AngryBaer

No more orbital decay for me either, well done.

I can't seem to agree with all of this. Stylistically I like everything about this KSP2 UI better. I have no trouble with the pixel style or the dot separators at all, though the compression artifacts I can agree on. I also love the nav ball colors but I can appreciate that I seem to be an odd case. There was also a mention of color blindness in another thread which should be taken into consideration for sure. The inconsistent fonts and dot vs. hyphen cases can work if there's a consistent thematic reason for it, e.g. windows that close vs. windows that are permanent or constant values vs. variable ones. As for the hamburger menu... I'd miss these things if they made the game more serious. Just fix the one way issue.

Reported Version: v0.1.4 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 Pro 22H2 | CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v3 @ 2.40GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | RAM: 64.0 GB The craft is an Apollo style command module with attached lander. On the command module I have 4 deployable parts attached radially to a MRW-250 reaction wheel: 2x OX-4L solar panels 1x Communotron 16 1x Communotron HG-5 After deploying a fairing around the entire command module with lander and separating the booster at ~ 90.000m orbit around Kerbin all of the above deployable parts appear as "Blocked" in the Parts Manager and don't extend (see screenshot). Workaround: switching the view to the VAB/Tracking station and back makes parts extendable again. However, after the switch the engine fairing re-appeared on the already separated engine and the engines were set to full thrust. Included Attachments:

It may even be enough to have the ability to lock or snap to ratios. E.g. you want to just make a wing slightly larger without messing up the perfectly square shape you just made.

Certainly not on purpose, but it seems to stirr a reaction that I find exaggerated. Why do you feel provoked? How would you communicate that features are delayed in a way that would make you less upset? After reading the comments here I gather that expectations weren't managed well, even if I didn't seem to have said expectations after consuming the same promo material. Messages from the devs like "we're having fun playing multiplayer" don't give me the expectation that there will be multiplayer in version 0.1 of EA. The same goes for re-entry heating. "re-entry will be very soon after launch" doesn't create any expections for me other than that it's not an afterthought, which I don't think anyone had any doubts about. I agree, in a finished game I would have that expection too. The most reasonable response in this thread I've heard is that it needs to be implemented as early as possible because otherwise people would pick up bad habits of not protecting their craft (which apparently happened in KSP1). I still find that odd though because my expectation for this title is that it will undergo massive changes throughout development, which is kind of the point of EA and the community participation. Once heating is implemented we'll have to build things accordingly, no surprise there. There may well be changes that will force us to rethink some of our builds. You're right that "very soon" might be a bit euphemistic but if it's in the next update that would still be very early on the EA roadmap. What makes something "very soon" according to you? What words should they use so this is not immediately regarded as deception? What makes it wrong? How many weeks or months after EA makes it not "very soon". In the spectrum of EA titles the first year could still be "very soon". I ask this because I seem to have a very different interpretation and I'm curious how this can be communicated and managed in a better way because I deal with client expectations at work too. I see a lot of 95% done is the same as 0% done according to the clients no matter what you say. "Just don't delay" is a practical impossibility.

I'm happy to agree to disagree about that. But you're right that it's much closer to the crew dragon monitors.

You're totally right about that, but at the risk of being pedantic, there seems to be a bit of a range here too, the first 747 flights seems to have been in the 70s looking like this. The digital cockpit seems to have appeared in 1989. Alright, technically 80s, Can't argue with that. In any case more modern than KSP1, and in my opinion, prettier.

Because a lot of things in the old KSP1 UI weren't necessarily working well either. I found lots of menus had glitches where you had to close one to open another. The fuel level indicators were just sliders. Did you notice you can mess up the the fuel levels when you click and drag the sliders around? That's pretty bad. I didn't like the clutter of the seperate part windows either, I wish they could snap together. Especially after the DLCs it got really weird. Containers didn't display contents correctly. I've more than once messed up my launch windows because I accidentally clicked the "skip to morning" button instead of exiting the menus. I hated how the fairings were built and welcome the new method. Combined translate and rotate work better for me. Not being able to adjust thrust with the mouse without workarounds annoyed me, etc. etc. KSP1 looks like the Apollo interior, arguably also very cool, but perhaps not actually very modern. Obviously the style is very subjective and this is my personal take: I find the old UI kind of ugly compared to the new one. I don't see how KSP1's 1960s early space age analog plastic design looks better, or even newer as some are suggesting. Current KSP2 feels much closer to the digital monitors of the B747. The new one is at the very least digital style, it reminds me of the Star Trek LCARS, which I adore. I love the colors. Console monospace fonts and some pixelated edges don't equal "dated" for me either, it fits with the digital theme. Others may like the older style more, but that means we can't just declare it universal truth that one style is better than the other. It's a matter of taste. Style and layout need to be discussed seperately. That being said there is a lot to fix in the new one and I agree with most of the functional issues here. The new UI takes up way too much screen real estate with too little customizability. A lot of the contents could be more compact. It's missing a lot of essential data and tweaks like no keyboard numerical input, DV in atmo & vac, symmetry options, maneuver fine tuning, etc. It takes much too long to load. The readability issues were bad and still need to improve after the fixes that were already done. I'm averse to the idea of just copying too much of an older game just because we are more used to it, there's already too much of the old game in this one. The development focus should be on making something new and better. The "better" part clearly still needing work. Wait for mods (or make one yourself!) if you really can't stand it.

yes

This is a good point, and I would see this as an argument for combining the heating and science into one update and making sure they work together. Plus re-entry is inseperable from heating in general. Very good argument for not separating the visual effect from the heating dynamic! This could just as well be turned around when your craft is surrounded by flames and you're asking yourself "Why is my ship not blowing up?" I also have a number of questions about the visual implementation, because it's not just re-entry but high speeds in an atmosphere in general. Real vapour cones would be neat.

