Lisias

Well, I'm a software developer myself and I can say that, sometimes, a fix to the problem causes more damages than the problem itself and so we code the problem back. It happens way more than we would like.

Nope. Underused use cases on Stock KSP. Before continuing, let me answer a question that I let pass trough: False (or at least I didn't found a use case where this is true until nowadays). Parts with ModuleResourceConverter and/or ModuleResourceHarvester does that when they find a part with ModuleActiveRadiator or ModuleDeployableRadiator on the craft, but only using that kind of heat they produces internally themselves. So, in the end, the Radiators are not able to dissipate heat from any part of the craft, only from themselves, after absolving heat by conduction from the parts they are attached to - some parts dissipates they own specialised heat from themselves when they find a Radiator on the craft. Now, bear with me: even if we would be talking ducts and coolant here, if you have a very, very hot part between the radiator and some other part on the other part of the subtree, this would behave more or less the same because that very, very hot part would overload the coolant as it passes by it, and from this point the coolant would be perverted into heating that poor part on the other side of the oven. As an example, if we have a NERVA between the radiator and the cockpit, the cockpit should be a sauna due the coolant, not besides it. More over, we care differently about different aspects of the gameplay. I beg to disagree in both instances. I reserve cordiality to people being cordial to me - on the other "use cases", I go direct to the point without mincing words. (My) rudeness is a large step ahead, I concede being grumpy.

Yep. But as a matter of fact, only now with 0.1.5.0 we (apparently) have a game that is really playable, essentially we have now what should had been delivered in January. Until now, the technical development were in focus because this is what was preventing the rest of the game to be evaluated (if not plain being loaded). NOW we are in a position to start evaluating the gameplay (before, something usually crashed way before). But, given the information I'm getting in other threads, I need to warn you: some aspects of KSP2 are way different from KSP¹ except on the most basic use cases. Casual players will probably not notice any difference, but seasoned users surely will - and this may not be exactly a positive outcome (IMHO, it's not).

Removing waste heat. Waste heat is vastly unexplored by Stock KSP, but some mods make good use of it, and I created a few parts for myself that creates huge amounts of heat and, so, should be used sparingly or a adequate radiator must be placed on the craft - without any parts with low conduction between then, or that part will ended up exploding. Additionally, if you are near a heat source (like orbiting the Sun near enough), you will need radiators (placed on the shadows of the craft for better efficiency) to prevent it from eventually overheating and explode by themselves. I suppose this trick would be useful on EVE too, as long you keep the radiators on a shadow (this one I never tried - yet).

I had already did, se the Val Barbecue craft. No need to do it again, but I can upload the craft somewhere if you want. About the ISRU, their "Core Temperature" thing IS NOT part of the KSP's Core Heat System! It's part of the ModuleResourceConverter . AGAIN, we are not talking KSP's thermals here, this is a feature specific to ModuleResourceConverter. This PartModule must be looking for any operating radiator in the craft and then subtracting its specific "Core Temperature" thing when finds one. The ModuleResourceHarvester used on the drills looks the same, but I'm still investigating. In a way or another, your initial claim: is just wrong the same. The radiators absorb heat from the connected parts, exactly like I explained. What we have on ISRU and Drills are specialised PartModules that create "another kind of heat" used only by themselves, and they "withdraw" this specialised heat when they detect parts with enabled ModuleActiveRadiator or ModuleDeployableRadiator modules attached. You took the behaviour of two PartModules and generalised them (incorrectly) to the whole game. — — POST EDIT — — The radiator efficiency is different when it takes light from the Sun, and when they are on the shadows - just forgot to mention.

