Bej Kerman

Those are all problems that will either be eliminated or eased by how KSP 2 has been built

At that point you'd have to intentionally be ignoring them.

If you can seriously believe interstellar in KSP 1 worked well... Such as the fact multiplayer is in a working state and that many roadmap features were found by dataminers to be in KSP 2? Enjoy the high road while it lasts.

I like the retro look.

What about those of us that like it?

So it helps the game has been designed from the ground up to support it

The devs are playing multiplayer behind closed doors and dataminers have found roadmap features in good state.

The organic way KSP has evolved led to this. There are a lot of elements in the game that never came out of an overarching vision, but just grew that way. I don't see how an organic development would inhibit Squad from making decisions so basic like "should we aim the game at newbies or make players handcalculate things?"

Just because the devs thought it'd be appropriate to carry over flying by the seat of your pants, probably.

I have a hard time believing Harvester seriously didn't see the problem with telling newbies "here's a game that'll teach you space travel in a really simple way, now do the calculations yourself!". Did he not have a clue who he wanted to aim KSP 1 at? Is the first thing they teach in GCSE Media not to try split yourself between two audiences unless you have a really, really good reason to? Again, before that defense pops up again, just because Squad is a small indie group , doesn't mean each developer there should have been completely devoid of the ability to make decisions that make sense. Scattering important readouts to different parts of the screen to make quicktime flying difficult, hiding the alt-F5 and alt-F9 functions until they tweaked the UI flow for 0.21, etc. For such a fan-central product where mods and Scott Manley are the things that kept it afloat for long enough to become significant, Squad really didn't want to take their hands off their ears in regards to this 'decision'

How would the coloring not be possible?

What's the problem?

Like the fact the devs are juggling the core game you and many others are whining about and all the background features that are not yet ready for release? Or the fact they're dealing with technical challenges Squad didn't even bother with? Maybe even the fact much of the game they were working on probably went out the window with Star Theory? Don't forget that they are also trying to support interstellar travel using techniques that are being pioneered right now, you can't complain about them taking their time to implement object position tracking in a way that they can't just take off a stack exchange, when literally nobody has done anything of the sort before.

You didn't get anything in the first place. If you were waiting for a proper release that's aimed at a wider audience which isn't interested in filing bug reports, then EA was not intended for you. You made the mistake of waiting for the 24th like you'd wait for the 1.0 release with interstellar and all that.

I think the mistake in being heartbroken here is that EA is not a proper release and that the purpose of it is to gain feedback on this and other core aspects of the game. Else you'd have probably waited another 1-3 years to say you're heartbroken, and you'd be trying to play a full game with some of these mishaps.

Its TWR isn't unrealistic. I am really not seeing the problem with having engines as powerful as this. Don't forget the future is bringing us engines that are specifically built for constant-thrust transfers, the SWERV should hardly be the most of your concerns if you don't want to see futuristic technology.

Nuclear engines are already more terrible than they should be in an atmosphere.

Well then if you get angry because you find yourself unable to change my mind, unable to get me to see Intercept as the scam-running demons they obviously are according to you, then that's on you.

You should be happy you won't need to wait until 2029 for dV to come around, because that's the kind of standards Squad held and people happily dealt with. You fail over and over to understand the entire point of EA and claim that games that come out into EA are meant to be perfect and completely flawless. That defeats the entire point of EA. I'm sorry that you feel personally betrayed by Intercept because they didn't deliver 12 years of development in the 3 years they ultimately got, and that you feel entitled to seeing interstellar and all those WIP features in the very first release of the game.

Codeword for "our expectations were unrealistic and it is the developers' fault", I presume.

You don’t see any bugs and shortcomings in KSP2 at all, and if there are, then you don’t need to pay attention to them. If someone draws, then you immediately begin to prove that the person has fantasized everything for himself. And the fact that KSP2 has a dV calculator makes this game incredible! All evil from mods, KSP1 is a terrible game, and its developers can only develop mobile games. Did I forget anything in your settings? Oh yeah, you didn't say that, it's all an imaginary scarecrow. If you're hurt at all by my evaluation, which is evident from your ridicule, that KSP 2's bugs are forgivable for an EA game that literally just came out while Squad's decisions are not like the one to hold off for over half a decade on something as simple and basic as dV readouts, you are absolutely free and well in your rights to ignore me.

Why does it need to be added later? Furthermore, does the ability to merge stuff and copy stuff not already do this?

No, you're saving current state of the workspace. First, I'm not forcing because the game allows me to do it, second, saving the current state, be it with one vessel or ten, under the same workspace name, doesn't ruin anything. I do agree on that. But we're landing in that gray area of what's subassembly in a workspace, and what's a vessel. The game lets us put whatever we want in the VAB. No, what they call vehicles is what spawns on the launchpad/runway. The piece with green flag. The workspaces are workspaces. The only trouble is, we can't load different vehicles from KSC->launch menu, only the last saved and active one. That requires an improvement. You name changing isn't going to help anyone. Yeah you just described a workspace. A group of vessels and subassemblies in one place. You just made it more confusing than it ever was. Launch something from KSC without visiting the VAB. What the game asks for? A vehicle. One, that single one you marked active when you saved the workspace. Unfortunately, only that one from the whole workspace, but I already said it above. By your description, a vehicle loaded on the launchpad would be everything you have. To avoid confusion, because you're already talking in your own language: "To save your work you always keep the vehicle name the same and change the name of the workspace" That's what you were trying to say? Because I do the opposite and had no problems, the workspace with what I need loads every time and any changes to the vehicle, or the one next to it, saved under chosen workspace name, are still there. Workspace is what you load and save in VAB, same as craft name file in KSP1. Building something new and overwriting the old one is going to result with the loss of the old craft. Or workspace. Not a problem really if you realize what's what. Yep, same as working on new craft and saving it under the same name as old craft in the previous game. Or anything really, be it image file or document or a video. Workspace is what you're saving, Vehicle is what you're launching. You're adding yourself more work really. It's as easy as it is, which I've been explaining right there for the last 10 minutes or so as I've been typing this. Create multiple vessels under one workspace. No merging, no careful overwriting because currently the only thing that matters for safe saving is workspace name... Piece of cake. And it's the second and last thing that needs changing. You're not loading vehicles in VAB, but workspaces. But then there's a lot of UI problems that require fixing so let's not lose hope. But don't come up with ridiculous names that help nobody. That's how saving works. If you create a new vehicle that may be similar in some way to others you've already saved, then you can simply open that workspace or load->merge. Because why would you deliberately overwrite something unless you wanted it gone? What I'm gathering here is that Vl3d is trying to put multiple vehicles into one workspace, by putting two vehicles in different workspaces, then saving Vehicle B to a workspace with the same name as Vehicle A's workspace, thus overwriting it? Yeah, it really isn't that complicated, Vl3d. Just drop another part or duplicate the existing vehicle in the same workspace and build off of it.

I believe a bit much faith was put into the Discord. it's just another message overload in which useful discussions are vastly outweighed by pointless, directionless background chatter.