snkiz

I don't mind the anchor system, in theory. In practice, it leaves much to be desired. Here are some of the things I've run into, feel free to add on if I jog anyone's memory. first off. The horizontal pan on the VAB camera is non-existent. Fine mostly, for rockets. But building planes with it is an exercise in frustration. You used to be able to hold shift to switch between rotate and pan. Having it on the middle mouse button (wheel) means it messes with the zoom function. Next The move tool is to cluttered. I found it difficult to grab the arrow I wanted and I hated having rotate and translate on the same tool. I miss the rotate globe. Anchors, well the buttons again are to small. When the pan didn't work as expected I thought maybe changing the anchor would recenter the camera on the new anchor. It did not. These problems, and the buttons just not responding sometimes had me pulling out hair. Part manager, again to clutted, and far to large. It was good that it opened on the part I clicked on, but with the dropdowns and long list of parts I still found it difficult to figure out/find what part I was affecting. A highlight would go a long way, maybe break it up by stages? I like the idea of it, but if I just want to mess with the part I clicked on I found myself wishing for the old P.A.W menus. Wings, I'm on the fence. I found the sliders not fine grained enough to use efficiently. The lack of text adjustments didn't make sense. Like the box is there with a number, why can't I click on it and just type what I want? All and all I preferred the way the procedural wings mod did it, via a combination of draggable handles and the box with sliders and text input. And all of this is only when they worked. I often had to exit the VAB and re-enter because I could just not activate the shape tool, could not grab them again after placing them, and could not attach parts to them. Action groups, I haven't really messed with them. But I will say this. I thought it was silly to have that in the same window as the part manager. I don't need the parts list when doing action groups. Just leave where it was, replacing the list. The list, It's much improved, I give them that. There isn't enough categories though. Some of the condensed choices just baffled me. It took a hot min to figure out how to get rid of a part on the mouse. And It frustrated me that when I was trying to drop a part I had to find an empty space to do it without picking up another part at the same time. Could we not do that? The only other issue I have is the part size isn't clear by name only. So it makes it harder to deal with in the part manager. Placing parts, while mostly straightforward. What was missing, and is just default muscle memory for me is holding shift to force it to only connect to nodes. I honestly didn't realize how much I rely on that to be efficient. So that's all I can think of for the moment. This is more not working as expected/user friendly and less this is broken, aside from the wings. I think muscle memory is biasing me. But I don't think that's exactly a me problem. I'm hoping we can meet more in the middle here.

I'll contribute. I ran low settings with x8 aliasing 1600x900. I think, the settings window was a little bugged. VAB frametes were ok. launchpad was 2-15 fps, runway was a slideshow pegged at 5 or less fps. It got slightly better as I got away from the KSC. Looking up at the sky got me to 20ish fps improving with altitude. In space, as long as I didn't look at kerbin it hit my frame lock of 50. The framerate seemed to scale with how much of the planet was in view. Looking directly at kerbin brought it back down to 5 fps. Game didn't crash. loading times were fine. I built a mk1 rocket, and managed to wrangle the wings onto a simple dual rapier plane. Is it just me or is the the rapiers thrust curve borked? They used to wake up around 375 m/s. That didn't happen and they hit a brick wall at 405 m/s, in a shallow dive. I might play around with it more latter but the VAB controls were madding. I had huge issues trying to adjust the wings, and attach things to them. Had to exit the vab repeatedly. All and all aside from looking at the ground it ran about as well as my heavily modded ksp1 install, albeit with lower settings. CPU: Rzyen 1600x GPU: rx580 4gb (Ya you don't 'need' 6gb vram.) Ram: 32 gb Install: SATA SSD.

There was a lot of bugs, leave the VAB and come back to be able to retouch the wings, Don't look at the ground. only half the pan in VAB is working. move widget is to cluttered/small. to name a few. But what broke me is I had a simple plane on the runway with 1.2 TWR and the rapiers hit a brick wall at 405 m/s, in a dive! I'ma put ksp down til next update and see what gets fixed first. Still looks promising.

Provincial tax is not the same in every province.

Mine was 75 bucks Canadian, with tax. sadly math checks out with the exchange to US currency

I ran out of reactions, so.. Yes!

It's Kilometres. And kill-la-metres is fine. It's like toron-no. Or for the sake brevity klicks. Hi form Canada. /s

Some people would call this the Dunning Kruger effect.

One more time. There is a place for that feedback, it's here. But really man it's gonna get old real fast. Why don't you just revisit it closer to launch since you clearly have no interest in beta testing.

I support this. Provided the PID for SAS is much better. It was shockingly bad during the preview.

I think you are missing the point. EA is just a public beta. Those feedback channels are for contributing to the beta. Bug testing, suggesting tweaks breaking the game. You can't do that if you don't own it. No one cares that you aren't buying it because the fuel ratio is 'worng'

He still has a twitch channel he plays on. I'm sure he's gonna play around with it. But a full on story? That's gonna take more than the Kerbol system to bring them back.

