Bej Kerman

I think it's a bad idea to just patch more inconsistencies in, as opposed to creating a new UI that isn't riddled with fundamental rendering issues.

Go into here Check these boxes Small mods like this rarely break so it should still work.

Yeah. I mean, if the goal of the project is to create KSP 1... just play KSP 1. It'd be less effort to implement KSP 2 QOL stuff into KSP 1 as opposed to recreating KSP 1 entirely.

They're two different games which are balanced differently. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to start fresh.

Heads up, I think that word has the potential to confuse future readers

A more sustainable solution would probably involve LODs, so parts act that way at a distance without being permanently baked and further padding the parts list with various combinations in the VAB.

A recurring theme I see in this thread is that the people who interpreted the tweets as Intercept hinting at IVA in 0.2 are the ones being blamed for reading too deep, and not Intercept's marketing team for not accounting for this. I appreciate this bit of your reply because it emphasizes that subtext doesn't just exist in the heads of people looking at promo material. Hidden messages didn't just stop existing when yall stopped taking the English classes that were meant to teach you how to read beyond what is literally written down on a page or shown in media. It's pretty clear to me now they made it to be read as "try IVA in 0.2" and used the docks as a convenient little excuse to point at if people dare to look at the subtext that exists here.

When people are literally tricked into thinking IVAs are a thing soon and the official account has to make several clarifications, it's not "supposedly" misleading. It is misleading.

What game like KSP, with lego styled spaceship building and somewhat realistic physics were you playing before KSP became a thing? Orbiter doesn't have the construction, simplerockets came afterwards, most other games have soap opera physics. The only unique thing it did was the construction (which in itself is flawed and has received years of complaints) so I'm not sure why Orbiter is implied to be inferior.

Was it?

Imitating the upcoming IVA feature as if it's gonna be in 0.2 is 100% misleading and I'm not sure where the "it's only deceitful if the lie is explicit" attitude people have is coming from. A message can be sent through inference and there's a reason the history of cinema isn't just characters telling the meaning of the story into the camera. I think it's completely daft to think the marketing team is in the clear just because there's no outright explicit lies in the tweet. It's still misleading and built to trick people into thinking IVA is going to be in 0.2. It sure as hell tripped me for a second when I saw the tweet.

Why is this controversial? Is it not the marketing team's job to keep in mind people will infer things that are not literally said? If the marketing team keeps showing IVAs done with a frankly stupid workaround and has to keep posting "these aren't actually IVAs" they're doing a crap job and should stick to demonstrating things that are implemented already.

The second clip is no longer relevant; So they're killing the thrust this time, and for clear reasons they begin to drift.

Maybe you ran out of power? I'm not sure what useful information the implied yelling is supposed to convey.

If we go that complex, I'd rather opt for hydrogen tanks being bare and the current standalone trusses having attachment nodes on the inside for tanks and utilities.

Yeah, cause two objects don't qualify as being in the same orbit just because they're within a distance of each other.

Ah, right, because having to append a "sorry we didn't mean to advertise this unimplemented feature" tweet isn't a red flag.

@Dakota I don't usually ping the importants for anything, but surely it's not important to make sure the right messages are being communicated when posting material? The team is just setting traps up to hurt themselves with later here. In-cockpit views don't need advertising until it's an actual feature. Right?

Ah, yes, say it explicitly later then it's perfectly fine. The James Somerton method

They never said it's IVA so no, it isn't. A marketing team doesn't have to explicitly say something for it to be misleading.

Blender and Cura let you position the camera arbitrarily when in ortho mode and I assume the same goes for most other CAD software so I have no idea why the default behaviour here is to snap you out of ortho mode if you face away from one of the cardinal directions. Please don't fix.

I'm saying your working somewhat minced the point I was making. It was slower, now it's worse. Speed and effectiveness are two different worlds from my understanding of programming and development.

Oh, you do. The previous way you were wording it sounded like the complete opposite; This is probably the bit that confused me, cause I never said they'd be faster or slower.

...why use, and I quote if the marks don't make it evident, "100 idiots" to describe the dev team if that's "not what I was getting at".

Okay, well "100 idiots" is a blatant oversimplification of the dev team and you're not gonna see results by throwing them out and replacing them with more developers than before, and whoever is saying that "100 idiots don't make up for 10 trained individuals" isn't me.