the traction that those old hype trains had I think I'll be thoroughly entertained, and a bit nostalgic too.

  • Create New...