Bej Kerman

Then don't. Buy a 1070 instead. Or if you're running a BBC Micro and can't run anything released past 2016 (or really don't care about Early Access titles), then keep playing KSP 1. KSP 2's an early access game, obviously it won't run well on an ENIAC until the devs get a chance to optimise it.

So, to be clear, you believe that a game that is built by a small team of devs and currently has a 94% positive on Steam, and is beloved by a large community, is the product of negligence. Fine then. How would you describe adding nuclear engines without implementing persistent thrust - which is well within Squad's capabilities - nor adding a suitable fuel type to curb the misbalance you get when a 700isp engine can consume a dense liquid fuel as if it were hydrogen? What about the many bugs that Squad left unfixed until Shadowzone addressed their negligence and technical debt issues? The many bugs people selectively forget because they don't want to tarnish their precious indie home-made game? Squad just kept adding nothing more than novelty features even when modders demonstrate it's possible to make the core of KSP 1 better than it is now, that's nothing but negligence. KSP 1's positive ratings are little more than the result of rose-tinted glasses, and just about everything I hear people say about KSP 2, KSP 1 is guilty of as well. Even more inexcusable on Squad's side because they're over a decade in and have put ZERO EFFORT into revamping critical parts of the game, instead leaving KSP 2 to mop up the mess Squad made. KSP 2 has dropped with many adjustments to the very foundation of the engine that I've been waiting on Squad to do for years. Not to mention the fact Squad asks money for what is, for many intents and purposes, an incomplete product, given the lack of (just to make it an example again because it's so critical to low TWR missions) persistent thrust, among other things. Take the ratings and throw them out, they're irrelevant and subject to lots of bias. The fact you rely on the ratings to make a point for KSP 1 rather than the game is a point in of itself. History repeats itself and KSP 2 is not an exception. We've seen a lot of games drop in a rough state and bounce back, give the game some time.

"some pet peeve bug" is putting it lightly.

Wobble that puts any gaps between a parts' connections should cause them to break as well.

You're complaining that they released early - and yet, at the same time, as you conveniently demonstrate for me, you're complaining that they don't release updates early...

The universe in which the devs unlocked interstellar content immediately is the Universe where you complain that they didn't hold off such features until they were ready for access.

Considering what kind of game fans have received, this narrative is quite plausible Because publishers totally haven't ever screwed well-meaning developers over before...

They clearly forgot the parachutes, and have revert to VAB off.

Yes, one NAME, anyway. As of right now there doesn't seem to be a way to give separate assemblies separate names. Yes, that's weird that vehicle names are tied to workspaces and not the vehicles in a workspace, but workspaces were introduced to let you put multiple vehicles in your space and save them together.

I always kind of scratched my head why the original team chose to keep gravity at ~9.8m/s2, but then scaled down the size of everything. Was it a time warp thing at that point in development? Was it just too ... tedious to sit through an orbital burn up to 8km/s, or maybe the jaunt to Jool was just too much to sit through? Less tedious and less floating point error. Don't forget that Kerbal engines are also terribly inefficient so it's not very far off from how it works in real scale - real scale only introduces tedium for most. There were plenty of arguments about it but Intercept never said anything about it themselves.

"you can only have one vehicle in a workspace"?

Because it conflicts with the "developers = evil scammers" narrative?

Three years? I've heard that development began in 2017, it's much more than 3 years. 3 years ago was when the aggressive takeover happened and development likely restarted.

The balancing on the nuclear engines is very nice to see, compare to KSP 1 where one single extra fuel type to keep things balanced was too much to ask for

Entering the VAB isn't very fast, but launching, entering the tracking station, and entering the game itself are all faster than in KSP 1, not to mention the in-game menu lets you enter these facilities instantly, while KSP 1 had you going through redundant loading screens. Really, this is more a point against 1 than it is 2. Their negligence says otherwise.

Aside from the challenge of something greatly diminishing if you rely on someone else's creation, the very prompt of the challenge is to "create an Air Launch to Orbit Rocket — that is, a rocket that’s launched from an aircraft!". The most advice I can give is to experiment with designs. Remember to strut parts together and remember to add vertical stabilizers

Waitwaitwait, is the challenge not to build your own craft capable of doing that?

AppData\LocalLow\Intercept Games\Kerbal Space Program 2\Saves\SinglePlayer\[SAVE HERE]\Workspaces

It's near the bottom of the same column you found this subforum in

Eh?

Mission reports is that way

i would appreciate of you not make personal attacks like that. Alright. Are you still going to answer the question?

They don't, but if I'm not mistaken about this side of the community, they're probably going to open up by completely misquoting something the devs said...

they didnt start from scratch there was a full game Oh. So you're angry because of an unproven conspiracy that's closer to being debunked than confirmed?

And now you're twisting the analogy in a way that doesn't even make sense. Starting development from scratch is not "8 months pregnant", it's 0 months pregnant.