Incarnation of Chaos

EA bought and dissolved Westwood in the late 90's, Bethesda bought and licensed FO (The name, not even any of the IP) back to Obsidian/Interplay in the 2000's, Bioware was bought by EA and now is the same company in name only after all the major staff jumped ship during or after ME3 When will people learn that if you make a deal with the devil that you'll get burned? Aside from that; this makes me suspicious that KSP2 is in Development hell due to much of the surrounding chaos. So it'll be interesting to see further developments, and i will allow KSP2 to stand or fall on it's own Merits.

No there's not; most games only come together as a finished product in the last few weeks or month. By releasing a beta you're just increasing the size of the cutting room floor. Those errors will be found much quicker by having more development time and never introducing them in the first place. If those foundational systems are ready, then KSP2 isn't too far off release. It won't We already have a release date though, so they can't The people who make principia, FAR or other code-heavy mods likely will be working on them, other projects or their actual jobs; i think you're really overestimating how many of them would play or contribute to a theoretical beta.

That's putting the cart before the horse I'm afraid; FO76 actually had a "Beta" about a few weeks before the release. It didn't help it; why? Aside from the fact it was motivated by greed; it didn't help because the bugs were fundamental issues that had been around since morrowind that no amount of beta testing or reports would fix. The moment you decide to ship a game; you automatically also make a decision to release a final version in some form or fashion. And you also decide to shorten your timeline. Let's say they decide to have a beta 3 months before the release, KSP2 now has to have a final working build before then. And that also means that instead of working on the game we want; they're desperately attempting to wack it into a functional state. Then they're gathering reports, filing them, and once the beta is pulled down only then can they actually start again. There's plenty of mechanisms to reduce this, such as having two repositories for the source code that can be updated independently without one affecting the other. But the bottom line is that releasing a beta will create more work for the developers, increase the chances of more bugs, and all for what? So a couple people can get frustrated playing KSP2 before throwing in the towel due to the bugs? So they can get buried in reports and have to spend valuable time sorting thru them and attempting to replicate them instead of actually working on the game? It's not impossible to transform a game from basically broken to amazing these days, and i get that. But that should be the LAST RESORT, not the expectation! And I'm not convinced a beta would actually help KSP2 in any form or fashion, and it's mostly because there's so much foundational work that they have to get right that likely will get skipped or sloppily approximated if they do make a beta that the end result may very well be a worse game.

The ONLY form of "Beta" i would support would be a rough, dirty super-alpha preview given to people like LinuxGuruGamer and other prolific modders under NDA, so they could have a head-start on adapting or learning KSP2's modding systems. And then Review copies for the press and reviewers a week or two out. No AAA Access, No "Beta" a few weeks from launch, no BS. Do it right or not at all.

I know many of KSP's issues lied in the limited precision of available 32-bit datatypes, so this was something i was pretty worried about also. And you pretty much summarized why things like Metastable metallic Hydrogen rockets worry me so much. I do still think that they could've done "Interstellar" exploration right, and satisfied the hardcore and casual bases while doing so. But much of what's come out lately does have me wary.... So; thanks for sharing your thoughts yet again xD

I was more just trying to say i hope KSP2 has more ways to generate power than RTG's; which have a very defined and specific niche that they fill IRL and in KSP. And that if we did have more ways, that you'd likely see RTG spam decrease dramatically as a result. I cringe whenever i see people put 20 RTG's in a bay and use them for power, not just because it's absurd and inefficient but because by that point you have so much nuclear material you may as well just use a proper reactor instead which would be far more efficient. So i don't think RTG spam is valid, just think it can be "Solved" from multiple angles.

If you had two loops like this; one for "On-demand" calculations that must be done as quickly as possible alongside a slower one for those that don't need that rapid of a update. Could you then put those on different threads? Because from the sound of that; there's quite a bit on the physics loop that could be multithreaded if it was broken out like you're proposing since it doesn't actually need to be done sequentially as it's unrelated to the physics. As for the rest; yeah you can dig thru my post history and find plenty of me attempting to explain that making a game like KSP requires a large amount of custom code. And that trying to do weird stuff like N-body, GPU acceleration of physics and etc. all puts you in a whole different level of complexity that requires much different skillsets to converge to make it all work. Many of the issues KSP faces aren't related to Unity as much as the developers not rolling their own custom solutions and trying to make the Unity implementations work where they're very much outside their intended scopes. And for the last one; are you talking about the actual code or the game? They've been pretty adamant from the beginning that KSP2 won't dumb down the experience, and will use improved onboarding to make the learning curve less like a cliff and more like a gentle, rolling slope. Or are you saying that you're worried that the systems programmed won't be as accurate/extendable in KSP2 as they were in KSP?

That's like looping thru an array with a for loop every single time you want to calculate a value instead of just storing the value....i knew KSP was bad.....but i didn't know it was THAT bad... On the bright side; it does mean that they likely haven't overstated just how much of a performance uplift a clean-sheet rebuild will be. Thanks for the explanation.

Care to elaborate on that a bit more? That's actually a new one for me.

