nikokespprfan

I want to endorse this very obnoxiously. Good idea, devs please consider. Edit: although it would be a bit more complex than just the rcs thrusters. I believe we have seen a colony ship that required boosters just to separate it from the orbital dock. If we are going to be using entire "normalsized" fueltank-rocket engine combos for rcs on big craft, the game needs a way of knowing what is for RCS versus what is for DeltaVee.

Am I the only one that can:t stand the modern fad of single-coloured flat icons and UIs? It really makes it far more difficult to find stuff. Had a big argument with the VisualStudio devs about this too (luckily I wasn't the only one and Microsoft eventually backed down) In my opinion, the flat icons make the editor easier on the eyes. I really hope KSP 2 keeps the flat style because it makes the interface much easier to process and look at. I guess this is a matter of (grabbing) attention. you might want an individual button to pop so you need less effort to find it, but you might also want the whole ui to not distract from the rocket. Precisely how much a button pops is what could annoying when your screen is filled with it. I guess it is a balancing act. You could use the same simple style with a more than one icon colour, say two or three, in the same kind of tint and tone (I dont understand colour jargon don't be mad at me). It gives you just a little more than just the shape of the icon, without overdoing it. You could make the more important icons more colourful as well, to grab that extra bit of attention.

I suspect the icon under the Symmetry one is Angle Snap. I think you are right on the angle snap. As for the buttons below, I think they are "click and drag your ship", "attach parts to from side", "attach groups of parts to the side" i.e. merge two subassemblies, and "attach craft file saved separately". I don't think the radioactivity will be a center, but will probably display a cloud around all radioactive sources that can be reformed based on the shield parts on your rocket.l

Barring any knowledge-breaking insights, this can help us understand a little more about what the spectrum of possibilities is. On one extreme, T2 had a clause in the contract allowing them to terminate it whenever they want, or at least immediately. So the contractual protection of S.T ends in December. Then, given about 3 mnts of pay as per your comment, stretched out over not the full staff as some left for Intercept, Star Theory ran dry their funds and closed on March 4th (which is roughly consistent with these three months of pay), sending their employees home "with a months pay and 2 months health insurance", as per the Bloomberg Article. In this case, the answer to the question "why would you fire a studio months before a deadline" would need no explanation, they could per the contract, and negotiations/relations broke down, so they did. In this scenario, you could reasonably have the moral qualm as to why TT is able to so quickly fire a studio in the contract in the first place, given what the result would be in general for the studio and its people if T2 were to do that. On a less extreme case, TT had to wait until some milestone deadline somewhere in between December and march. This means that S.T could have survived a little longer, and was more protected from willynilly mood changes at TT. Then a question for TT becomes: why do you have milestones that could end the contract built into said contract, which are months before a deadline to deliver the final product? Why would TT want the ability to go like: "well ehh, everything has been going good so far, but you missed the last milestone, and so you are fired for a game people expect next month". It doesn't make sense to me to put this in a contract. But hey, I've got no business experience, but as for moral qualms, you could take issue with this. On the other extreme, S.T was protected against TTs attempts to break the contract until it expired, which is probably somewhere in March but at least in the spring before March 21, when T2 fiscal year ended. Given the savings we expect star theory to have at that point, there must have been a lot of foresight into the hopelessness of the future for S.T to shutter on March 4. This could be the case as well, since the coronavirus pandemic cancelled the conference central to their survival strategy (conventions don't happen every month), and made publishers more privy in general (making backdoor pitches harder). The employees also go extra pay and health when ST closed, so there needed to be funds for that left. Think about the history of the coronavirus, and think about how far in advance you would cancel a GameDev Conference scheduled in Mid March, whatever the cancellation date, you'd expect it to be close to March 4. This means the cancellation could have been the actual trigger that made ST close down, giving us an insight into how ST saw their chances. Again, barring knowledge-breaking insights, what happened is somewhere in between these extremes.

Well, maybe I am naive (Im probably naive), but if your client is completely dependenton you, in a moral world, that client is at least somewhat protected against, erm, you being a [bleep] and destroying their livelyhoods on a dime. "I am always able to trow you into a ravine whenever I like" is not a very fun condition to work under. So yes, up until some point I do find it weird that this can happen.

waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait This pulling of the contract happened in December, per the Bloomberg article The game was to be shipped in spring 2020 at that time. If what you are saying is true, why in the world would a contract end 4 months before a deadline? (thinking emoji) It could be that the negotiations where started early, and failed, ending in the foresight of what would happen. But then the question is, how quickly did star.theorys' financial situation deteriorate. Surely just waiting for the contract to expire would leave you with some money in the bank to survive past March 4th. Although it could be the case that S.T knew in advance that the leftover savings weren't going to make the studio survive for long, and they decided to pull the plug sooner rather than later. I'm not sure how likely this all is, but it is a plausible scenario.

