Geredis

1. Propellers (and not as as jerry-rigged wings on robotic spinners) 2. Proper rover/crewed ground vehicle fuselage/structure parts 3. Robotics 4. Long-term scanning. 5. Life Support 6. Full Mission Planning (Being able to plan a mission from with the VAB, and then based on your maneuver nodes, tied to specific dates/celestial alignments, be able to see the actual delta-V budget required for the mission as envisioned). So you can say: I want to launch a mission on Day 273 of Year 2: see the e cexpected celestial alignment, as well as locations of all launched vehicles at that date), then use the predictive maneuver node system to be able to preplan the entire mission before you even build the ship. 7. Alarm Clocks that activate in any and every mode that passes time, so you'll get a ping whether you're driving on Mun, staring at the orbits in the tracing station, or just absently idling on the KSC overview screen with time passing. 8. Structural stability for landing sites (the surface material of your landing site should impact how and what you land) 9. Kerbals have proper careers/professional progression. A rookie pilot should be less capable than an expert who has spent 6 months flying an orbiter. But that same orbiter-flyer shouldn't necessarily be able to effortlessly fly an atmospheric aircraft if he's only done spaceflight. 10. Stat tracking for each crewmember. Tell us how many missions they've flown. Their furthest celestial body, a tally of all bodies, and the number of visits they've made to each, their longest mission, total days in space, or on solar bodies. How many crashes they've survived, or the number of times they had to change a burst tire, etc.

There should be a control-group panel option to move the sepratrons to the abort stage. I think the boosters will remain also on standard staging, so attach them to the abort system decoupler, where you launch the decoupler mounting the abort stack to the command pod. When you break the abort tower off (usually as part of the Stage 2 separation) you fire the decoupler, let the abort tower shoot off, as simultaneously the first stage falls away from below.

It's been a while, but in KSP1 , that's how it worked, especially during reentry, with every part heating individually. It allowed for some pretty interesting ideas such as eschewing heat shields, but then deliberately rotating your craft if you desired in order to put overheating parts into the lee of your your trajectory, letting htem cool off as other parts heat up, only to rotate once again in order to cool off that new section, etc. In one of the dev commentaries in a heat discussion thread (I can't recall or find it off the top of my head) they said that they wanted to do heat on a whole-ship basis, essentially in the name of intuitiveness. At least in regards to how radiators work as I recall in dissipating heat. It doesn't matter where you place them, it'll sink from the ship's heat pool, not from an individual part or localized area.

I voted for Jeb, but really...I am not terribly attached to any of them. Admittedly, I find them all Kerbals to be irresponsibly reckless at heart.

I think the general tone of things has improved as well, as Periple has noted. However, if your general issue seems to be the general issue on the existence discontent and unease about the game's present and future, I will simply state the following: The discontent will continue until the game improves.

4 months for heat Never for buoyancy a(at least not a timescale you had on option - I think we're looking at 12-18 months really for that, reasonably given their track record 6 months for science, and probably 2 years or even longer for CBT.

I am well past the point of caring what happens anymore to this game, and I think that we'll find that our February 2024 milestone, whatever it is, will be quite disappointing. I have this sense that we'll probably be at Science and a major bug patch. What exactly the other patches (probably 1 more between now and Science) will look like I don't know, but I figure we might have one more patch in Octoberish, then Science come December...and yeah, and as an anniversary I'll be sorely disappointed by all of that. I also imagine that around this point the roadmap will change severely and that PD/IG will start moving the goalposts, adjusting the roadmap so that they can finally get a 1.0 out in a reasonable period of time. But that it's gonna be a rushed job with quite a few substantial cuts - not so much to the headlines, but to the details. Colonies and interstellar will be in, somehow by that point, but a lot of the accompanying stuff will be left in the dust. Multiplayer is probably going to be on the chopping block for what will be available at 1.0 with a promise of it coming soon enough post-launch. That said, once the game hits 1.0 in whatever state it does, I figure that everyone will want to wash their hands of this game and move on with their lives.

I agree here, and I think my biggest issue with this (and other apologies) is that not once have they acutally stepped beyond this initial and most superficial step. The apologies are fine...I guess. But when you keep just doing a stage-1 apology that simply says sorry, and sometimes acknowledges the existence of the problem, but says nothing about owning the responsibility, nor offering a statement in a full and comprehensive fashion to the full audience to ensure everyone hears it, then very rarely if ever meaningfully follow through on the apology process to truly make good on what happens...you can see where the problem(s) lay in then constantly saying sorry as if that's enough. There are six steps/parts to an apology: Say you're sorry. State what you did. Show you understand why it was bad. Only explain if you need to; don't make excuses. (This step here is rather important I'd say; and at this point we do require explanations) Say why it won't happen again. Offer to make up for it. Every time we hear something along these lines, we basically only hear Step 1 and then they gloss over everything else and state Step 6 in the vaguest way possible. There's no actual remorse in any of it as I read these statements, no stated process to actually doing/being better.

