jaxmed

100%. It's why in spite of everything I don't really begrudge the CMs for how they handled things. They had the unenviable job of trying to spin straw into gold. Everyone's frustrations with Dakota and NerdyMike probably stemmed from the simple fact that they had no updates or good news to share. So instead we got fluff pieces (eclipses and previews of re-entry particles), excuses (2 weeks spent on sprint planning), and silence. Because an honest update of "the devs have been struggling to untangle this mess they found themselves in and our earlier multiplayer screenshots were from a two-day tech investigation that's totally unscalable and will require months of effort to put into the actual game and now we've got some horrible registry corruption bug and everyone is panicking" would probably not go over so well.

EA in name only. Even before the layoffs there was seemingly nonstop drama and complaining about the (lack of) communication. It was cyclical. Poor communication and incredibly opaque about what was actually being worked on or what would be released when, people start complaining, CMs come on and apologize about it and promise to do better, we get a few weeks of KERB updates or maybe a video or two, things quiet down again, people start complaining again... How many times did that cycle occur? What we were told going into EA: "we want to get feedback from you, the community!" What we got: near radio silence, maybe the occasional breadcrumb in the form of a video clip of some particle effects or a new planet or a bug status blog, more radio silence, then an update dropped, then more silence. Point is, they tried to pass off the EA release as some sort of way to have the community be closely involved with the development of the game, but they never actually acted that way. The game continued to be worked on behind closed doors and it felt like the community asking for updates and the chance to provide feedback was an annoyance that they only begrudgingly paid lip service too. The EA launch was 100% "our time is up and we're forced to start selling this to try and recoup some costs in order to keep the lights while we keep chugging away on because the game is totally behind schedule", rather than this mythical "oh we just can't wait to get it into player hands and hear your feedback and use it to shape future development" that they tried to pass off.

@blackrack Also confirmed on Discord that he's no longer working on KSP2 and is going back to working on EVE stuff for KSP1 on his Patreon.

OP have you ever read Pet Semetary? It's a book about a guy who refuses to let his loved ones die so he resorts to some sick black magic to bring them back. But it ends up 100x worse than if he just let them die. Interesting story.

Yeah this is wild. The fact that neither NerdyMike nor Dakota was able to get ahead of this is damming. I mean, par the usual course with how communications and community interaction has generally been for this game. But wow, new levels. It's clear that whatever is going on, it's a huge cluster behind the scenes. I think the community has every right to be skeptical of this "we're still working on it!" message. Best guess is that we might get the next patch and Colonies update out once they wrap up the details and then that'll be curtains.

Well if Bloomberg and Jason Shreir are anything to go by... Wait: check See: check GG

Yep. Folks, this is not a case of "no news is good news". If/when the game does get the plug pulled, whether that's already happened or not, you shouldn't expect an "official announcement" indicating such. That's just not how these big companies operate. Heck from a legal/liability standpoint they gain absolutely nothing by stating "oh yeah early access fizzled and bombed, we're discontinuing the game, it's officially over." No, better for the company to stop bleeding money, cut/recuperate whatever costs they can, give some generic lip service about how the game "technically" isn't outright "canceled", then just silently move on and let it fade into the night. No news is bad news, and at this point the fact that no CMs have jumped in to put out the fires and assuage everyone's fears tells the story well enough. The continued absolute silence from Dakota and Co. is about the closest we're likely to get to any sort of "confirmation."

Eh 8:45am is still early. Wouldn't surprise me if they're still hashing things out internally. I do think it's a reasonable assumption that if things turn out to be okay, we'll definitely hear something today in the next few hours because the CMs would want to put out fires ASAP. No official confirmation one way or another by end of day would only suggest bad news...

Bold of you to assume that the grid fins will actually be in the next patch. For all we know they're just showing off some new 3D assets that won't actually be fully implemented for some time yet.

@GrimmasThanks! Playing with the orientation option in the Bon Voyage controller part seemed to have solved it.

