chefsbrian

Probably not an issue actually, you can't really IP ideas. The idea of making a scaled down space program management game isn't patented or anything, as long as they didn't start blatantly copying their prior work they'd be fine. Same non-issue for noncompete. I honestly doubt Harvester wants to actually do that, the limiting foundation is probably the current technology and his own interests. None of the off the shelf engines do a great job at the sheer scale of a KSP style design, and Harvester isn't an engine dev, he's a game dev. And speaking from personal experience, game devs don't usually like retreading the same problem spaces over and over, he's probably done what he wants to do with spaceflight sims as a whole, probably for a long while. Why square up for yet another terrain rendering fight for planetoids when you can explore a new problem space you do find interesting. And while Harvester isn't exotically wealthy, he's well off enough from KSP that he can go off and explore these things and not worry about market limits or the like too much.

At this point, my do or die line is end of office hours Friday here. IF there is still any hands left at Intercept, and they don't post an update before end of day on Friday as a heartbeat to the actual community, then its buried and done. If we get some rando new blood account, its over, just like the publisher controlled PR twitter doesn't count for much, we're looking for the known names. Anything short of that is basically standing confirmation that everyone is gone, meaning further comms are at best a smokescreen for a completely FUBAR situation behind the scenes, or just straight up deceitful. Banishing the entire team in preproduction is already a near project killer, banishing the entire team in the middle of a public development cycle is assuredly one. Even a full "We've decided the code team is the problem" nuclear hammer would still retain designers and artists, and do a transitionary phase of devs in and devs out, quietly in the background. Its already extremely pessimistic of a perspective for them to have not said anything here yet, but if there's one thing that Intercept has always been reliably good at, its completely clamming up when they need to speak the most.

A feeling I know all too well. Depending on the kind of experience, a heavily modded bannerlords can provide some of it, adding new mechanical depth to the build up and existence of kingdom management, alongside its combat and army management elements. You did mention rimworld, but if you're looking to really deepen that, you could open the sealed curse of the HardcoreSK modpack. Turns huge parts of the game towards a much more involved and invested crafting and combat system that encourages inventive and new forms of play. The highly tiered production chains also heavily encourage exploration for the purposes of scavenging, and by extension all the support infrastructure to keep people fed, as advanced stuff like walk in refrigeration becomes something you often enough can't afford to set up right away. I call it a sealed curse because if it turns out to be the right kind of detailed management for you, its almost impossible to go back to a vanilla experience. As for something that hasn't been mentioned yet, you might find some fun in Avorion. Its got basic plot and lore to drive you towards an objective, its base gameplay is satisfying, there are fleet management elements around support ships both directly and indirectly, offers both very detailed voxel shipbuilding and a workshop to download other peoples very detailed ships.

Short answer, no Long answer, if the publisher was interested in selling the IP and associated projects, they would have. Not that its likely it'd see a buyer - the games already dipped heavily into its sales bucket with early access, and when you buy it the publisher isn't going to just hand over all the revenue it already made, defeats the point of selling it. So any potential buyer would be looking to sink tens of millions of dollars into something that is already out one major sales opportunity in the core fanbase, has terrible public sentiment, has mediocre bones (as extrapolated from the intents to replace many core systems already) and just potentially scattered its dev team to the four winds. Simply put, there's nothing of value here to sell or buy with it in this state. It'd be infinitely more likely and sensible that Musk buys a random ailing indie studio, and makes his own KSP if he was so inclined, it'd be cheaper and a safer bet. Still pretty unlikely though.

The forums themselves are being weird about it. I found that if I open the widget source directly, it loads just fine, but completely dead on the forum. Its not deliberate at any rate, that integrations always been janky.

Nah, its pretty standard corporate speak, and not even "meaningless" corporate speak. Rationalization from a company perspective is the act of figuring out how much something will cost you, and how much value it will provide you, either in revenue directly, or saved expenses. Rationalization of buying everyone an adjustable standing desk would be comparing health and strain related costs and loss of productivity that might be attributed to sitting all day, and measuring it against the price for the desks. Rationalization of your pipeline means taking all the projects and products that were underway, and forcing them to reevaluate their value vs costs. This is usually done when a company is seeing that their predicted costs are significantly off (some overage is expected) and their predicted returns are consistently off (This one is expected to only be off in a positive fashion, underdelivery is a big bad). You may also be introducing new minimum return differences that now need to be met - like expecting cost saving related projects to have a shorter recoup period than was previously agreed upon. Basically, their stuffs been too expensive, not earning enough return, or some combination of both, so they want everyone to go back and rebalance their books based on this new real world data rather than previous estimates. In that process, some projects are identified as no longer viable, and axed.