I'm disappointed by that. I'd much rather read a meaningful update than waste 20 minutes on a video of dubious weight, which I'd much ratherread the transcript of in 5 minutes. Whenever they post them, there'd better be thorough and exacting transcripts of the videos. And sadly despite their general improvements in transcription with those AMA's...I do not have faith that they can/will bother with other video transcripts in a satisfactory manner.

The moment they decided to add in reproduction, they have to add in death of some sort, if only to create sufficient natural churn that the colonies don't either A) stagnate awkwardly the moment they hit population cap with immortal populations, or B) create a situation with an endless population growth situation that all but ensures that you have unrealistic populations abroad.

Lovely little diary. I've quite enjoyed it. However one thing I see that was rather omitted was thermal shock - that is consequences for wild (and especially repeated) swings in temperature. Let's say we have a small capsule with heatshield coming in to land in an icy sea. It's been heated to ridiculous degrees on the way down. The heatshield has protected the craft thus far. However, upon landing, the stored heat in the heatshield is then sucked away by the ocean at an incredible rate, such that the part cools down near instantly. In this situation, is it possible for the thermal emission, and the associated implied part contraction after severe thermal expansion experienced, in this case, by the heatshield, to be sufficient to break the heatshield? I'd love if the game required that kind of awareness and planning for landing sites, where you might want/need a slow and steady radiation of reentry heat in order to ensure a part remains viable/useful for re-use. As it stands from what I've seen in this, it does not appear that this kind of a situation is being considered, which is a disappointment of sorts, since it does not seem to consider thermal shock to be something to be considered. Instead, it seems as if, if you desired, that you could heat up a craft to 95% of its breaking point, with a whole mess of deactivated radiators stuck on it. Then deploy them all, and provided you have enough radiators, you could theoretically dump all of the ship's heat in 1-2 seconds to use a bit of an extreme example. Such a violent and sudden transfer of heat should have consequences, and it does not appear to.

Lol, no I meant it more as "Catastrophic Rapid Unplanned Disassembly" - basically a step beyond the "standard" Rapid Unplanned Disassembly.

To be whelmed means to engulf or bury. To be gruntled, actually means to be pleased by something. === But to be more on topic, I agree with the consensus that wobbliness needs to be resolved. I'd prefer if it was resolved through greater joint rigidity, as well as more "realistic" indicia for structural strain (bolts/panels popping, audible groans, creaking, sounds of pipes bursting, something of the sort) to be followed by CRUD. Failing that, the tutorial needs to fully embrace the issue and explain how/why the wobbliness happens, as well as how best to fix it, in a variety of ways.

When and where can we expect an indexed text transcript?

I believe the idea is that the sale is something that was decided on as a more general "Participate in the Steam Summer Sale" kind of deal, than anything else. Essentailly bandwagoning on an existing event, more than...anything else. Thus, there's no expectation, because the sale isn't (really) a milestone sale for the game, for it to be sold at parity across platforms.

I think yes, it probably would have been much closer to complete if that was the case. And even if it wasn't due to the nature of it being a non-EA product...the game as-launched would technically have been "complete". The very nature of Early Access means the title is incomplete. So either the game would have launched as it did at the start of EA and be considered "feature-complete" with all of the issues that come from that in public perception due to backsliding in KSP2 relative to KSP1; or the game would have been much more reasonably roadmapped so that the full roadmap in some fashion would be accessible on Day 1 of the non-EA release.

Shame that the game I bought back in February will finally reach the, initially expected, at-release state, by October at the earliest, given the pacing of updates and all. It's good that things seem to be improving, but as it stands, re-entry and science still remain the absolute floor of what I think could/should have been expected within that initial 3 month period given. Considering it's taken 3 months to get to this point, and there's probably at least 2 more patches before Science...given current cadence, I can't imagine it will be on the table before October, at the earliest, and more likely December or beyond.