Had a really quirky experience on my first attempt at using this mod. Made a simple autonomous rover with a Bon Voyage radar on it, put it on a suborbital rocket and launched it north, landed the rover on the ice sheets near Kerbin's north pole. I had previously used SCANsat to identify a couple of anomalies in that region and marked them with waypoints. Assigned one of those waypoints as the destination with Bon Voyage and sent my rover on its way. After about a week, got a notification that my rover had reached its destination, even though on the tracking station view it was still a good ~30km away from the waypoint. Selected the rover and as soon as I loaded in, it was flipped over on its back and nowhere near its destination. Had to recover it and abort the mission. Any ideas what could've caused this? The "root part" of my rover was a 1x1 structural panel. I suspect that maybe that particular piece is considered "upside down" as far as Bon Voyage is concerned (hard to tell in the SPH because it's a pretty basic symmetrical piece) and I wonder if that's what caused it to flip. No clue about why it ended up so off course though.

I'm using this on 1.11.2 and it's working mostly fine but noticed that the "To Boldly Go" strategy isn't working. I'm not receiving any bonus funds even though I've transmitted science from brand-new biomes.

Just wanted to pop in to give kudos on this. I've been looking for a replacement for the long-dead SETI UbM tree for a while, and while there are a few out there, this one really strikes me as being the most logically laid out and doesn't go completely overboard on the tree. I'll be using this WIP in my career and hope to see you continue to build on it!!

Is this offer still valid? Great work on this mod and I love most of it, but I'm really not digging the fact that Duna turned blue. Even when it looks "as expected" and not due to a EVE glitch or anything, Duna just looks weird to me.

Am I missing something or is it impossible to get the larger Procedural Fairing bases in career mode? I unlocked the standard/small 1.25m fairings pretty early on (either under aerodynamics or advanced construction or something, can't remember exactly) but it doesn't look like the larger (2.5m and 3.75m) sizes ever get unlocked in the tech tree. Are these just not available outside of sandbox mode? I am using Community Tech Tree but I'm fairly confident that wouldn't affect this issue, but maybe someone else has an idea of what's going on. 1.3.1 by the way.

Sorry if this is a "nag" request, but is there any reason the Settings.cfg functionality has been removed in favor of reading custom Module Manager patches? It's not a huge deal I guess since it's just one extra step, but it does seem to be a needless tedious step for no discernible net gain. Is there some technical reason behind this, or do you think it would be possible for future updates to re-implement the ability to just modify the Settings.cfg directly?

Yep, exact same resolution here, 1920x1080. Not sure what else in my setup is worth mentioning: I do run a multi monitor setup, vsync on, 144hz monitors. Honestly I doubt any of that would affect the rendering here but if you think that there might be something funky going on with the shader pulling in other random screen parameters, then maybe something in there might be a clue. In any case I don't think it's a super high priority thing since the fix is pretty easy if you know about it, just changing one value in the config file. Regarding the skybox, I was able to make some progress there. Turns out it was a combination of things in the default config file that all contributed to the skybox being blurred/washed/dimmed out, but I was able to resolve it by removing the color grading and vignette effects. These things combined seemed to really affect high-res skybox textures by darkening them to the point of invisibility, but with those effects turned off, the stars are now able to peek through the skybox even with AA on. Which is good, I know that the stock game does have some AA but it's kinda crap compared to this shader's AA, so now I can leave AA on while still having a visible skybox. Thanks again for the fantastic mod! Even with the color grading and vignette turned off, the FOV, AA, and bloom effects really add a lot of atmosphere to the game.

Thanks for this mod! Just installed it yesterday, it works great and is very performant. Even better is how easy it is to get working, don't need to go through all the hassle that you'd need with ReShader. I did need to make a minor tweak from the default configuration. I noticed whenever I zoomed the camera in really close to any object, it would go completely black and silhouetted. It looks especially bad on a Kerbal on EVA, as zooming in even remotely close would cause their EVA suit to lose all texture. Fortunately it's a simple fix, I just changed the config to set the Use_Camera_FOV value in the Depth_Of_Field section from False to True in all instances. The odd silhouette issues immediately cleared up. So if anyone else encounters the same issue, that's all you need to do to fix it. One other thing I noticed: if you use the Anti Aliasing this shader provides, it also tries to apply AA to the skybox, which causes a lot of high-res skybox textures (Rareden's 8K and Galenmacil's RSS Galaxy both are affected) to have their stars blurred out and effectively turned invisible. If you turn AA off, you can see all of the stars in your skybox texture, but then obviously you have no AA. I doubt there's anything that can be done there, seems like you need to pick one or the other, but it is kind of a shame that you can't have both AA as well as a clear skybox texture. Just a very minor thing I know.