Request denied, speculation is fun Granted, anyone attacking someone else for their opinion, belief or perception of the situation has lost the plot. Debate and discussion is fine, but some folks get way too heated and too fixated on being "right" or the ironclad belief that the evidence that convinced them of something MUST be able to convince everyone else of the same, and anyone who doesn't accept it is being [Malicious/Copium/Hateful] and must be attacked. Its really good to talk about this, a lot, it brings attention to the matter, shares information and conclusions, and lets people get an understanding of things. But we're not enemies here, two corpse in one grave and all that

Clearly, they were stuck in an intense KSP2 multiplayer session, jousting around the moons of Jool. But in all seriousness, the one I would be pinging would just be Nate. Regardless of what's going on, both in this immediate disaster and the long roll of the game, the CM's only know what they're told for the most part, Nates the one who can actually speak more. And if some fragment of the team did survive to be used to rebuild, the CM's are unfortunately not likely to be among them and so they are probably NDA'd out of being able to say anything at all, even from the outside. Nate and a few of the senior devs would probably be the retained Cadre for a handover if nothing else, assuming that continued updates actually means still developing the game.

Considering its public knowledge that they had around 60 employees, its not really a material difference, and actually gives a misleading impression in the other direction. But this is a great example of why its important to look into multiple sources and places on things, because the very same facts can be presented in different ways to give different impressions, based on the assumptions and exemptions you want to provide in either direction. In theory, you could also just expect everyone to stand back and say nothing about it until the fog of defecation clears, but we live in a world with humans on it and patience is not one of our virtues, and speculation is just plain fun.

They could try, but I'm not sure it'd pan out. The problem is that the games already mixed, and the recent review score is cratering as people write reviews recommending to not buy the game since the studios dead (their words). Normal folks waiting for an EA period to finish already have buyers reluctance, and tend to look at review scores. Mixed alone is enough to make most turn away, the rest look closer, and seeing the recent reviews with the messages they have, would turn anyone away. They'd get a few curiosity buys, but completely burn what's left of the franchise. It'd be more favorable to leave the game forever in early access and just don't touch it to avoid it surfacing again. Godus was a notorious example of this, abandoned and in early access for like eight years while the studio went off and made multiple new games, while actively telling people publicly "oh the games done" but not actually moving it outta EA to avoid any flak for failing to deliver.

Because studios have never mislead people about their development plans, capacity, or existence. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to reinstall the Anthem 2.0 version that Bioware promised, and play that to remember the potential for the future. But seriously and with less sarcasm, The article is entirely accurate - They are getting reports of the studio being shuttered, and also tell people that they have messaging from them saying that no, its still ok don't worry. It would be disingenuous if they concealed that latter fact. But as it stands, the line between truth and fiction is covered by that lovely brown fog that occurs when the defecation hits the oscillation, and it'll be a bit until its cleared enough to see what's what.

Assuming we get any. I still have Early Access titles in my library that just died quietly when the studio shuttered and nobody was left to actually tell anyone it was officially dead.

Yup. If the studio was still in some level of operation, the first thing they'd do is send someone to post some kind of "We're still alive, please stay tuned" message, even if they have no details beyond that. The fact they're not doing so indicates that there is either nobody left to do so, or they are under explicit instruction to not do so. The latter is no better, as you'd usually only do that if you felt there might be a need to be able to suddenly be not dead, if it turns out the backlash was way worse than you expected. That latter case is also pretty unlikely if you're terminating the entire team already, it'd take an investor revolt level of backlash to undo that at this stage. Edit: Just to elaborate on the whole "But the mass layoff takes 60 days notice" thing and how it applies to the "Nobody left" option, you don't keep the team working for that 60 days if your shuttering all operations. You pay them as if they were, and still lock them out of everything to prevent someone from sabotaging it on the way out. Its much easier to stomach two extra months of payroll instead of dealing with "whoops the entire source code leaked how'd that happen, sorry".

