EvelynThe Dragon

I was being nice. Sort of.

Yes. That. It seems like they (the development leaders) are afraid to commit to anything and afraid of backlash to anything they say. (As an aside...) And we also get people who can't understand context and the history here whining how somebody is picking on them when that's not what happened. This forum REALLY needs a block user feature. Ignore doesn't cut it.

No, it's on you to understand the history of this game. I have no time for intellectual laziness.

And that is a key factor in helping keep people motivated and engaged. Giving them a variety of work tasks is something that I do for my team members on my development projects (I head up small engineering teams to work certain things on a much larger program effort).

Go back and read my replies throughout this thread. Especially my first one. Don't accuse me of something I did not do. Correct. Context is important.

Different people on the team have different specializations and may NOT have the skill set to do certain things while having the skill set to do other things. This is often true of large development projects. And while I am sure this is true here, the insistence on massive bug fix releases over small focused hot fixes, is IMO, the wrong approach. Fix something regression test it, release it, maybe even a few bugs at the same time, but not hundreds of things like previous releases. This does two very important things , 1) It gets the code in the hands of the user base to get more time to evaluate if it actually fixes the bug or if more edge cases exist and more work is needed. 2) It shows progress reducing the user base frustration.

Aside from fuel lines to strap-on boosters, there is no fuel priority. And as far as I have been able to discern, no way to implement it through any game mechanism that exists today. All directly connected tanks in a stage drain directly in proportion to the amount of fuel burned. So if you have burned 20% of the stage total, each tank burned 20%. I know this is an esoteric thing for most people, but I like rockets without stabilizing fins so I don't have to carry that mass on launch. By manipulating which tanks drained first, I could maintain my center of mass where I did not have to add fins. And oh, BTW< this prioritizing of fuel burn is something done on aircraft all the time, so it should be here. Make it an advanced option, but it should be an option for those who know how to use it and want to use it. Just like it was in KSP1. Again, while we are at it, I also truly despise the part manager window. I don't want a giant piece of crap in my way when I want to right-click and target a docking port or some such. I don't need any more info than what I need on a SPECIFIC part. This game would be a lot more awesome without the seriously garbage UI design decisions. And give me the damned Comm-Net. Signals should be modeled realistically with fading and occlusion.

Yeah, I just didn't want to get bogged down in details, I agree pretty much with all your points.

That is how it should have been from day 1. They need to stop dumbing down this game. A lot of the functionality I used to rely on (fuel flow priority anyone?) has been removed. Don't protect me from myself. I might actually have a pocket full of clues and have reasons for wanting to do things I am no longer able to do in KSP 2 It seems so. I love the improved visuals, but I want solid game play too.

I worked on an enormous project with millions of lines of code and a highly complex hardware architecture. I am working on a new program now that has similar complexity (I am in aerospace). If we could regression test , flight certify, and release critical updates in very short cycles., it is definitely possible for other projects. No, we don't know their internal process, but there are ways to do this. And quite frankly, that's not really my problem or yours other than I am getting tired of the cycle of waiting forever to be disappointed yet again.

And while we are at it, I am not a fan of the science gathering or the rigid mission progression in the last update. The tech tree is also nonsensical and way too linear. KSP1`'s stock tree was madness though it was somewhat livable, this one really sucks. There needs to be a lot more variety and even randomness in missions. I miss Kerbal progression, and specialization, and I think leaving an economy out of things is a giant mistake.

I have said it before. I am going to say it again, and I am sure this is nowhere near the last time I will say it. Release more frequent, smaller, bug fixes. These gigantic updates are killing this game. There is no apparent progress for months. And then we get another giant bucket full of NEW problems with these. It's a terrible way to do development and expect your user base to stay around.

It's good that the orbital tracks are getting different colors, like they had in KSP1. Why they were ever changed is baffling. BTW, I complained about this in feedback way back in the first couple of days.

The trip planner is extremely broken and stupid. It makes the return values on a round trip the same as outbound values, and anyone who has played KSP1 for any length of time knows that is nonsense. It doesn't give a lot of information you might need and it has no options for including or excluding landing and ascent for other bodies. Nor does it allow for figuring the minimum energy trajectory or aerobraking. It's a very dumb tool. IMO it's a useless tool. It leads to stupid over design for much more Delta V than is necessary, especially for things like a Mun or Minmus mission.

Why can I not select a waypoint and have it display on my nav-ball? Or am I missing something? And while we are at it... longitude and latitude really need to be something you can get.