whatsEJstandfor

I think this has been the case since launch; I have a 5120x1440 display and that's never been an option. I've had to rely on hacking the settings.json to be able to use it.

I think this is the version of this bug I've encountered, too. I'm on a 5120x1440 display and didn't adjust the UI scaling away from whatever the default was upon first loading 0.1.3.0. When trying to click any of the SAS buttons (including lock/maneuver/target/anti-target), I have to click around a couple times within the icon before it takes. I didn't notice the clickable area being outside of the icons, just not taking up the entirety of the icon.

I'm so confused by this. Like, this exact same logic could be used to say that any sale of any product at any time is unfair. And we don't "have to pay 20% more". We've already paid! That was the deal! Like, once you buy a product and don't return it within the window, you're done! The transaction has concluded! I bought GTA V on Xbox 360 but, years later after I sold my Xbox, I wanted to play the PC version. It was $60 on Steam and had been for months, so I bit the bullet and bought it despite not liking the idea of paying full price for a several-years-old game that I already had bought a copy of years earlier, but I was willing to pay it because I really wanted to play it. Literally the next day, it went on sale for something like $29.99. I was bummed, but only at myself for not having the patience to wait to see if it went on sale. idk it's just, like, who exactly are you mad at? What do you think you're owed? We're not investors in this product; we're consumers, despite how Steam's EA-marketing makes it sound. IG offered you a game with certain terms in place, you bought it, didn't return it, and that's the end of the interaction!

Guess this is confirmation that 0.2.0.0 is still at least a patch away

Instead of science points, I might want to tie any new part or ability to a specific science goal. For example, say you don't start out with access to a certain kind of fuel, but then collecting a surface sample at, Duna, for example, gives the material scientsist on Kerbin enough data to synthesize it. And not only would I want parts to be unlocked with science, but engineering data as well. Like, maybe you only gain the ability to calculate your TWR on other bodies once you've sent a satellite to that body to measure its gravity or something. Something like that isn't that realistic since we can measure a body's mass remotely irl but, idk, just spitballing here. And, until you have send a probe with a hi-res camera into a polar orbit, the map view just shows what the planets look like from ground-based telescopes. That kind of clear cause-effect in science gathering would be p fun imho

Is atmospheric scatter planned? If so, can you give a rough timeline of when we might see it? Weeks, months, or years? If it isn't planned, why not?

Extremely hard disagree. This sort of caution with withholding information until it was rock solid was exactly what most of us here were getting frustrated with, and I'm so glad that IG's PR team has decided that the risk of being wrong sometimes is worth the transparency. Please don't try to convince them to go backwards.

I am extremely stoked to see this format of dev blog becoming the norm, and I love getting insight into how subtle the issues that cause these big bugs are! I can't wait until the next patch drops, and especially can't wait to see what's coming after that!

Lots and lots of quicksaves, and trial and error.

I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a personal attack, so I apologize to the mods in advance; let me know if this is out of line. But, since the version of the game that would satisfy you currently doesn't exist and almost certainly won't exist for at least the next several months, why keep making the same post every few hours but with different wording? Do you have any other points to make?

Thank you for being this candid! It's very much something I (and I think those who have been critical of recent posts) have been craving. Personally, I'd much rather have this sort of transparency even if the targets end up being off, because it gives me something I can tangibly look forward to. If you're detailed about some bug being worked on, I'm far more interested in the fact that it's being worked on at all than I am in when exactly it's coming. If you tell me it's coming next week, and then it gets pushed back to next month, and then 2 months from now, but tell me the candid reasons why that date is slipping, I'm way more than satisfied. What I love most about a dev blog is when I can feel like I'm a part of the team. I get to see the problems you guys encounter in real time and get to see how you solved it. THAT's the interesting stuff. Anyway, you're the best, Nate, and I hope that you, the community managers, and the devs know that any criticism I have ever had comes from a place of optimism, knowing that this game is going to continue getting better!

Also worth noting that @Ghostii_Space confirmed on the Discord that we'll be getting news today.

Are you running a laptop? Or do you mean the CMOS battery on the motherboard?

I've seen this kind of argument a lot and I get the impulse but I don't really understand the nuts and bolts of what you mean. Would it actually be any better if Dakota replied to every Bug Reports post with "Looking into it"? Help me get a more concrete picture of what your ideal bug reporting system would be.

This is the correct philosophy. The devs are not your enemy; they want this game to achieve its potential more than we do because, frankly, they have more invested in it. And, ultimately, we're all just trying to have fun and mess around with silly rockets. There's no reason for vitriol or personal attacks. It doesn't help the game, and it can ruin someone else's day. Let us all remember this wisdom:

Looks like the recording of their presentation went live a little bit ago!

I really, really do not want to sound cynical because it's ultimately not helpful, and because this is (presumably) an easily reversible decision, but there's no other way to express how I feel about this; that it indicates some deep, incorrect assumptions the devs are making. The fact that this "feature" was suggested internally, not vetoed during design, implemented, and made it past QA implies that the devs have a fundamentally different view of how to play KSP than we do. OP's example of a vessel that just inherently has inaccurate dV calculations even in the best of times (because it's not being used in the way the game assumes) is a perfect one, and it's as if the devs assume that every vehicle will be a traditional stack of staged tanks and engines.

"It should be a difficulty option" is not a solution and I'm getting bored of how often it's suggested as a compromise. The difference between fun and not fun shouldn't be a difficulty slider. And building systems that can perform in multiple ways adds exponentially more QA work which, I hope it should be obvious, the game does not need more of at the moment.

It seems that the consensus on these forums and in the Discord is that wobbly rockets are funny and cute while first starting out, but that they end up being a huge annoyance in the long term, and that using enough struts to mitigate the wobblyness can severely impact performance. Autostrut would help, but it's ultimately a band-aid solution. To enhance gameplay, performance, and be closer to the real world*, why not treat, for example, a stack of fuel tanks all as one rigid body? *Welded seams should be as strong as the rest of the structure, so, rather than elastically bending at the seams, shouldn't the entire structure undergo a plastic deformation or a catastrophic failure?

Very agree. Even with 4 on a Clydsedale, it comes dangerous close to clipping the rest of my craft after staging. I don't actually know offhand if the behavior is any different from KSP1, but it does seem like it should burn, like, half as long with twice the thrust.

I mean, I would 100% classify this as a bug. Keyboard inputs should not trigger any hotkey functions while typing in a text box. Like @JoeSchmuckatelli said, if triggering the Map View while typing an "M" was a bug (which it supder duper was), then so is this.

Yeah, I don't get it, either. I'm on a 7900 XTX at 5120x1440 High (so, ostensibly, I should be getting slightly worse FPS than he is) and, on the pad, I get 30-50 FPS and, at launch, 25-35. I don't know how much it would help performance but I wonder if he's remembered to, for example, enable resizable BAR in the BIOS, or has some other obscure setting tweaked incorrectly.

I thought the AeroGUI had been removed to make Steam screenshots work better. Did you find a way to open it in this patch?

EDIT: I had the behavior of this bug wrong. It seems to be much simpler than I thought. Switching to Map View back to Flight View, the camera resets to inside the vehicle. Regardless of if I move the Flight View camera back to a more reasonable spot, switching to Map View and back seems to just reset the Flight View camera altogether. KSP Version: v0.1.2.0 Operating System and version: Windows 11 CPU and GPU models: Ryzen 9 3900X, 32GB DDR4, Radeon 7900 XTX

Looking forward to when this spreadsheet is 50 columns wide