[Week One Adventures]

5 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

My disappointment lies in the fact that you can't really see the foundations being more solid than for KSP 1 since it is still the same old Unity physics models that caused a lot of the trouble and that KSP 2 has in fact managed to faithfully reproduce all the issues KSP 1 has. If we had a different kind of physics bugs, based on custom code that could be further developed, well that would have been a better sign.

Exactly. The KSP2 Kraken is still recognizably The Kraken™, and it's a meaner Kraken at that. So that leaves us with two possibilities:

1. The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is the KSP1 physics sim. The code was largely transplanted from the old game to the new game. If that's the case, why has it regressed so severely?
2. The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is Unity itself, i.e. the physics sim has been reimplemented from scratch. If that's the case, why is the Kraken back?

If the answer to that question is "limitations of Unity," then what was the point of reimplementing the physics sim? KSP1 physics sim had the benefit of 12 years of iteration. It was battle tested. Why throw that away just to recreate all the same issues, many of which the old one had already conquered?

If the answer to that question is "well the rest of KSP2 is too different from KSP1 to simply port the physics engine," then why set the expectation that the physics simulation would be improved over the first one?

That's my real question here. If they thought the KSP2 physics engine was going to be a better foundation, what went wrong? Can it still be salvaged? On the other hand, if they knew it was going to be worse on launch, why talk about it at all?

 

[Week One Adventures]

  

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You'll stop asking questions intended to frame KSP 2 as a complete product, then we can discuss.

What did I ask that frames KSP2 as a complete product?

[Week One Adventures]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then you need to reframe your thoughts.

So in other words, you don't know. Got it, thanks!

[Week One Adventures]

That's exactly what I'm asking, actually.

[Week One Adventures]

I'm not asking why it isn't done in 0.1.x. I'm asking why the stability and reliability of the physics simulation has regressed from KSP 1.12.5 despite the fact that fixing it is a stated objective for KSP2.

[Week One Adventures]

So, serious question: what's going on with the physics simulation?  How did we go from "our ultimate goal is to kill the Kraken" to the Kraken being alive, well, and angrier than ever?

To put a finer point on it:

1. What did the dev team do which led Tom to believe the Kraken could and would be tamed?
2. Why didn't it work?
3. What's the plan to wrestle the Kraken to the ground for good?

[[1.8 - 1.12] KSPCommunityFixes - Bugfixes and QoL tweaks]

Thank you R-T-B and Gotmachine!

[[1.8 - 1.12] KSPCommunityFixes - Bugfixes and QoL tweaks]

Thank you for bringing that config line to my attention. Now I can reinstall mods with Community Fixes as a dependency.

Quote

That's because the bug that creates the Mohole is one of the fixes included.

I understand the logic here but the Mohole was promoted from bug to feature years ago. It's definitely not a bug anymore: it has a dedicated biome and appears on the map. "Fixing" this bug really just introduces a new bug in the form of a discrepancy between map view and ship view.

Worse, other mods declare this mod as a dependency so from a CKAN user's POV,  installing, say, Procedural Fairings removes the Mohole for no apparent reason. This setting really should default to "false."

[[1.8 - 1.12] KSPCommunityFixes - Bugfixes and QoL tweaks]

This mod removes the Mohole from Moho. See this Reddit thread for screenshots: