razark

They finally changed that?

Perhaps we've gone back to the time when information is scattered about the internet, and we need to find it and post it all to the forums ourselves?

April/May 2012? 0.15 was the current version.

It costs nothing to keep them, but the statement was "I don't really want them around any longer". So the question becomes "Is it better to scrap them and start over, or spend more to recover some value?" It's easy to get caught up in the "it's already there, so I must use it" line of thinking.

From reading the forums, and seeing the official 1.0 release video where "crew plummeting to their inevitable deaths" is fine, because, haha, dude dropped his sandwich. Mistreating animals is bad, but the forum has plenty of posts where mistreating Kerbals is accepted. Where's the people who are upset with "aggressively accosting other people with your sapient being abuse fantasies"? My position is that neither the Kerbal or the animal is a real thing, so why is one worse than the other? If we're ok seeing a rocket full of Kerbals crash and kill them all, why do we have a problem with the possibility that someone might have the ability to kill a dog? There's obviously a line people are unwilling to cross.

No, I don't. That's why I have absolutely no problem with what happens to animals in KSP. Launch them into space with no parachute. Subject them to thousands of g's of acceleration and turn them into a paste. Send them off for hundreds of years with no life support. Roast 'em in the sun. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. I'm trying to figure out why people have a problem with digital animals being mistreated, but are perfectly fine with digital Kerbals being nothing more than cannon fodder for our torturous amusement. Is it? Mistreating digital sapient creatures is perfectly fine, but if I mistreat another digital sentient being, I'm a horrible psychopath, why?

Nowhere near long enough.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sunk+cost+fallacy

I am now going to start a new career, where the Kerbals are selected from the penal system and sentenced to conduct test flights. INTO THE CAPSULE, OR ELSE, CONVICT JEB! Heh, heh. Rocket make big *boom* when crash! Heh heh. But we could just pretend the animals volunteered for the missions. I mean, you're pretending your Kerbals did, so why not pretend that other collection of variables/values/electrons did, too? Yeah... loveing hilarious, ain't it? But if one of the "creatures" was labeled as a "dog", if a godsdamn tragedy?

Government paperwork.

The machine that goes "Ping"?

I am aware of that. But it was such a good line.

If you dump the RCS fuel, you get nothing from it, aside from reduced mass. If you burn the RCS fuel, then you get reduced mass, but also the dV from burning it. In either case, you're out X units of RCS fuel, but one of them results in more dV. Burn it and find out. If your choices are "burn the fuel" or "jettison the fuel", burning it is going to give you more dV options for the same amount of fuel. If you start burning it, and see no desired effect, then you stop burning it and use it for your other options. If you dump some fuel and see no desired effect, would you continue dumping fuel in the hopes that something will change?

https://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/ https://www.gutenberg.org/ So, maybe you should pay attention to your classes, instead of mucking about on the internet?

Have you tried reading a book?

No more real than any animals in the game would be. Or the endless strings of cows and pigs and whanots I've seen killed off in that extremely violent murder-simulator that is Minecraft.

As opposed to the people who post how many various and brutal ways they have found to kill off kerbals and the "lolsplosion" aesthetic that have been displayed by so many players? How is "killing" a collection of variables that represents a non-real Kerbal any less sad or cruel or different in any way from "killing" a collection of values that represent a non-real animal?

I think we've seen plenty of evidence that you, in fact, can.

No.

You bought KSP. You are entitled to KSP. You bought merchandise. You are entitled to merchandise. But you have not bought KSP2, therefore you are not entitled to KSP2. Take Two is not under any obligation to release KSP2 on a certain date, nor are they obliged to ever release it. They could simply cancel the project, and you would be entitled to absolutely no recourse.

The mistake is thinking they promised you a damn thing.

https://www.lowes.com/search?searchTerm=wallpaper https://www.homedepot.com/b/Home-Decor-Wallpaper/N-5yc1vZbc0q

Yes, it certainly could. It could be cheaper for people who buy on PC, rather than console. It could be cheaper for people that purchase it on Steam than other sources. It could be cheaper for people who have red hair. It could be cheaper for people who vow they will eat nothing but fried cheese and drive Ford Pintos in reverse down the highway. But, can you give one viable reason why it should be cheaper for anyone, rather than allowing the company to charge full price for a product it developed?