No; because then you have to fix that same broken code. THEN target it on a newer version of Unity, and fix any issues that arose from that. You'd be duplicating effort at the worst possible time, and that's assuming moving to that newer version didn't wake up any other nasty gremlins that you now have to chase down all over again. And the developers would be slowed down; since they would have to re-learn portions of their workflow due to various bits being depreciated/added/changed from the previous one.

To be fair i don't know that much about KSP under the hood, so i didn't consider the first part. And i did generalize a bit too much on that one to be frank, there's normally several competing ones floating around even years later. But the general point i was making was that it's going to be the wild west in the beginning no matter what. Hmmm; while i could see that being the case I'd also say a system similar to FAR could be implemented to reduce this. Have whatever passes for MM in KSP2 automatically patch values for the cost of parts based on some formula, then have some exception handling to prevent anything weird (Once you find those cases heh) from blowing up. And honestly; I'm downright expecting Multiplayer to be off-limits for mods until some kind of standalone server client is released. But yeah; synchronizing funds, spending and rewards across a session would be a nightmare and prone to exploits and bugs. Not really disagreeing with you here; just providing more context to my thought process. All good points on your part though.

Likely none; you don't delay a game for a year because it just needs a bit of TLC. You do it either because you showed the publisher the end result and they laughed in your face or encountered a fundamentally game-breaking issue that you'll have to slog thru and essentially rebuild the entire source code chasing the dependencies that were also broken when fixing it. That all being said; this could be a fantastic chance to increase community engagement, get information out to modders early, and generally build a good reputation with the people who will ultimately make or break KSP2's success.

You could've created one from scratch, so yeah. And the last part is just how modding works in the early days until everyone converges on a single standard.

Nah it wouldn't so long as the tools are there to implement new systems like KSP1 has allowed; you could use a pretty simple range of datatypes to represent money. Hardest part would actually just be plumbing it all into parts, launch costs, etc. And making sure that it worked as intended reliably, but it's nothing that's actually too hard. And yeah I'm sure mods would do it, but I'm patient anyway so waiting doesn't actually put me off too much.

Perhaps what they're saying is that they want to use the minimum amount of materials for a given task; due to the fact that those materials have to be extracted, refined and then shipped to their ultimate destination all at a great cost to the surrounding environment. But yeah; if KSP2 doesn't have an actual career mode day one I'm not buying it. And if it still doesn't a few months later? I'll buy it on a deep discount and make it myself.

The reason for RTG spam goes a bit further though; KSP stock only has the RTG or Fuel Cells to power things while in darkness without worrying about running out of batteries. I have much more of an issue with how they don't decay or degrade over time, and are basically magical tubes which perpetually produce EC.

I genuinely hope not; because it won't be any better after the beta than it would be otherwise. I'd much rather them actually use the year they've been given to do actual work than wack KSP2 into a barely playable state to satisfy the tiny number of people who want to play it RIGHT NOW!!! Remember; KSP2 is a thing because KSP had so much cruft from the early days that got baked into it by being retained as dependencies between updates. To the point where there wasn't the option to just go back and redo certain systems or procedures to work better. If you want a beta, then you're essentially begging for a repeat of this situation. As for bug reports and feedback? Lets face it people; this isn't 2006 or the 90's where you had a small developer team eagerly listening for feedback. This is a developer beholden to a massive publisher who couldn't give less of a care in the world what they want to do, and only wants them to get a game out for the balance sheets. Any beta/early access would be a glorified cash grab, and wouldn't result in a better game. It would just mean people like me would wait another 6 months for the actual KSP2 to emerge from the wreckage of the "Beta" after multiple patches, and would also think much less of the developers because they buckled to the pressure and shipped out garbage instead of a game.

Do you know how many relay sats i have right now? Four One at Eve, One at Duna and One around Minmus and Kerbin. You know where i'm at? Jool; with full signal strength. Again; if you are in a 3 times rescale and you have not modified the Dishes and the DSN then you will have issues. For stock scales, the Level 3 DSN and Relay sats are fine. And i have also; though the only way iv'e landed larger planes is with chutes. But yeah; KSP2 needs to improve onboarding significantly.

This post frustrates me, and does so despite knowing you're just trying to be helpful. Why? Because this is one of the biggest issues with even wanting to make planes in KSP! If i want to know how to do 20 gravity assists to do a grand tour of the Kerbol system; there's dozens of tutorials out there! If i want to know how to do anything but the most basic plane design in KSP? Jack excrements. I can't git gud if there's nothing for me to get better with.

