Scarecrow71

Again, no answer short of "Every employee we have is working around the clock on this game" will satisfy people. So why ask? As long as the answer is non-zero, that should be enough of an answer. Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the game in its current state. I haven't even fired it up since 0.1.4 dropped, and at that it was only to test the mod I created to make sure it was still functioning. I probably won't fire it up again until after Science drops (which should then be 0.2.0, but I have no clue how their numbering will work with roadmap features). But asking how many people are working on this game won't get anyone a satisfying answer. Period. Some people are going to be upset no matter how many people are working on this. And still more will be upset at the state of the game until it hits whatever milestone they are waiting for (the vast majority of which are, based on my potentially incorrect research, waiting on multiplayer, which is A LONG WAY OFF). Wrong. I'm not a born-again KSP2 enthusiast. I'm just trying to be more civil about how I feel about the game. Trying to get my point across while not being a complete PITA about it. I still don't like the game, I still don't like the cadence, I still think we got jobbed, and I still think that the company needs to do something quickly before the IP dies. I'm just trying to be less d-baggy about it. I can get my point across being civil, which is what I hope I'm doing.

As long as the answer is non-zero - that is, > 0 - it doesn't matter how many were working on it. Per Nate, the game is funded for years, they are releasing bug- and hot-fixes, and they should be working towards releasing Science. The going is slow, and is certainly not the speed with which a lot of people would prefer. But there is nothing to be gained from asking how many people are working on this other than to be continued in being frustrated for not having an answer that you want to hear.

It's no different than putting a bag of popcorn in the microwave and wondering why it takes more than 90 seconds to be done. People want instant gratification (generally speaking), and nothing short of getting something full and complete before actual release will make them happy.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think the major point is that expectations were not set properly by the company, and this has left a lot of people - myself included - wanting to see what we were told we were going to get. This hasn't really been the prototypical early access release, and I think people are simply put off by that. My opinion only, and I can only speak for myself with 100% certainty.

Again, dealing with new features when the base game isn't up to snuff won't do anything but add problems. You need to solve the base problems before you add stuff that could potentially add more problems.

Considering the number of people here upset over wobbly rockets, coupled with the numerous discussions on the topic...yes, it is absolutely relevant right now. And should be the second priority (after orbital decay). Implementing new features won't mean much if you still have to worry about flying a noodle.

The decision whether or not to buy boils down to a few things: Can you afford the $50. This is a legitimate question. For some people (myself included), I'm not worried about the $50 or having to worry about whether or not that $50 spend is going to come back and haunt me. If I'm worried about $50, then I've got bigger problems than just the cash. But for some people, that $50 is a good amount of cash to have be expendable. You need to decide if the cost isn't all that much. Are you able to wait for new content. You'll be waiting for new content regardless of whether or not you purchase the game. But can you have the game sit in your library untouched until the day comes when you get the content you are looking for (whether that be new parts, Science, Interstellar, Multiplayer, etc.). Are you ok with the amount of bugs, and are you willing to play through them until they get fixed. This isn't so much of a detriment now as it was at launch as the developers have fixed some of the worst ones out there. There are still bugs that exist, though, so don't think that there aren't any left. But can you play through/with the ones that exist. I personally cannot recommend this game to anyone right now. I've got friends who have seen KSP and think it's a cool idea, and they want to know if they should pick up KSP2. I tell them "I wouldn't". Their answer is always "But dude, you bought it day 1; why shouldn't I pick this up". To which I say "Ok, go buy it. But I have KSP1 and was well versed in playing the game, so picking up the sequel - even in its buggy, ugly form - wasn't a stretch to learn. You, on the other hand, have never played. But go ahead and buy it and then shelve it until it's fixed." My point here? No, don't buy KSP2...yet. Wait until it's a little more polished. Until then, play KSP1 with mods (EVE, Parallax, KSRSS, MJ, KER, etc.). The wait will be hard and probably long, but worth it.

Hey, at one point in my life I had to decide if I wanted to pay rent or buy a new guitar. My mom was not happy when I moved home.

