bitzoid

I built the Iktomi from Tharsis and landed a crew on Duna with minimal incidents: No micrometeorite storm was encountered. Zero Kerbonauts were eaten. ---- Here's the original:

Today I fired an Orange Tank straight into the Sun. Everybody on Kerbin seems quite happy with it gone. My scientists tell me the thing was chuck full of all the rubbish and waste, so it's probably good we got rid of it.

I built a new supply shuttle SSTO for the space station I built yesterday and successfully transported a tiny exploration mote craft to the station. Along with some snacks -- the scientists aboard the station requested biscuits as compensation for having to give up simulated gravity for several minutes. The exploration craft is tiny enough to fit through the station rings so we could deploy it after having docked the shuttle. The docking port is placed on an alligator hinge so it doesn't touch the bay doors when stowed. It should be pointed out that the shuttle still has some atmospheric instabilities during re-entry. Rumours about crimes towards kerbalkind committed during landing are a pure fabrication and should not be paid any attention to whatsoever.

After half a year of KSP hiatus I decided to get back into the game and built a rotating and illuminated Space Station around Kerbin at 305 km altitude. I hope the nice blue light relaxes the Kerbonauts aboard the station. Can you find Minmus?

Oh, this is an excellent point. So far I was under the (admittedly unfounded) impression that S.T was, in so many words, a tight-knit team. If the relation inside the company was, however, sour, I would actually reverse my current view completely. I think our solidarity should be with the devs, not the company (in general, and very specifically here).

In theory I agree, but not in principle (if that makes any sense to you). My way of looking at these things is that despite the fact that big scary evil X cannot be changed by my actions alone, I don't have to participate. Too many times (as evidenced here in the forums), people adopt the attitude: "Oh well, there's nothing you can do, that's just the way things are, might as well just go with it." But this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Just because we cannot be perfect, it doesn't mean we cannot try to better.

It almost sounds like the motive wasn't that the studio wasn't delivering, doesn't it? *I asked facetiously.*

Yes, and furthermore; @ShadowZone 's video implies, as do others here in the forum, that Star.Theory initiated talks about selling to PD. The bloomberg article is, however, fairly vague on that point. It merely states they were in discussions about selling, but were not satisfied with the offer. This does not necessarily mean they actively wanted to sell. It could also mean that PD was trying to get them to sell. This is a small but important distinction as it brings with it further implications and frames the situation.

[snip] It is okay to be frustrated but that's just rude. Blaming or attacking the devs is not cool. They are the wrong target.

@ShakeNBake Good to know there are a couple anticaps here.

Thanks for making an announcement here. However, your post doesn't really explain anything. Especially the part I cite above. If Michael Cook is such a great guy, how does that fit with the information we learned from the bloomberg article? How does this fit with the clash that obviously happened between star.theory and private division?

I find it odd that people are entering the point into the discussion that star.theory MIGHT have been wanting "too much" for a sell out. Think about what you just said. It is their company. They can ask for whatever value they want. If its too steep, nobody is forced to actually buy it. EVEN IF they actually wanted to sell the company (which we don't know) and EVEN IF they were asking for a googol USD (which we also don't know), that has ZERO bearing on the morality of their company being effectively stolen from them. That's not how things work. Try to distinguish between legality and morality. They only occasionally overlap.

I'm saying that it must have been clear to the employees the moment their sole project was pulled from the studio that this was not going to end well. The "come up with new ideas" thing was a last-ditch effort, nothing more. Also note that the employees would likely be forsaking all royalties from the eventually released game after pouring two years of work into it.

It seems to me that the real point is missed by many commenters here. The outrage should not be concerns over the quality of the game. That might be affected, it might not. The real point is the way a small studio was gutted and its employees forced to abandon it. Yes, forced. It is extremely hard to abandon a project that is close to your heart, let alone face the financial consequences the employees would have faced if they had declined Take Two's offer. And now, after that show of force, the publisher will be able to get away with any pressure they put on the devs. Regardless of the face value of the final product; KSP2 will be forever tainted. Saying: "I'll wait for initial reviews instead of first-day-buying KSP2" utterly misses the entire point.

One simply has to acknowledge the accomplishment of surpassing EA in ugliness. That is no small feat. Well done, Take Two, well done.

This is so disgusting I almost threw up when I heard of it. What is even worse is that people have the naivety to believe that this is in any way a good thing. Just have a look at the horribly dismembered Dead Space series. That is what big publishers do to niche / indie projects. I was anticipating KSP2 more than literally any game before (yes, including HL2:EP3). Now? I'm not even sure I'd even buy it in a sale.

