Mitokandria

HAHA I don't think anyone gave you credit for this gem. As a fellow nihilist I see you.

I agree. This is how I generally expect a forum to be for games. Original first, then sequel, then everything else (KSP related), then everything else (non-KSP related). Unless KSP2 becomes more popular than KSP1 (not likely). Only then should KSP2 be in the top position.

I'm not willing to agree it's that extreme. Corporations with no real business being in gaming, aka "thought it would be an easy cashgrab", are realizing video games aren't just a product to be consumed, but an rather art form to be enjoyed. Playing to the broadest market isn't a gauranteed win. They are now scaling back to consolidate and focus only on further monitization of their known money-makers. Gaming is just another market to them and a market is just a high-stakes Craps, Poker, or Blackjack game. Learn to count the cards or cheat the system and you win...at least until the establishment (gaming community) catches on and kicks you out. The only bright side to this is the 'gaming landscape' is becoming less cluttered with white noise meaning lesser known publishers and developers are having an easier time being seen, recognized, and rewarded. At least, until a large corporation strikes gold on a wild genre idea and restarts the whole process again.

Et tu, Paradox?

Say what you want about Paradox's most recent fumbles, but at least they admit when they f up and are willing to give refunds when they can't deliver on promises. I'm honestly hoping things get to a point that Paradox's offer is the only option. They wouldn't be the best choice, it's Spacer's Choice but KSP2 could in worse hands.

I came here to find the same answer. I've been wondering for a long time why it never worked until I finally found it only works when there is a kerbal onboard. Edit: So I took a look at it in VS and it doesn't look like a complicated change to remove the kerbal check. Probably better for it to be an option thing...but I'm new to VS and KSP dll's. I can't seem to remember how to rebuild it without errors.

To me that is the best outcome. A new entity buys the IP, scraps KSP2 for a remaster of KSP1. Then start fresh with a KSP3 (or KSP2-20xx) after a few years of experience with the IP and community wants/needs.

I'd actually like to join in on this thought experiment here. If it were succesfully crowdfunded by "the community" wouldn't it then be possible to make it open source under some sort of GNU-like license? If too much of the codebase is proprietary to a third party strip it out or just start from a clean slate. As far as ownership is concerned create an LLC that is member-owned. Membership into the LLC requires a certain amount of contribution to the codebase. Finances going toward taxes and fees for the LLC and left over is split based on percentage of contribution. Obviously there's more to running an LLC than just whats above and I'm not saying it'd be easy or even successful, but there is a non-zero chance for that to work.

From your lips to Celestia's ears.

Strongly agree. I've been avoiding the forums all together; even the KSP1 sections. Anyways I'm going to go back to avoiding the forums again until there's actual news. Back to replaying KSP1 again till then~

Question? What is the difference between Simplex Assembly and KSP_PartVolume aside from the latter allowing parts to be added as cargo? Do they both accomplish the same thing wrt EVA Construction?

I don't believe IVAs exist in KSP2 at this point in time. Though it would be pretty cool if the modding community reverse engineered the game to the point they could find a way to enable and create/finish that feature. That would be against the EULA though.

I've heard it referred to as "Dragon Sickness" before as well. Couldn't for the life of me remember where, but almost certainly during my time living in Europe. Once you get enough money/power/fame the rules of the world really do change and the things that matter to the low earning masses stop relatable.

Expect them to explain? I have no expectation of that. There is no real obligation to give us an explanation. Oh trust me i do understand the consequences of breaking an NDA. I've been under more than a few myself in the past. Just as you said though "how long to expect an explanation" applies to those under an NDA too. Many just as furious as the community. Given enough time to fester that anger may lead to them "taking one for the team". Especially if they start seeking indie development instead. Edit: We want a person to be angry at. It's hard to hold that anger in. I'm only saying we should make sure it's aimed at the correct people.

You are getting worked up over a narrative that you created. We don't know what's going on yet. I'm sure we'll have more information soon either because people start breaking NDAs or official statements are released. Until then all we have to go on is our imagination, theories, and justified anger. Confirm your target before firing. Friendly fire hurts the whole unit.