Jesus Christ, man… Do you really BELIEVE in what you are talking? Shove the Radiators on both extremes of the craft, deploy and retract them alternately and watch the Convection Flux, Conduction Flux and Radiation Flux values changing accordingly. THESE are the thermal simulation we are talking about. The Core Temp from the Converter is simulated apart. Let do another test, let's fry Valentina this time (Jeb is already dead, right Manley?): Fire the engine, start to barbecue the Cockpit slowly (or the skin temp will reach max too fast and the thing will blow up killing Val). Heat the cockpit the most you dare without screwing it. Try to reach an equilibrium, where the skin temp stops rising, or do it slowly. Extend the near radiator. See how the Cockpit core and skin temps starts to decrease slowly. Now retract it. Extend the far radiator. See how the Cockpit core and skin temps starts to decrease slower than the previous one. Now redo the tests with the PAW for all parts involved and monitor the Thermal values. Observe as the fuel is consumed, the far radiator is less efficient on cooling the Cockpit (as the thermal mass of the fuel tank between them is decreasing, screwing the conduction). The same doesn't happens with the near radiator, as we are not consuming the monopropelent. You just don't know what you are talking about. WORST, you are unable to even do the proper tests in order to check about what you are talking about - you are COMPLETELY in the dark about this subject. — POST EDIT — I stand corrected. The dude is not completely in the dark, he's misguided and gone to the wrong path due jumping into conclusions without further investigation. Me and @PDCWolf are talking about oranges, he's talking about tangerines.

Definitively, absolutely, NO. This is NOT how KSP¹ works. I don't have a clue about how KSP2 will work, I'm basing my argument on what I'm reading on this (and the host) thread, but KSP¹ I KNOW HOW IT WORKS, and it's not like that. The Radiator dissipates heat from the part it's attached, and once that part gets cooler, the hotter parts transfer heat to it by conduction. The heat flows from the hotter parts into the cooler parts across the craft. Even the WIKI's description says something similar to that. And this information is easily verifiable by simple craft on the sandbox. ALT-F11 and the Debug menu are your friends. Unless I can trust the information you are providing, it's really hard to keep this discussion ongoing - on some things I need to trust you because I don't have any other reliable source of information to double check them, and right now I'm reticent on exercising such trust. (the rest of the post will be evaluated after my lunch - now I need to double guess any information you provided, because I lost confidence on what you are stating) Please enlighten me where I was dismissive or deflecting about your arguments. Without some solid examples, I'm afraid I'm unable to identify them by myself.

quoting myself, again: But, with new information gathered on this thread, I'm considering being wrong about the RPG thingy, as even as an RPG, the game appears to be considerably watered down.

That's the idea! I don't care how the features I'm interested are implemented, as long the end result of the simulation gives me the illusion of working as I was expecting. It's the reason we call these things "simulations" and not "emulations". We play Flight Simulators, not Flight Emulators (go play RC on the garden if you want a Flight Emulator ). By the looks of this thread, KSP2 is simulating things in a way that breaks the illusion I'm used on KSP¹. Ergo, it's not a KSP¹ sucessor, at least for me - there're a lot of shiny new things on KSP2 that are not present on the predecessor, but I can live without them (heck, I'm playing 1.4.3), but KSP2 also misses some details that are exactly some of the reasons I enjoy KSP¹ . Ergo I'm not willing to play KSP2. Making a parallel with your abstraction, imagine that in a new release of your game, someone decides that your approach is too much complicated and decide to "enhance the user's experience" by removing the cloud of bullets, and instead projecting a death cone from the origin into MAX_RANGE, randomly killing anything inside it beyound a MIN_RANGE. Superficially, it would work the same from the killed pilot's point of view - but on the other hand, you will not be able to simulate things like this (what your approach is able to!): The Fighter Plane That Shot Itself Down It may or may be not acceptable by the players, it will depend on how they are playing the first version of your game and, so, by their expectations about the sequel. Every abstraction is, by definition, wrong - but they are still useful under the constrains where they are viable for your solution: depending on how and where you abstract something, you will lose the ability to simulate some aspects of the target being simulated. You can't have the cake and eat it too. Agreed. For a coherent and constructive discussion, we need to: Agree on the terminology, otherwise we will not establish a communication. KSP2 is a Indie game, by the way? What's an Indie game after all? Recognise that the other side is entitled to have a opinion that perhaps needs some polishing, but is not be necessarily wrong just because you don't like it.

It should be working now. I forgot the repository on private status, my bad. Cheers!

Weird! Both links just worked fine to me!

