LoSBoL

Nothing needs to indicate KSP2 is a good earner at this point in time, it doesn't need to be a good earner in this point in time, it's an earner in the long haul. There also is no waste if it's an investment to get it where it needs to be, or needs to be going.Like I said before, it's would be reported of it was a waste aka; we botched and ditched it. The investment reports does exactly what it needs to do, create expectancies, if KSP2 wouldn't be viable, that would be mentioned. And it ain't in it, so no worries there, at all from T2.

Steam reviews give a good indication of sales, take a look at the all time steam charts, just about at the release of the breaking ground dlc boosted KSP sales immensely.

There goes your underbelly again. Nope, wrong. And they did so because they indeed do what is necessary to get that continued revenue instead of pulling out, they know what lies on the horizon. That's been my whole point and has already been mentioned by me quite a few times. Private Division, Take2's Indie label is the publisher, not Take2 itself. And yes, peanuts for them, why do you think I wouldn't understand that? If Private Divisions KSP2 wouldnt be a viable best seller, they wouldn't bother.

You're probably right, it went for a second life after Take2 bought the franchise and gave it what players wanted and needed, stuff like steam cloud save, steam workshop and QOL features which were needed in the base game to attract players have had an impact. If you look into the timing when they bought it, and for how much, it can be considered a cash machine which probably still continues due to the bad state of KSP2 and people opting for the 1st one instead.

Now it's little? Let me remind you of your own words; So what is it? I'f they get it right, it will sell for a decade. They bought the franchise for continued sales, like KSP1 sold before it.

There is no evidence that on the long term KSP2 won't sell. KSP2's launch and its continued development was mentioned in the quarterly report. If it's viability to become a success is questionable and it either is or is going to be a money pit, you do not withhold that from your investors.

You do mention it, when the long term investment and profit does not look like it will end up to it's expectations. That is, If you don't want to get sued.

You are so right, KSP2 will sell for a decade, when they get it right, and it's got all the time of the world to get there, there is no rush to get it done, or to throw money at it right now to get it done faster. That's why the disastrous launch didn't even get mentioned in the quarterly investors update.

Financing business units like Private Division is not unlimited, Such labels need to keep up their own pants and are responsible for their own profits and losses. They don't just have the abilities and certainly not the financial possibilities as their mother company. Private Division was created as an label to house Indie type games as an enhanced market for Take2, they can't be thrown on a pile with Take2 as 'the same standard to be upheld upon' as frequently argumented, it doesn't work that way and you probably do know that.

I don't expect a groundbreaking patch. Milestones or bugs, they chose working on both and I can see why. Both bugs and lack of content are things people aren't happy with. One thinks it's more worthy to focus on bugs first, while others want more content. Somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place until both gets to a better state.

Ah, the letter, The very hungry caterpillar does not seem to have liked the answer given on the letter. But here's a link for you though, as expected, modders are gonna mod; https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/128-kerbal-space-program-2-mods/ Right next to Kerbal chutes.

As they did. Probably true, I recall Linuxguru has already been praised. Early access isn't over yet.

Nope, this was due to the fact that the philosophy changed, KSP1 was a nerdy 'figure everything out yourself' game which was lacking just about everything to make it accessible for new players. That philosophy changed when Take2 took over the franchise and a lot of QOL features which were missing were added. Off course these QOL features were already created by modders and 'therr was a mod for it', they were missing features in the original, mostly because of design philosophy.

Assumptions are the mother of, well, you know the rest. The world isn't black or white.

Guilty, picked up KSP before KSP2, and right now not playing at all. Mainly because of summer and light outside and therefore other things to do. Gaming always was a more a fall/winter thing for me. Also because I want science and tech tree progression. I'll pick it up later again, no rush.

Have you tried holding the middle mouse button in the map view? One of the new features in the map view enables you to drag the focus to anywhere you want by holding the middle mouse button and dragging your mouse to shift the focus point of the map. The game could certainly use a transfer window planner tool like KSP1 has...

If you read PDCWolfs elaboration on viewpoints on which I reacted they are absolute polar opposites, you might be making the mistake that the current amount of wobbleness is seen as preferable to anyone, it's not, it's like you say a nuisance, way to much and needs to be corrected, no matter which stance anyone has, that's (probably) agreed upon by everyone.

I knew, like with my earlier poat about FOV and POV it was my cheeky way of saying I'm missing these features.

Another missing, which button activates the Kerbal parachute?

I thought I'd shared but I didn't. I vote for a little flex like in real life. With the mindset that that flex would be visible in the game when building unstable builds. I've always assessed KSP's wobbly rockets as feedback and part of the engineering 'Build' part of the game. KSP is Build, Fly, Dream to me. Current wobbling is way to much, as acknowledged. With that said KSP2 should be able to deliver what KSP1 does as a minimum, and be able to launch monstrosities, in that way an Autostrut feature or join reinforcement feature would be completely fine by me to be able to do so. I'm confident in them finding the right solution, they basically have to considering what they need to achieve in the future with massive colony and interstellar builds. They also acknowledged they have to face the performance reality in the solution and act accordingly to have the game playable. Without insights in what is possible in development and how developers take up this challenge I have no base to be dismissive in their abilities. PDCWolf posted a good eleboration in their communication about the wobbly rockets; https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/214187-how-should-rockets-flex/?do=findComment&comment=4301264 I think you hit the nail here in explaining the different viewpoints. The polar opposites in this won't convince each other, and it's best to agree to disagree. I can certainly imagine you're concerns.

I'm missing the controls for a couple of things in flight; -Changing your FOV, done with alt + middle mouse buttons scroll in KSP1 -Changing the POV, in KSP1 you could focus on a part as the center of the POV by right clicking the part and selecting as POV. Currently in KSP2 there is no means of doing this outside the VAB and the POV is set on the COM. I'd really like to see those controls back

I was curious due to the launch which has left a bad taste in the mouth by many and dropped the concurrent playerbase to 300, if they'd return to the game when their main gripes have been fixed. I know for certain you will be happy when they continue development, if you're questioning. (One of your main gripes has just been hotfixed

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. If development stops I'd be disappointed off course, I'd like to play what is in development, I do have trust that development continues, they are not developing this game for 300 players. An more interesting question in the same category 'ifs and buts' to me is, while people are (completely understandable) not happy with the current KSP2, will they be happy when development does show progression?

Awesome, thanks for this hotfix

Apart from the 'we want full rigidity' arguments you won't find many people that argue differently, including Nate. What we have now needs to be fixed, it's even in the arguments Nate shared, did you read what pdcwolf shared, it's full of nuances on the 'Nate thinks it's fun' take. So you knew the nuances, yet you chose to go short through the bend like Nate's take hasn't been nuanced extensively. That is misrepresenting someone's take, and does not represent the actual reality. It's great that modders are active, and if they 'fix' something and one likes to use the fix, that's great. As to why they don't want to put a quick fix bandage short term solution they've shared as well. Joint rigidity is not the fix they are looking for. Furthermore it's not an argument as to why you knew the nuances, and still taking the short bend. You shared 'a fact', not the facts which paint a different picture, as I already mentioned in my reaction to PDCWolf. Can it be that your assumptions are the cause of the discrepancies? Noone is arguing that rockets should sway in the wind like trees. If that's want you are debating against you might just be tilting at windmills. As for the 'wobling like in real life', are you maybe taking that to literal? If KSP mimic that literally, you are not going to see wobbling in the game. Could it be that people, when they vote for 'like in real life' expect to see just a little wobbling in the game? As Pthigrivi already mentioned a couple of times, opinions on what people want really do not differ that much.