I am happy that @Nate Simpson is here on the forums to clarify. However, I'm not yet set on how I look at this whole situation. I just hope you and your team, as well as the project, are treated with reality and reasonability in mind.

Please Elaborate

Never underestimate the need to carefully explain things on the internet. I don't mean that as condescending or anything, but its always likely that some need refreshers, some need to be reminded that nuance exists and some are going to be new and unfamiliar with the context. On top of that, nonverbal communication on the internet is really nothing more than what we pretend to be there as readers. __________ Personally, it could totally be that Take2 was greedy, I'm also willing to believe it wasn't. I am mainly worried that bad stuff has happened, and for what that means for KSP. I am not yet at the point of blame and don't know what the best course of action is personally or for the community as a whole.

I strongly want to put everyones attention to this point. I'm also not sure we understand the case correctly if we assume that Start.Theory started the sales talks. Ah, but that means that our friend Schrier might know what is up. Maybe we could give him a call to see if he's got more to say about it. I disagree,... somewhat. Knowing who was at the initiative of the sales talks gives an important insight into what frustrations and emotions there might have been. It matters who wanted the sale at the beginning relative to T2 pulling the plug at the end. Mainly, it matters for what scenarios you consider when you want to know who was screwed over by whom, although I'm not sure if we should encourage this thinking -- mutters something about reasonable discussions and all that. On the other hand, people are assuming it came from Star.Theories part and you can expect them to base judgement on that. So how much does that hurt our understanding?

To be honest, I couldn't find it either, and I had to search in my activity history. So yeah...... EDIT: I have put this thread in my signature so people will see it (see below). I hope this will help people find the thread and help out. It wasn't like it said useful stuff there before anyway.

It has been here all along. Hey, if you think this is important, you can help out by posting KSP2 news sources whenever you discover them. Keeps the archiving work light for all of us.

OK, lets round up more KSP2 news and commentary sources. It has been a while since sources where collected here. If I forgot something, please contribute. EDIT: phew that was a lot of work. The initial Delay beyond the Fiscal Year 2020 There is a discussion video from @ShadowZone, published on the topic above, on November 8th 2019. Print-only PC gamer article & other Info Reveal First, there is a video of the behind-the scenes of the KSP 2 trailer, published by the KSP main youtube channel on 28th Oktober 2019 Then, on 20th Febuary 2020, this same channel published a KSP2 feature video about next generation technology and engines. Then on March 5th, PCgamer had an interview with @Nate Simpson. Here, Nate discusses the studio's ideas about what is and what isn't physically plausible, among other subjects. They also talk about the website AtomicRockets.com, which is no KSP news source, but it is a relevant source that the KSP team used for inspiration for future tech engine concepts. Around the end of May, a PCgamer article came out, written by Wes Fenlon, which is only available in print as of writing this post. As such, I cannot find any links or references for direct access to the source. We do, however, have two videos indirectly discussing the contents of this article, those video's being by @Matt Lowne and @ShadowZone, both published on 29th May. We also have screenshots posted on Imgur, brought to the attention of the forums by @prestja, who is working on a transcript. The article discusses new information revealed about the details of KSP2. The article has a KSP Forum Discussion Thread here. Coronavirus Pandemic For future reference, the coronavirus pandemic starts to become an influence at this point in the story. While its first outbreaks already started in January in China after having lingered for one to two months, the outbreaks didn't come into full effect in the western world until about February-March-ish and early May (the spread in time indicating the period of the virus becoming a problem). From now on in the reporting, this pandemic is playing a role mostly in the background, but it needs to be noted. Further Delay According to a PCgamer Article around the 20th of May (officially 16 days in the past as of writing), the game was further pushed back to the Fall of 2021. The article contains a twitter statement made by the Kerbal Space Program Twitter about the subject. Studio Change Controversy This story begins before the Print-only PCgamer article (mentioned above), with a press Release from Take Two Interactive and a video on Kerbal Space Programs' main Youtube Channel, published on 20th of Febuary 2020. (haha 20-02-2020, what a funny date--- oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.) That day also saw a PCgamer article on the shift. EDIT: Then, on 28th of May, the KSP website introduced the new studio intercept to the playerbase with a post on a few quotes on why the name is so fitting. In short objectivity: Take Two Interactive had owned the intellectual property rights since 2017, which where developed by the game studio Star.Theory, where all the game devs worked. Somewhere in between is an entity called Private Division, which is a publisher focusing on indie games. What has happened here is that the game was moved from Star.Theory to a newly Private-Division-set-up studio called Intercept. Immediately following this, @ShadowZone discussed these developments in a video a day later, including the feature video from above that was posted on the same day. Eventually though, more information came out about the studio change in a Bloomberg article by Jason Schrier on June 3rd 2020: This was amplified by @Matt Lowne video on the same day, noting in his video description that the events are 'allegedly'. All of this was met with heavy discussion in pretty much all the places you'd expect to find it, including here on the Kerbal Forums. @ShadowZone also posted on this particular Forum Thread, and came out with a rundown and thought-through of the events that have unfolded in a subsequent video. At about the same time, @Nate Simpson reacted to this controversy in a post of his on the matter, where Lowne also commented. And that brings us to the present moment. We will have to see how the situation unfolds. Miscellanious Sources A PC gamer article with a rundown of what is known about KS2: https://www.pcgamer.com/kerbal-space-program-2-release-date-multiplayer-everything-we-know/ You may have noticed a lot of PCgamer, ShadowZone and Matt Lowne sources. I had also looked at Scott Manleys' Youtube Page, but I did not find any relevant sources there. I don't know of many others whom I can expect to have relevant sources. Do you know interesting people giving their take on KSP2 development, or other sources for KSP news? Don't hesitate to collect the sources in this thread so others may find them later.

