rjbvre

Saying something so condescending and negative about someone, so confidently and with such little information is absolute bananas to me. Just because some YouTube influencers did some "research" and forum members have obsessively scrutinized every pointless scrap of info doesn't mean we have any clue who's to blame. We don't know what the day to day operations were like. We don't know who was pushing for what, or who was expressing doubts. We don't know what was said at meetings. Nobody who was there can apparently talk at the moment. To publicly condemn a man and call for harm to his career based on so little, and while hiding behind a pseudonym, should be embarrassing.

Agreed. I'm still crossing my fingers for some futuristic rockets and other additional parts to be added at the end of the month. I'm not holding my breath, but a man can dream

Also just want to thank the remaining team for plugging away at it. I'm sure things are rough over there, but really appreciate you doing what you can!

Yikes. You'd think there'd be someone in the corporate structure whose job it is to clean that kind of stuff up

If they made a movie I'd go see it haha

I admit I don't know KSP1's dev history super well, but I get the sense that Harvester is to KSP what George Lucas was to Star Wars. You can't get KSP or SW without them, but at the same time they are completely incapable of making it on their own, and you need other people to steer things in the right direction and keep them from ruining it.

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if there's anything in Steam's EA policy that wouldn't allow it since they posted those in the roadmap for 1.0

Completely agree, that's my guess too. Depending on what they already have, they might try to call it 1.0

I'm going to preface this by saying this argument is moot because I doubt the game has much of a future anyway. Steam was smart enough to give both all time and recent review scores. It's not uncommon at all for games to improve, bring their recent review score up above their all time one, and be successful because of it. Nobody cares if a game used to be terrible if it's good now. Because nobody outside the forums cares. This place has gotten way too self-important. Some guy browsing Steam isn't going to care that you didn't feel the publisher talked to you enough months before the games was fully released. If the game ends up being good word will spread, videos will be on youtube, and people will buy it. Trusting the publisher has nothing to do with it. Everyone hates EA and look how their games sell.

This opinion is pretty common on here so I'm not picking on you personally, but this just isn't how things work. If by some chance the game is saved and they start putting out good updates public perception will turn around. Emotions are running real bad right now, but that's simply because people aren't getting what they want. If they start getting what they want they'll be back to happy in five seconds flat acting like nothing ever happened.

We don't know enough to be sure unfortunately. It doesn't seem likely the game will be developed through the full roadmap, but there is technically a chance if its given to another team. We know the layoffs are scheduled for June 28th so they could spend two months slapping together what they already have and call it 1.0. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's effectively canceled. Worst case is they payed everyone their 2 months' wages, kicked them out of the office and all development ceased forever two weeks ago. Like a lot of things in life we don't know what we don't know, and those details can change things drastically.

Oh absolutely, I'm not arguing that there should be unknown planets or that we shouldn't know their mass and orbits (or other info that can be derived from them) at the start of the game. But even if we say day 1 is equivalent to about 1960, which I find more fitting, we still knew very, very little about most of the planets, and next to nothing about the moons. I am arguing that revealing additional info through exploration and/or science would be a realistic and fulfilling game mechanic. One that could easily be turned off in settings by those people who don't want it.

I agree with the basic idea of your post that it's possible and historical to know the orbits and sometimes the mass of planets fairly accurately without sending a probe there or using a space telescope. In 1769 we didn't even know that Uranus or Neptune existed though, nevermind their distance or mass. We hadn't observed Phobos or Deimos yet either so we really only knew the mass of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. 3 out of 8 is a far cry from all planets.

Docking is a primary purpose for RCS yes, but you missed mid course corrections, emergency maneuvers, and backup deorbit burns (there are others, but they really don't apply to KSP). My Eve return lander which I dock to a mothership would absolutely benefit from larger thrusters. And there are more scenarios than just larger ship/smaller ship. That mother ship I docked it to was constructed in orbit from relatively equal halves, both of which were sluggish and annoying to maneuver with current thrusters. Even if we leave out futuristic designs, and focus entirely on copies of current/past spacecraft we're left with ships that vary in mass over several orders of magnitude. Are you really arguing that one size of RCS thruster makes sense for this? Is there a gameplay benefit to limiting players like this? Do you think it mirrors real life spacecraft?

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

Good catch! I get the impression they're trying pretty hard to only show parts that are intended for release in trailers/footage. I was also pretty confused when I first saw those giant tanks.