Don't worry, I get it <3 Also, damn, I was swinging in to see the usual arguing in the communication thread, see if anyone else had something to add to my statements there. Now I'm waiting to see who the 70 seattle staff were, how impacted KSP2 is, and if communication is even relevant anymore. But that "fully funded to complete, team is committed" comment from Nate may not have aged well.

This was my worry, that we'd see a repeat of for science, dropping a milestone every december-ish. Mathed out a similar prediction earlier, in another thread, actually. On the specific topic of communication, I do think its just as much of a substance issue as it is a cadence issue. We've spent the last year and change being told there's plenty of work going on it the background, things are progressing great, our internal builds are so much fun - And then the community asks to see it, and we get crickets. And while I totally understand a reluctance to show off anything you're not dead certain you can deliver, it doesn't add up to a lot of people, because the trend of it actually happening hasn't been there, even before the game released at all. Lemme break it down here. The game is announced, the community goes wild. we're shown a bunch of cool stuff. Crickets, corporate drama, some date shuffling, and we don't really see much of anything. For the most part the community understands this, as we're being told that we're getting a full release of KSP2. Nearing the dates, it becomes an early access, and most of the stuff we've been talking about for the years between announcement and now is pushed out to roadmap. The community is disappointed but understanding, and takes the reassurances that what is launching will be absolutely solid as solace. The community then gets the first release of the game, and its pretty bad. We're told it'll be fixed up right quick, and the launch window features will be coming shortly. Then its not fixed up quick, and the launch window features are pushed out almost ten months. When asked to explain this both along the way and afterwards, we're more or less told that its because of parallel development in various features that'll speed up the content cadence. But we're given at most some extremely surface glances of this parallel content, and its extremely difficult to actually identify any signs of meaningful progress. The community requests more information and expresses discontent with what is being provided so far, and is promised some level of improved and expanded communication, but with no commitment to any specifics. At the same time, existing communication avenues dry up, providing even less insight into the active progress of development. This triggers another round of communication concern and inquiry, to which the community is told that all the work time has been put into planning out the next levels of work, and therefore communications can't be prepared just yet. This is followed up by information that suggest the patch cycle is stagnating, not accelerating in its timelines. Those last two parts is where it starts to fall apart, because its a bit of a leap for someone to accept that "We have multiple parallel development streams making content" and "We have nothing to talk about because we're planning what we will be doing next" are both true at the same time. If you've had a year of parallel development streams, it doesn't make sense to the average person that you have nothing to show for it across all the streams - While corporate communications is reluctant to talk about anything meaningful that might end up not getting added, the people who already paid just want to understand what the development team is doing and where it might be going, even if they hear that a thing is later cut for non-viability. But if you can move past that and accept that first combination condition, then the patch cycle appearing to be on the same timeline as the last one doesn't add up, suggesting that at a minimum, the parallel development chains aren't going to yield any meaningful increases in patch rates. Effectively, and likely with no malice, the community now has years of being overpromised and underdelivered to, and the scope of those overpromised and underdelivered situations have been coming in smaller and smaller - First it was the entire thing, then parts of the thing, then update cadences, now patch cadences, now communication cadences - Every step feels like its been backwards to many. And I do want to be clear that it is "Many" and not "All" - I don't speak for the whole community, but discontent doesn't have to, not on its own. This isn't an element of the community being told "You won't get this" and then being mad, this is that element being told "We'll do better" and then not getting anything better, over and over and over - Even if the rest is fine, that group is entirely in their rights to be angry about it at this point, because they're feeling lied to. And I think it shows in the cancellation of the KERB and its reception - People for the most part agreed it wasn't working and were ok with it going, the discontent was that it was the only remaining reliable communication path, and that's the thing we keep asking for. Most of us salty folks don't care if we get communications every week, two weeks, month, or even three months - Within reason, we don't want the game to reach that 2028 date in my quoted post . But what we do want to know is that if you come out and say "First of every month, meaningful update", that I can swing in on May 1st and see something that's actually of substance to the game. Not a filler dev article though, I guarantee you that we'd prefer 2 paragraphs and a screenshot of one singular colony feature sliver or a long piece that ends with "None of that worked so we went to the drawing board" over 10 paragraphs and math diagrams about how clouds in gas giants work IRL but why Jool doesn't do it the same way. That might be cool, but its completely irrelevant to the roadmap we want to hear about. The last thing I want to hear is "We'll provide updates on our plans to provide updates two weeks from now" and then come back in two weeks to hear "So we've discussed the initial plans to create a cadence for communications that'll provide details, but we're pushing out that information a few more weeks, check back later". KSP2 is in a bit of a do or die scenario - Not the game as a whole but its communications. You need to decide publicly and vocally, whether you will actually provide more meaningful information and details on a meaningful schedule, or will you prefer to work quiet and just roll in whenever you feel your ready. Trying to play the middle ground of "we'd love to we're totally working on it and doing it" without delivering is just making the whole thing look worse and throwing a lot of doubt on it. You're setting yourself up No Mans Sky style, nodding along to nice sounding things that people ask about without the seeming ability to deliver. You can look at is as "Look how much damage a single comment about development streams has done to expectations" as a reason to clam up, or you can look at it as a reason to speak more to explain what context was missing from that comment as to the actual development streams. But you need to make a decision. And that's the end of my rant from a community perspective. From a personal perspective, I find it disappointing and frustrating that a fully funded and well staffed studio full of professionals are struggling to meet the standards that indie early access games set in the early 2010's, before anyone even knew how to do any of this. There was this indie game called Kerbal Space Program managed to make frequent and meaningful communication updates to its users, while also having frequent and meaningful content patches and enhancements. These updates were relatively small, simple, not particularly heavily edited, and even included stuff that ultimately didn't come to pass that still informed the community as to what the focus at the moment was, and where things might be going. I am getting more and more of the feeling that our "Communications" are being treated as investor statements and press statements rather than being intended for us.