Thank you :3. It still needs work, a lot of work, but lets all work through it bit by bit.

I've read the through the thread entirely in the past hour (maybe that was not a good idea my part), and my mind is a little in chaos right now. I was going to ask clarification on a few topics I didn't fully understand, but then I realised I didn't understand enough about any of it to come to a proper conclusion. We are using this thread to react to the news, and also to discuss the ins and outs of it, and what that means. I am not complaining about the people in the thread, but we are discussing with a mix of ideas of what we are discussing towards. So lets take the time to get our barings and compile what we know vs what we are still discussing. Im not saying we should choose one perspective and see that as truth, but lets take all peoples perspectives and write down a good summary of the sense and the nonsense of them. Below I've got a rundown of the topics we discussed and might still discuss. The unbold text is commentary; I haven't written down the answers everywhere, because a) I have to learn for an exam, and b) we aren't at a point in the discussion where we can fill everything in yet. Lets aim for a resource that some-one new to the discussion could use to get ahead on the ins and outs that we already discussed. This can then be our starting point to continue the discussion. ______ So here are the three main lines of discussion, in order of what needs to be established/discussed first. Fill in and adjust as needed. 1) Truth: What is the situation, exactly? 2) Issues: What are the problems, grievances and worries surfaced by what happened. 3) Action: What can we, as a player base, do about all of this. Did this cover everything?

for the sake of argument, I want to challenge a few complaints about implementing it (EDIT: And then proceed to trow it all away again.) 1) Long vessels need extra code to account for gradient effects. As long as the thing is built well, in the way the video suggested, a substantial simplification will work relatively well, and few of us will complain about lacking accuracies we don't really care for.... 2) We have trouble simulating the vessel at large distances because of physics bubbles. Again, as long as the thing is built well, few of us will complain about lacking accuracies we don't really care for.... But this is KSP we are talking about. We can and will bring the code to its knees, and when we do, that is when we need to resort to actually simulate the darn thing in minute detail. ... unless.... Unless building a skyhook is like building a colony. Once you have completed it, all the complex dynamics keeping the system operational will be neglected because you have succeded in your goal. From now on, it just works. It is, after all, a megastructure. The question is, will we be satisfied by that? 3) The tip is satationary at the ground. I was going to bring this up, but it's false upon closer inspection and so my point is moot

For the sake of keeping the source of sources up to date with the latest sources. The discussion thread for this development is here.

Could this be bad,... possibly, if yearly extension after yearly extension occured without us seeing anything. But we are not yet at this point, and it is not helpful to start feeling anxiety over it, even though we all badly want the game tomorrow. For now, this is a one-time delay that could amount to no more than a month, for a game we indicated they had a tight timeframe for. The info we have gives from a month to a year more time, which gives them the breathing space I personally expect them to need to make a good game. I could also see Take Two having wanted to release it in Fiscal year 2020 for economic statistics and reporting results and such, which they now have sacrificed for unspecified reasons. As for the careless speculation on my part; We've had the reveal last month and the team was taking in lots of feedback. What we hear now would be inline with the team processing that feedback (including possibly our cues that we have patience) and concluded (/convinced T2) that a delay was for the better. All in all, I don't see things here that couldn't plausibly be explained by a change for the better, and I also don't see things that are good indicators of impeding disaster. I will not be losing sleep over this. I have patience.

