Ker Ball One

It it took me a few hours of bracketing all of my mods. (CKAN clone, remove half your mods, test, Repeat). But finally narrowed it to this mod. It's annoying because I've had this mod for a long time, but it only shows up when you have certain types of parts with I guess certain part modules like RCS. And the stuttering might not be noticeable until your part count is high enough. For me, I only noticed when I built a Saturn V, with a command module, service module, and LEM. I've uninstalled this mod for now, but easily await y'all's resolution.

Are there any tutorial videos on MJ Landing Guidance specifically for RO/RSS RP-1 Moon landing with MechJeb? I'm having some issues for which I want to find the cause. 1. Auto-Warp on descent has to stop and start every couple of seconds since it seems MJ isn't accounting for persistent rotation during warp. As the craft drifts X degrees from retrograde, warp stops, RCS attempts to correct, as soon as it's back on retrograde it warps again but the angular momentum just causes it to go off again... And the cycle repeats. Is MJ expecting no rotation during auto-warp? Making this function incompatible with RealismOverhaul? 2. Anyone know the optimal TWR for MJ Landing Guidance for the RSS Moon? 3. For ROEngines that are unthrottleable, the rapid succession of feathering the throttle insures an ignition failure will definitely happen. For other ROEngines that have throttle but maybe take a second to spool up, MJ will misjudge the suicide burn countdown.

Yeah, it is confusing. Programs may not "offer" all the contracts that are listed as "objectives". There are other Programs from the "Satellites" agency besides "Early Earth Observation Satellites", that may better reflect sputnik/luna/explorer. "Crewed Orbit" is the name of the Program. But that's just the ultimate objective, only half of the contracts actually require a crew. I guess since this is Realistic Progression, they are going with real history. Which does reflect that sputnik/luna/explorer were all just the starting part of larger programs to send men. It's common to have some programs that have cross requirements. Like Crewed Lunar Exploration requires completion or at least having Uncrewed Lunar Surface ACTIVE. (Even though it's possible to go straight to the US Apollo program without first doing uncrewed orbiters and landers, they made it a requirement). It's all a bit of a subjective jumble. I still don't know why some programs are under the "FAI" agency when it feels like they should be "Exploration". And IMHO, I don't think one agency should require contracts from another.

Dedicated Earth Imaging Satellite on Line 48, requires a "contractType = first_OrbitRecover". first_OrbitRecover (titled: "Reach Orbital Speed & Return Safely to Earth") is a contract located in several Programs. "Early Earth Observation Satellites", "Crewed Spaceplane Development", or "Crewed Orbit" programs.

Apparently if you are in the SpaceCenter scene, you get a LOT of info by hovering over your Reputation. Including things like current Subsidy based on Reputation and the maximum Rep you can get until the subsidy is capped. That's the relationship I was missing. I don't see the wiki documenting that. Also, although hovering over your Science gives your Total Science earned, hovering over Confidence doesn't (but maybe should), show the current Confidence-to-Science ratio. I was able to find that info in the wiki, but it'd be nice for the hover info to tell you how close you are to the threshold that will lower your ratio. Next question that seems undocumented, is the DrawYearBasedMult function which changes your research rate based on (your current year)? I would like to know how this works and how to optimize my space program research. Apparently, researching later nodes too soon comes with a penalty. I love the realism, because it ensures you don't get too advanced in tech much sooner than they real world history.

Is this mod compatible with RO/RP-1? I tried it, and the DataLog part that is supposed to be available in the Science category is not there. So then I uncommenting the MM patch that made the VesselNotes module available on every command module part. That worked, sort of. The notes do not save / persist after reloading the vessel (neither in space or in the VAB). The vessel logs also use UT time based on Y1 format instead of RSS year starting at 1951. So I'm thinking this mod was never meant for RO/RP-1.

KCT allows me to simulate parts that are still being researched. But not configure capsule crew experiments or processes, if they are still being researched. Is there a way to perform simulated test flights with technology still being researched?

Ahead in what way? Funds, Reputation, Confidence, Science? The reputation-subsidy relationship is new and nebulous. The wiki mentions it plateaus over time. But I'd like hard numbers (a chart), because on it's face, it seems like it's not worth it.

Is the X-Plane Research program still worth doing early career? I've read older Reddit comments from past years saying that it can be very good to gain funds, because you can quickly reuse the same plane to redo the same optional contracts, by safely landing, so no need to reintegrate. But wasn't RP-1 rebalanced so that contracts don't pay out funding directly. But rather you only get payments from the active program. Which this one, pays smaller amounts but over the span of 14 years. Considering that's this program takes two program slots, there should be more lucrative programs to gain funding, making this kind of a waste for early career. From what I gather, the reputation gained for each optional contract is still pretty small and that increase in program subsidy still isn't worth it. Also, with so many tech tree nodes costing science in order to complete it's 6 contracts, and limited science to be gained at the lower altitudes, I'm not sure science would justify it either. Am I missing something? What is the primary benefit of the x plane research program in early career?

Anyone seen an issue like this before? When Reverting to Launch, any procedural parts (avionics, tanks, and wings) revert to their default original size and shape. Their positions are preserved. I'm using default RP-1 Express install with no other mods, and the built in WAC-Corporal sounding rocket.