So, I built a training vessel and because I have 32 pretty untrained crewpersons around I decided to use 32 Command Seats inside one 2.5m Service Bay -- because 50kg / Kerbal is just unbeaten. However, If launched with 32 kerbonauts, performance goes straight out the window. I'm having 0.5-1 frames per second. When launched empty (or with only one person) performance is fine. So, the problem is not part-count per se. Are there any settings I can change to make this work? I suppose rendering the head movements of the Kerbals is to blame? Yes, I realise 32 Kerbals in one Service Bay is a crime against kerbal-kind. I'll gladly post a story on the corresponding thread if I get this to work

I built my first sea plane (which can land on and take off from water) and decided to visit North Statione One.

Valentina made a small trip to Tylo and back.

But aren't the existing values already unrealistic? Engines have a kN thrust value from this and the mass of fuel (which we know because the mass of a rocket is measured in metric tonnes), we can compute that the Isp is, in fact, in seconds. I have zero problem with parts being unrealistic. It is a game and game balance is a proper "excuse". If you want different numbers before your units use one of the mods that make things more realistic, no problem. P.S.: That "unrealistic" argument is a daft one anyway, because it assumes that kerbkind and humankind have discovered similar technologies with similar efficiency. But perhaps Kerbin has some extremely advanced technology in some areas while lacking in others, compare to Earth. And if anything breaks conservation of energy you must enable the suspension-of-disbelief button in your brain, which we do regularly.

This absolutely made my day

I call my approach the "Ballistic Gravity Assist" pizza cutting technique. It uses zero fuel and exactly 42 (stock) parts (which in my oppinion should give extra credit!). I'll let the pictures do the talking. Fall time is less than 1 second. Slice time is instantaneous: 0pts No fuel used at all: 0pts 42 parts: 42pts (6 parts could be optimised but then it would look less pretty) Challenge completed in less than 1 minute: -100pts (I'm assuming I don't get the extra -50pts on top of that). Launchpad: 0pts Total: -58pts Bonus: It provides 3 sets of chopsticks if you wish to consume your pizza that way.

I wholehearteldy agree that fixing bugs should be priority one. Then nothing for a long while. Then again some nothing. Then after some more nothing, features (which I believe this subforum is for). And this is a very low hanging fruit as it probably just requires to edit some strings in config files (localisation shouldn't be too hard, too). Perhaps some research. Maybe it is just me, but I cannot stand a lack of units for things that should have units. For one, currently, there is no way to compare the thrust of an RCS block with, say, an Ant engine. Sure, you can just rig an experimental rig, but then the value it gives for the block is pretty much useless. Secondly, it is a missed opportunity to sneakily get some subtle knowledge into the head of the player. Note also, that it is well known that fixing low hanging fruit issues or implementing easy features from time to time can significantly increase the morale of devs. So that is also a thing to consider.

This should also be a rather minor fix, but it annoys me since I picked up the game. Many scalars lack the proper unit for no reason. Some examples (I probably missed some) Fuel: It has a mass tag, but no unit. The rocket does have units. Suggested unit: t Isp: Suggested unit: s Reaction Wheel: Torque? Is it kNm? Nm? Who knows. Electric Charge: Is it 50J? Or 50Wh? kJ? Antenna Rating: Is it dBi? RCSFX / Thrust Power: Is it kN? It should be kN. Lifting surface: Is it m2? It could also be unitless because it says "relative wingarea" but some have a relative wing area much greather than 1. Legs/Wheels: Stress Tolerance? Is it Pa? kPa? Something different? (Inconsistency: On Wheels the degree symbol is used, on control surfaces it is both spelled out (degree) and abbreviated (deg). Some consistency would be nice.) Separators: Ejection Force. Is it kNs? It should be kNs. Deployable panels: Tracking speed. Is it deg/s? Parachute Diameter: m, probably. It should be applauded that some components already use proper units (e.g. Engine Thrust, Heat components, etc.). Adding a unit would have only advantages. Most prominently: 1. The user could properly assess the effect the parts would have for a given craft. 2. Without effort people would learn what units go with those dimensions. 3. It would be physically correct. Units! Please!

Some rockomax or s3 sized tanks would certainly be nice. Currenly I usually add a large Mk3 Fuselage and 4 or 8 radially attached subassemblies consisting of 1 structural pylon, 1 nerv, 1 NCS Adapter and 1-3 Mk1 liquid fuel tanks depending on the mass of the payload. During the mission one can decouple half of the nervs once some fuel has been drained. Here is a comparison between different numbers of Mk1's for 50t payload. They can offset the extra weight of more engines but of course adding weight that needs to be lifted to orbit. The x-axis is the number of radially attached nervs. Lines are dv in vacuum (scale right), shaded area is acceleration (scale left). I think for 50t I would go for two Mk1 tanks. Anyway, the problem with this approach is that usually some of the pylons float next to Mk3 tank or clip way in. If it was a dedicated round tank, this would be much prettier and easier.