PDCWolf

Nah, shooting for mediocrity was KSP2s motto, we should always aim above, as a guy typing a DNS as much as a species. We're still in the dark past what is an organization that is forced to reveal data of who manipulates domains.

Does this conclusion come from not being able to type the DNS correctly for hours?

o7 on coming back. Bit of a shameful display by our new benefactors and whoever is in charge of the tech side. However I'll state any day that seeing this place online makes me smile, despite everything.

I'm not saying they would be wrong legally or whatever. What I'm saying is the last thing they want, if they have any sort of plan for the future of this franchise, is to take more things away, specially if it includes upsetting the modders, and indirectly the users they may rouse for support. They need goodwill right now, not stomping down. Obviously, I'm not Haveli's advisor and it might be yet another tonedeaf, egocentric little man thinking he's a "leader", but I definitely challenge that man to try it and see what happens.

Maybe not burning even more bridges. Yes, what that mod is doing (and another one too!) is really disgusting, but I doubt their first actions are going to include tripping off the modding scene.

Right on the later. As for the former, it's a vicious cycle: You might want some sort of visual indicator that ship parts are under stress, and the thing bending is a very obvious one. Cue in the early days of KSP, where parts on a rocket would "randomly" explode on ascent. Turns out this was "le funny joint wobble xD" making parts crash into each other. You still want the bending to happen because you've failed to build a system that shows part stresses yet. Cue in middle of the road KSP where parts on the same craft cant crash with other parts of the same craft so they ghost into each other Now you have a mess of most times unintuitive ghosting but hey, spaghetti looks funny on youtube videos! Players don't like wet noodles for rockets, it's unrealistic, and struts are both unrealistic AND ugly. Reinforce the joints, now rockets remain very rigid BUT the play between joints is still there, so you get compression ghosting (lower parts closer to engines ghosting into parts above). Different size joints (say, a big part joined to a smaller part) become a very insidious problem too. Cue in current KSP, with a bandaid fix such as autostrut (adds arbitrary joints between parts), rockets can be diamond rigid, but they internally use 3X more joints, becoming a performance hog. It can't be fixed, it doesn't do its job properly, and requires unintuitive and sometimes buggy behavior to work... and now we're stuck with a solution that heavily degrades performance just to arrive at something as basic as rigidbodies being rigid. Further enough the lead creative for KSP2 was a clown and liked wet noodle rockets so we're stuck with the same garbage in the sequel too. Those parts, most at least, are physics less. They're effectively infinitely rigid, some are not counted for aerodynamics calculations, but they have their own suit of problems, like how for some reason X amount of physicsless parts on a hybrid craft make the game less performant than giving those parts physics (not sure if this was ever fixed).

One of the many things I wished to hear more about, yet this single sentence says a lot. Hopefully the man gets his door back in. As for the rest, it's a bit more context for the little we already knew.

Yet you'd be a reasonable person and not expect a heavy physics simulation game be targeted for 12 years old mid tier hardware on a limited wattage spec such as a laptop... would you?

I don't think I see the same attachment others see. From my perspective their vision was: Take KSP1 Add the three most popular mods (Interstellar, resource harvesting, colonization) Add a couple extra hurdles, like some resources only being available on some planets. Profit. I'm sure it was a very smooth pitch to throw at PD's offices, versus Rocketwerkz going overly technical and without images, and whoever was the third offering god knows what they presented. That's not attachment, that's finding an easy way to make money. Meanwhile you have the fanbase, the actually attached people, who were thinking technical terms: a custom or at least more capable engine, ways to reduce physics cycles with part welding, a better celestial body system that can support axial tilt, a non pqs solution for spherical terrain, and so on. That's attachment, that's being so attached you know what 1 lacked to go further. And their design proposals + the unwillingness to share details once things turned sour don't paint the idea that the missing features were the stronger ones. Just to say that again: they did not ever answer technical questions. And even refrained from sharing anything from the design side of things when their heating blog and their "here's how we draw a circle" devblog got battered. I'll never buy that they somehow got offended and went silent from that, I'm fully invested into thinking that was their best. When I call them amateurs, I don't mean the poor guys that were hired for dirt cheap salaries in their revolving door politics, I mean the people in charge of having a vision and designing it. From HarvesteR, we know he'd have either gone the aviation route, or the game would've remained a fireworks simulator. I think the best a "cartoony" game can do with orbital mechanics as a secondary element is The Outer Wilds. That game is great in telling a story and everything, and the orbital mechanics have been made incredibly simplified. What you get is a game you play once or twice and never again. That's why I believe in realism, consequences and deep player involvement with having a learning curve to master, that's what makes people stick. And the people that don't like that don't play KSP, they play some playstation interactive movie and you'll never sell KSP to them, no matter how simplified.

