VlonaldKerman

I think there is a fourth group: the “morally superiors” (not necessarily you, these people tend to be more active and aggressive). These people scope out the forums for the places where the “same old arguments” are taking place, then make a post bemoaning these arguments and advocating for more civil, substantive discussion. However, they themselves never actually participate in that discussion! The threads with substantive discussion lie dormant because there isn’t that much to discuss, what with the lack of updates and all. Bonus points if they ignore the specific points being made and lump all of the criticism into the same “angry about bugs” basket.

In KSP 2? My condolences.

I ordered chic fil a

Unfortunately, this statement is probably not as surprising or impactful as you might expect. Judging by the KSP 2 player counts, most of those who bought the game are in the same situation. I personally haven’t played since launch- I’m waiting for reentry heat. Also, I see that you have expressed some negativity about the state of the game and the pace of development, and I regret to inform you that this indicates that you are an impulsive and irrational hater intent on polarizing the community. Welcome back

Yes, you may be right. However DOTS is not the only way of doing multi threading- with how much KSP 2 is supposed to be “ground up” I would think that building the game with multi threading would be a priority from day one. I’m pretty ignorant about this technically, but am I way off?

I think that communication style was more socially acceptable because HarvestR didn’t hype up the full release of KSP 1 for 4 years before releasing an alpha EA for $50. I think when players make the point that bugs are game breaking and obvious and ask about QA they’re really asking why the game needed to be released in its current state, given that they don’t really need much player feedback yet. Also, I would be supportive of a stable and unstable build. Or just an unstable build, because let’s call a duck a duck, this is an EARLY EARLY ACCESS not a polished experience, even with extensive QA testing. You might think, “Well, for $50 I would expect some QA testing,” but that’s more of an indication that the price is wrong, not the QA.

Great post. I think this is a microcosm of a general theme with style over substance (as far as we know- maybe they’ve got big things planned on the backend). I made a thread about this kind of thing a while ago: I suppose we can add multi threading to the list. I think he was explaining it for the benefit of other forum users.

Well, this is not necessarily a result of lowering the velocity barrier to plasma- when deorbiting you are going faster than on ascent (because you circularize above atmosphere) so you can in theory lower the v requirement of plasma effect to a speed which you are only likely to achieve on a descent. I suspect that the reason the threshold was even lower is because they want the plasma effect to last a long time, and on a typical hyper-aggressive KSP reentry trajectory you slow down so quickly that if the v for plasma is higher than typical ascent speeds you slow down to slower than that really quickly. One way to solve that problem would be to make reentry less forgiving, so that players have to take less aggressive trajectories and thus slow down slower —> plasma effect lasts longer, even with a higher cutoff velocity.

For what it’s worth, I think I recall them saying that they’ve played with colonies in an internal build, though I could be misremembering. Also, unclear if that build was actually secretly a KSP 1 build, as I think these claims were made a year plus ago, and I find it kind of hard to believe.

LMAOOO this aged like fine milk.

Personally, I’m a huge fan of when games don’t tell you how to feel, but leave the reaction to in-game occurrences to the player. In KSP 1, as you mentioned, the player gets to interpret/generate their own lore for who Kerbals are, what Kerbal society is like, how tragic is Kerbal death, etc. I think you will find this “show, don’t tell” attitude in a lot of god-tier games, especially simulation/non-story ones (Minecraft comes to mind). In other words, I agree. EDIT: Subnautica is another game which does an incredible job of this.

I believe the devs have said that is not in the cards. I suspect there will be a supplies system for colonies, but for individual ships, I don’t think so.

I’ve rarely, if ever, had severe difficulty with KSP mods, even with 100+ mods in one install. The only issues I’ve had are version issues or mod intercompatibility issues. There was that one time in modded KSP that the KSC teleported into space in front of me and I crashed into it… oh, wait… @The Aziz Certainly there are performance and stability issues with modded KSP- that is the sole reason why KSP 2 exists! To provide a polished version of a modded KSP experience with better performance and fewer bugs. But, as someone who uses tons of mods in KSP 1- I find it bareable, which I cannot say about KSP 2. With respect to wobbly rockets, there is another thread about this in which someone proposes a system with rigid joints + instability and joint failure which would punish bad designs but without the unrealistic and tedious effects of rocket wobble. I think it’s an interesting suggestion.