Well...My Friday evening has been thoroughly tainted by this news. A toast to Dakota. I will miss that epic forum picture and the energy you brought to the team. A toast to the modders that became official devs through passion, dedication, and skill. A toast to the devs that wished they could say more but couldn't. Lastly, a toast to KSP2. It was designed for Tylo, but only managed to just make low Kerbin orbit before running out of DV.

Sure. Science transmissions that do not use the Science Review window (the 'keep', 'transmit', 'send to lab' window) don't trigger payment. Easiest way to replicate is to process some data in a Science lab then transmit the processed science using the Science Lab's "Transmit Science" button. Player receives Science points, but not money. This is also the case with mods that do not use the Science Review window when rewarding science points such as Tarsier Space Technologies' planetary body photos using telescopes and Research Bodies' "discover bodies" feature.

Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, I don't see a log file for PYW. What I have in my game directory logs folder is: [Edit: I went back to the original mod and confirmed Lab science transmission is just not taken into account by the mod. Mod author never responded to the suggestions to add it.] +Kopernicus +KSPBurst +ModuleManager +SpaceTux Default.log KSP-AVC.log Logs-Kopernicus.zip MiniAVC-V2.log VOID.log ZeroMiniAVC.log

I'm voting "no" but only because it's an 'all or nothing'. The vehicle parts would be awesome, but the weapons would keep me away from the mod. There are weapons mods for KSP1 that are really popular and I'm sure a KSP2 mod like that would find it's fans as a separate mod.

I wanted to take a look at the source code for the mod to see if I could identify why some science rewards aren't being seen by the mod. It's been a very long time since I did any real coding, but I see there is a PlayYourWay.log listed in some places. Is this a log file? I could not find one in the folder. Looking through it I guess there is a 'watch' script that checks the Science points before and after a transmission, but it is triggered by the "transmit science" button in the Science Report window. Is that correct?

That is my point though. For many it appears to be the latter. The game is indeed still a work in progress, but only the dev-team knows what kind of sequel they are making. Since there hasn't been clear communication about what kind of sequel it'll be it leaves people to come to their own conclusions instead of a unified perception. It's creating a user v user v dev team atmosphere/vibe. As it is, until the game is closer to completion, no one but the dev team knows what kind of sequel it will be. My own perception is that, once completed, KSP2's primary genre will be a colony sim focused on resource management with space flight mechanics ('Inspired By' sequel) when what I was hoping for was a Space Flight Sim focused on science and physics with a colony mechanic ('Remake/Revised' style sequel). FTR Dakota is awesome. I wish the team had a few more Dakotas.

Does anyone still have access to this? The recycler on my Inflatable Habitat only seems to work when it's the active vessel. Additionally, the Snacks! simulator doesn't recognize that the inflatable habitat is currently 'inflated' and has crew capacity. (Active Vessel-Snacks! shows 3/6 crew, but at KSC Snacks! shows 3/3 crew)

From going through posts on here it seems there are two different schools of thought on sequels: A sequel should aim to recreate all/most of the previous game's primary mechanics in a new or updated engine utilising modern hardware, optimization techniques, and lessons learned to improve performance and stability. Then add/revise/remove features to meet story development, incorporate mechanics/tweaks from popular community mods, and to meet new player expectations. A sequel should aim to create a brand new game using it's predecessor as inspiration; incorporating features from the previous game that meet the vision of this new game and leaving out features that do not meet this vision. Adjust final vision to meet player expectations. It seems most people, myself included, were lead to believe KSP 2 would follow the first school of thought. What we appear to be getting though is the second school of thought; a new game meant to bring in a wider player base while attempting to maintain the feel and essence of the original. Neither school of thought is really "superior" as there are plenty of excellent examples of both in gaming, but I think not making it clear from the start which school of thought the devs subscribe to has caused a lot of discord, infighting, and mistrust among the playerbase. This has been exacerbated by a lack of communication, transparency, and, to some people, honesty during EA development. I think KSP 2 will still end up being a good game, but perhaps not the game many fans of the original are looking for.

I couldn't put into words my feelings seeing this announcement myself, but this kinda sums up my feelings quite nicely. Credit where credit is due though they did address one feedback item with the UI recently. Mostly the colouring of orbital markers and some icon changes.

I actually made a similar suggestion.