Slam_Jones

Are their profit margins so very thin that they can't hire 10 extra QA people for a few extra weeks to smash some bugs? I can't possibly claim to know the intimate details of their finances, but if they're doing well enough that they don't want people to know how well they're doing (as seems to be the case whenever such a subject is brought up), well, that indicates to me that they're doing pretty darn well. This is what I'm looking at here: they posted this thread on the 7th of June, asking (in so many words) for QA testers for the console versions of the game. Fair enough. Then we see in this thread that the game was released on consoles on 15th July (for XBox) and (assuming my sources are correct) 12th July for PlayStation. So, even if they had testers literally coming in and starting the day they posted the request for them (unlikely), they still would have had barely over a month to test the game. I can only assume that it takes a few weeks to get people properly (temporarily) hired for the job, orientated, and then able to report bugs. Not to mention the time it takes to correct those bugs, and then test that section again to make sure the correction stuck, and repeat the cycle until you've got a polished product. So, by all means correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that at the absolute most, they had experienced KSP players giving their opinion on the console version for less than a month before they decided to ship it. Obviously I'm not an expert in the industry, but to my untrained eye, that just does not look like enough time to smash all the bugs that could appear in such a complex game. It's my opinion that Flying Tiger jumped the gun and rushed to ship a product that they were not done with. But I am just one panda bear and I could be wrong.

Others on here can correct me if I'm wrong, but regarding PSUs, make sure they are AT LEAST Bronze certified (shouldn't be an issue as I see the one Alpha chose for you in Gold certified, which is fantastic, but this is for reference at the very least). I bought one a few years back that was super cheap, though it was not Bronze certified. Nor even 80+ certified! Well, earlier this year it decided to explode on me, in that it popped very loudly, and I saw a fireball about the size of a dime appear out the exhaust port for the PSU. I scrambled and unplugged everything, and luckily nothing else was damaged. Long story short: a cheap PSU can destroy itself, which can in turn take out other components. Always be wary of that. Here's more reading on the subject for those interested. Refer to the chart under the heading "Efficiency level certifications." Some other reading on the subject as well.

Let's put it this way: SQUAD is a company, and companies exist for one purpose: to make money. The cost it would take to acquire/rent/hire the facilities to create the boxes and disks, which will always have a rather steep set-up cost. So right off the bat, they lose money. Then it comes to distribution. They have to load them onto trucks, and get them to distribution centers. Again, more money. Then it comes to actually shipping you the product... more money! And for what? A cardboard box with some ink and gloss on it, and a disk that will be obsolete by the time you receive it. Nobody (relatively) will buy it, because nobody (relatively) wants it. Nobody needs it, and it is, to put it plainly, an extremely outdated and slow method of getting your data/game/etc. This product, what with the box et al, is a very niche product, and unlikely to sell their stock, let alone make back any investments made getting it produced. So what it boils down to is this: they won't make any money doing so. Ergo, they won't be doing so.

Thanks! I'll try to get one in on time, but don't wait up for me if I don't, still been a bit hectic IRL here. If that time goes by and I haven't submitted, carry on and I'll try to get something ready for the next one

Might I quote from the second to last paragraph in that article? And my take on that: If you're being purposefully vague, it's usually for a reason. In this case, because they know if they say "nope! No multiplayer!" then they won't sell nearly as many copies. If they leave it open-ended (by refusing to give definitive answers) then people will hope for the best. Personally, as a person, I hate when companies and game studios half-lie to you like that... at the very least I'm not giving them any money. Whether you do, of course, is your choice. So, it sounds to me like they just don't have the system for seeing other players in place yet and are just trying to save face.

All I know is it looks (to me) like they intentionally mislead people about that. Steam used to have an 'MMO' tag on the game, but have since removed it. Seems pretty damn shady to me, and I personally am not shelling out any money for this game. Just not enough there to make it worth my while, and especially not while the tweets from the devs are so vague that people weren't even sure if it's single-player or not. Lots of hype for a product that isn't really what they promised, as far as I can tell. But, I can let the people who bought the game say that for me: No Man's Sky on Steam. Read some of the reviews and see if you notice a theme.

Just before the game was released, Mr Murray warned player that “No Man’s Sky is not a multiplayer game. Please don’t go in looking for that experience”. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/no-mans-sky-ps4-multiplayer-latest-easter-eggs-sean-murray-hello-games-sony-a7186906.html

I played a ton in Legacy but honestly gave up when they decided to completely dump that version and start from scratch. They didn't even push it to a separate branch. I should've gotten a refund when they started making those changes, as I simply do not like what the product evolved into. Uninstalled a while ago and haven't looked back.