Here are my two cents, first there seems to be the harsch statement: there doens't need to be a console version in principle, here on the thread. This is not something the OP wants to hear, but we could totally have lived in a world where the console market never had a KSP, or the expectation for one. And that would be, to an extent, completely fine. In fact, even after the KSP1 console versions, KSP2 could have been PC-only. Similar points can be made on similar statements. "I expect them to meet these expectations but I fear (/am convinced somehow) that they won't meet it"; Response: "well,what says that you can reasonably have those expectations." KSP is a pc game, not because I think it is for some arbitrary reasons of taste, but in the sense of above. KSP could have had no console version at all, and for a long time it didn't. It built its first playerbase during that time. It was developed during that time, with only PC in mind, adding what would become porting pitfalls to be unfixably discovered at a later date. One aspect I immediately think of is the fact that KSP makes use of many keys, as if your keyboard acts as a spacecraft control panel. That reveals some PC-focussedness, and I imagine this makes KSP difficult to port. (but then again ports exist, and I don't know how (well) they handled all the keys, so this particular example might well be void.) As soon as you can say the focus-platform is PC, that gives you reason to temper your demands of the "least expected quality/status/priority/whatever" when it comes to consoles. I just want to put this out there. _________________________________________ Having said all that harshness, I really don't want to fight about this. Of course I also want a KSP 2 console version just as much as the next guy, that is on par with the PC game, and bug-free, and released at the same time as the PC version. KSP would be able to reach more players if it has a good console version, which in the end all of us want. But consider this: Star theory announced the KSP 2 console version at the same time when they announced the KSP 2 PC version. Contrast this with KSP 1, where there was no such promise from the beginning. The difference this makes is that star.theory probabily have the console version in mind from the start (while doing a complete rewrite of the game!, mind you). They can know the pitfalls of porting in advance (hopefully freshly learned from KSP 1's ports to console) and that will allow them to avoid these pitfalls. In a sense, that the assurances exist is already a reason to believe that the finished product will be more easily ported, and that the port will have better quality. (even though it ironically allows players to have higher expectations about it). Is that what is actually happening, is that what star.theory is actually doing? Will the port be better than the ports of KSP 1. Who knows??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Don't ask me.

they are large trusses right. we could look at it in a different way. Your orbital colony is the shipyard for spacecraft, or a craftyard, then, if it is 'the norm' that you have multiple trusses on one craftyard, then these trusses can be called CYTs, or CraftYard Trusses . Although, it is ambiguous whether it is a K-sound or a See-sound. Me tworings stuff at the wall to see if it sticks Semi-good results: CYT: Craftyard Truss VAC'D = Vehicle Assembly Construction Dock, it is also a vacuumed facility. SCAD: Space Craft Assembly Truss O-CRAP:Orbital - Craft Resource Assembly Platform CRAFT: Craft Resource Assembly Facility Truss OOF, for Orbital Operation Facility, or for "OOF, thats heavy, we can't launch that from Kerbin." -- this one is not mine, it just wasn't mentioned here yet. OAL: Orbital Assembly Location or maybe we should just call them a Vacuum Assembly Beam and be done with it.

exactly, under the hood, the kerbals aren't idiots. (I mean, they ditched the space-suit-mitts policies, which is the biggest technological improvement in mission succes of the decade.). However on the other hand, the purpose of Kerbals being derpy is to make them relatable by derpy players. Lolsplosions exist in trailers to tell players that everyone mucks up pretty often, and that they should not feel bad for mucking up. WE are why kerbals "are" derpy, and the kerbals have nothing to do with that. Say, for the sake of argument, you are a new player (not a minute played) attracted by the improved tutorials. What fun would it be for a trailer that is entirely triumphant, only to get a game where you will fail for sure the first time you play. Also, even a serious company like space-X has a lot of lolsplosions, and they accieve success as well. No I very much understand why the explosions are there.

oof, that is a difficult choice. Both are a little odd. Both already are pretty good, in all seriousness. If we don't want to say "orbital" because the thing can be outside planetary SOI's, then use off-world instead of orbital.

PAX West interviews: Das Snark

It depends on how big the change is, I'd say. Learning new systems is probably fine, and learning small changes to systems is too, but relearning major systems is where stuff gets annoying.

Astronomers keep tables and databases of positions of stars in the milky way galaxy. These databases get updates every 50 years to account for all kinds of phenomena, from changes in the earth's rotation to the stars moving around. I don't know the average change that these tables have, what I can say is that that is the change in position you notice in between a trip of 4 lightyears on a craft at 10% speed of light. That can give you an idea as to how much the stars really move. What I'm trying to say is, in the KSP universe we are used to bodies further out moving larger distances over time, but my gut says that this just isn't the case for stars, everything is very static on human lifetimes, although admittedly you might not completely be bounded by human lifetimes in KSP 2.