I believe you have a very reasonable position and participation is the whole point of EA, isn't it? Generally speaking. I have some concerns here though: "As advertised" might be a fairly rigid a concept. If you consider it to mean "lives up to the hype" that can be very subjective and range from missing features to UI colors that don't quite work for you personally. EA should stay flexible, with community input the features could shift significantly from what was advertised before. You can't undo the promotions but you may well end up with a better product. This sort of "community service" can quickly devolve into what I call "yelling at the waiter to get the food quicker". I don't think considering everyone lazy and in desperate need of harsh ciriticism by default is applicable here. Continued comments along the line of "Where is re-entry???" doesn't ever contribute anyhing in my opinion. They know. This is where I really struggle to empathise, beyond the need for venting frustration occasionally. Helping potential players stay very informed about what they are planning on buying is another matter. I'm very much on board with that.

Agreed. And it's an interesting lesson. So is changing the estimate for re-entry features (to stay on topic), whether that's functional or visual, more transparent communication or poor expectation management? I struggle with this because after reading the release notes and dev blogs and discord chats I haven't felt lied to or scammed. I feel like I know what to expect, for an arguably very high price for the product at time of release. As mentioned by others the dev's communication as well as the game itself have indeed improved. I can't entirely agree with the estimates always being wrong, I see a lot of "we changed our mind about this feature" or "this is more complicated that it looks", like in regards to re-entry. I'm not sure that's better but it's certainly something I expect in EA, it's also something I experience at work a lot myself so I empathise. I can totally agree with this, but: Do you find this reasonable or in any way productive? I'm not sure about the "naturally" part here. It's not my "natural" reaction. I hear you, but I wonder how one can find a healthier way to vent that frustration, because it doesn't seem to help anyone feel better. The result is: This kind of blind rage makes you, well, blind to any improvements. I wonder how the community will react once re-entry is finally implemented. I'm just looking forward to it.

thanks, honestly appreciated. I agree, in the full game heating should be present as an engineering challenge. But I can also see why that is a longer term project essentially because of this: I find the decision to implement heating globally a good one, not just for getting re-entry heating out first. I find it a reasonable explanation that it would take longer. That also doesn't really cover the visual effect, I've seen just as many complain that the immersion ist lost, which seems a little premature at this stage. Imagine the visual effect had been introduced. I can already see the flood of bug reports of players seeing the effect and thinking the heating should also occur. Remember, not everyon actually reads the release notes. Which brings us to: I think there should be some degree of nuance to this, it's a similarly tiring repetition but it's also not meaningless. EA titles change over time and there's a huge spectrum of what stage of the game is exposed to players. Personally I find late stage EA games really boring because there aren't a lot of changes. Watching the game evolve from a broken mess is appealing to me and I missed that phase of KSP1. 3 years of delays or months of waiting for patches also have little meaning to me, what is the alternative, really? There hasn't been a shortage of events that caused delays. I wonder what "justification" would be acceptable? No delays is an impossible request, where would you put the limit? I can absolutely see the point here, expectation management is difficult thought because you can't predict the future. I'm sure Nate regrets saying that. But the alternative is more vagueness, right? Or nothing. Is vagueness really a problem? I've asked this before and still haven't really gotten a satisfying answer yet: How would you handle this kind of communication? I think there has been sufficuent transparency about what is going on and any estimates should be taken with a grain of salt.

To be clear, this isn't supposed to be flamebait. I'm genuinely curious why this particular topic is so persistent. I can't possibly be the only one who isn't bothered by it not existing yet, but I'm somewhat bothered by seeing comments about it getting repeated ad nauseam. It's one thing to be frustrated by functional issues that break your creations unexpectebly, and another to miss a bit of immersion in my opinion. It falls in the same category as cockpit interiors or foliage placement or some-such for me.

I've seen a lot of comments about how important the feature is for many. While I can see that it looks cool and is immersive I haven't really understood why it's such a big deal at this stage. To be on the same page here, there seem to be two components to re-entry heating that often get conflated: The actual heating dynamic that can destroy parts The fiery visual effect We've now received some insight into how point 1. and heating in general is planned to be introduced and the visual effect appears to be work in progress. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it certainly doesn't warrant constant reminders about it. I've never considered the heating as an "essential core feature", since it could be switched off, and the visual effect is purely cosmetic for a fairly small part of a mission. I'd be much more concerned if engines didn't produce thrust or exhaust plumes were missing. The essential part for me is atmosperic drag, which already exists and serves it's purpose during flight and de-orbiting. Why is this particular item such an emotionally charged topic? Is re-entry the favourite part of the mission? Was there really doubt that it wouldn't be included?