drhay53

Wasn't even enough to make me open the game again This was for the other, unannounced game that was being worked on. Not for KSP2.

It certainly smells like T2 thought it was so easy of a project that they didn't even need one? Just slap a fresh coat of paint on the existing IP and start rolling in the cash.

I guess the point I'm making is this; for a failure of this magnitude, I find it implausible that the creative director should not be held to some level of accountability. Where it lands on the spectrum, I suspect none of us in this discussion have enough information to know. But the most probable "truth" almost certainly lands somewhere in the middle of "it was all his fault" and "it was all someone else's fault"

If the technical leadership inside the project was so understaffed and incompetent, a competent creative director would be able to read that situation appropriately. "it was someone else's job to push back" does not completely absolve Nate Simpson of blame for pushing a vision of the game that was unachievable. Now, maybe the technical leadership was so incompetent as to tell him it was all possible. In which case, he's taking the brunt of the fans wrath simply because he was out there promoting the vision that he thought was truly in reach with the situation at hand. Personally, my guess is that he's known for a long time that KSP2 in his vision was never going to happen. 2 years at least. And for that, I do feel he's been dishonest to the fans in order to keep up the charade. Maybe it was naive hopium on his part, but I find it implausible that a competent creative director who has been on this project from day 1 could not see that it has been doomed for quite a while.

Yeah, you're right of course, "huge" is an overstatement on my part. But I have to take some solace from somewhere, and this is where I'm taking it!

As someone who has and does work in a software environment under dysfunctional project management, none of this explanation surprises me. I had a lot of hope that I was wrong, but this mismanagement has been painfully obvious for years. All the way back to the earliest gameplay videos of KSP2, I was afraid something was up. I know what it's like to be a proxy product owner mired in political posturing and bad decisions that you know are bad; that are so patently obviously bad that in meetings you just throw up your hands and say out loud "what are we doing?" and everyone is silent because they know it's wrong but no one has the power to fix it. It sucks. It pulls all the life and motivation and excitement out of you. So while I really wanted KSP2's vision to be realized, especially colonies, I take a small amount of solace in them eating a huge loss on the mess they played a role in creating. The only people I feel sorry for with no smug satisfaction are the devs that were stuck in this mess for years. They had no chance of being successful and it wasn't their fault.

I suspect some of this list was already fixed prior to launch, and that there was a freeze period. That said, this is quite a list even if it covers an extra week or two of work. From one dev to another, well done team and keep making the vision happen.

When MSFS first came out one of the big knocks on it was that it struggled to produce high frame rates on normal hardware even on low graphics settings. It's almost like it's been out for a couple of years now and had a lot of optimizations.

This is from discussion earlier in the thread, but I'm personally expecting 1.5-2 years before we are getting close to a performant game that is approaching the roadmap vision. I'll in fact be pleasantly surprised if we have playable, fun colonies in 2023.

I suppose I didn't mean it was their entire job, just that there is probably one person allocated some of their time to reviewing the forum bug reports.

My guess is there's one person in QA/testing whose job it is to go through the bug report forum, attempt to reproduce, and file internal tickets. If there's not enough info in the post or it's not easy to reproduce, it's probably just ignored.

I agree that the graphics just feel.....weird. Something is off that I can't quite put my finger on. Playing on a 3070ti and a ryzen 5 3600. That said, the stock rovers and planes feel pretty good to control, and exploring KSC is pretty fun. No real plans on anything major to do, just exploring.

flew a stock plane out to the island airfield, landed, and came back. It was fun and the plane took off and landed quite easily. Don't think I ever experienced that in KSP1. I hated flying without mods.

That's not what the OP says. It says "What is something you wish to be modded into the game, day-one?" Edit: meaning, this is my wishlist. Which is what I thought was being asked.

To answer the original topic: A reliable launch profile and autopilot like GravityTurn. Other forms of autopilot like mechjeb. Edit: KerbalJointReinforcement Complain if you want, but doing everything manually gets boring after a while. I'll do it a few times but after that I'd like a mod that creates proper maneuver nodes for common patterns and automates launching. I suspect this is going to be the first thing that sends me back to ksp1 while waiting for more ksp2 content.

I share your concern, but my response to it is to give them my money in the hopes that the vision laid out by the dev team is given the resources to reach that vision. I know a lot of people don't share my opinion on that, and think that buying early access is bad for gamers, but as a software developer myself, I accept that this model is not ever going away. As a consumer, I accept that sometimes I'll give a company my money for a vision I'm hoping they reach, but they fall short. In my opinion, they way for KSP2 to become what I want is for me to buy it, play it, stay positive, and give constructive feedback. For some games that I've played, that hasn't worked and I'll hold a grudge for a long time. I'll just summarize by saying that, as a software developer, I really don't understand the people who take a game they want to love, and just shower it with negativity all over the internet for not reaching their expectations. I'm not saying there's never a time to go there; after a lot of burned bridges on Elite Dangerous, I'm at that point myself. But we're nowhere near that point on KSP2, and the best thing we can do for the game at this point is support the devs and give them a chance to actualize the vision they've presented to us.

The comparison to No Mans Sky is an interesting one, and it's a path that I think we should be rooting for KSP2 to take. Yes, they overpromised and underdelivered at launch, but they stuck to their vision and added enormous value to the game with free updates, and there is no longer any real negativity around the game. It is well-respected as a game that supported its players and just quietly kept moving forward. Much more so than it's competitors in the genre.

Based on other videos, my suspicion is that it was heavily strutted.

Using OPM in 1.11.1 and seeing the same list-reversal type issue in the VAB. It was not present in 1.0.7.2. I moved to the beta because I noticed that Antenna Helper was using the comms of my probe core for it's "Total Power" in-flight, instead of the power of the external antenna. This behavior persists in both 1.0.7.2 and 1.0.7.3-beta Logs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1owefb-UYPJsqvo02zkFfDOgu9qXWDQu5/view?usp=sharing screenshot: notice the incorrect "Total Power" in the Antenna Helper window, it is 5000 and should be 500,000. Also notice the discrepancy between the Antenna Helper signal strength and the stock signal strength. edit: the issue also applies to the map view with the colored circles. Also, a craft with a relay antenna correctly uses the relay antenna power instead of the probe core's direct antenna.

looking at the guides that are popping up on the wiki and the sheer number of WOLF parts that are likely to be needed, it does seem to me like the most convenient progression will be to start on kerbin, then construct the next wolf modules and their transport vehicles in space. Just sort of leap-frog your way out from kerbin to reduce the sheer number of launches that would likely be needed. That's looking to be my plan, anyway.

I haven't yet decided exactly which version of KSP I will be playing on. Concerned that 1.11 will be missing some stuff that I consider required, but still looking into that at the moment. Does the pre-release still support KSP going back to 1.8? Also just not sure if starting a save with a pre-release is the best idea for me.

planning on starting my first USI-based save in a looooooonng time. Seems I've come back during a period of flux regarding in-situ construction. GC was recently unbundled and something else is possibly coming? If I'm wanting to start a save now, what should I do?

@Michel Bartolone I was seeing the delta v issue in the VAB and then I realized that the altitude slider had defaulted to a very high altitude, making the delta v calculation basically a vacuum delta v. That looks to me like what you're seeing.

I installed procedural fairings and noticed that only one part from the mod is showing up in the custom filter. All of the other parts are visible from the manufacturer tab, and from the aerodynamics default filter. So at this point I have no idea how to trust that parts are actually showing up and I'm seeing everything I'm supposed to. Kerbalism parts don't show up in the manufacturer or any of the default filter extension categories, but they do show up in simple mode. Here's the player.log after installing procedural fairings. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kl0SNg42txIbVDgtYEYvIu5ggLpPafp0/view?usp=sharing

I'm trying to get the parts added in the KerbalismConfig addon to show up in a custom filter, but I can't get them to show up for some reason. My config looks like this: CATEGORY:NEEDS[KerbalismConfig] { name = Kerbalism icon = Kerbal colour = #FFF0F0F0 all = true FILTER { CHECK { type = folder value = KerbalismConfig } } SUBCATEGORIES { list = 0,Pods list = 1,Fuel Tanks list = 2,Engines list = 3,Command and Control list = 4,Structural list = 5,Robotics list = 6,Coupling list = 7,Payload list = 8,Aerodynamics list = 9,Ground list = 10,Thermal list = 11,Electrical list = 12,Communications list = 13,Science list = 14,Cargo list = 15,Utility list = 16,Undefined } } And my Player.log is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dH9YZvFebdSw12LEF1rRgC3oVJaSVvgZ/view?usp=sharing Some of the parts like the Geiger counter show up in the science area, but parts like "kerbalism-container-radial-pressurized-prosemian-small.cfg" don't show up in any of the filter extension categories. I would think if it was just a category problem, I would get a filter extension category for kerbalism that had i.e. the science parts in there, but not the others. Instead, I get no Kerbalism category in filter extensions at all. Am I missing something?