I'm more tempted to believe R.I.C. here. Personally, I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," which in my mind extends to "they didn't build it unless they have proof that they did." Also, Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is that he lied. Lastly, I grew up with 3 older brothers, and I learned you gotta stay on the offensive. You could convince your brother that there is a teapot orbiting the sun and ask if he can prove you wrong. That should keep him distracted for a while

Edit:

Did some more Naval testing today. Assembled a fleet consisting of a Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, and a Frigate to be my main group. Been trying to keep part counts low for FPS sake, and I think the total combined parts for this fleet is about 180 or so. Set up a few random targets to test the weapons on. At first I used ships individually, but it all culminated in a coordinated attack on one hostile Cruiser which sat in place to allow me to maneuver my ships more easily and learn how to manage them all in a combat situation. After sinking the target practice cruiser, the fleet anchored for the night and set off again the next morning, headed southward to the next training objective. This allowed me some time to get used to matching speeds of the 4 vessels and keep them in a loose formation (or, at worst, near each other and holding the same bearing). However, I let the Frigate get a bit to close to the Cruiser, and after getting stuck to the side for a minute, was pulled under and capsized. The rest of the fleet came to a halt and the remaining exercise was called off to recover the vessels. Another fleet was put together consisting of the same ships as before, and has been sent southward from KSC to continue the training sorties.

Good afternoon, So I've been considering undertaking a project that may prove beneficial to those who prefer and/or enjoy ground or water-based navigation. Basically, I wish to make a lock, in the style of the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal. Modelling it after the Suez Canal would be easier, theoretically, since it stays at sea-level the entire time. However, this seems kinda like just digging a big ol' trench in the side of the planet... pretty low-tech IMO. So, I'm considering a Panama Canal-style system of locks to effectively raise ships up and over the stretch of land that prevents true circumnavigation. Now the first issue I've already got a decent idea for. I plan to use Kerbal Konstructs to make the physical walls and such that would make up the lock. The big issue is getting water in there. Now I first believed water was only present at Sea Level, however I remember that there is a small pool in the T3 Space Center (at the Admin Building, I believe), and through testing I have determined it acts (as near as I can tell) the same as sea-level water, in that you can float stuff on it. Also it's clearly above sea level, being that it's a part of KSC. What this tells me is that somewhere in their, water is coded in, and not just as a global, sea-level entity. So, in theory, one may be able to place it in defined areas. In theory. However the next question is a big one... even if I can make a lock, and have water in it, is it possible to raise/lower that water level without A.) crashing the game, or B.) causing anything floating in it to suffer a Kraken attack? The actual physics of flowing water is something I doubt we can emulate properly within the game environment, however I imagine it's not entirely necessary, for the scope of the mod. My first thought is that the water could actually be a part with modified physics, that is able to attach automatically to the ship (through a context menu for sake of user-friendliness) and hold it, suspended, at the proper level as the water level ebbs and flows. This does sound, admittedly, rather complicated. The other idea is to have the water with its standard physics present, but simply raise/lower it as needed. However, I have a strong feeling that this will really screw with anything floating on it. I imagine you could alter water levels on a per-lock basis through file manipulation, but I doubt that could be handled effectively at run-time. So, even if it is a very rough start, is it even something that is possible to do within the game environment? Thanks!

Hm, alrighty then, good to know. I think I may go for the Master Mariner badge, and given the rest of the rules, I will have to figure out how to ship a multi k-ton vessel to Laythe... that'll be fun I had originally planned to ship out a workshop and a bunch of kerbals to build the boat on site, but I can understand why that would not be allowed. Regardless, it should be quite entertaining seeing an ocean-going ship cruising through outer space with giant boosters attached to it... And I was unable to find a map of the Master Mariner challenge, but I assume that it involves starting on one side of the land bridge to the north-east of KSC, and go around Kerbin to the other side of the land bridge?

Hmm good to know, I'll definitely have to dig into this a little bit more. If I end up successful, I'm sure I won't be the only one to benefit from it

To answer the question without devolving into a rant: Kerbal Engineer Redux and MechJeb are both able to show you the info that you need. Whichever one you choose is arbitrary, since they give you the same info.

Well my oldest name was MrPenguin589, and my most commonly used name between that one and my current one is a (very) minor violation of Forum Rules 2.2c, so I'll put it behind a spoiler (but will remove it entirely if requested... although it's a very inoffensive reference that most people wouldn't really get anyway.) I still have a few accounts for the above name from old games and such that are still active, and it's never been reported or anything... so I can only assume it's as inoffensive and I think it is.