You do realize they had to build additional infrastructure between when it launched and when they contacted it past Pluto to accomplish this right? If they had the same DSN, and compression methods they did when they launched it then they would've lost contact with it. And the other reason this is the case is because KSP expects you to actually build out a relay network between you and the destination, and even gives you plenty of contracts to put satellites in nice convenient orbits around other bodies so you can even get PAID doing it. If you're actually trying to contact a probe directly with just the Kerbin DSN all the way out at Eeloo not only are you honestly not playing the way it was intended, but you're also setting yourself up for constant frustration as things eclipse and block your tenuous signal the entire way out. Also aren't you playing a 3.75X Rescale? That's going to make the inverse-square law hit you hard, and break the stock dishes and DSN ranges. And that's not a stock problem at that point; that's you having a modded system and needing an additional mod/patch to bring it back in line with the expected balance that you broke by using mods. Now for the real fun one here So this is filled with all kinds of wrong; first you didn't mention ANYWHERE in the OP that you were using FAR. That's important, and means that you're getting replies assuming stock aerodynamics which won't be helpful. FAR removes the fudge factor that stock KSP uses to allow such small lifting surfaces to generate enough lift to make "Kerbal-Sized" planes possible. This also means your takeoff, landing and stall speeds will all be much higher if you don't account for it. And about making the runway longer; it's not about modeling time. It's that the combination of Unity's colliders, Terrain system and the lack of FP precision actually makes getting surfaces level much more difficult than just eyeballing it. Iv'e made huge planes in KSP using FAR, and it took some time. But they made orbit; biggest issue was the landing gear.

Then why waste time, money and effort to just make what's effectively a buffed Orion that doesn't have any of the unique considerations of the Rotating Detonation Engine that are brought about because of how unique the methods by which the engine must be constructed? Why not just add a upgrade to Orion that allows the use of Antimatter-Boosted Fusion Bombs which are smaller and more powerful and would provide a similar if not much greater increase in ISP, especially since the engineers and scientists working on Orion were already considering these methods for the times when they became available. I think what you're not seeing is that if you simplify a concept down this severely, then you get an end product that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself like it would in real life. Orion is a massively different drive than conventional rockets, trading the ability to throttle for immense ISP and thrust (Basically becoming a torchship) and the ability to Brute-Force it's way along hyperbolic trajectories. Metallic Space Magic isn't as powerful, but sits nicely in the middle. Allowing much easier transfer of men and materials around a local system, and even being suited for short interstellar hops. Plasma Torches provide decent thrust and ISP, and outclass both. But monumental energies and thermal exchangers are needed to tame the fusion dragon screaming from the back, and it's unlikely to work well within an atmosphere. Antimatter is the ultimate in propulsion capable without mainpulating space and time itself, being incredibly dense with fantastic ISP and thrust. This highly simplified drive you're proposing? It's Orion but a bit more efficient, and that's not enough to distinguish it from the rest.

I'll admit that's it's not something that i should portray as "Typical", and it's often a sign of "Development Hell". But it's far more common than i think most people realize; why do you think most developers are very cautious about setting firm dates now? There's plenty of games that have made their way out of it, and turned out fantastic regardless though. But honestly as far as confirming/denying anything; all the sources i could provide would still be from before the move. So i think the only thing that would confirm or deny anyone's suspicions at this moment would be a decent info dump from the developers of KSP2, and at this point i think it's warranted. Because honestly? There's so much that could have changed between the last round of interviews and now, that i can't trust the information out there ATM. Even just them reconfirming the information we think we know would be better than where we are right now; which is basically the void.

Honestly at this point if KSP just had wheels and landing legs that acted in a predictable manner it would be perfect for me. And yes, that's my biggest gripe about KSP.

We've seen multiple disruptions to the Star.Theory staff and facilities, and i don't even know if they're still the ones developing ATM or if they've just been absorbed into Private Division. And with the current chaos the world is undergoing; it's little surprise that the ambitious timeline fell apart. Especially given that they already delayed, and whoever you are, wherever you are have my sympathies. I'm just beginning my adventure into Software Development (Academically; not working), and learning the hard way that sometimes you can't make it work by just throwing people at it, you can't just brute-force your way past the issue, that there's no trick or magic wand to make it work. You just have to put on your pants and wade right into the swamp of suck, and wrestle whatever issue you're having down to the muddy bottom until the solution shakes loose from it's jaws. So to all of you developers, i want to say one thing above all. For every person that's loudly asking you to slap something together, to release early or otherwise deliver a sub-standard product. There's a number more like me; who just want what's best for the game. In short; Thank you for delaying KSP2.

Also flaps and other similar control surfaces don't really work in KSP due to it's terrible Approximation (Can't even bring myself to call it a model) of aerodynamics. So actually mechanizing a plane to the point where you feel some degree of control over is difficult (Not impossible....but....at that point rockets look simple). Combine that with the questionable wheels and dampers that sometimes become reactionless propulsion whenever they feel like it (Seriously these things crack me up sending me from a dead stop to flying in a hyperbolic trajectory at 30m/s on the mun) and 9/10 times your only viable option is just to say **** it and plaster on dead weight in the form of chutes whenever you want to land. That all said; there's a fantastic dev blog buried somewhere that details why making the runway longer/wider is a hell of a lot more work than it sounds. BUT i'd say fixing the buggy wheels would make all of this far less painful, and should be a priority. The aero model-but-not-really-model of KSP is also a massive problem, along with the lack of a reasonable selection of aircraft parts. But we all must remember; KSP was a rocket sim/sandbox well before it was dabbling in planes. My janky workaround with ancient KSPWheel patches for stock gears + FAR + about 4 plane part modz is satisfying my needs ATM.