Delay

I was more thinking Wreckfest, but you make a good point with BeamNG. Scalability would probably be a problem with that approach. What I personally view as a big problem would be how to make soft-body physics play nicely with the part-by-part construction in KSP and docking/undocking.

I can't really think of a good way to phrase it, so... Something something soft-body dynamics? Could that potentially work? I mean, it's a discipline that specifically deals with deformable objects and there are games that use it to plausibly simulate local damages and flexing (Strangely they're all vehicle simulations/racing games)... Yes, I do not have any expertise. So this doubles as an opportunity for me to ask why such an approach is infeasible should that be the case.

I'm confused, didn't you already fix the RAM after I reported the same issue?

@JonnyOThan It's an old issue that dates back a while.

@JonnyOThan Is it possible to have the reentry FX be affected by TUFX as well? Right now they're not; if you turn down the color saturation all the way the whole scene is grayscale except for the bright orange plasma.

Banned for being hangry

Hey, let's not be that harsh, I mean... they did at least roll out a somewhat functioning prototype, right?

This isn't about the game's name or gameplay though. This is inherently about how the game is coded. So it's kinda ironic that given KSP 2 has bugs KSP 1 doesn't, they are in fact not the same. Look, all I'm saying is that just because KSP 1 never had a performance problem after a bug fix (which I'm uncertain of in the first place) doesn't at all imply that this couldn't be the case for KSP 2.

Well, it does happen right now, in a product that isn't KSP1. Aside from the nature of the game as a space sim I don't see how "but it didn't happen in this other game" could be relevant here.

Money.

It doesn't have to; we're living with that reality right now!

You know that wasn't the point and disregards everything said afterwards.

Okay, so our estimates of sea levels, temperatures and atmospheric composition 10,000 years ago were wrong. I'll grant you that. That does not undo what we see today. So why do you bring this up instead of watching the news?

This is not relevant to the Exxon study you were responding to.

That is to say, a scientific experiment or observation is either model-creating or model-fitting. Either we use our data to create a new model or we use it to corroborate an existing one. As far as climate change is concerned (as well as our activities being the primary driving factor), we typically find the latter. Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific consensus, as are the consequences we face for not doing enough to stop it. If even Exxon's paid scientists cannot find a way around this conclusion, believing it to be absurd is frankly ludicrous.