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.

How would it look if you redraw it? Ping me if you post a redesign, thx I need to give it some thought, but some things, like engine plates and adapters need to move from the rather ridiculous places they live in with the stock tree, to enable builds that use earlier engines. There are times when the stock engines for a given size are not good enough, and a combination of a cluster of a few smaller ones would be nice. I would also like to see some logical ordering to parts that are specifically airplane, rover, or lander oriented. I downloaded the tech tree editor mod but haven't played around with it yet. I am also seriously disappointed in not having the intermediate size 1.875 Meter parts KSP1 had. The decision to leave those out has really been a bad idea, the size was ideal for certain things.

I've been absent for some time because quite frankly, sandbox mode is BORING. And there were way too many things broken. And the interval between patches was (and I am sure still is) way too long. Hot fixes should be the rule. Frequent updates when something is fixed, don't wait to get a laundry list together. This release is what we should have had on day 1 of early access. I will not come off of that stance, 10 months after release, we finally get a relatively functional game. That still has major issues. Having stuff to do is great. But. It's way too rigid. There should be multiple secondary mission choices, and in the main path, forcing visits to the anomalies is not the way to go here. Secondary missions should be much more plentiful, and there should be branches on the main mission path. All of this also ties into further issues. The trip planner is still very broken. Please fix it, a roundtrip is not double the delta V of a one-way trip. It ignores the escape velocities of each unique body. As an experienced KSP1 player, I do not rely on it, but new players are going to be overbuilding their ships. And WHY is there no funding resource? Part of the fun in KSP1 career mode for me was working hard to earn funds and building optimized rockets that did what I needed. There's no incentive in exploration mode to do anything but use the most capable parts as soon as you unlock them. But that brings me to the awful tech tree. Why are engine plates and other adapters so hard to get to? You have to use a lot of science points to get to some of the things that make for better rocket designs. The tech tree is a mess. It should have more logic to it. And it too, should allow different branches to get to the various levels, the choke points are a pain. It's better than it was. But there is still room for a LOT of improvement in game play. I will play long enough to see how the missions unfold, but some of it is already bordering on tedious.

I haven't played since June. I really hope that everything is improved and all the annoying bugs that made me stop are fixed. I had such high hopes. But apparently, game play wasn't an original priority.

That is utterly unintuitive, and where is this documented? Do you know?

Make hot fixes Standard Operating Procedure. Waiting months for bug extermination is killing this game.

More hot fixes please, as you fix stuff. Don't make us wait months for stuff that is fixed and tested while you work on something else. Get these out there.

That was one of the things that didn't make it into this patch. It's quite disappointing.

I just ran into that on a second mission with the same craft, first time worked as expected. Ripped my chute off the capsule and it crashed.

As critical as I have been about the pacing of patches (and I am sure I will continue with that), I will give some appropriate credit here. I built a rocket capable of going to and orbiting both Minmus and Mun in a single trip then returning to orbit, then de-orbit to Kerbin. Something in KSP1 I can do in my sleep now but until this patch was always a question despite the displayed Delta V. I just played around with a new build using the Trumpet engine and I have to say, this engine is awesome. Very nice work there, we still need engines to fill a lot of the gaps, but this is a good start. VAB works A LOT smoother, and framerate there on my far below optimal GPU is much better (I do 1080p resolution...) Looks like the stage Delta V values are working correctly now. Thanks for that, it was maddening to design a rocket that didn't report correctly. Fairings seem to be working much better in VAB, see nit below... Rockets seem a lot less noodley, At least the one I built does. Framerates in launch and orbit with Kerbin in view MUCH better. not stellar, but smoother. (With moderate complexity rocket, nothing crazy) It has a rather ineffable quality to it, but flight in orbit seems smoother, can't really explain why. This is a lot closer to what the initial EA release should have been. (Still missing reentry heating is not a good look). I will play with a plane soon, and add any comments then. I haven't visited rovers since very early on, they deserve a look too. And some nits found in playing with it for an hour-ish... OK, well... I ran into a new (to me) VAB camera bug. I am not certain how I got there, but I can't rotate the view around a rocket I am building, will try to determine cause, had to leave VAB and reenter to recover. If I can figure out how it got there, I will post a bug report. Played with the fairings a bit in VAB... why do the buttons to add or subtract segments lie directly on top of the OK and cancel buttons? It's not unworkable, but it should be cleaner.

I am an engineer and I have deadlines I have to meet. Engineering is a very creative field, if it wasn't, we would have no innovation. But schedules and promises to customers also matter. That relationship with customers is vital to getting further business.