Woe to you, oh, earth and sea For the Devil sends the Clicks with wrath Because he knows the time is short Let him who hath understanding Reckon the Clicks of the beast For it is a human Click And the Clicks count to six hundred and sixty six

Lost your post, sorry, didn't meant to. Well, I agree. But I insiste that too much abstractions will make you lose contact with what you are simulating, and by then you start to flirty with fantasy. What's perfectly fine, by the way - I'm not trying to tell them how to do their work, it's their game, their job, it's their table in need to get food on. Just don't do it claiming the game will be like KSP¹ when it will be not. I will just go play KSP¹ - or something else, eventually, perhaps even KSP2, when I got fed up and decide to replace Planet Nomads with something more polished. The whole problem here is Expectation. The KSP2 I'm seeing being delivered is not the game I've had told it would be. And I find this particularly annoying (to not mention infuriating) due KSP¹ losing players altogether, aparently because these dudes were expectating a new and improved KSP¹ too and, so, got mad and ditched both. Colonies would be a completely new feature over KSP¹. Curiously, it's the one thing they can do whatever they want, because no matter what they do, it will be an improvement over KSP¹ no matter what. It's the one thingy I have no expectations at all, because I don't have what to compare to!

I agree. But too much abstractions, and we lose contact with what is being simulated - and by then we start to flirt with Fantasy. It's exactly the same debacle between Star Wars being a Fantasy, Wild West style on Space movie, and Star Trek being Science Fiction (pushed to the limits sometimes, granted). Some resemblance to reality is required for simulations, as defined by Steam Shop at least… KSP¹ or KSP2? IMHO they are going to have more differences than similarities…

We will need to agree on disagree on this one. Let's hope for KSP2's sake that users will agree with you, not with me. At least there's no chance of the fuel mass being removed from the game, right? RIGHT? As a matter of fact, it's what I was defending since day 1 - going Hello Games way: shut up, fix the game, publish the fixes as they are ready. Rinse, repeat. https://steamcommunity.com/app/275850/allnews/ KSP2's patch releases are being, frankly, too few and too late.

"I swear, major, the aircraft took off by itself - it was an accident!!"

Ah, now I see. I used Doom 2016 because I was intending to make a correlation between KSP2 and KSP¹. But, yeah, thinking on it twice, there're better comparisons possible. — — POST EDIT — — Unfortunately, there's no data for Half-Life (1) on Steam - not exactly a surprise, this is a offline game, without any kind of integration to Steam, as it appears. The nearest next thing that I could think off was Black Mesa definitive edition, and Half Life 2. https://steamcharts.com/cmp/362890,220#All Both fairing pretty well, by the way, with Black Mesa (unsurprisingly) doing way better.

I stand corrected. KSP2 is being dumbed down even as a RPG. I completely agree. It's just not necessary to water down what made KSP¹interesting in order to add what they think will make KSP2 interesting!

Check the post again, I'm comparing Doom 2016 with Doom 1993 (1).

Facebook made me miss Orkut, by Dog's sake!!!!

But, still, the Reviews on Steam on the last 4 days are depressing. Of course this patch would not revert the whole Mostly Negative recent reviews in a week, but I was really expecting the Positive reviews to outnumber the Negative ones way more than they did. As a matter of fact, I was expecting the negative reviews to keep at the same pace, while the positive ones would be rising way more. So few new reviews suggest people are not boring to come back to revise the reviews (what's, frankly, is expected) as well no new reviews are happening (suggesting very few new players). Well, this is surely the reason I didn't and almost surely will not buy KSP2.

What a doubt! (fixed) Every game, by itself, is a simulacrum. So, to an extend, even Sky Rogue is a simulator. And, clearly, "we" want more of a simulator, as KSP¹ was considered to be. It's perfectly OK to make a completely different game inspired on the original if this is what will put food on their table - as long they don't try to sell it to me as it was a direct sucessor to KSP¹, because if so I will be very liquided and I will complain about bait and switch. What, in principle, it's already possible to complain because KSP2 is being advertised as an Indie game, when clearly it's not. Because this is not what is being discussed about - please don't apply a straw-man on us. What was being discussed about heating was, and I will quote @PDCWolf: THIS is what we are complaining, this is what was being discussed. I don't care how KSP2 would implement the feature, we are caring about the feature (or its absence). My point is that the continuous watering down of key KSP¹ features is making KSP2 more a RPG (or rogue-like) game than a Simulator. Things that made KSP¹ an interesting simulator are being dumbed down, and once you remove these things, what is left? Shoving a part that magically withdraws heat from the whole craft is exactly the same mechanic of a RPG (or, granted, Rogue-like) game where you buy a magical artefact that regenerates health out of the blue. "KSP - some physics required." - I think we need yet another Campaign around here. Wait! KSP2 will not have them, or KSP2 doesn't have them yet? Having Kerbals with different traits and experience makes planning missions interesting - I need a pilot (two, if I willing to play like Real Life™), I need scientists to get science points, I need engineers to build and fix things. If KSP2 is not going to have them, the game will be seriously hindered… If every Kerbal is absolutely disposable without consequences, there will be no attachment to the character ("oh whoa no no Jeb come in Jeb come in no"). You know, this is the weak point on Juno - KSP2 should try to be better, not equal the competition.

