swjr-swis

Do you have the Making History DLC installed?

My work here is done. <Mike drop>

Seriously, this topic has been up for 5 hours now, and no one has suggested 'Mike' yet?? ... Wazowski.

It's still not finished. So close, and yet ever so far. It was my main complaint back in my 2017 review, and it still, now 3 years later, does not seem to have even the slightest intention to ever be finished. Every single patch released adds another set of issues and further ignores the list of long-known and recorded/reported ones. Sigh. KSP is an amazing game. I love it to death, and aside from the few years I spent almost literally living in EVE Online, it is easily and by a very long shot the game that I spent most time on, ever. A quick calculation back when I posted my review on Steam told me I had long passed the 10k hours on it... back in 2017. I've since then spent at least a similar amount of hours on it. It's awesome, and it draws me back in and makes me play, still now. And every single time I play it, I run into the same set of long-standing and long-known faults, and every new patch coming out makes it evermore unlikely they will ever be solved. I so ... wish they would just get up and get the game into a state I can finally just load up and not have to deal with obviously missing parts, glaringly incorrectly rotated/offset textures or models, mindbogglingly sim-breaking drag cube definitions, half-implemented functionality, major bugs, or random wonkiness anymore. Sit down, tally it all up, and just methodically work down the list and finish the damn thing already. We can argue to hell and back about how we can't ever know how much effort it would take, but some of them are so stupidly low-effort to do that they are literally just a set of MM patches away from getting fixed, for literally years now. And they are still there. Certain issues may (not entirely convinced, but hey) in all honesty not be solved on the current codebase anymore; then for Kerbol's sake just pick the nearest compromise that will avoid the issue, or simply deimplement them entirely. Yes, at this point, even complete removal of for-all-intents-and-purposes dead or never-to-be-completed-or-fixed features is on the table in my opinion. Why insist in including simulation of leg/gear suspension if the only thing we can ever reliably make them do is play Wacky Springs (tm) all day? Why even bother with semi-realistic friction if the nearest real life equivalent we can actually simulate is Holiday On Ice or Glacier Creep? Accept defeat, fake it and remove those from the entire physics engine that apparently can't ever be taught to simulate them even half-decently. For those sufficiently emotionally attached to such features, there's always mods - which somehow seem to find ways to add things in a working fashion anyway even when the devs insist it's not possible. I don't care if this means DLCing whatever other features you still have in the never-to-be-revealed pipeline. Heck put a price on those to make the additional effort of a finishing run economically viable if you must. I may even buy them if they're interesting and I have money to waste, as long as I have the choice to not using them to avoid any new bugs/issues that they may add... if I know they are funding an honest-to-goodness finishing run. But please. Just ... finish it already. I can't stress how much it irks me encountering the same old flaws still glaringly still there, every play, or new ones being added in newer patches, of this absolutely amazing game that I am clearly doomed to play into eternity. ... "Why won't you let me love you, KSP?" - Sisyphus (reportedly)

Okhin: I wonder if a 0.0 m/s orbit is possible? I can't sleep, help! Everyone in this forum: <tries to answer through amazing feats of reason, logic, math and historic references> Me, an intellectual: <spends 15 seconds to cheat a plane to orbit at increasing digits of 9 until the orbital velocity is 0.0 m/s>

"Statistics of 2019" Interesting.

So it helps to understand the data and properly correlate it. Otherwise we wouldn't know if anyone with multiple monitors may not want the feature in the game or wouldn't use it. For instance, I answered that I use one monitor but I also answered I would use this feature (I will go grab another monitor just for this game) and I think that type of combination of answers is not intuitive and would be over-looked. It doesn't, actually. The way to answer those potentially-overlooked 'combinations' is not by gathering WHO is giving the answers... it's done by asking MULTIPLE questions and then counting if and how many times each specific combination of answers is chosen. Which you already did. The names of those answering being PUBLIC or not makes exactly ZERO difference and adds nothing to that particular differentiation. Some pseudo-code: loop vote-counting until all-votes-counted: case A: people answering NO to 'do you have >1 monitor' and answering NO to 'would you want this feature' ; this combination happens for single-monitor people that do not want multi-monitor support tally one vote for 'not-have and not-want' case B: people answering YES to 'do you have >1 monitor' and answering NO to 'would you want this feature' ; this combination happens for multi-monitor people that do not want multi-monitor support tally one vote for 'multi-have but not-want' case C: people answering NO to 'do you have >1 monitor' and answering YES to 'would you want this feature' ; this combination happens for single-monitor people that want multi-monitor support tally one vote for 'not-have but want-wanyway' case D: people answering YES to 'do you have >1 monitor' and answering YES to 'would you want this feature' ; this combination happens for multi-monitor people that want multi-monitor support tally one vote for 'multi-have and totally-want' end loop compare end result of votes of all 4 groups ; now we have an objective comparison between 4 different situations we're interested in... ; without requiring the names of each person in each specific group. Adding the nuance of not-want/not-mind/want is just a matter of adding that possible answer to one of the questions and adding a 'bucket' for those specific combinations. Which you also already did... and still does not require the NAMES of who exactly picked each combination of answers. Now if 44 out of 100 total answers picked answer combinations C and D, we would have a reasonably objective confirmation of an oft-quoted notion that 'less than 45% of people would be interested actually using more than one monitor'. That particular statistic would still be true, for this set of data, whether you know WHO each of those 44 voters are or not.

It isn't. It's my personal opinion on unnecessary information gathering. If you create a poll to know 'how many', you don't need to know WHO exactly. It's completely irrelevant to the question you wish to have answered. More than that: it will often stand in the way of people taking poll results objectively ("well ppffff, of course *that group* would say 'nay' or 'yay'. Well, discounting for *them*.... the numbers actually show <whatever interpretation was favoured>"). No need. Because, in case it was unclear , I have no issue letting people know my opinions. It has however nothing to do with my aversion to public polls. They are separate matters. Enough OT. Carry on with the poll.

A plethora of monitors here. Would definitely use it. Did not vote on the public poll, out of principle.

I'm missing the option 'I once warped all the way into the literal end of times, and watched negative time exist for another year (anti-year?) until the universe ceased to be'.

'Canon'... oh dear. Let's for a moment pretend like 'canon' is something clearly defined and widely agreed upon (which it isn't) KSP has an exhaustive body of documentation detailing everything that is or is not canon (which it doesn't) and the game authors have given consistent and authoritative support to the One Truth of the Kerbal Universe (which they haven't) .. sure, let's do this. With 'canon' being such a fluffy term, and since we don't have any documented authoritative source for anything being official and/or authentic to the game, let's define canon by 'things that actually happen, can actually be seen, or are actually possible in the game'. Now back to your question: Actually.... not much of what is in the loading screens or the trailer is canon. Most of the loading screens show prepped scenes that you cannot get to or see anywhere in the game, in lighting conditions that are not possible in game, with Kerbals doing things they are not capable of in game, parts/engines being differently sized or textured or doing things they don't do in game, and generally showing a lot of graphics effects that are not actually in the game. The KSP2 trailer even explicitly warns us by showing a 5 second warning at the start: "NOT ACTUAL GAMEPLAY". Which is the disclaimer equivalent for 'we took some liberties in what we're showing - this is not official - do not expect this to be in the actual game - marketing made us do it!'. Even in the context of a completely fictional game universe, it is quite safe to state that loading screens and trailers are 'not real'. And that's saying something. Now please stop taking everything I say so seriously and making it into a debate. It's a game.

As opposed to expecting pin-up Mr Potatohead 'eyes' with no visible eyelids to blink. I love this forum.

It used to be that 'physicsless' parts applied their drag and mass at the CoM of the parent part. I'm not sure if that is still the case.

A game about a space agency. A game about astronauts and pilots. Or if you think of yourself as spectator, a game about spectating/filming/directing space adventures. A game about environments, jobs and people that as a core inherent feature of their daily jobs are exposed to multiple screens All. The. Time. Mission Control. Cockpits. Video editing rooms. These are the roles you and I play when we fire up KSP. You are directly questioning the usefulness of having multiple screens available, in the context of literally playing at being the people who arguably deal most with multiple screens in what they do on a daily basis, and have been for many a year now. I'm baffled. What's next... arguing that there's no use for actual steering wheels when playing a Formula 1 racing game?

We agree, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future either. I'm talking about how useful they've been in the past decade already. Don't open the spoiler or click any of the links if you might react adversely to images of multiple screens being used, now or in the past.

