Infinite Aerospace

I've had that issue on 90% of the aircraft I've attempted to build, and it greatly exasperates the 'flapping' problem caused by the SAS. I fixed it by increasing a few of the values of the physics setting document and it appears (touch wood) to have fixed it.

I honestly can't see it rising much above that, regardless of the attempts to make it 'more accessible'. It's like Everyday Astronaut and his fantastic videos, you don't really watch them unless you're actively looking for that sorta content. Could be wrong mind!

The issue with that is Kerbal Space Program is and will forever be a 'niche' topic, I don't think it's ever going to be as appealing and/or accessible as the current development team *think* it will be. The current, long time players are the ones whose opinions should matter IMO. I'd love to have some data on new players vs. existing Kerbal Space Program players.

The thing is, has the expectation for the game sank so low as to think re-entry heating and effects is 'new features'? Like, this is something that was meant to be in the game and only taken out not long before release. Don't get me wrong, I'd be nice to see something happening that is positive.

Not sure that would be at all a good direction for the studio or the publishers. Public stock in Kerbal Space Program is at an all time low at the moment, most of the players don't trust the developers to complete KSP2, let alone make another, mobile version. I can't imagine an publisher would look at the current numbers for KSP2 (and see how KSP1 has lost loads of players) and think 'Lets invest more money into that!'. Even more so when you determine just how niche of a game it is to begin with, it's not like the sort of game that commands interest for people who aren't otherwise interested.

Nothing much at the moment no, there's at least another patch (0.1.5) before then.

I suspect that the main reason the stories are in opposition to one another is basically down to development. Kerbal Space Program was an indie game developed by a literal handful of people, Kerbal Space Program II is being developed by a purpose made studio, with the backing of multi-billion dollar publishers. It's not unreasonable to have expected a smoother development this time around, without repeating the same mistakes. That is where the schism lies, you've got a professional studio with significant financial backing doing no better than a tiny indie developer.

I dunno that's a bit harsh, of the joints are sorted out and there's a significant increase to game content, i.e. science and career it wouldn't be hard to recommend. But unless that changes I cannot in good conscience recommend to anyone to buy it.

Reddit literally tears into this game and the developers, I think they're a bit extreme if I'm honest mind.

I support this sort of approach over 'click and receive' sorta setup, there should realistically be specific types of experiments that are quick, and should be others that aren't.

I'm all for holding out an olive branch, there's few examples of trust that is so broken it can't be fixed with mutual engagement. I think we, and the developers alike all share a common interest / passion, the notion of spaceflight and exploration. Kerbal Space Program generally doesn't appeal to the more common, casual gamer as it's a bit too involving and 'mathy' to appeal to people who might want a bit of a ruckus shooting people on Call of Duty, not that I'm saying that's a bad thing at all. Given just how niche the game is, that's why I think it's critical to rebuild this discord between the development team and the community. But it takes both parties to do that.

I must admit I'm kinda curious for some clarification regarding development, like is anything actually happening or...? It's a bit below board to keep people in the dark like that. Dakota mentioned over a month ago about some 'exciting new stuff' in 0.1.5 but then has been essentially radio silent about it ever since. In-fact, I have no idea when 0.1.5 is even remotely due, not even a vague ball-park figure. Are we talking days? Weeks? Months? Surely someone from within should be able to look at their workload, the goals for the patch and give an estimate based on that data. Like, how is there enough time to have these 'dev chat/videos' but not enough time to write a paragraph or two regarding upcoming things?

You don't think their approach on communication to their small community of early adopters, in an Early Access format just outright sucks and should realistically be better...? You genuinely believe Intercept Games is effectively communicating?

What?! There's 'Moar Boosters!' And then there's MORE BOOSTERS!

To be fair that is a lot of my experience with the game, it works (for the most part) it's just sorely, sorely lacking meaningful content. There's no disputing that bugs have been getting squashed, the game has been getting increasingly stable but nothing of meaning has been added to the game. Not even the 'just after release' re-entry heating and effects and we really, really need to get the joint issue sorted out, even if it's just a temporary stop-gap solution at this point. I think if Science and Progression are added before the end of the year, there's still hope. But re-entry heating and such should really be here now, or in the next patch (but again therein lies the 'lack of communication' thing, no-one has said a thing about the next patch except Dakota with their incredibly vague 'new stuff' over a month ago). Tonight though, I'm going to load the game up, make a high endurance aircraft and go out and explore Kerbin. Never really done that to date in the second game and from Low Orbit there looks to be a significant improvement in terrain quality and diversity, so I'm going out to have a look at some of that and maybe fly up-to the pole as well.

You're not in the minority with that opinion. You're in the overwhelming majority! I'm honestly starting to think / fear we'll never see KSP2 reach version 1.0 and you know what, that would suck. That said though, I can't think of a single person here, or elsewhere who actually wants to see the game fail. It's just an expectation for many at this point and that's the sad reality as far as I see it.