I'm honestly surprised (not really, but you know what I mean) from how you phrased it, that no one thought "what if someone wants to nudge an orbit with an external vehicle without the use of a docking port" as a very basic contingency that would have to be worked around. It was an extremely common method once upon a time in KSP1 to hook and move satellites, stations, and other ships that had run out of fuel and lacked a docking port or to go around on garbage collection runs when playing without debris limits.

I would rather they use the DLC opportunities to explore some new aspects and angles than simply rehashing KSP1's DLC scheme. That said, I also fully expect that by the time release of 1.0 for KSP2 comes around that we are on (fundamental) feature parity between the two games. Meaning that ideally robotics are fit somewhere into the pre 1.0 roadmap, along with self-contained missions/scenarios that go beyond just the expanded tutorial scenarios, as well as a way for us to build our own situations and missions along those lines and all.

In situations like KSP 2's, I've usually noticed that there are two schools of thought on the approach to community communication. Either 1) communications are candid and transparent and clearly communicate how a situation will be resolved, or 2) there is radio silence as the problems are meaningfully fixed, and people understand that silence means people are hard at work. Until now, KSP2 and IG has been trying to run this really awkward middle ground as far as I've observed, where they continue to communicate as if nothing is wrong, and whenever there's pushback on their ostrich-like behavior fall back they go and pretend as if they've been doing #2 the whole while. That's what I got out of Nate's post here basically, and that they are acknowledging things need to change in how they communicate. In that sense, I'm looking forward to seeing how the communications actually do change going forward, since they seem to be wanting to move towards Approach #1 I outlined above. I'm cautiously optimistic that they follow through on this, but I'll withhold actual judgment on it all for another 3-4 weeks, as well as how they handle the actual patch announcement/release when that finally comes around whenever that might be in June. Let's see how they actually follow up with their communications in the future, and how they continue on in a month's time before we pass any judgments.

Honestly, quite a few on that list are familiar ones to me. Hell, I've played: Riftbraker, Arkham Origins, Black Ops II, 40K Martyr, Expeditions: Rome, LA Noire, ROTK13, and Harsh Doorstop. And except for COD and ROTK13, I still play the others with an occasional regularity - though I'm waiting on Harsh Doorstop to get to a more playable state (it's an interesting early-access game though that's making some decent/steady progress). Starship Troopers is on my To Be Played List at...some point. I've heard of Dome Keeper and the Avengers game. ==== But yeah, it is surprising and kind of disheartening to see such low levels of engagement these days. I'll be honest. I really do want to enjoy the game and like it, but between its numerous faults, both intrinsic to the game's current state of development, as well as a variety of uncertainties I have regarding IG/PD and their ability to deliver in a timely manner, I just haven't had the will to really get into the game as much as I'd have liked.

GIven some of the things that have been mentioned in past statements, I'm guessing that rover convoys will be possible across the surface as part of the automated supply lines. It (hopefully) won't just be launch-based; while fun, I can see suborbital hops being launched as part of the automated supply system as being incredibly inefficient and quite messy.

Agreed on this. While I don't necessarily always need fuel from the wings, honestly, in order to get the range or speed for an aircraft I might need or desire, I have found that I've certainly needed in-wing fuel tanks on my designs in order to properly balance my planes - most of my designs are, frankly, designed, for weight in/on on the wings in order to have a properly balanced aircraft, and weight within the wing is very important to adjusting or maintaining the CoM.

I don't think anyone necessarily blames you for the content you've provided - it's a valuable reminder for a lot of people, who clearly need it, and an interesting (if not super-informative) read for other folks - but it doesn't feel like a Dev Diary as the community has come to expect through industry standard practices or past experiences here with these forums. I think the issue is more on the CM/PR side of things that decided this post, which is basically a PSA about "Proper Bug Report Etiquette, Procedure, and Protocol", is a Dev Diary, instead of a general Community Reminder or PSA, or Announcement or News, or whatever it is you guys might want to call such, because this did come across as a lecture, a reminder, than any kind of meaningful insight into development. Hell, this post might have been much more appropriate as a sticky in the Bug report subforum if you decided it's somehow not fit for an Announcement or News post given that it boils down to a how-to, with a bit of QA fluff attached to it. What you call things matters and consistent mislabeling content in the future may lead to people making assumptions, true or not, about the content you're putting out in certain categories. When content is mislabeled, it creates more work for the community to have to sift through things to figure out what is actually what, leading to people dropping off because it's just more work than it's worth to figure out what is what.

Oh absolutely. If this post were a general announcement, I'd be fine with it. However, when it's promoted as a Dev Diary, I expect some meanignful insight into, you know, the development process. Not a PSA about proper bug reporting procedures.