Well, technically, he's not wrong... you'll get to space quicker, sure, but you won't achieve orbit that way. Then again, Flat-Earthers probably think the two terms are interchangeable. (Ninja'd, apparently)

Hi all! Quick question: is it possible to built a Canal or Lock (a la Panama Canal) with Konstructs? My plan is to build such a Konstruct to allow for continuous water-based circumnavigation on whatever the shortest land bridge is. I think I've got a good spot already picked out, just need to check like one other place and I'll know for sure. But regardless, is it even possible to do this?

Heya @Claw , few questions if possible. Firstly: is it still in the spirit of the challenge to build a lock or canal (a la Panama Canal) utilizing Kerbal Konstructs (assuming it is possible) to be able to complete a water-based circumnavigation properly? If not, I'll end up having to build some massive crawlers to transport my ships at some points, which will not be kind to physics :\ Secondly: is it still in the spirit of the challenge to complete secondary objectives along the way? For example, one of my ideas was to use a research/science ship to circumnavigate with, and before setting off, accept a bunch of science-gathering contracts from KSC, to be completed at intervals along the journey. Since some would likely involve airborne tests, I planned on utilizing EPL (Extra-Planetary Launchpads) to be able to manufacture sounding rockets and other science vehicles to complete the contracts. Since it would be a Research mission, we would recover and recycle all used materials and debris to avoid polluting Kerbin itself. My other idea was a bit different: it would include BDArmory, and involve a small fleet of ships cruising Kerbins water in a circumnavigation, fighting and defeating groups of hostile ships and shore batteries along the way. I imagine of these two, the Research vessel would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure, which is why I ask. Both of these ideas, by the way, would be done in a "no quickload, no revert" career game. The last idea was to combine the two: having a Battle Fleet (3-5 ships) protecting a Research vessel as it completes contracts, which are conveniently guarded by hostiles. These would all be heavily modded games, so it would, of course, fall into that category. So, are any of these plans still within the spirit and scope of the challenge?

None of them, because I cannot imagine how I could assign hate to something that doesn't exist in the real world, or even act as any sort of active antagonist. They're big lumps of rock... why waste energy hating them?

Created a few ships for battling purposes, and been duking it out between them in preparation for a bigger future event...

No major builds (yet) today, but I have been tweaking a small Rescue Skiff (it's not really a skiff but I prefer the name), playing with the aerodynamics and trying to see how much speed I could get out of it without it leaping from the water and then crashing spectacularly. So far, my record has been 55m/s on flat water, and held it for a minute or two (until the fuel ran out...). It's not easy to get it up to speed, either: if you jam it from off to Full in one motion, it will lift the bow clear out of the water and flop over onto its back. In fact, if you accelerate too fast at any point, it will do exactly that, so getting it up to full speed is a bit of a balancing act. Raise the throttle a bit, let it catch up and settle, raise it a bit more, etc etc. I've since upgraded to FAR, so I'll have to see how this affects the stability. But with Stock aero, I put the ailerons and elevators on (well, more like splitter and spoiler), and adjusted the angle at which they were deployed to balance the boat properly at high speeds. Since the bow tended to want to lift off, I put downforce there and upforce at the stern. As it approaches top speed, however, adjustments are needed to ensure it doesn't death-roll (read: nose-dive violently) or lift off. I also made sure to have a Pilot on board for SAS stability boost. Not sure how much more speed I can squeeze out of such a small vessel, but I think I might be able to get it above 55m/s if I really tweak it. I also built a trailer for my rovers, and, to test it, I loaded a rover onto the rover trailer. Trailer hinge still needs a bit more tuning to allow it to swivel properly, but it's close enough for the meantime. The trailers, in the future, will likely carry a variety of payloads, including other roves, rescue gear (winches and wrenches), and possibly even a drill and ore container for ISRU operations. And, last but not least, my favorite duo of bearded scientists, Jenson and Jervey, hang out in the lounge after crashing a rescue skiff. Edit: Oh, and the first SOS rescue was attempted by the crew. They, err, may have lost a Kerbal or two and didn't exactly complete the contract... >.>

Awesome! Gonna have to incorporate this into some of my choppers

Not sure I get exactly what I'm looking at... but I take it you mean that if you turn the Thrust Limiter down to 0 on a vertically-mounted propeller, it will still generate lift when moving forward? Am I close?

Quietly buy stock in a few expanding industries, and enjoy the profits. If I make more than I can spend, donate it to organizations that have been proven trustworthy.