Jar Jar Kermin

I would really be excited to see the modding community of KSP take a serious interest in Juno. I don't think they need any thing official from T2, or former IG devs. For me, the KSP charm was in the vast library of mods. If Juno could have an equivalent of the top 20 most popular KSP-1 mods, I think they would be a huge success. That, plus adding More capability for their Droods (EVA repair, flags, survival, ladders, etc). Exactly like they already did Parallax. I already see great potential with how they handle their autopilot system with a very user friendly interface for scripting. So MechJeb2 already mostly done. Also, Juno has a head start with procedural parts, more realistic engines and fuels. From what I understand, the Juno code base is much more stable and robust compared to KSP. So I don't see any reason why it couldn't be an amazing game that runs with 100 mods without adding too much load time. If the foundation is good, much can be built upon it.

Let the renaissance begin!

I think the key difference is buying a finished product versus buying promises. Your example that Kickstarter products also have this issue, speaks to this fundamental distinction. Maybe it's a fairly modern phenomenon where capitalism meets the internet and the lines between buying a product and buying into an investment become blurred. Crowdfunding game development is essentially what Early Access is. It becomes an investment, it becomes buying into a promise rather than an existing, tangible item. There's a reason why so many hardcore zealots exist here and are very reminiscent of crypto bros. There is no objective review of a finished product, merely speculation based on hopes and dreams. Unfortunately, real money was spent on the speculation.

The mental gymnastics to scrape hope from T2's financial frugality, rivals the orbital mechanics to solve the 3 body problem.

I don't know. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I think it adds to the realism. I play with a lot of mods, and with a focus on realism (kerbalism, KCT, etc.) and with long loading times I just pretend Kerbals are commuting to work, or there's a bunch of safety checklists and such.

There's a bit more. The layoffs are near 100% of the company, and all the devs that were on these form forums have stopped all communications. If this were a crypto company I'd be more than just worried.

No, because the WARN order doesn't track the office. They track the jobs. And the reason for the layoffs were given. They aren't moving the entire office out of state. It's closed. They're all laid off. Don't be a copium addict.

All these numbers float. And when you're down here... You'll float too!

You still sound hopeful beneath the agnostic exterior. What do mean by "dead"? That's not the same as "abandoned", which is what I'm saying already has all the proof you need to conclusively say it's abandoned. It's like you want proof that something is black, so I go, "the lack of color, duh". An Abandonment is easy to prove by the absence of communication and stewardship. That's already proven for the last two weeks. Combine that with the facts about the lay offs from the WARN order... And that's so much proof of abandonment, that it just looks like delusional hope when you deny that there is no evidence and that we have no clues. You've painted yourself into a corner, by waiting for an official statement that will never come. You will never get the evidence you demand, because it isn't coming. Nor is needed.

You want divorce papers, signed by a notary. You want a clear statement on company letterhead. But you were never married. Early Access players don't get any guarantees or apologies. They get GHOSTED. Players, unfortunately, don't rate high enough to warrant a response. They don't owe you an explanation or even an acknowledgement. You paid them money, and they gave you what? Their word? And yet. You remain patiently devoted to the last thing they said before they skipped town. Honey, he went out for milk and cigarettes 2 weeks ago. He's not coming back. Don't expect a postcard as "proof" that he's gone run off.

I would say the steam community is even more sour on KSP2 than here. Reviews there are very negative. Game pass reviews, whatever. Is KSP2 even on console? It really depends on the asking price. KSP 2, being $60, people are definitely looking at reviews before they purchase. If this game were properly priced at below $20 for early access, then many people could just skip the reviews. But that's my point, that there is no way to have their cake and eat it too. They can't make profit with a full priced game that is in early access. There ROI is not going to be worth it because they literally have to develop the entire game to completion, with a really compelling game, in order to charge full price. Or else they risk repeating the exact same thing that happened here. Marketing hype helped, but could not save them. They actually have to produce a real game that is good enough to justify the price.

But what about the Steam community reviews? I don't buy a game that has poor reviews. Even before I found this forum, the Steam reviews of KSP2 turned me off it. That's why I say that they'll need a completed game, because a buggy EA game will just get the same negative reviews and poor ROI. It'll be the definition of insanity if they simply repeat the same EA mistakes hoping that this time people will just forget and give them money.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure the accountants at T2 could squeeze any more blood from this stone though. Even if they come back when they have more money to burn, it's still a bad investment given how sour the community is at this point. They would definitely have to ditch early access and produce a completed game before trying to sell it though. I think it's just as likely they will sell the IP to someone else. Because if they tried to develop it themselves, people will remember the name Take Two. They should sell the rights to Juno: New origins. They could slap some Kerbals in there and add a little bit of the history and lore.

That's the issue. What is it exactly that people are saying? Words have different meanings. Canned, cancelled, supported, bankrupt, abandoned, etc. For those clinging to hope, they might straw man the claim as "cancelled". Because that word requires definitive and affirmative acknowledgement from the company, which they can rightly say isn't given. But really, nobody claims that these single player, offline local games that don't rely on active cloud services, are being "cancelled". Nobody thinks that they'll pull it from the store or have Steam uninstall the game. Now, if they specify that plans for future feature releases are being "cancelled", that's a different claim. But again, the need for some people to have a definitive statement is unnecessary. If the game as a whole is abandoned, then that automatically implies that future future updates not already in the release pipeline, are already canceled. But I agree that it's somewhat of a semantic argument. I just don't believe in corporate speak like, "not canceled, just indefinitely suspended". I prefer to use the term "abandoned", because this term is used in software development all the time to show how developers can simply stop work and stop communicating with the community all together. No official statements needed. The silence is a definitive answer in itself. I think it's a fallacy to demand or require an official statement at this point. Their lack of response tells all.