My least favorite has to be that coward Werner von Kerman. You have all this knowledge of rockets and the buildings and everything we are supposed to do...yet you aren't one of the available crew members in the Astronaut Complex? Get out from behind the desk and go places, man!

The big issue with trying to state the roadmap is a promise is that there are no hard dates on it. All the roadmap says is that they are planning on having these things eventually, and hopefully in the order presented. But nowhere on the roadmap does it say they are guaranteed, nor does it give any idea of when to expect them. Do I agree that it's a promise that the organization needs to be held accountable to? Yes. But with no dates listed, and nowhere have they said "We promise that we will get these out here", it would be darned near impossible to make Steam hold them accountable on Rule 2. But what is overcharging? What is the price point that everyone can agree upon is fair for an EA title, regardless of the content or depth of the game? I personally feel that $50 was a bit of a stretch, but that doesn't mean it's overcharging when you consider that you will never have to pay for a price increase should you keep the game. I know - there have been a couple sales where people paid less than that. But the price IS going to go up after 1.0 (assuming we get that far). How much it will go up remains to be seen, but that price will determine if we overpaid in EA or not. If the price goes up to like $60 or $70, then yeah, maybe we overpaid a bit. If it goes up to like $100+? We got a deal. We just have to get there first. I will have to disagree with @Periple on the discussion of this one here. Expectations were not set properly prior to the release of the game, and that is backed up with all of the videos and statements and press releases that were all then shot down by multiple delays and staff changes and such. We went from "It's a full game that will be released in late 2022" to "It's a half-game that will go into Early Access in early 2023" in the span of 6 months. And we were then promised fast, hard-hitting updates on a timely cadence and re-entry heat within weeks, yet here we are nearly 8 months after launch and we have received 4 patches, 2 hotfixes, 3 new engines...and we still don't have re-entry effects, heat, or any idea of when the first major content drop will be other than it will be sometime after 0.1.5. Expectations have not been set properly for this game at any point over the course of even the last 18 months, let alone the 4+ years since announcement. This one boils down to semantics and what one feels is playable or not. Myself, I didn't believe the game was fully playable with the SOI/trajectory issue. Others don't believe it's playable until they fix the orbital decay issue once and for all. Still others won't think it's playable until new content is added. The truth of the matter is that you CAN build rockets, you CAN fly them, and you CAN get to other planetary bodies. I myself have landed on every other body in KSP2 other than the moons of Jool (which I still haven't done in KSP1, which makes me now realize I forgot all about my crewed Moon lander in KSRSS, which means I have to go fire that up at some point...but I'm digressing). The game IS playable. The amount of playability is subjective, but the game does not truly break this rule.

I try to never use autostrut in KSP1, instead focusing on correct object placement (same-sized pieces connecting, using adapters) and struts where they are truly needed (radial connections). I can't say that I never use it - I'm not perfect - but I try not to.

My question was really two-fold. If they are developing a tool to help them with bugs and solutions, then they are taking time away from actually working on the game code itself. I think it would be beneficial to see exactly what they are working on that is taking time away from coding the game. Although I may be in the minority, I think it's interesting that they are simultaneously developing something that could help them decipher and test bugs and solutions, and I'm curious to know if that is something that could be used for a wider range of bugs/solutions. Seeing the tool in action, and seeing what they are working on, might help the community understand what is going on. As I said elsewhere, I'm just throwing out my 2 cents on stuff, for whatever that is worth.

I guess my point here was that there calculations being done on objects that are nowhere near the current SOI, and maybe it's possible that those calculations don't need to be done. I get the interplanetary deliveries and colonies and, at some point in the future, interstellar flights, and there are pieces and parts all over the place. But do we need to do the calculations on all of them all the time? Is there any way to narrow this down to the current SOI, or even a grouping of SOI's, so that we don't have these major system resource limitations? I'm just spit-balling here. I may be a developer IRL for my day job, but not to the capacity of the devs of this game. So I'm just throwing out stuff that comes into my mind whether or not it is sound logically.