Trajectories which involve accelerating for half of the journey and then decelerating for the other half to save time. This is why they reworked maneuvers to show your actual trajectory through the duration of the burn, as opposed to approximating it with instantaneous impulses like the first game. Totally agree with you there. My impression is that there are some fundamental changes to the way KSP 1 loads and keeps track of vessels that can be made, along with several other changes, to reduce the compute load. This is why “reworked core systems” are so important, and why the ambiguous status of those systems is concerning. I made a whole thread about this at one point- maybe I’ll find it and link it here. Yes, that is true. However, I think data miners found that the physics engine is just a modified version of the default unity one, with some minimal modifications. I don’t know how to interpret that, but all it takes is for you to play the game and you can feel that the physics system has some of the same old quirks. So it’s not very changed, most likely. Rocket wobble is an unintended consequence of the physics system from KSP 1, which depends on non-rigid joint connections between parts which is stored as a linear sort of tree diagram. So it wasn’t explicitly incorporated; it’s just a result of mostly copy-pasting KSP 1 physics, as I understand it. In his new game, HarvestR, the OG creator of KSP, uses a different physics system with rigid joint connections, because he saw it was a problem in KSP 1.

Agreed. The X-factor difference between modded KSP 1 and what KSP 2 should be: stability and performance. That comes from core systems being build specifically with colonies, interstellar, etc, in mind, rather than things being scotch-taped together by modders. Right now I wouldn’t expect top-tier optimization, but it’s disheartening to hear about the copy-paste physics, the rocket wobble, and the dubious nature of the other roadmap features/systems. The two places where they seemed to have really made a concrete stride forward are the music, and the maneuver system which can accommodate constant-thrust trajectories (and maybe the moving-origin coordinate system? Not sure if that’s in the main build yet). I don’t know much about Elite- does Elite 2 have more features and mods than the new one, to the point where you can essentially turn Elite 2 into the new one with better performance and fewer game-ending bugs? Because that would be essential for it to be analogous.

Yes, I feel the same way. I was referring to Lynera’s suggestion to only implement radiation in limited settings, such as close to a star or behind a nuclear engine, as opposed to as an omnipresent factor to consider in all environments.

Are you referring to their bug status posts or am I missing something? In my post, I was referring mainly to roadmap features, for instance science, colonies, interstellar, etc. If I had to guess, much of the time that goes into “updating the community” is spent: - Curating which information to reveal and which to keep hidden - “Dressing up” the information; that is, carefully worded, lawyerly forum posts or sleek, well-edited videos. It takes 15 minutes to record a screen capture of someone doing science experiments or building a colony. When you are in transparency mode, so many sources of time drain go away! All you have to do is play the game, on camera. The key is that this way the community would see development happen IN REAL TIME. Nobody would be blindsided by, say, the science update being delayed. It also eliminates the difficult job of balancing what information to release/not release or what message to convey, etc. To be clear, I appreciate the difficulty of the situation that the devs and the communication liaisons are in. The situation is either largely or entirely outside of their control, and their trying to weigh different methods of communication while balancing the interests of the players, the dev team, and T2 corporate. I’ve found myself posting a lot here recently because I don’t have much else to do right now. I don’t try to pile on the devs, I just want to make clear exactly what it is that frustrates me about the game, because it seems like a lot of people still dismiss negativity as people who are just frustrated with bugs or whatever.

I think I mentioned this in the grand EA discussion- there are many dormant threads on this forum that contain untainted discussion about the game, under the presumption that everything is fine and the game will eventually be completed. If that is what you want to talk about, why don’t you revive one of those many threads? I’ll stand corrected and be on your side if anyone starts bickering with you in a thread that’s actually about something substantive relating to the game that’s not a glaring current issue. Which thread do you wish you could post on?

Again, that is only because of the lack of visibility into the status of the features of the game. There would be no need to announce or move dates if they updated us on development continuously, like many other EA games do when they are as undercooked and expensive as KSP 2. Think: supporter edition of an indie game. At this point, KSP 2 is in full community-involvement early access mode, whether or not the devs want to admit it- that is the deal they bought when they released the EA like they did; they should acknowledge that by filling us in on the actual status of in-development features, rather than simply, “we’re working on it.” For instance they should say, “X, Y, and Z is working wrt. the science update, but A, B, and C are yet to come online; we expect that to take a few more months.” According to dev blogs from several YEARS ago, there are components of most of the roadmap features that are functional in some form- now is the time to peel back the curtain, in my view.

Fun fact: it’s been longer since the last hotfix than between release and patch one.

I guess for me personally, if the radiation system would have such limited use cases I wouldn’t consider it worth adding.

That’s fascinating I had no idea.

This is a pretty good idea that also strikes me as feasible, low-time-investment, and like something they might actually do. Also, the part manager. And the part manager, too.

On large wings it could appear visually as the ablative material on the space shuttle wings, with varying thickness depending on the mass of ablator.

In real life, skipping is the best way to move on mars (supposedly). In KSP 1, moving around on ultra low g bodies was tedious, and I noticed they removed that aspect from the game, but I think it grounds the player (get it?) to see the effects of high/low gravity on their Kerbals. Thoughts?