JoeSchmuckatelli

I think they have multiple, parallel branches getting worked on and they keep flip flopping stuff at us. That's why something that worked pre patch gets borkedup post, and why previously 'solved' problems return

@FleshJebCan they repair the table in the condition it's in? Enough to put some kind of diverter system in and try again in a reasonable time?

FTFY! I'm jealous. The farm I used to go to do plinking (which was also where I could do such drills) got sold. All the new ranges are indoor and don't like anything creative. That said - I've been enjoying shooting with my son, tremendously. Glad to hear you were able to have fun!

Did you keep track of what the pattern for the remaining 11 looked like? (It can help you figure out wha') BTW - kudos for you. Wish more people would practice off-hand.

Well played, sir.

Here are the possibly relevant quotes: Most difficult: establishing the roadmap. We started from an endpoint "here's the game as a whole", but when you go into early access, it's not 50% of each feature, it's milestone on milestone - each building on top of each other. It took us months to sort out. There's still moments where we think about moving things around, but yeah trying to take this absolute behemoth of a game and parse it out into a bunch of different phases. ... Remember that question about the roadmap? This is one of the outcomes when everything is building on top of each other.. We wanted to make sure exploration is about exploration.

I really enjoyed your post - and have seen indications (and speculation) about parallel branches. The distinct difference between EA Release and Patch 1 kind of supports this. I'm wondering if some of what Markum said in her AMA indicates this as well? At least indirectly. She seems to say that they had to break down the game for the EA run, albeit very indirectly. Have you seen her comments and does it sound like they may have a better working product 'waiting in the wings' or are we largely stuck with WYSIWYG?

I ran into this too - and I would call it a bug. In KSP the craft would not 'lose its mind' and change state just because you switched to another vehicle. In 2? Every freaking time.

Those are not small splashes

I just watched a slowmo of the launch... and the Kraken actually smiled on SX. Look at the video below - the sheer size of some of the chunks of stuff flying up in the dust plume. It's literally a miracle that the ship flew at all. Time set to just before the plume. Manley says 'Big component is dust, and sand, and pulverized concrete' - but looking at the video? There's BOULDER sized chunks flying straight up alongside the rocket.

Pure opinioneering: Beneficiaries of Patch 2 are the 'laptop' crowd; folks who really wanted to play KSP2 but couldn't because of optimization or possession of low-spec machines They got to join the bug hunt Major functional (baseline aspects of the game) remain unfunctional or present odd behavior Orbits should be predictable, they're not (sub 25 km orbits, post-separation = crash course, etc) Updated Burn timer now acts weird (sub elements not in time with each other) Docking / undocking / separation issues persist or added Patch 2 introduced 'something weird and unexpected' into the Maneuver Node functionality (probably good they did it early) It appears to be part of the 'make the game more predictable for new players' aspect It annoyed players who wanted to be able to project MNs even without adequate fuel for planning future missions It might turn into a 'toggleable' feature: one setting that plays only with the craft you have (including fuel) - another for planning This whole episode highlighted that there are decisions still being made about the direction of the game and function / purpose / priority for key elements Numerous other bugs / QOL issues that are of the 'Come on, now - why is this doing that' variety. Persistent VAB icons (procedural part adjustment icon) Notification spam ETC Basically - they gave us a pay to Alpha experience back in Feb, moved it to a Pay to Beta experience in the first patch... and then with the second patch did not really move the needle that much. In fact - in some cases, while the needle moved a bit forward, it also squiggled sideways. People who were hopelessly optimistic about the game are giving up in frustration; not a good sign. I'm of the opinion that they need to have parallel production going; moving us down the Roadmap while simultaneously working on the baseline features that absolutely MUST WORK - because if they don't add content/ increase the scope of the game they won't have enough people playing to produce the telemetry necessary to find and fix the bugs.

Patch 2 was a buzz kill. Mixed feelings about the AMA and Nate's most recent. Letting me believe what I want to hear rather than actual info. Still, it's entirely possible from the AMA to believe that June might be Science. Supposed to be a drop before that which gives us more parts. We know there is another Sandbox patch anyway - so do I read from this that the next Sandbox patch gives parts? Or do we get a May SB patch (fixing stuff that should have been fixed prior to Feb 23) - and then another SB patch with stuff in June - and still have to wait for Science? Because, frankly, if Science isn't out in June? SMH

Certainly not thinking small. Hope they make it!

I was looking at the Moon to Mars thing and it dawns on me. SX really needed the 'engines shatter concrete and blowback destroys engines' thing with the launch table. I mean, sure you can model stuff and game it out - but nothing proves that landing a ship on the main engines might need rethinking like just destroying them on takeoff.

I do - and generally have good tolerance for them - but the things I've mentioned (communication strategy, price, etc) and the fact that absent 5fps improvement - the core functions (let alone features) remain broken don't bode well. Don't lose all hope. They might just pull it off. ... ... (but yeah, quit banging your head against the wall)

I read that, look at the patch cadence (sample set, acknowledged) and think "Science" is June. Nate said, "We’re also working on a few new parts, which we expect to release prior to the Science update" - so if we guess the next patch should drop within the next 10 days or so? June.

Bunch of speculation - they shortened the mountains west for a better glide path to the runways... Also those may have been kept artifacts like the mohole in KSP1 that did not make it back into 2... And there is some indication from the terrain system rework post that they could more easily introduce interesting terrain as part of the rework

The Roadmap appeared after (and as part of) the announcement that they were going the EA route. Perspective is that prior to this, the team was developing a single game experience that would release as a whole project. Breaking it up into a staged EA release with a bunch of distinct feature drops isn't likely what anyone planned. Mind you, I'm searching for ways to be kind and hopeful about the future.

There are a couple of gems that I pulled out of the Markum AMA. The significant one that many might have missed is this: ... To me, this reads like (one possible, fair interpretation is) they had to break the game to present it as Sandbox only for EA. (uh, thanks T2?) . I read things from software devs who point out that features like MP have to be baked in from the start... And if that's true - and Intercept were building a cohesive game then told to dump Sandbox on Feb 24? Maybe breaking parts out of a game is as fubar as trying to slap something on later? IDK. Some other gems; ... "For science mode, it's the first time we get to turn the "toy" into a "game" and go through the tech tree, and finish missions, and develop a gameplay loop. We want to build missions to be able to highlight the cool things about the Kerbolar system." ... '... you will gather raw resources and then refine them into what you need. Chris Adderly had a lot of fun building a production chain graph which I hope we one day get to release since it's really helpful how to understand how it all flows together' ... "I think we're looking at 14-15 specific resources throughout the universe. Focused on what you need for propulsion. Same resource may be present in multiple locations, but prevalence/proximity to your existing infrastructure are factors we're thinking about as well"

That needed to have been done Feb 25-28. An open, frank discussion or explanation combined with the type of comms typical of Open Beta would have done wonders. Now? I think they're committed to the totally dysfunctional 'Ghostii selling stuff and hyping Colonies', 'PD_Dakota pushing funny builds and pretending this is normal' and 'Nate coming in occasionally to talk about the patch'. Shrug. I'm just a customer.

That is my hope for the team. And us. I think they can do it. I hope they're given the opportunity by the IP owner/publisher. Time, will of course, telk

ZOMG! ... Ofc - I think the warning is... Premature? Political gamesmanship? Better to ignore the chubby troll

I have - and it's left me dispirited. I agree with the thought that we need to see parallel development and bug fixing or it's a dead title.