shdwlrd

You really think that? Most of the time I spend on the forums is skipping the same complaints over and over again by the same people. The same rehashed arguments, the same rehashed accusations, the same rehashed meaningless data. I mean almost every single thread in this section and the dev dairies decends into enough bickering, gaslighting, flame baiting that the mods are censoring the threads to keep them on topic and within guidelines. Am I happy visiting the forums? No, not anymore. Why? Because the negatively is so great that there no possibility of having a constructive debate without it turning into a echo chamber of the same meaningless and unwarranted arguments about KSP2 development failings and short comings that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I'm sick of the degrading rhetoric against the devs, the studio, the game itself, and the people who actually want KSP2 to succeed. This forum is very toxic with unwarranted hostility to any positive outlook for KSP2. At this point, I find this ringing true on here more and more. "The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn’t care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense. There are people who, for all the evidence presented to them, do not have the ability to understand. Others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if they aren't."

Most were closed cause they devolved into shouting matches and insults. Plus this is the 4th time I think this subject has been brought up. Beating dead horses comes to mind.

I think it will be the case similar to Valhiem, Avorion, Space Engineers. The multiplayer experience is meant for a small group of friends. Any public or large scale servers are your problem and IG won't officially support them. At least at first anyway. So player beware.

HarvesteR has his own game to develop. (Which looks like fun.) Why would he return to KSP? Why would a billionaire invest in developing a niche game with an AAA number of developers? Not enough return on investment. I wouldn't even go into the game stop comment. Definitely dreaming there bud. Just remember to stay positive when you realize you're back in reality after waking.

That was what I was thinking. But I thought up another reason to be able to tune the jet engines, exoplanets with atmospheres. After remembering that the rocket formula is a truncated form of the thrust formula, I remembered that atmospheric composition, pressure, temperature, and intake rates all affect the amount of thrust that a jet can produce. (All this after reading that it's getting hot enough in Arizona to be worried about some aircraft not being able to take-off. Hot dry weather is bad for flying.) Also super cruise without spamming engines.

Thanks Nertea for the in depth explanation of how thermals will work.

Yes and no. All the jet engines needs an increase to their thrust in my opinion. My gripe comes to the Pather engine. The dry thrust is lethargic at best, the wet thrust is insane. Let's take the plane I was flying. The typical acceleration was 1-5m/s/s for cruise mode. But with the afterburner, the acceleration was around 10-15m/s/s. I can't give hard numbers, but I know the afterburner mode is too powerful. (Not that it's a bad thing.) I think that for the Pather, you should be able to tune both the dry and wet thrust separate from each other. Ended up getting off my point. You should be able to tune all the parameters within the operational envelope for each engine. If you want a low and slow plane, you should be able to tune the max altitude and power curve to facilitate that. If you want that huge cargo plane to have the best efficiency at high subsonic speeds and high altitude, you should be able to fine tune that.

I don't know if this is related or something different, but I've noticed that when you adjust the position or size of a wing or stabilizer, the left side will always invert. In most cases, it will return to normal once you complete the move or save the changes.

I've been running across this too. I've been balancing my planes to require little to no input to fly, the constant rolling of the planes is really annoying. I've also seen the same behavior with rockets that use wings for stabilization.

After playing arounds with the atmospheric engines with different plane designs, the atmospheric engines need a way to adjust the performance of them. With some designs, there's just not enough thrust to move the plane with a reasonable number of engines. In other designs, the acceleration is abysmal compared to the real life counterpart. (Fighters specifically) I'm not suggesting anything too extreme. A slider to adjust the thrust output from the stock thrust value to 100% of that value. That way with the very limited number of stock atmospheric engines, you can have a wider variety of performance choices for the planes you design. Let me clarify my want. I would like to tune the different parameters for each engine within their typical performance envelope.

It has nothing to do with hardware. It's knowing how to force your OS to run how you want it to and to run only what you want running. Hell, you don't even need to be an OS guru. Both Nvidia and AMD has software included with their drivers that will force the prioritization of games over other software. (Except for the kernal.) You just have to use them. Fair enough. The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.

I don't get how some people are saying that KSP2 is completely unplayable. It plays fine, even with a sub spec PC. (The system was built in 2018.) I don't know if some people are so spoiled that anything less than 120fps, 4K is unplayable or some people are so computer illiterate that they don't know how to sterilize and optimize a PC for gaming. Or can it be that I'm from the age of PC gaming where you were lucky to get 30fps on all games. (Both 2d and 3d) But saying that KSP2 is completely unplayable is a massive lie. The game is completely playable. It may not run the way you like it. Or not have the features that will drive you to play. That's fine. For me, both apply reasons apply. But I wouldn't say the game is unplayable. (PC specs: AMD Ryzen 2 2700X (moderate OC through Ryzen Master); 16 Gb stock timings (not stable with XMP or modified timings), AsRock B450 Mini ITX main board, Nvidia GTX 1060 6gb, WD black HDD. Running the game at 1080 full screen. (1080p is more CPU intensive than running a game at 1440 or 4k.) Frames looking at the surface is 9-20. Frames looking at anything without a planet in view is 30-75. (Lower side in atmo, higher side in space.) Average craft size of 50 to 150 parts.)

And some of those fights continued to KSP2 before it was even released...

Interstellar is going to take awhile for me too. I don't have time I use to. I hope that the game will be stable enough from update to update. I'm tired of having to start a large mission over again because of things breaking.

KSP2 was to start you in the Kerbin system from the beginning. The rational for that was to have something familiar for the veteran players and an "easier" starting place for new players. It was a conscious choice by the developers. Not because they were lazy or unimaginative, they wanted a familiar starting point for the game.

Very true. I'm included in that camp. Even with the EA announcement, I was expecting a better polished game. Even if it was incomplete and somewhat buggy. It was worse than I expected. You're right though, with time it will get better. In this case, patience is a virtue.

Good advice. Learned that one long before the Expanse.

You seem like a software developer by trade. So imagine this scenario. There is an obvious bug affecting certain areas of the software you're working on. You and your team trace the root cause to one of the very foundational pieces of code for software. There are many different pieces of the program that touch this piece of code. What do you do now? Just bandaid your section of code (just like everyone else did)? Or bite the bullet and correct that code, and start the tedious process of correcting and verifying all the other pieces of code that touch that piece of code? It seems like IG is doing the second option instead of having to remind and teach their software devs that this is bugged and this is how you get around it.

Scott wasn't the only one that was critical about the game. The other predominant steamers were too. But none said the game was a lost cause. In their own ways, all of them basically said this is an EA release, and was in rough shape. None said you should skip it, but they did warn their viewers to expect a less than perfect game.

Ooo... good question.

Atmospheric heating isn't necessary at the moment. It's more important to have a predictable atmospheric flight model to work with. Once you have a predictable flight model to work with, then add atmospheric heating. That way you're only tuning the heating once, not every time you have to change base atmospheric flight model. If you want to add the FX, sure. There better be a clear note that the FX isn't representative of craft heating though.

I have to ask... Why is this such a huge priority when there are other more pressing bugs to get fixed and features to be added? KSP1 survived several years without it. Why is it mandatory for KSP2 to have it now?

Are there plans for more variety for plane and rover parts? (Ex. Commercial style cockpits. More parts that look like they belong on a ground vehicle.) Will there be more shape profiles for the basic rocket parts? How difficult was it to unify the different art styles of the KSP1 parts? Will we see a different but similar art style for future parts as the game development progresses?

Those subjects people unconsciously deal with day to day. So why not point it out in the form of a video game?

I hope you're joking.