Its not KSP2 or Unity specific, its physics specific. You can't really do parallel physics calculations, since you need the results of the last physics frame to start computing the future physics frames. In theory, you can parallelize calculations for groups of entities that are guaranteed to not interact in a frame, but in practice doing that without a bajillion bugs is near impossible. Best you get is KSP's attempts to on-rails stuff with predictable outcomes. So while its inaccurate to say KSP2 is single-threaded, KSP2 is only able to effectively utilize a single thread for what is probably the overwhelmingly most expensive part of its CPU work.

Orbits are still buggy and will shift over time - Any fix applied will be temporary until the devs fix all the causes. Every time they strike down one variant of orbital decay, another two seem to pop up. If its important that these stay in those exact positions forever, then your gonna be having a bad time.

Not specifically, what a lot of people were hoping for, asking for, and the development had alluded to, was science moving away from "Go place press button" grind and more towards being a long term activity, for example. The fact it took them a year post-launch to get there only reinforced the expectations that they were doing something different, and why it started to become 'obvious' that we were getting something different. Folks, myself included, were actually willing to accept a science lift n shift of the existing mechanics, but expected that to be something that launched within weeks to a couple months of release, not end of the year. And that generally summarizes a lot of the sentiment I feel and I've been feeling - The team is taking a huge amount of time to do things, so the expectation is that the thing is new, novel, different or unique. When it delivers as equal to or inferior to the predecessor, confusion and distrust occur. The community keeps being told that there's all this work going into making a thing awesome, and then at the end of it they get what they had before mechanically, but with more bugs and less content to flesh it out.

Honestly, no idea at this point. KSP2 has put a sufficiently sour taste into my mouth that its probably going to take some unexpected catalyst to really revive that interest from me. On paper, Resources being integrated into the game could do it, but in practice I'm not so sure. They would have to be both mechanically well integrated into part cost but also colony operations. While that sounds like an 'Obvious' thing they'll do, it was also considered 'obvious' that they'd overhaul science which didn't come to pass. If base KSP2 doesn't meet expectations then modders might be able to do something about it, but at that point its just a pure gamble as to whether it'll even come to pass. Not do I have confidence at this time that the game is stable enough to even enjoy a protracted playthrough - I'm still subscribed to various KSPTubers, and its pretty rare for me to see something where they don't encounter a mission killing bug, or in recent memory the one who had his entire save file eaten. Resources might just turn out to be a monkeys paw where all it does is bring glaring attention to a new set of issues I didn't experience with my minimal consecutive mission playtime. I already more or less have to remind myself to pop in once every few weeks or so to see if we've actually gotten any useful communication, so its not like its burning a hole in my mindspace that I'm trying to find ways for the game to fill. At this point, its a failed release in my eyes, and it'll take some mindblowing update or incredible must-play mod widely circulating and being talked about for it to really resurface it to me.

