Buzz313th

Nice post !

[snip] The bugs are probably a result of, not enough time in Q and A and coding that is being rushed. And or, someone stepping away from the project and not offering a smooth transition to the new code team.. I can speculate all day long, but I doubt any one person is responsible for the lack of attention to detail.

If they have the resources to increase development speed while also making sure the code is solid and easy to navigate for future features and the potential mod community then I agree. But if increasing development speed results in haphazard structure, then I would say they need to re-evaluate and slow down. The KSP Franchise is an epic piece of IP for any software publisher. The first one is a cult classic and as of right now, there are no real competitors. The future is bright as long as the foundation is done right.

In most cases I would agree with you. But arguably, an educated guess at this point makes me believe that the Dev team has been on "Cheap and Fast" for a few months prior to EA release, which left out "Good" and they are now working with code that needs some TLC. Any more "Fast" and the code gets uglier to deal with. But that's all just speculation on my part... Edit - And to have "Fast and Good" for expedited fixes, means you don't have "Cheap" and I would bet that T2 has dropped the hammer on the Dev team lately to let them know that "Cheap" has to be one of the two options until numbers start to equalize. It's this perpetual loop where something has to give, or the project gets torpedoed.

You get to choose two outa three as a customer... Fix it... 1. Fast 2. Good 3. Cheap Maybe we should just let the Dev's do their job both "Good" and "Cheap" and forget about "Fast". Because if you ask for "Good" and "Fast", then they break the budget at T2 and the project gets tossed. We are already at "Cheap" and "Fast" and look where that ended up.

Expedited Damage Control. Same thing is happening at the Steam Forums, where I put up a few thoughtful replies to some frustrated players, replies that a publisher might not entirely like, nothing against the Dev team, nothing rude, confrontational or in anyway violating any terms. Woke up this morning and the replies within the threads were gone. Cherry Picked out of the thread. No warning, just a general notification that my replies were deleted.

KSP2 0.1.2 I7 3770, GTX 3070, 32 gigs ram, Win 10 Apollo style Mun mission. CM docked to LEM nose to nose. Intercept Mun at Pe = 35km. Circularized at 35km. Separated Lem and CM. Locked SAS on both vessels after separation. Took control of LEM and Landed normally on Mun surface. Immediately departed Mun surface, burned to AP=11km and killed engine for Ap in 1 minute and change. Switched to map screen and noticed orbit lines for both vessels disappeared under Mun surface and Pe and Ap icons were flashing for both vessels. Switched back to LEM from map view and noticed Pe was below Mun surface and descending quickly. Ap was also descending. Started warp to put LEM on "Rails" to stabilize. At Ap came out of warp for 1x and burned to 35km where orbit stabilized at 1x speed. Raised LEM Pe to 35km to circularize and LEM orbit was stable. Went to map screen where I noticed LEM orbit line was visible and stable, but CM orbit line indicated surface impact in 45 degrees(Note that CM orbit was stable before switching to LEM after undock before Lem landing approach). Switched to CM to try and save the orbit. After switching to CM noted that Ap was 165km and Pe was -70km. Executed radial out burn to try and save CM orbit. Burned to circularize radial out until Pe and Ap were at 35km and circularized. Switched back to LEM and noticed that LEM orbit was unstable with Pe below Mun surface and Ap descending quickly (Note that before switching to the CM from the LEM that LEM orbit was stable at 35km x 35km and engine off with SAS locked. Not enough fuel to save LEM orbit. Threw hands up with a few choice words and quit game. I encountered this bug both in a low Mun and Minimus orbit with the same vessel config and procedure after EA release and after the first patch. Now with the second patch, and it's still there. My motivation for spending my time in KSP1/Juno and hopefully one day with KSP2, was the gratification that I got after successfully executing a mission I planned, engineered and flew. I just cannot spend any time playing KSP2 knowing that my time and effort in the planning and engineering stage of a simulated mission may end up FUBAR for no fault of my own. So I wait............................... Until patch#3, or however long it takes. I will check back in when the next one is released. Cheers and good luck with this one. The DEVS have a tremendous amount of work to do to make this unfortunate mess stable and playable.

Happens to me as well. No video needed.. Attach a fairing base to a fuel tank. Then grab it and try and drop it someplace in the workspace. You can't let go of it because the mouse cursor is on the wrench icon and clicking the mouse button just toggles the functionality that the wrench icon gives you.

Simple Rockets 2, or now called Juno.

There is another space game that, I believe did this first. Glad it's included in KSP2.

Very "JunoEsque"

Pretty damn creative right there.

Finish the roadmap with a seriously robust and capable Mod API on top of a rock solid stable platform. The modders will extend the longevity of the game way past the roadmap. The devs just need to focus of the foundation.

I'm with ya Joe. I'm saving all the discoveries of the Kerbol system until I have a Space Program To Manage. It will be a better and more memorable Kerbal Experience. But yeah, the career in KSP1 was the challenge that made me fall in love with KSP1 as a game. I'll save exploring the planets for now.

Trim was indicated in KSP1, sorta. It was indicated on the pitch, roll and yaw needles as a default position. I'm sure they have plans to indicate trim.

Good idea.

I thought it was alt x...

I'm going to guess that a lot of what you see in the UI are just placeholders for better icons and mouse overs. Cheers

Good option post version 1.0. Taxi to your active from the ramp.

An interesting feature post version 1.0

Crossing my fingers... Playing KSP1 in the later stages of a career was often centered around engineer Kerbals modifying and building craft on the surface of a body and or an orbiting station. This was a central activity to help keep space program costs down for me. I miss career and science.

Sounds to me like Bej knows his excrementse.

I know IG has a ton of fixes they need to prioritize before they start adding back original KSP1 features, but I haven't seen anyone mention they miss EVA Construction. I for one, miss that feature and I hope it gets included in the future.

It is normal to need more Pitch authority with a higher alpha to maintain level flight at lower airspeeds. Regarding you not able to maintain level flight in a 250 m/s glide.. Where was your COP in relation to your COM on that build and was your thrust vectoring turned off? I would be willing to take a guess and say your COP was far too aft of the COM with that build and your thrust vectoring was on, both would explain the lack of positive pitch authority in power off flight. I asked if you were being sarcastic because a lower relative mach number usually means a lower airspeed which means a higher AOA.

Sarcasm I hope?