Temporal Wolf

Fiduciary duties in most states are held by corporate directors (the board) and corporate officers (executives appointed by the board to manage the day to day operations), so, for example, the CEO/CFO absolutely have fiduciary duties to shareholders. Unsurprisingly perhaps, because their compensation tends to be based upon quarterly/FY targets, they tend to maximize short term profits to the exclusion of other concerns, because that maximizes their compensation while still fulfilling their duties to shareholders despite potentially hurting the company in the long term. You need look no further than KSP2's own forced release in the last month of FY23. Even if KSP2 development had been going well, forcing a release prior to finishing generally has a net negative impact on it's value, despite driving short term profits.

I mean the way you've phrased this is as if T2 is uniquely evil, but this is just how publicly traded companies work. The board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, not to the customers. They can be held legally liable for not putting shareholders first.

This just makes me think you haven't worked at a publicly traded company before. It was fully funded and was on the books to be completed... until it wasn't. Being blindsided by the board is pretty much the norm. Don't forget, they are there to drive shareholder profits, and nothing else.

That's why you write down your objection, with reasoning, somewhere it will be preserved. Then you can tap the sign when they start looking for blame. "It must be frustrating to be proven right like this over and over..." from a PM is a quote I'll forever cherish. They didn't stop making bad decisions, but such is life, you can only control yourself.

Oof I feel this in my bones. "You're paying me to be the person who gives you this warning... I can lead you to water, I can't force you to drink." "No, we're carrying on." Guess I'll write it in the ticket/an email then so it's clear I was overruled.

I feel like folks with industry experience keep trying to pretty politely say you're misunderstanding the situation and you keep confidently repeating that you know you're right. You just described every creative director, and said that's why Nate is a bad creative director.

Between a ton of unsupported conjecture and a healthy dose of factually incorrect bits, I find this difficult to even take seriously. They were hiring college grads, not poaching FAANG devs. I do like the subtle dig that FAANG devs wouldn't know what hard work was though. "They should have just hired driven, self-motivated people..." and those high performing people can be paid easily double working for FAANG. You're advocating for a very anti-worker "well they should just accept being exploited because they care so dang much about the IP..." instead of "if you want market rate work, pay them market rate... if you want more, pay more." With a $150k cap you're fishing in the bottom quartile of senior engineers in Seattle. Speed, Quality, Price. If you're careful you can pick two, but you definitely can't pick all three.

It's also worth noting, especially for a team of junior devs, they probably won't take into consideration the 80/20 rule: 80% of the work will be required for the last 20% of the feature... so even if you're doing everything right, you can get something mostly working and still have a ton of work left to do.

I think people forget that when T2 bought KSP, literally the first thing they did was update the TOS and mandate the insertion of RedShell, all the while the PR folks were saying "this is just boilerplate, none of the changes meaningfully impact KSP, etc." T2 is the cancer. I said it then and I'll say it again. Let's also not forget that T2 forced the EA launch by the end of FY23, and apparently decided to close down the studio when they failed to deliver the 1.0 launch by FY24. This has T2's fingerprints all over it. Doesn't surprise me at all to find out they were causing problems with the actual development as well.

Honestly, at this point I'd just love them to stick to whatever promise they make. 6 weeks since the last "monthly" KERB, 3 months since the last "every 6-7 weeks" update. These are self-inflicted wounds... figure out something you can actually do, and do it.

Disappointing that it's been 6 weeks since the last KERB and the change to "monthly" KERBs... in the same way that we're 3 months since the last patch with a stated 6-7 week patch cadence (two sprint?). Y'all doing yourselves no favors setting up expectations and then not meeting them.

This seems like less a "does not hold orientation" and more a "craft can't rotate during time warp", which definitely seems like a double edged sword: If SAS works during time warp/craft can rotate, then heading instability becomes an issue while burning under time warp... which is not a good thing in my book.

Same issue trying to setup an encounter with Gilly from Eve orbit: never actually got an intercept line until I actually hit the SOI. Seemed like I could get closest intercept until it predicted the SOI change, then failed to switch to the SOI entry mode.

Did a duna return mission, hit the atmosphere reverse to Kerbin's spin at like 4.5km/s, no ablator loss. There is definitely some weirdness going on with ablator.

I've had the reverse happen: my current save has two Tim C Kermans, on separate missions. At this point I think the Kerbals might just be clones... which kinda makes sense, KSP isn't known for having a high survival rate...

I'm guessing this is probably not intended, and I suspect it it may not be your doing, but I thought you might find it interesting:

It's definitely doable without landings. I've lofted ion ships with enough dV... just might have to wait a few years between each transfer to get a good window. It's just a grand tour without landings (or even orbits?). I think it would be a good challenge: lowest dV at launch for the completion... watch the 30 year journeys roll in.

For the sliding rover: I find it really useful to have gear to deploy when not moving. My rover is 6 wheels with 6 landing gear. If I'm sliding I just drop my landing gear... they have a lot better friction it seems. Also, braking is less effective than spinning the wheels in reverse. My rover will not stop via braking; it will stop by reversing. (and stop MUCH faster via landing gear)

I finally broke down and installed HyperEdit to test Eve's new atmo before sending my very high cost mission... that's the only easy way to get a true test I know of. EDIT: Although you could start a sandbox, copy your craft, launch it with a mammoth engine and infinite fuel on and just blast it over... HE would be easier, but I guess that would work... just quicksave before you get there so you can test multiple reentries.

What does the payload look like? My guess is the drag on the payload is flipping it around, which means you may want to have airbrakes or a few drogues on the payload rear end deploy when you pop the fairing endcap. This might not be as easy as you might think, as it is not just the parachutes, but the entire drag of the craft that matters... and that is based largely upon the direction of travel... there may be multiple 'stable' decent angles depending on which direction the craft is traveling.

Getting similar crashes recently. I also have DOE installed... just launched 3 satellites in one go, had all three near one another for burns to different SOIs. It's done this twice in twenty minutes when I'm switching between those craft... haven't had it happen before (my game is usually stable for several hours at least), so I don't think it's a memory issue... and I have a LOT more craft floating around. I'm gonna get them away from one another and see if it keeps crashing... if not, DOE might have to go

Considering this takes a crash-every-ten-minutes mod load and turns it into a hasn't-crashed-yet... all the rep to you. I'll take the FPS drop over constant crashing.

Ah, awesome. I hadn't seen that.

I built a solar observatory with enough dV to get to a stable 150Mm circular orbit around Kerbol (~20kdV on Kerbin escape on a retrograde path with periapsis at 150Mm)... with the new heating mechanics, my craft part-by-part explodes in the 750-600Mm range (during 'simulations', warp makes it much worse). I'm now looking to retarget my observatory at a safe distance (seemingly 750Mm), but this means I'll probably have 15kdV to spare once it's circular... maybe I'll try to put it in a polar orbit >89 degrees at 750Mm. Anyone have any experience with craft closer than that and surviving the new heating mechanics? EDIT: So for 16 of the 20kdV I have I can put it directly into a 800Mm circular polar orbit. I'll probably do that. Might have to build another with radiators and the like and see how close I can dive it before it burns up.

Yes, that's it. And it's being worked on: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/388