Bej Kerman

I fail to see the problem there.

I wonder what that would be.

Alright, but you have to admit doing IFR in KSP 1 sucked specifically cause of that. You can't absorb alt and velocity/navball readings at the same time, you have to play a game of pingpong with your eyes. VFR isn't the only way to play, and even then having concise instrument readings matter a great deal when landing, regardless if you're using instruments alone or using visuals.

I def. get the intent, but I find it's like that minimap in the top corner of an ARPG - you spend all your time staring at the minimap and not the game screen. I'd say that's more a testament to the benefits of this UI than anything else. In KSP 1 your eyes had to glaze over your ship to reach the altimeter from the velocity and navball, and vice versa. Inefficient. Don't have to do that in KSP 2 unless you specifically want to look at your ship, in which case your eyes are only under your own control.

The entire point of this change is so that the navball and altimeters aren't hogging space that could otherwise be used showing your rocket, something I think the UI does excellently, as well as keeping the altitude within a reasonable distance of other critical readouts.

Well, it's still there

Your loss Did you made a Private division account and successfully logged into it? Are you online when you launch the game? I never made a PD account nor do I keep Steam in online mode unless I need it, so that's weird.

I do think that the KSP1 subforum should, perhaps, be lower than KSP2's subforum. However, it shouldn't be this low, to the point of being below the community subforums. They're still quite active and contain the vast majority of posts in this entire website. I think they should be at least above the community subforums. And if they're below the community subs, I don't see how that makes them any more difficult to access.

still wanted to try it since im a fan of KSP <s> If your standards were that low, what's the trouble? </s>

And Squad should have lost custody of KSP 1 years ago, but hey, what can you do?

<s> Fixing the physics engine is just as simple as flicking a few switches, right????? </s>

The refund button is right there.

Is that not what would happen if you have hundreds of tons of air hitting your wings faster than a bullet?

And they aren't treating it that way; the forums are still open.

I don't see any particular reason for the KSP 1 forums to be anywhere else. They're still accessible, is that not satisfaction enough?

That's not how ion engines should work And? It's still a point for the new maneuver planner, when you can do such maneuvers with low-TWR engines. Considering that you need that information to time when to start a burn "I need the burn length timer to figure out when to start my burns because the 'start burn in...' timer doesn't do it for me"...? Why do you need the burn duration to start a burn if the game already has a relatively big timer telling you precisely when to start your burn? Because, as I explained, you're blatantly ignoring things the game gives you to initiate maneuvers. Okay, now I'm getting the impression you haven't even touched the game or even so much as seen a screenshot or video demonstrating the maneuver planner, else you'd know how blatantly wrong this is. Again... Not possible in KSP 1. Also, note the blatantly obvious "Start Burn In..." timer. Then why'd you support Squad? If KSP-1 is that bad, why were you registered here in 2017, long before KSP-2 announcement? No better alternative? A 90% positive review rate obfuscating the game's deep-rooted issues? As I said, KSP 1 was only successful because of a lack of competition. But you prefer playing KSP-1 instead of rather better spacesims, as KSP-2 has appeared (?) just a fortnight ago. And the point flies over another head. I was showing that Squad's output was pathetic for a dev team, not that SpaceEngine and Elite II were designed for building rockets.

"The food at this 3star restaurant took 6 hours for you to make! You told me it would be ready 3 hours ago. You told me it would be the best meal I ever had! That's why I kept sitting here waiting! And it's undercooked! And overpriced! And its worse than I can have right going to the food stand that has the food ready already!" is a more apt analogy. "You told me the food would be ready three hours ago! I don't care that an unexploded mine under the kitchen forced you to start from scratch! It's your fault I can't refund! It's fine as long as the company messing up the food is the one I grew up with!"

Persistent thrust only matters for interstellar travel??? That's just, come on now. "Food only matters for when you're literally about to starve to death". A crewed ion mission is technically possible in KSP 1 but seriously. Hour-long burns. KSP 1 is supposed to be a game. Not something only for the hardcores. Persistent thrust is a basic necessity. It's an edge case precisely because of these problems. This statement is questionable. There are many who could have done a worse job. KSP was maintained for 10 years. I'd say "on life support for 10 years" is a rather more apt description. "I disagree with your opinion, therefore it is pointless." You make the call on whose opinions are valid? And you're saying not being subject to a bandwagon mentality is a bad thing? I'm sorry you feel that way about me not blindly praising Squad just because it's what everyone else does. I'm still going to continue dissecting KSP 1 whether it's what everyone agrees on or not, and I'm certainly not going to think X just because it's what everyone else thinks. Yes I have. Then again, given the bulk of your argument, "I disagree" is grounds enough to consider an argument invalid. Tough love. Or, at least it would be if Squad ever took advice on-board and didn't give up on KSP 1 after the drip-feed development cycle that was post-1.0 KSP1. I'm sorry that someone having a different opinion is report-worthy in your eyes.

"The food was rushed and undercooked! The food took too long to get to us!" is the vibe I am currently getting from this fandom, which only seems to care about development flamingo-ups so long as the developers aren't squad.