Which will realistically be launched on whatever the next-next gen consoles are. Console generations tend to hang around for about a decade*, and we're approaching four years on the current generation. With the rate we're chewing through the current roadmap, we're looking at another 4 years of development just on that, and that's assuming nothing else gets brought in that shifts the schedule or expands things - Its very likely we see a prolonged performance enhancer patch before multiplayer judging by all the systems they've identified they want to replace already. Then there's whatever ends up being done after Multiplayer on the roadmap, before things finally lock down at 1.0. At that point, the current console generation is likely to be on its last couple years, pushing the hardware to the limits. Meanwhile, KSP2 will be a game that is significantly bigger than what we already have, which already struggles on hardware that outclasses the current generation consoles by a comfortable margin. The innate performance optimization opportunities of Consoles will help, but its entirely plausible that the game simply can't run acceptably on a PS5 by that point. At the same time, the successor generation of consoles would be on the horizon - or even out if a major hardware shift brought them into play early, never know with tech. Regardless of what the nature of the innovation is, they'll be years stronger than the existing machines, and would probably handle it fine. I guess where I'm going with all this is don't hold your hopes on the idea that the next gen console will get you the KSP2 experience you want, nor will the opportunity to test that theory appear anytime soon. *Modern mid cycle refreshes might confuse this, the console space is slowly becoming more PC-Like in many regards which has been fascinating to watch. But we can hardly estimate timelines off of "And then the entire paradigm changed"

I'm expecting more of a resource distribution system akin to some of the more advanced colony and life support mods, with deposits of varying richness scattered over various worlds, with the far flung ones having more "exotic" deposits in higher abundance that might be part of the backbone of early interstellar. With all the realism they're putting into fuel and engine types, I find it unlikely they'll just throw in single-category automagic materials on planets, goes against the rest of the design philosophy so far. My expectation is that the Mun and Minmus won't have anything too special, and will just be a local option for whatever resource supply Kerbin gives you for free, but perhaps in higher quantities. Idea being to kickstart colonies and orbital shipbuilding with local resources, much like how a 'real' industrialization of space would go. So structural metals, fuel components, and whatever else is required for that early game tier of parts would be relatively abundant, but radioactives or exotic stuff would be trace or absent - Enough to build ships that use nuclear power generation or small nuclear core engines, but not orions or similar nuclear heavy options. Stretching past the immediate Kerbin SOI, things get pretty foggy as we don't know a lot about the latter part progression or colony materials yet. What I find unlikely is the idea that a world will have any material 'exclusive' to it, as opposed to just being the highest richness, or one of a set. Making the part tree a case of "You cannot use your new engines because you haven't built a mine on the north pole of Tyloo" would go against a lot of the freedom that the game encourages in how you play and engage. Meanwhile, having the only real economical source of a given material be the Jool moons as a whole would be in line - Perhaps you can pull traces of it off Duna still, but if you want to be using this new material and its parts all over the place, you'd have to start branching out. This way, you have options, and can pull out the "expensive" engine for far flung missions like that, and once you've established sites on those worlds, that engine goes from being the rare, expensive one you use conservatively, to one of your main drives for the game. A system that rewards without hardline mandates. I am also expecting a category of materials to be restricted almost entirely by colony development, and not just resource extraction. As of last we knew, Colonies would do more than just exist and launch ships, but would have their own sort of internal production and refining, such as the fuel buildings we saw. If I were in their shoes, there'd be a whole chain of parts materials that isn't mined, but instead manufactured, to offer a consistent high performance but expensive option on the design charts. Exotic metamaterials, carbon nanotubes, antimatter production, metallic hydrogen, the sort of stuff that you're not just going to dig out casually from a world but instead need to invest significant time, energy, and colony development into building up a supply of. This provides both a reason to expand existing colonies beyond just "its cool" and offers an escape valve for a player who feels truly stuck with the tools they have vs the challenges they face. If you just can't make a given mission work with your current material flow, and can't get out where they're more abundant, focusing your efforts on industrializing and bringing out that synthetic material option provides another path of advancement. Overall the player should be encouraged and incentivized to expand their space holdings and worlds they visit, but shouldn't be actively punished for not being "good enough" to make a crazy mission on lackluster parts, and shouldn't feel like there's only one viable progression path for materials, worlds, and colonies. A theoretical "Duna Rush" should be an option because it rapidly expands the players stocks of a given material, rather than because Duna has stuff the muns lack completely, that you need to colonize Eve, etc. The only exception to this might be a form of unobtanium, right at the very end of the final interstellar tech tree. Providing something ridiculous at the hardest planet to reach in the hardest interstellar system to reach as a capstone for the entire gameplay experience wouldn't be a problem, as once you can do that by skill, effort, or advanced part selection, you're clearly at the "Just having fun with it" stage of the save rather than the progression stages.