I'm on record as being one of the biggest nay-sayers of KSP2; it is no secret that I'm not very happy with the way things have gone. With that said, even I'm beginning to get tired of the rehash of everything going on here. Nothing is said in this video that we don't already know, and it's merely just repeating what we read here on the forums every day. The one thing in this video that I specifically want to address is the author's take on KSP1 player counts. I have a really hard time believing that people who are upset with KSP2 are also simply putting KSP1 down and not playing that either. Or, rather, that the number of players stopping KSP1 gameplay due to KSP2 not making them happy is far lower than what we would be led to believe in the author's statements in the video. In fact, most of the people I've read in this forum who aren't happy with KSP2 - including myself - are going back through career games in KSP1 because we don't want to deal with the bugs in KSP2. For myself, I'm using mods in KSP1 that I would have never thought of before (Remote Tech, KSRSS, JNSQ, as a few examples) to try and see if I can get a different type of game play out of KSP1. All told, I simply think that there is no correlation, at least in the numbers the author mentions, between being unhappy with KSP2 and also being unhappy with KSP1. I could very well be wrong.

@nestor Is this something that could be optimized by only calculating on objects in the currently focused SOI? I mean, the objects elsewhere are still there, but not calculated on until you focus on that SOI?

@Nate Simpson It was mentioned by you that, since the video was created, Dave had been working on a tool to do comparisons of wobbly rocket fixes (or, rather, potential solutions). Is there any chance we can see the tool in action? Or, well, maybe not in action, but maybe (assuming it isn't entirely proprietary) shots of what it looks like, and a shot of the output when a comparison is done? Secondarily to that, is there potential for this tool to be used for other issues/bugs that crop up? Like, say, why parts simply fall off, or loss of control? You know, if there is a potential fix and you wanted to see the results using Dave's tool, is that something that can be done? Or would that tool require way more coding work than it has already taken, time which would be better spent on coding the game? Either way, the video was a great watch. More like this please!

That is the only thing I can think of. You can go into R&D, and then click on Archives, and you will be able to see the biomes on every planet/moon that you have collected science at. Very helpful when deciding where to land.

Of all the things to complain about with KSP2, the UI is dead last. In fact, the only thing I don't like is that there is no overt TWR display. Other than that, the UI is ok. Is it perfect? No. But it isn't bad.

So I watched the 2 minute section (or however long it was) in the video...and I'm not sure what to make of it. HarvesteR sounds like someone who created something and then left, and now doesn't know if he has an opinion or not about what is happening to the sequel. I've been pretty outspoken about what I think of KSP2, but I don't get the feeling from that 2 minute section that HarvesteR is disappointed or at a loss of what to say. Then again, none of us are inside his mind, so unless he comes out directly and says what he's thinking, this is all merely speculation. And now I gotta go check out Kitbash and see what that's all about.

Banned by Banner

If you installed through Steam or Epic try verifying your files. It may be you need to fully reinstall.

You can only gain so many science points in a given biome from a given experiment. For example, if you run the science junior on the grasslands, you will get full science the first time, a percentage of full the second time, and 0 the last time. Also keep in mind that you do not get full science points if you transmit the science back. To get full amounts, you have to bring it back and recover without transmission. With that said, how many times are you trying to run the experiment at the same location? And are you transmitting or recovering?

I think resources are far better than funds, regardless of the type of game you are playing. Take the following 2 examples: Say you are playing a solo game. KSP1 proved that funds are meaningless once you reach a certain point in the game. Oh, that part costs 5000? Just accept a contract or three, and voila! You have funds. Eventually you end up with enough funds and you no longer need to worry about how much anything costs. I've got multiple career saves right now where the average - AVERAGE - funds I've got available are in the tens of millions. They mean nothing at this point. On the other side of the coin is multiplayer. The only way funds would be something to deal with is if one person colonizes the only known source of [insert any specific resource here]. That would allow that person to demand (if they wanted) to be paid for access to that resource. But, again, funds wouldn't really suffice here. Oh, you've got the only known source of helium? Well, I've got the only known source of hydrogen. Let's trade.