shdwlrd

That's amusing, maybe they are using the cpu usage graph to draw the lines. In all seriousness, looks like the lines between the trajectory points aren't being drawn correctly. Come to think of it, maybe the scaling for trajectory points wasn't designed for zooming in that close.

I can't answer for anyone else, but my reasoning for not tearing Intercept a new one is that this isn't the first time that a game developer has over talked or given a false impression about a game. (Take the 2013 release of SimCity for example.) The difference here is Intercept was mostly honest about the state of the game. (A bit not to the full extent of the roughness of the game.) Yes, I was disappointed about the EA announcement. Disappointed about the roadmap and realization that the features I was looking forward to wasn't in the EA release. But that's the nature of EA. What really disappointed me was core functions were never fixed prior to release. But being a reasonable adult, not the complete jerk you find on most other platforms. I'm giving Intercept the chance to fix the problems. Much like how you would give a coworker or subordinate a chance to fix their errors before running it up the chain or disciplining them. Or a shop a chance to fix a botched repair before releasing all hell on them. Notice I said chance to fix the problems. If Intercept doesn't make reasonable headway with the bugs and performance before moving through the roadmap, I would be joining the torch and pitchfork crowd saying wth Intercept. What are you doing. Basically the saying "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again, shame on you."

Me neither, all the links are broken.

I don't disagree. It's a completely fair question to ask, if not premature. I'd understand asking the question after at least few patches were released or around one of the EA milestones. But only after one patch and one month in EA? It's too early to tell right now. The game, as it sits currently, isn't really in a very stable state. There's still reports of save corruption and crashes coming in after the patch. Let Intercept fix the true game breaking bugs before asking for opinions on performance. Once the game is stable, then it would be fair to ask about performance and your expectations of future performance.

Quite honestly, it's too early to tell. With only one patch down and an unknown number to go, we can't tell the trajectory of the performance updates right now. This type of question should be asked when there is a reason for a majority of players to start assembling crafts or a collection of crafts to get close to 1000 parts. But at the moment, there's no real reason to build anything that big outside of content for creators or trying to break game.

Nate, Who is/was your favorite Kerbal? Do you have a favorite track from the KSP2 soundtrack? What's your favorite mission type?

A3000 as in the NVidia Quatro A3000? Those are not made for gaming. NVidia purposely designed the Quatro gpu's not to be preformant for gaming. You would have better performance using the integrated Intel graphics.

The tyranny of the rocket equation. What you think may help actually hurts you.

I voted for Yay. The Parts Commander mod was a staple for my KSP1 games. It's very handy to use, but as a secondary option to access part options. In the VAB it's really not necessary since you can just right click the item you want. (As long as it's not hidden.) But in flight, it's a god send. The UI does need some work. Text scaling and listing sizes does need to be consistent between the VAB and flight. There also needs to be something other than the "dark mode" style they used. (Dark mode settings don't work well with me. The white letters will fade into the background the more fatigued my eyes get.)

Seen this behavior before in KSP1. The torque is being applied at a different angle than expected. It's simply the model or torque direction is wrong. To counter act this, turn off your reaction wheels in the pods and cores and don't use the inline stabilizers. Just use RCS and aerodynamics. This has fixed the SAS issues for me.

@RocketRockington No offense taken. I was just curious. There seems to be people griping about the game that haven't played it yet. I don't totally disagree with you. The game shouldn't have been released with show stopping bugs. I'm not playing it now because of the "revert to VAB bug." That should have been fixed prior release or patched soon afterwards since Intercept did know about it. When the game is working, it's just as I would expect for an EA release. Lack luster performance, weird bugs popping up, some of the QoL stuff being broken. Nothing really to get upset about. Basically, I'm saving my judgment until the first series of patches comes down. If all known game breaking bugs are fixed and some of the more annoying minor bugs are fixed, I'll be happy. If that doesn't happen, I'll be joining the chorus of "wth Intercept."

That's the same thinking as an ex-con will always be a criminal and the homeless will never stay in a home.

Why are ya'll (still) arguing about the past events? It's not like you can change them. There's nothing you can learn from them (because you weren't there.) Nothing about situation was released but just the broad strokes. (NDA's are good at suppressing relevant info about a situation. Plus it's generally bad form to publicly speak about companies goings on if nothing illegal or immoral is happening.) So you're technically arguing about opinions. One thing you should know if you've been around for a few decades or more, arguing opinions without hard facts is a kin to arguing about religion. It becomes more emotional than factual based. @RocketRockington I have to ask, is there any positives you see within KSP2? Almost all the posts I've seen from you are trashing the studio and the people that are employed by the studio by proxy.