Pretty sure that isn't the feedback they are after. Besides isn't there enough of that right here on the forums, Steam communities? I hope you are joking and not planning on wasting valuable EA channels with your whining. Were I a dev I would not give a hoot about why someone isn't buying my game, if that complaint is just making my beta a flame war.

A lot of the OG KSP youtubers have kinda moved on. Scott doesn't do much with the game on his YT channel anymore, Marcus has barely mentioned it, he's doing space news now. The NASAspaceflight guys don't really have the time, even though they all have the passion. A number of them started with KSP. Shadowzone, still puts out a video now and then, and has stayed up with ksp news. But I get the impression that IRL is taking more of his time. When Scott was able to talk about the ESA event. He was pretty clear. feature wise, the EA is a step back from the original game. He flat out did not recommend it to anyone who isn't interested in being a beta tester. I'm not sure that's what he wants to do either. I wouldn't expect to see another series from him any time soon, if at all. If he does do it again I believe he'd want to cover some new ground. Form a story point of view there just isn't any meat there yet for that.

I think closer to 1.0 getting the popular science channels involved would be a great idea. PBS space time, SciShow, Fraser Cain, Kyle Hill, etc. Some of them are already involved, Everyday astronaut, space.com and a couple other non ksp types were at the ESA event. But closer to 1.0 it's really as simple as sponsoring them. (they don't usually call them ads.) Some like PBS will just do this episode brought to you by... Others might do something more in-depth, Kyle would likely dedicate an episode to some aspect of the game. That's really all it would take, spreading around some cash to get the word out. If your really looking to spread reach, the best thing to do would be to go after the established streamers with a younger audience. My kids talk about guys like Philza, markiplier, shlat. I'm sure there's others but that's not my scene. Get them to play the game, get them to spend some time on an MP server. It's a good idea but for it to be effective, you have to go where the audience is. I'm not sure running ads on science channels would have the ROI we'd be hoping for, its a market that is likely already aware of KSP.

I'll try it with what I have. If it's slow, I'll live with it, if it's not playable, idk. No room in the budget for new hardware for the foreseeable future.

who said anything about that? You misunderstood my post. It doesn't matter what you think those lines are. It matters what they actually represent. The chart has nothing to do with KSP. It's a chart showing the trends in system requirements for recent games. With full context, what it shows is that KSP2's current system specs are just out of line with the rest of the industry. And way out wack with the state of the GPU market. To me that's a settled issue, my concerns have been addressed in follow up posts. But that chart, it doesn't say what you think it does. I believe the person who anointed it only intended to show the range of gpus ksp2 would run on. The broken telephone that is the internet is has given it a life of own though.

I'm, 43, I have two early 20ish and one teen. I thought the VA was cute and fun, I thought the jokes hit better. My kids although they don't have the passion I do for the game, didn't have an issue with it. My teen chuckled at the impressive buildings joke. I think this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't really think a Minor VA in a game like this is going to move the needle either way really. They are either going to be into it or not. None of mine are and the VA isn't going to change that. Though they do humour me.

I'm excited to share my excitement from when I first discovered KSP with my children, to bring them in on the ground floor for something I believe is more than just a game. I am excited to see just what KSP 2 will inspire, now that it is more than a super niche title. And I'm excited to explore the Kerbal universe.

Still use KER. The customisable HUD is what keeps me coming back. I can put whatever information I want in those, and depending on the readout, they are only visible when I actually need them. I pick a target and everything I need to know to rendezvous is right there. Or landing, or burn time, or what biome am I in? Heck even the crafts Name, mass and part count, because reasons.

Ltt did a video on this, and came to mostly the same conclusions as far as vision is concerned. Where it gets interesting, even if your monitor is at a lower refresh rate, the faster frame rate meant that more uptodate data was making it into each frame. The sum total of reaction time and the newer data was measurable even though those frames never made it to the monitor. In short no you can't perceive the frames but there's an advantage to be had. Of course That's a twitch reaction type shooter. Doesn't really matter for most games.

You may not be, but there have been video's including this graphic without the context. Many people are confused about what it represents.

Ya the problem with that table, is it wasn't put together. It was lifted from Tom's Hardware and modified to show where KSP2 lands, not an issue in of itself. The issue is, its a graph. And they cut off the vertical axis, which is frame rate. It also has no context. What this graph is plotting in the framerate average @ 1080p ultra settings, in the most demanding games of the past year. In that light it's a pretty scathing review of the current state of the EA. Let's be clear about this. I've seen a number of people believing this is an original work and that those gray lines are somehow markers in relation to ksp 2. For clarity, the line crossing the 1660 represents 40 fps average for those titles tested and has no bearing on KSP.

This, this point right here would have made for a much quieter weekend. Very much still single threaded. Combined with unoptimized graphics elements, it all makes sense now. That bullet point more than anything else that's been said has me a little more cautiously optimistic.