This is an open forum, we are shouting in a square. If you had read it, then it was addressed to you too. Makes sense. So I checked the hypothesis using, well, Doom 1 to se if the metaphor sticks: https://steamcharts.com/cmp/379720,2280#All I'm not proving you wrong, however. Something working for Doom doesn't means that it will work the same for KSP - but it's an evidence that you can make a facelift on an old game and still make it linger and even thrive - a bit (click on the link I posted above and check the All statistics). There wasn't much of a game for a long time before KSP¹ 1.0 neither. And yet… Oukey, nowadays we have KSP¹ competing with KSP2 too, but this didn't prevented Doom (remake) to reach ~31.000 concurrent users at launch neither (check my previous link). Some people don't mind playing the same thing again and again, as long it's fun. (hell, I'm playing Abuse again!) So, something else must be preventing interested players (and they exist!) from keep playing it more than a couple times. One of the many reasons (I would be naive on thinking there's only one thing screwing things here) may be the introduction of new show stoppers bugs ? Like this: AMD have a somewhat good footprint in the GPU market, about 17.5% as I had read recently, as well on the CPU market with about 21%. Let's guess that about 19% of the AMD enthusiasts have a full AMD setup ((21+17)/2). That drop from 325 concurrent users from last Wednesday to 275 counted yesterday relates to a 15% drop. It's a wild guess, I literally pulled this 19% out of my… hummm… hat but it's not a completely unreasonable guess - perhaps we are not seeing players getting bored on KSP2, but players being unable to play KSP2? Again… I didn't played KSP at that time, I started playing KSP on 1.4.0 (3 days before KSP 1.4.1!! Karma!!! ). So I didn't expected to get it 100% right. But doing some research while supporting my add'ons, I reached a lot of bug reports (and even commits due them) containing what people were thinking, and I got my hypothesis from these. Playing the Devil's Advocate against myself, I'm pretty sure that even if I'm right, this would not be the only factor influencing numbers here. The 0.1.5.0 brought back significantly more users than the last patch, after all. And since most users stopped playing KSP2 due showstopper bugs, they didn't had time enough on the game to get bored with what KSP2 have right now - I had read a lot of complains about not being able to play at all, really a lot. This problem I pinpointed above (about glitches on the image on a full AMD setup) can surely push players away, and if KSP2 players follow the AMD trend on market share, we may have found one of the reasons KSP2 may had declined about 15% in a week. If I'm right on this last hypothesis, we should see more or less the same concurrent users next week, i.e., KSP2 users that think KSP2 is fun enough and that are not experiencing show stoppers glitches (as the full AMD one). On the other hand, if we see yet more drops on the concurrent players count, then the other hypothesis (game not being fun enough) starts to make more sense.

Not enough people are getting fun from the game! Look, if bugs where the main reason for players fleeing, KSP¹ would had been canceled before reaching 1.0. Bugs are annoying, but except by some few fatal ones, people works around them if they are getting fun enough from what's working fine. The last patch solved a lot of serious bugs, and yet the player count is on the fall again. KSP2 is not being able to keep people interested for more than a week: Looking on the historic data from the Franchise, KSP¹ never had fallen so deep on the concurrent users even when it was terribly buggy - Steam Charts have data since Feb 2013, V0.18.4 (I think) - and until 1.0 reached the virtual shelves, and even well after that to tell you the true (the game became really stable only on 1.3.1), KSP never experienced a shallow curve like we have nowadays - not even on its worst times (removing 2023 from the history data, of course), when a lot of competitors were already on the market (watering down the excuse of KSP2 having to face more competition nowadays). The bugs are annoying, but as they are being solved, people are still having a hard time to keep motivated on playing it. This should be passing some message here.

"I will stick with the users, it's where the money comes from. "