Yup, I pretty much second this.

That's what Avenged Sevenfold were singing about in their fantastic song 'Planets' on the Hail to the King album.

To be fair they need to do both, I think the window for Kerbal Space Program II is fast closing. We're reaching the point where there's double digits (that's right, not triple, not quadruple, LESS than one hundred) people actually on this game at points. That is shocking player numbers, even for an early access title, I think unless the both the lack of content and the damned rocket deformation is addressed quickly, I don't see the game surviving I really don't. I know we have this idea that a publisher will indefinitely continue to back them, but will they? What are Take Two getting out of this right now except for losing money, and really, really negative feedback. The game has no future unless something about the overwhelming consensus regarding the game can be changed, and even that is a tall order. You're talking about a swathe of people who have seemingly already made up their minds on the game. For the record, I'm not one of those people, I think there's still immense potential here but I'm not going to fool myself into believing that it can continue how it is, that and I think the time for perceived excuses has came to an end, it's do or die time for the developers. Deliver something or watch the dream die, that point in the road is fast approaching. At this point I couldn't care less if a better solution is found down the road, that breaks my craft. There isn't a compelling reason to even play the game to the extent where I'd have any craft to even lose. I think 99% of the dwindling player base would take an interim solution, like Auto Strut at this point, if even just as a stop gap. I mean a game in active development is going to have times where your game needs to be started from scratch, it is what it is and I think we all accepted that buying into an early access. But, in-action is just a giant middle finger to the community if I'm honest and I fully have the teams back at this point.

That sums it up quite well, don't get me wrong it wasn't that floppy but it didn't have any real rigidity. It wasn't a single fuselage, it was a collection of parts held poorly together through some mechanism. The issue is, in my opinion that the game treats the 'middle' of a part as the joint, so any turning moment occurs around that point. The edges the cargo bays for example should be treated as solid, but they aren't as evident how they clip into eachother as they flex. Right now though, I cannot make it work, nothing I do stops the deformation so it's been shelved for now.

The thing is, the wobble is manageable if all the parts are stacked in a vertical manner. However, this isn't applicable to aircraft and space planes, as these seem to have very little rigidity, it's not so much a wobble as it is 'sag'.

OK, I feel I have to share an experience. I decided to recreate my Skylon build from KSP1 in KSP2 and I have a few takeaways from it, some good, some bad and some downright shocking: Procedural wings are one of the best additions to the game, without a doubt. Making wings with an aesthetic is easier than ever. I love the recolouring options, so now I can have a black Skylon as Alan Bond intended. Result! Now, onto the bad. There must be some incredible amounts of drag from some parts, that I'm not aware of as the thing has ten R.A.P.I.E.R engines and struggles to get up-to 300 m/s in level flight. The thing is pointy as hell as well, there's not a single flat edge, everything is streamlined. Now, the downright shocking. What the hell is wrong with the joint system in the game? This is one of the biggest aircraft I've attempted in KSP2 to date and it just has no structure at all. Doesn't matter if it's strutted, or not strutted. The entire fuselage just wobbles around and looks like an accordion, with gaps all over the place. Can we please do something about this? What is the point in things like cargo bays of they have absolutely no ability to hold their structure!? Keep in mind, it worked in KSP1 and flies right on up-to orbit with a decent payload and now the thing can barely fly due to how spaghetti it is, the constant flapping of the control surfaces doesn't help either. Come on developers, what we doing here? Let us just 'weld' parts together to get rid of the hopeless joint system.

I must admit I love these community highlights because not only does it serve as a showcase of the sorta things people can, and do make in the game (though I feel most of the things I make are very conservative compared to some!) but it also shows the game, it's a good looking game and when you consider this is completely vanilla, early on the road and it already looks significant better than the original, even when modded. I mean look at that cloud layer on Jool! It's wonderful. Look at the surface of the Mun, also a big step forward. Look at Duna, it's great!

I rarely used auto-strut as it was something of a 'cheat solution' to a problem in my opinion (Plus I played the game for a significant period of time before I ever knew it existed!) The wobble in KSP2 is fairly manageable and if I'm honest I've never understood how someone like Matt (Lowne) with the experience in the game he has, has so much trouble with it. I suppose the biggest complaint I have personally, with how I like to do things in game is the lack of structural 'strength' in docking adaptors. There's a few parts that don't seem to work as intended mind, such as engine plates, those are very, very wobble inducing but I can imagine that will get better.

The game is playable though? Dare I say it's actually more or less stable at 0.1.4.1 so I'm not sure where the 'the game needs to be playable' argument comes from. Sure I'd have agreed at version 0.1.0 as that was a hard sell, but beyond that. Don't overcharge Steam customers is a bit of an ambiguous statement to be honest.