I am talking about fundamental problems that are well in the control of the developers, not unintended problems. Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it. KSP 1 getting onto Steam was a failure of its quality control and at this point the least I would ask of a sequel has already been addressed by KSP 2. KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off. No, KSP 1 being developed in 2011 by a small indie group is not an excuse given that many far better games had been developed by people, singular, no more than one developer, in the past before - Frontier: Elite II and SpaceEngine spring to mind, and even barring the work SpaceEngine had done to it after 2011, these games amounted to far more than KSP 1 did over the decade Squad was supposed to be doing more to it than piling on superficial junk and features that provide 0 benefit to the core experience, to provide fans the illusion of the game getting better, as opposed to focusing on such critical things as the haphazard, horrible, ugly UI which provides 0 readability thanks to the space Harvester thought to put between the altimeter and speed - two critical readouts - and basic necessities like persistent thrust, resource utilization in the background, procedural wings, a parts menu that doesn't throw everything in a haphazard list with little sorting, and so on. If you were happy with KSP 1's useless parts added solely to pad the space between updates that provided any real value to the game, you can be happy with KSP 2 adding basic necessities we've sorely needed for over a decade, that Squad could not be in the least bothered adding. I thought maneuver nodes were even worse in 2 so far, not even showing burn time until you start burning Oh, right, you can do inclination changes properly with ion engines now and do your circularization and capture burns in one go, but oh no, a little UI element that appears when you begin your burn is absent prior to your burn beginning. Whatever. That does not constitute "even worse", and I'd wager claiming it's "even worse" over such minor issues would constitute melodramatic. Have they though? All I know is that you can time warp during burns. Oh, they added persistent thrust? Are you sure about that? Because all I know is that they added persistent thrust. Yes, they added persistent thrust, and stating the purpose of persistent thrust to me just proves my point that they added persistent thrust.

Note how those lines are replying to two completely different parts of the reply.

Real nukes have ISP 900. And less if use anything but pure hydrogen. Exactly!! Squad's borked NERVs shouldn't exceed 400. Oh, right, juggling all that stuff is going to have no impact on development?

One could argue the exact same thing about KSP2, just with the references switched. Not. Having information readouts placed in a layout that doesn't trust my eyes to decouple like those of a chameleon, persistent thrust, on-demand loading of assets, maneuvers that aren't disgustingly inaccurate for anything but high TWR rockets, KSP 2 has already addressed tons of stuff Squad kept under the rug. But KSP2's many game breaking bugs and foundational issues are not? No. There's lots of bugs but there's less issues with the foundation and it's much more forgivable than Squad whom didn't bother changing anything for over a decade, not even bothering to implement blatantly obvious QOL features modders proved can be done. A good way to break a game even further, and make it look even more patchwork. If you need mods to enjoy a game, it's not a good game. So long as the nuclear engines have an ISP of 700, it's a bug. Then why did Squad make this supposed hydrogen so dense and unbalanced? It's a blatant mistake they either kept under the rug or somehow never noticed. It's a simple change that would have cost Squad little to no effort, and yet they never did anything. Just another artefact of having a dev team who trusts complete newbies with hand-calculating dV and relied on mods for so long to provide basic necessities like persistent thrust and dV readouts because they couldn't make a complete game themselves. Thank heavens for Intercept. They had over 4 years to optimize it, that is the main problem A. There are a lot of disabled background features that are being developed in parallel. B. They've still accomplished a lot of stuff Squad never bothered to do. Making the planets 10x smaller is forgivable given that the engines' specific impulses were adjusted to match. Sort of. But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable. Minecraft is a bad game, because real grass is not cubic. Nice strawman. Dismissed.

I'm not gonna listen to one review. I am gonna listen to all the reviews in aggregate. Much much moreso than one guy screaming in all caps on forum who's proven themselves to be completely illogical. As you say, Mr. Spock. KSP 1 couldn't possibly be broken, after all, a bunch of people who have no idea that nuclear engines don't run on the same fuel as jets are the people you should trust when evaluating how good a rocket simulation with a game on top is. Evermore logical and unbiased. That is a funny way to spell "Private Division". Making the planets 10x smaller is forgivable given that the engines' specific impulses were adjusted to match. Sort of. But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable. If the thought of creators like Matt Lowne not being able to resort to the age old cliche of running NERVs and RAPIERs off the same fuel and carrying many tons more fuel than they should be able to doesn't make you excited... Alright. I still maintain that KSP 1 is broken on a fundamental level, ignoring bugs. Broken on such a deep level that it's ridiculous it got the following it has - forget how many fans are ready to defend it if someone dare do something like point out that nuclear spacecrafts don't run on the same fuel as jets. After all, a small, little humble indie dev team can't possibly do wrong...

And you're going to ignore basically everything I said because you'd rather listen to reviews consisting of "Green men go into space. Spectacular" and "fun" (Real reviews, by the way. What eloquent critics.) than common sense; NUCLEAR ENGINES DO NOT CONSUME JET FUEL, SQUAD. FIX YOUR GAME. Obviously people as professional as steam reviewers won't account for such basic balancing errors as those Squad makes. Things like Harvester doing something as absent minded as aiming a game at total newbies and simultaneously expecting them to hand-calculate dV - like, come on now. Hence, stop using "but X got 90% good reviews and Y got 50%!" as a crutch in your arguments when you're getting proper criticism of KSP 1 delivered on a silver platter.