You can turn off the reaction wheels. This will help a lot with the flappy planes. Also, trim your planes or design them with where they require little trimming. This is related to the SAS torque bug. It seems that the reaction torque is being applied 90° from prograde.

Yep... building and flying like KSP1 has bit me on a few occasions in the couple hours I've been able to play. I have to agree. You will need to change your habits to play KSP2. You don't really need to relearn how to play. You just need to adjust how you play.

No. KSP2 will need it's own wiki. Granted, the planets and moons in the Kerbol system will technically be the same, there will be enough changes to warrant a new wiki. If you add all the stat changes for the "old" KSP1 parts and the new parts introduced, you'll have a huge confusing mess on your hands.

Give it time. A wiki will be created eventually. There is a ton of info to go through and collate.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600G, 32GB, integrated Radeon GPU (had to try it) In VAB: about 20fps Out in the world: high 8fps; med 12fps; low 18 fps The funny thing is the CPU never broke 5% and the shared VRAM never exceeded 7gb out of the 16gb allocated for it. So with a modern dedicated GPU, the 5600G would have good performance. Again, I had to try it for laughs. I had no real hope it would run good with this setup.

It wouldn't hurt to try that, but still have to redesign the rocket. The new engine stats are messing with me. The first couple launch failures was do to the SAS bugs people have been reporting. After not using SAS, it was a DV shortage on the booster stage. Didn't want too dig to deep into it at the time. I was running against the Steam refund clock.

This is the same bogus decision that Squad made. You can't trim and fly your craft using the same keys on the keyboard. The trim keys must be separate from the control keys. The number pad isn't being used or set them to the translation keys when the RCS isn't on. Just something other than alt-WASDQE because you're using WASDQE to fly your plane.

Well, my first opinions. The game is definitely playable at low to medium settings on an older GPU. (GTX1060 6GB) Everything in the VAB will take some getting used to. I do like the workspaces concept, but there needs to be a way to name your different assemblies separately. (If I've missed something please let me know.) My only feed back at the moment is separate the pan, rotate, and zoom functions on the mouse. Most mice nowadays have a minimum of three buttons and a scroll wheel. Why is the pan on the scroll/middle button? It should be on the right button or forward/back buttons. Never made it to space, had some issues with doing a proper gravity turn. (And no, I don't need pointers. Just a design/launch profile issue I don't have time to figure out right now.) Flying a plane is, well, the same as KSP1. Hopefully they will add an auto trim to the game or easier access to the trim functions. Because trying to fly your plane and trimming it using the same keys really sucks. (I mean separate trim keys on the keyboard. Not modifier plus control keys.) Didn't get a chance to drive some rovers around. Will have to do that tomorrow. Man the KSC is absolutely huge. I love it. Feels like a real launch complex. The sound effects are great, they're not overly annoying and are appropriate to the situation. (The loud clank when you hit hard and don't destroy the part is very satisfying weirdly.) The music fits the different situations very well. (Not hard compared to KSP1.) I look forward to hearing more of it. General concerns/hopes: Joystick or gamepad support comes sooner than later. An easier way to remap the keyboard and mouse controls. A visual map of the keyboard. What's with the SAS not holding your heading for more than a minute or two? It was easier to fly without than with it. (It should be the other way around.) Better performance as updates come down the pipeline.

Ryzen7 2700X, GTX 1060 6GB, 16 GB RAM, 2TB HDD, Win10. High settings: 15-20 out in the world; 30-35 in the VAB Medium-Low settings: 25-35 out in the world; about the same in the VAB. Definitely playable. Yes, KSP2 still looks a lot better than KSP1 at the same settings. I'm truly surprised that KSP2 looks as good as it does at these settings and has relatively decent performance. Cudos to the devs, hoping the performance gets better with more optimizations. I will test with the other systems I have later.

Why is it whenever the forum is updated, the html breaks on my phone and is displayed as text only? Using Chrome for Android.

I really should have specified wings. My basic wing designs usually had at least 3 parts per wing. Any design that required a complex or oversized wing; the part count could easily exceed 20 parts per wing. With procedural wings; a basic wing would be just one part and a complex or oversized wing could be maybe 2-4 parts.

Yes and no. Instead of using a bunch of little fiddlely parts, you can use a few parts for the plane. But you have to adjust the shape you want for the plane. A much better trade off in my opinion.