The 70% scaling would make sense to me. According to the wiki article: While Earth entry interface is considered to take place at the Kármán line 100 kilometres (330,000 ft), the main heating during controlled entry takes place at altitudes of 65 to 35 kilometres (213,000 to 115,000 ft), peaking at 58 kilometres (190,000 ft). This would mean most of the heating should be between about 45 and 25km, with the most intense at 40. Unshielded sensitive parts no doubt exploding well above that. Almost all my re-entries have followed this pretty closely. I do agree that things quickly blowing up just under 70km shouldn't be the goal, but some people are arguing for things that definitely shouldn't be possible on here, which is fair enough it's a game for fun, but at that point you should change your own settings rather than the base game.

Agreed completely, the term Arctic stuck out like a sore thumb to me too. In game it's not ice. I'm guessing the reason they did this, or at least possible in-universe explanation, is for the same reason we still call the dark areas on the Moon maria, which is Latin for seas. It's what the Kerbals thought it was before they knew better, and serves as a tribute to KSP1.

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want. KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

Is it too pessimistic to think the amount of time they spend somewhere is directly tied to the amount of users there for strictly pr reasons, and they're not actually giving that much weight to any of the suggestions on any platform?

That's all fair, and I completely agree about trying to teach mechanics that only become relevant toward the end of a long mission. The same issue applies to trying to design a plane for Laythe, thermal management at Eve or Moho, or even just how much electricity you get from panels at different planets. That's why I suggested an in-game "simulator" to test designs in different locations without being able to get science points. That's really another discussion and off topic though

I've had several times when the Cockatoo pod had enough monoprop for a simple orbital rendezvous, but the small RCS thrusters on a ship that size made it sluggish and annoying

I'm not being snarky, I honestly can't tell if you're arguing for or against. Those photos were taken decades after we landed on the moon with a scientific instrument we launched into space. We had no idea what Pluto looked like until 9 years ago even with Hubble. You bring up a good point, I didn't think of about the SOIs. My point stands though. Sure an efficient polar (not technically polar but easier to describe that way) insertion and correction might require similar deltaV to an inefficient equatorial one, but still quite a bit more than an efficient one. We're talking a system with the gravity of an ice giant and multiple moons. It's much easier to use the Oberth effect and gravity assists if you're already in the correct plane. I don't doubt you can use gravity assists to help with the plane change, and that would be another great optional challenge. Huh? It obviously wouldn't be the next goal after your Mun landing. It would probably come after a Laythe landing which itself would come after all sorts of orbital maneuvers. It seems like a natural progression displaying some of the actual things going on in the real world, not some playground of hypothetical planets scientist imagine in their free time. And if getting there is trivial to someone then I imagine the whole game would be trivial to that person anyway. I agree with this though, but it might be a false dichotomy. Mods might make the most sense for it

They will absolutely be using lots of their charge on scientific instruments and antennas. The Tylo rover is a great example. RTG is absolutely the right choice for it. On the other hand, early in my current exploration playthrough I saw that I had some great transfer windows coming up for Jool and Eeloo. I figured I'd make some probes for flybys/landers, but RTGs were way too far down the r&d path (which imo should be changed), and fuel cells and tanks would weigh too much. Solar panels and batteries were the right choice for that mission, and I got a ton of early game points. I agree completely, but one challenge doesn't preclude the other. Imagine if a Uranus analogue was added. Its axial tilt and moon's orbits are nearly 90 degrees relative to the plane of the solar system, with some moons also orbiting retrograde. Trying to plan a trip to one of it's moons would be much tougher than Eeloo. Not only would you need to time your launch for a Hohmann transfer, but you would also need to either time your arrival to enter the same orbital plane as the moon, or carry a lot of extra deltaV for the correction. Double this difficulty if you plan on returning. This would also have the ticking clock of RTG's running out of juice or needing even more fuel for fuel cells.

Incorrect. Solar panels and batteries are still a viable and sometimes the better option. It depends on the mission. Do you need short bursts of lots of power? Solar panels and batteries are probably better. Moderate amounts of steady generation? Fuel cells, or if you spend the research points RTGs. Also now there's an RTG time limit which could penalize taking too long to get to further destinations. IRL there are probes going to Jupiter that will rely on solar panels (ESA's Juice and NASA's Europa clipper). Antennas cover the current system, but this would make the system larger. That won't be the same challenge though since it will be after you unlock interstellar and other more advanced parts.