Bej Kerman

Because they use methane.

Is your PC a big-budget render farm?

Do any of your own creative endeavors have solid ETAs?

Don't forget the fact it's physically impossible.

It doesn't. Except for when it's not a "that's physics" thing

In that case, it lies on the British Interplanetary Society [snip] Okay, then it's probably apt to draw a specific line between feasible and infeasible.

You've made a few comments on it but as far as I can see you've forgotten to explain why you think it's impossible. You can easily say "Scaling this mission concept up to handle a) crew and b) a return journey would either require an utterly absurdly large spacecraft" nobody was talking about return journeys, that is absurd assuming you forego refueling and refurbishing the craft but you never got round to doing any maths or explaining yourself. If it can be done in a broken-down, old game like KSP 1 (albeit extremely buggy and shoehorned into the game by several mods each of which clash with each other and the base game), without abstraction, it can be done, period.

...And this is being said well after they've explained the technology that lets you do this without breaking reality and with all the education resources available to us on the internet that explains how it could be done IRL. Okay, I think the error you've made is assuming an interstellar craft would go as slow as 500km/s. Something like 30,000km/s is closer to what you should expect.

It helps with guesstimating landing burns when you know how many seconds your dV is spread over. KSP 1 had this and it was sometimes helpful.

Picking a specific star on the skybox to be Debdeb does not make compute.

No citation, as usual. Just blind fear-mongering speculation.

That wouldn't be great at all. I'd rather go with 3 interesting handcrafted star systems than 100 boring ones.

Anything short of N-body is just incredibly broken and would need implementing in a breathtakingly horrible and garish manner.

That's basically the point. If in 80 years we got torch drives that could send us to Mars in a week, you wouldn't say "NASA broke the balance of real life". Much as you don't say "the chemical engines in KSP broke the balance on surface travel". Travelling places quickly and somewhat ignoring orbital mechanics is meant to be the next stage of technological development.

They've always been talking about the "sometimes dirty dev process". This post is the opposite of "squeaky clean".

Bugs were addressed. As for wiping out 100% of bugs and making a perfect piece of code, the devs are not robots.

And you say there's no option to apologise and do things better? Nigrum et album fallacia.

I'd say that can wait until after all the important issues are dealt with.

This communication is even better than what we had with NMS (after the initial silence Sean put HG through in order to focus solely on the game, of course). It takes a lot of courage to speak like this in the face of people who dedicate their existence on this forum to whining about how the game is supposedly doomed and claiming you and the other team members are not communicating, despite the obvious evidence that's not the case. I've not seen transparency like this before, even with Squad. Good luck, and fly safe

What difference do you suggest there is between a circle that's been filled in and a sphere?

Not sure what you mean. They always have been. If you're on about the styling of the circle though, I think KSP 1's planet markers looked a bit garish and cheap. KSP 2's circles definitely make the game feel a bit more clean.

[snip] I have a problem with this statement - not because I think you are wrong, but because I fear it may be right There's probably a name for this razor, but if a company is willing to release the source for their game, they probably would have done it on their own initiative already.

Which they are

It's been confirmed that we won't get robotics outside of mods before 1.0. Kind of different from "won't get robotics [full stop]".

Au contraire! ___ Point taken. We are advocating for an exception so. I fail to see any incentive for T2 to be said exception.