Those statements I very loosely quoted provide their own context in being used as a set demonstrating the historically repeated failure of making that type of deterministic statements. Every one of those was a variant of "Based on my expertise and all data available to us now, clearly it's ridiculous to even consider such-and-such ever being done/used/necessary." Making any absolute statement against something based solely on one's own limited imagination or experience of possible applications at the time has a way of proving wrong sooner or later. In many cases, sooner rather than later, and often, quite hilariously wrong. The really remarkable part in this case is that the particular statement I reacted on was being made right in the middle of a civilization that has so many screens laying around that we're not even aware anymore how we've trivialized them. I think it's a pretty safe bet the person typing those words with utter conviction even had a smartphone in their pocket, a TV in some corner of their room, and perhaps a tablet nearby. But surely, "One screen provides adequate space to do anything."

Well, loading screens and recorded video are just artistic representations; they're not real. Because in the real, Kerbals know the terrible truth. The Kraken only moves when you blink. Everytime you blink, the Kraken moves a little bit closer.

This handful of transistors can do all the calculations we would ever need. There's a worldwide market for maybe oh, about 10 computers or so. 640Kb is more than enough memory to do anything we can ever conceive. We can perform everything needed with just a single button on a mouse. And we all know that VR is a scifi fad only. You'd think by now people would be more careful about making such statements. Maybe the mistake being made here is that this is being regarded as a debate. Maybe it helps to realize that it is not. None of the words we plaster in this thread will decide the matter one way or another. There's no 'camps' to band into, no position to defend. There's no tally taken or points being scored. We're all just voicing our opinions and discussing the merits of a suggestion made.

I politely question whether performance is really that much of an issue in this matter. I base this solely on the fact that I can, and regularly do, run up to three (3) separate, full instances of KSP right beside each other, where I let them use different monitors. In some cases I've done this on a single monitor, on the laptop, alt-tabbing from one to the next and back. With the exception of moments where even a single instance starts displaying frame-drop or stuttering in the display, it runs perfectly fluid (like when loading craft with exceptionally high number of parts, or large number of undocked ports, etc... the known performance killers. These rigs were not gaming beasts even when they were newly bought- I've never liked wasting money on overpriced 'top of the line' stuff, when less can do 90% as good. One is even a laptop (!), and both of them are over 3 years old. Which leads me to conclude that whatever the overhead may be of running just one extra window separate of the main view can hardly have any performance impact at all, if I can run three entire instances side by side. Granted, I run without mods. Still, three instances, compared to a single instance with one extra window showing the map view. What are we really talking about.

It's at least 42% of the answer.

I've been using multiple screens both professionally and at home for what feels as forever. I feel practically claustrophobic when I'm forced on a single screen now. I too would love to see the different 'apps' and views from the current KSP become windows that can be arbitrarily repositioned at my convenience over the combined screenspace of whatever monitors I happen to have connected. Right now, the best KSP allows me to do is run multiple instances of KSP where one is progressing through some mission and the others are designing and testing other craft (or the same, with on-the-fly lessons learned from the primary instance). Or when I am trying to rebuild a craft made in a newer version in 1.3.1, running both versions side by side to quickly compare. Flight simulators have given us this ability for how long now? It's a sorely missing capability from a game that to all effects could be considered the 'next step'. The technical debt counter argument makes me giggle. We're talking KSP here. It's one big heap of technical dept, and this is the one that we're going to stumble on? The one that is practically entirely handled by the OS? Anyway. Yes please, map view as a separate window that can be open in parallel, whether on the same (picture in picture style) or (preferably) on separate monitors.

Launch a second instance of KSP to continue on one of the many WIP designs on my list. Seriously, doesn't everyone do that?

My time to game is limited. Anything that adds forced waiting for any goal in a game makes that game that much less likely to be played. I just don't have the time to waste, sorry. I have played with KCT in a distant past when I still did mods, and for specific career saves, as a self-imposed choice, I enjoyed the added simulation aspect. I've also very much enjoyed other simulation games that do the whole economy/resource/time aspect. As much as I enjoyed them, they just don't get played much anymore. Time is precious. So, if they happen to have a spare dev to put on this and add it to the game while leaving it entirely optional, sure, I can even see myself starting the odd game save using it. Not as a core mechanic though, thank you. When I'm done designing or tweaking my ship, I need to launch and test it, now. I got iterations to do. And then it's time to run the mission or challenge. Now now now. Aww shucks it's time to head for work again. What happened to my sleep time? Oh well.

Upvote just for the zero-input gravity turn rocket.

Emphasis mine. Bad, bad camera.