The "Multiple updates before Colonies" bit from the bullet point summary is mildly concerning - Obviously its not inherently a bad thing to fix stuff before the next release, but with the Historical update Cadence, that feels to me like its placing Colonies out in... well, December again. Even if multiple means "Two", we've seen a trend of months between material updates, which could still put that release out way late into the year. Teams still struggling to keep things like KERB at the promised cadence after all, much less substantial updates, much less milestone updates. I do hope that's not the case. The Science update only brought KSP2 to 'significant' gameplay parity with KSP1, and colonies will be the update that objectively makes it mechanically superior. Technically or gameplay wise is still debatable, but KSP1 even with mods didn't handle colonies well - Closest we got was WOLF that just pushed everything offscreen. However, if that milestone is only reached when we're closer to two years of early access than not, I'm going to be very disappointed. We were told that content updates should speed up after For Science, as all the parallel work the teams put together starts paying off, but setting a precedent of a yearly major milestone update would break that expectation, and would put the realistic multiplayer gameplay window with my friends into 2028 (December 2027, plus the requisite bugfix patches for it to actually work ). And while that's purely extrapolation from a limited set of data points, we really haven't been given anything promising to the contrary. After all, we were being shown reentry effects in February at launch, and Science Parts shortly after that.

I suspect its physics related. There may be oversimulation going on, and your extremely limited in your ability to run the calculations in parallel - So you end up with one thread on one core going pedal to the metal, and everything else chilling, because each part needs to walk through its physics operations, in order, and when they're all welded together they're all influencing and affecting each other, plus occlusion calculations for atmospheric resistance and drag, all of which get more expensive the more objects that both need to be calculated, and correctly influence one another. Get it wrong, and you end up with Kraken drives and phantom forces. As for why this affects rendered frames? It may be possible to decouple frame rendering from physics updates, but for a game like KSP its sort of pointless - you'd smoothly rotate and observe a ship that's still chugging at 3 updates per second, with all the associated control input latency still. There's also an overhead to pay just from the decoupling, and its still only a "may" - It could very well be that something in the physics calculations is being offloaded to the GPU where possible (And in fact, I think they're doing this with drag occlusion now that I put my brain to it) that could make it untenable as you need to sync the physics steps with the render steps at that point. While there's always something that can be optimized a bit more, the only real way to see major gains on a real time physics simulation workload is to have higher single core speeds, less physics interactions, or simplified calculations. Replacing a complex drag and occlusion model with a simple "Occluded yes/no" and fixed "drag" value would vastly reduce the load, but would just as badly impact the accuracy of the simulation, the game would be entirely arcade physics just from that. Finding that balance point is difficult, and not really easy to work out on paper - you can theory craft a way to reduce a cycle, but the only real way to tell if it still behaves "close enough" is to implement and observe/simulate it running. TL;DR Games running frames lockstep with physics, and physics scales negatively as part count increases, and there's not many options to improve it.

Late friday deployment, bold move. Decent looking patch otherwise, good stuff.

Could always watch the steam depots. Looks like the Release Candidate branch updated 8 days ago, and the testing branch updated 7 days ago. I can only speculate as to the exact nature of their build pipeline (Some form of Continuous Integration with all the branches maybe) but that looks to me like the Release Candidate 'failed' QA/Testing and test got updated with new fixes. Of note is also the "Voyager" depot and the various development depots. Not sure if Voyager is Interstellar or Colonies, the former makes sense the latter could be a release 'codename' for it. But feels to me like each development depot is its own major feature standup, leaning into the simultaneous development that's been mentioned for the milestone.