There was a local restaurant that used to have a BIG window to their kitchen, you could see the pizza masters kneading, spinning and stretching the dough, adding the sauce, cheese and whatever criminal toppings people add to pizza, and send it to the oven. At some point something happened, and the view was blocked. Like yes, I know what you mean and you're completely right but, when I go to that restaurant, I can still hear the chefs making the calls for ingredients, I can hear the sounds of the dough hitting the table, I can hear the door to the oven opening and closing, and that's closer to what SteamDB was doing. We never knew who was developing what, but we knew "something" had happened because the depots had changed. We never got a window through SteamDB, what these cowards took away is all of the rest. Just remember Ubisoft's plea to Steam to remove the player count from the API. If it was for these absolute cowards that don't want a single ounce of accountability in their moneymaking process, we'd have to buy games at $100, only from 3 to 5 marketing bullshots, with no refund window. Heck, they'd probably just send an install package every couple months for a new game or an update and autocharge your credit card if they could. That's it. No reviews, no forums, no support, kinda like the Epic store now that I think about it, guess that's why they shill it so hard.

Be mindful that the specific vram chart is a bit... affected by the fact that APUs and other integrated graphic chips... as the new snapdragons (slowly but surely) share arbitrary amounts of ram with the integrated graphics. The low end of that chart is a mess to read due to this, which is why most reference the GPU chart itself rather than the VRAM.

Seems devs somewhere got tired of people playing with deposit changes to accuse work being or not being done... and cried to steam to hide their incompetence even further, and it also seems steam caved in recently. Shame, and in the case of publishers/devs, for shame.

The whole section is a bit godless atm... what with threads that blatantly make use of decompiling being still alive. Just to throw another stone into the pond, a stock trajectories mod is impossible in the sort of precision a new player would expect from it. Too many variables, specially once lift and drag are involved, even the mod has a hard time predicting standard re-entry if you dare make an off-center-COM capsule let alone a shuttle or other spacecraft. It'd work fine on airless bodies though, no drag or lift so orientation matters zero.

The thread is about what -we- personally want. I described the game I want... I'm not directing your game but merely responding to what you quoted so go ahead and make your suggestions.

That's what tech trees, resources and budgets are for, to limit how much stuff you throw at a new player the first time they interact with the game. You're blaming features that would provide depth and challenge for the new player experience when in reality you need to fix the hilariously bad design of KSP1 AND 2's new player experience. Not to mention that most "chill" engineering games are forgotten in irrelevancy. What people remember is Factorio and Satisfactory, not Shapez. What people remember is From the Depths, not Robocraft. They remember Rust, not Icarus. Crossout, not Scrap Mechanics... and so on. You get the point, specially for a sequel, you need to provide stuff on top, otherwise, what's KSP2s evolution? Radiation is not random... It can be accounted for and even humans have been planning to build ships that protect from it for decades now. And I don't remember mentioning age at all since we don't know the lifespan of Kerbals so I don't know where you take the old age bit from. Everything here can be done with an orbital station. Specially since orbital construction was going to be in game there'd be even less of a reason to go down to a body only to then come back up... and minus construction, you can already do that on KSP1 with mining and conversion to maintain orbital stations fueled for staged interplanetary flights. Really, I still fail to see what colonies would've added to the game in the way they were planned. The only exception would be that if I can construct in orbit, at worst I'd build a small colony on the body below to lift materials there. Damaged parts... I don't remember what their plans for those were.