BmB

Sure it has.

Leaving us with a broken product for extended periods is what will ruin their reputation. If they release fixes promptly that is the only thing that will save that. If, and that's only IF they accidentally make something else broken, they apply the same principle and fix it promptly or roll back a version. You should do this until the game is stable enough to justify waiting for QA. And I'm talking about the showstoppers here, if they have a fix for KSC appearing in front of you and destroying your ship, then they need to release it now, not in two weeks. If they have a fix for rockets bending out of shape and destroying themselves, they need to release it now. The launch button randomly stops working? Fix now. Ships loading in all broken and messed up? Now. There's plenty of game breaking bugs like this which can't wait. These are the exact type of bug that you are more worried about hypothetical versions of that may or may not get introduced, than the actual bugs that are in the game right now, to justify not fixing what is there that makes it unplayable. You don't need to defend such excrementsty development practices, you really don't. You get nothing out of it.

Releasing patches isn't going to make the game worse [snip] Yes, it may introduce some new bugs, emphasis on MAY, that is still better than leaving bugs this bad unfixed for weeks, and those new bugs can themselves be fixed. It's something you only worry about when the game is already stable and you don't want to accidentally make it unstable. But that's not the case right now, the case is they have fixes and they are withholding them for no reason.

No, not when the game is in this poor of a state. Once it gets more stable only then it will make sense to test patches more thoroughly

I am complaining that they released too early, I already said I'm empathetic to the fact that such release dates are set by publishers although the devs do have a hand in not meeting whatever internal deadlines were set. But they did release too early, so unless they're going to do a recall they need to release the fixes they have.

So those aren't what they're planning, but what is already completed? That is even worse, that is how much better the game could be RIGHT NOW, but which we are forced to wait weeks for for no reason.

It means solar system sized simulations are not supported in any engine and you'll need to make modifications to any engine you choose, unity is if anything more friendly to this kind of modification than most engines. Another major problem is game engine physics are not meant for large stacks and complex constraint systems like KSP rockets, they are optimized for performance over stability, things like a few props you can pick up and throw around in HL2. I would say many of the problems with KSP (the "kraken") are due to the instability of the physics engine, If I had a say I would make it a goal to create a custom internal solver for rocket stacks, and let physx worry about only the entire assembly and loose debris. Looking at the most recent unity docs I can see they have actually added a constraint system like that already, for robotics, very handy.

KSP is a game that demands custom systems that aren't well supported by any engine, except perhaps I think unigine had a version for large scale simulations

They ought to have not released it like this. I understand that it is ultimately the publisher that sets release dates and prices, but that does not absolve the developers, as we know of multiple public delays, which probably cover several more internal delays. So what we can get from that is intercept failing multiple times to meet milestones and take 2 forcing them to release to recoup some costs, at the end of the day consumers are the ones getting shafted with an overpriced and underdeveloped release, and you get nothing good out of defending this or making excuses. The least they can do is not keep us waiting any longer than we have to by releasing critical fixes for the current version as soon as possible. "Weeks" is not an acceptable answer here, never was and never will be.

As we've already discussed, Early Access is not an excuse, it's still a release that is not exempt from quality standards.

And I'm saying the current bugs are more critical than whatever you're afraid of introducing by accident. QA for a patch makes sense when you're trying to maintain some kind of baseline stability, but this live version does not have that. So any delay is for no reason. Hotfixes that circumvent the normal patch development process to get critical fixes out fast are not some foreign alien concept I just invented. Let's look at how an actually good company handles this stuff, I bought Half-Life 2 Episode 2 on release, it had a game breaking bug in the antlion caves, later that afternoon a fix was released and I could continue playing. I didn't have to read excuses on a forum about how QA takes so much time and they need to test everything properly so it'll probably maybe come somewhere down the roadmap in some weeks, they just fixed it, that's what we should expect with issues like this.

I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.

Having to spend hours working around bugs to do anything is unplayable, even if some are far enough gone to expend that effort.

There is no "meeting in the middle" for a 50€ game that has been delayed multiple times for years. They are not your friends, you don't owe them excrements. You conveniently twist rule 5 to be about something it's not, it has nothing to do with playability or saved games, but has to do with setting expectations, which were set by the marketing videos, blog posts, and trailers for the game. As we've established, they lied about the state of the game in these marketing materials.

Those aren't new issues that you are just keeping to yourself, those are just the daily reality of what's been put out. You can't possibly make it worse except by delaying fixes for an unreasonable amount of time.

Are you paying for this refund?

That an Early Access game must be in a playable state, it should be a finished product unto itself. You can't sell hopes and dreams on Steam Early Access, I didn't buy a patch in two weeks and promises made on a forum. The patch should be today, maybe it can't be today, that's reality, then it should be tomorrow. But not in two weeks on a roadmap. Fixes need to come out as they are made until it's stable enough to justify waiting for QA.

Right now they do need to rush fixes out, yes. The game is in violation of Steam's Early Access guidelines. EA is not carte blanche to excrements out anything you want.

Honestly I don't see the point of delaying anything. Normally you would want a patch to be polished, I get it, but that only makes sense when what you're patching is in a good state to begin with. The state of the game right now is unacceptably bad, you should be releasing daily hotfixes, or as often as possible. Who wants to wait two weeks for QA on a fix we need right now, on a version that itself doesn't live up to any kind of quality standard?

I was going to write something long here but your excrementsty forum logged me out in 2-3 minutes and deleted it. Thanks. Just imagine a rant about the excrementsty tech tree, useless parts, easy physics, infinite free money and horrible missions here.

Meaningless justification really. It's kerbal space program, not kerbal F-35B program. I don't see how VTOL jets will get you to space.

I was thinking since both of those mods also focus on "filling out" the parts list there's a lot of potential for duplicates. Ah well I guess I can use module manager to clean it up some if that's the case.

Legit criticism is not trolling. You are being very defensive about this, I called you out on it. It's not an attack. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, I didn't make any claims to go with it, therefore fallacy does not apply. That kind of attitude will get you nowhere.

How well does this play with Ven's revamp and modular rockets?

I think you're the one obsessing. If you use Ablator every third party heat shield will work with DR no fuss. AblativeShielding is asking for incompatibility issues. Since there's no difference you're breaking compatibility for no reason whatsoever. That is an issue. If Squad breaks something about Ablator in the future you can always re-introduce your own resource for that update. Don't be a diva about this, more mods working together is always good. And here is a system that enables that. When there's a stock resource don't think part mods will choose your special resource over that one.