PDCWolf

Thank you for taking the time. That was a lot of writing and I'm happy to get any answer an all, even more when they're actually detailed. Has the concept of heating changed at any point based on the feedback posted to its thread? I'm happy with the general idea of this answer, until the timing of future headliner updates becomes part of the equation for fixing and implementing changes in the model. Timing has been shown to be not of the essence, and I'm doubtful anyone will want to look back at the heating design sheet to make changes when we're X years down the line and colonies arrive. Guess only time will tell, plus the best case scenario is that really no changes are needed. I'm also not part of the club that approves of sequels simplifying systems, but it seems what's done is done. If I know the peak or average specific heat flux a vessel is gonna go through on its final orbit/landing spot, what stops me from just adding enough negative heat flux parts to counteract it? My problem here is why I've steered away from most LS mods: sure, making a self sustaining loop with perfectly balanced inputs and outputs is satisfying as an engineering challenge, once, but other than that it's just really a complete gameplay loop that simplifies down to "add more parts to not explode". It's a one time engineering challenge that becomes a simple, repetitive mass addition in the long run. Tech trees might extend the challenge a bit, but the end of the road is the same. This is why the question is worded that way. I didn't want to go the completely aggressive "can I trivialize your entire system to just a mass tax?". A clever, complex heating system would allow me to use excess heat for LS, or do crazy stuff like detachable heatsinks, or time daylight vs night sections of an orbit to not have my Kerbals die by the skin of their teeth, or that kind of proper emergent narrative/engineering stuff. It's probably one of the places where so far KSP1 and 2 (specially from what I gather from the concept of user stories) both do poorly: unless the player does a whole roleplay/self-limitation skit, everyone's experiences are pretty much guaranteed to be the exact same with all subsystems. There's a middle point between a puzzle being so simple there's no place for alternative solutions, and the puzzle being so complex almost nobody solves it. Considering its possible uses on the automated logistics network, long missions, and just straight up anything that only requires time to pass, how do you balance not timewarping versus just letting things happen in ultra-fast time? For the first and third examples, "warp more" is still a solution: Warp more until the satellite has enough passes over the area to complete the task, and warp more until it's daylight again. The only way you're gonna shoot yourself in the foot is by playing simultaneous missions instead of sequential. Again, another department where KSP1 and now 2 fall really short. As for your second example, having all deposits be a consistent "100%" concentration means there's no need to pick a smart landing site, or building around a bad one, unless it happens to be compounded by having many resources on a single body (kinda like how starfield does, where you have to search a good outpost spots with different resources in its territory). I believe there should be a balance between 300 and 60 second answers. Users are clearly in for both. As for loaded questions, you did answer a couple positively loaded ones, though I'll give it to you any day that asking a well thought out neutral question is not an easy task, and answering negatively loaded ones is not fun.

Most people were not expecting a spaceflight simulator. Thus most people wasn't disappointed. In fact reviews are very positive bar some criticisms to the writing, some "the game is not easy enough" concerns, and the 30 fps thing on consoles. I would place it a bit on the "doesn't justify hardware requirements with looks" side, but it's not that bad either. The one professional review that gave it a "low" (7/10) score is IGN and is clear the dude writing that one never actually spent a single second of neuron firing to try and figure out things (one of the most glaring mistakes is he thinks jump range is limited only by the ship, when it is limited by how much fuel you load first, AND THEN your ship's max range). I'd love a Starfield thread but so many people have me on ignore that me starting it would mean it is not seen at all, something the thread wouldn't deserve. Bar BG3 and Hogwarts (don't think it'll win because implications) it's a solid GOTY contender.

I smell some bitterness and some inflated expectations. The moment they didn't mention land vehicles, and didn't show any flying scenes, it was a bit obvious that it was gonna be another gamebryo CPG game but with a space related setting. I've personally been having a blast. Btw we do need a Starfield thread it seems.

6 months in, We're at a point where if you don't straight up exist to praise the game, you're recommended to leave the forums and keep waiting. That thread is barely the same 10 people going "This update was so good for rover wheels [and then] Oh yes my rover exploded randomly because the terrain is undrivable, I had fun!", "I opened my game and made a craft, I hope I can play!", "I tried to dock two crafts, now I have a new bug to report", "I launched to orbit and my orbit lines disappeared so I couldn't even reach orbit", "I staged a payload and it disassembled". That's not people playing, that's people suffering and huffing copium. Probably the worst look you can give the game for prospective customers.

Yes because... I believe science is not gonna be much more than what it was in KSP1. I'm of the opinion that nothing they've shown suggests more than simple conceptual changes to the original right-click-everywhere formula from KSP1. I don't expect new mechanics.

Sadly it's the only thing that can be done for now without wasting half your part budget on struts.

We don't know if they plan to use that setting in the config for anything else down the line. It is a workaround for now, but they clearly wanted to reserve the right to do other stuff with that setting. On the other hand, that setting does not remove the springiness of the joints, only "tunes it down" so it's not really a long term fix. We don't even know if they really want to fix it past a statement on one of the previous K.E.R.B.s that they're "investigating".

We know science is supposed to include the first public iteration of heat through re-entry stuff, and my bet on all that remains firmly on October/November, sadly I can't vote for science anywhere faster than December from your options (lol, the irony). No idea about buoyancy so the options being badly presented is not an issue for me. CBT is definitely a long-er-est-est term goal.

I know what I think, I'd like to see other opinions, and maybe some speculation on how to make that save stuff scalable? Of course, I no longer expect the devs to tell us anything useful at any point bar K.E.R.B and patchnotes.

Speaking of skepticism, I've been doing a bit of a deeper examination than I usually do. The following is entirely speculative, wildly so even. You know how people talk about whether they ever mentioned 1000+ parts ships and such... Of course the reality is they've never mentioned any number, only hints here and there. We don't know the part budget they have in mind and they refuse to put a number on it, so speculation is sure to come up. Now, if you go around the bug report subforum, you'll see this new one (which I recommend you upvote as it's pretty critical IMO): I... couldn't really think of that as a bug, maybe inefficient or hard to scale, but not a bug: we want colonies, orbital shipyards, miners, processors, thrusting vessels and such to work whilst we're away, we also want the heat system and to work whilst vessels are unloaded... At the same time we don't have any effective way to differentiate which vessels shouldn't be part of this system: Heat buildup and such could take a really long time, so just assuming equilibrium doesn't work, thus all vessels should remain simulated. Almost any vessel could be used to thrust whilst in warp, so all of those should be part of the simulation as well. Lastly we definitely want colonies and shipyards with their logistic lines working (we know there'll be a proof of concept system so logistic journeys don't load yet another vessel in the simulation). Of course there's a lot of simplification to be made: Colonies can extract to an abstract pool of resources to not account for individual tanks (unlike ships), craft in equilibrium and unloaded can probably ignore the whole heating system, and probably a lot more that I'm missing, so the system can be reduced a bit. But still, the system is not really scalable as more craft are added... and I can't imagine how multiplayer handles it (if it even attempts to at all). Then I remembered the stuff that has been shown the whole way about colonies and interstellar, and the stuff said on the interviews about those topics. Everything hints to monolithic "One big part for a lot of stuff" pieces being the norm. Plus now procedural parts help cut down some of the main part-count wasters like wings and radiators, like this single ring part transforms like 40 into one: So, they have this seemingly inefficient system that doesn't scale well with partcounts, they're really trying to stop us from lego-ing solutions to certain stuff like we would in KSP1, and they also have a clear aversion to tell us the partcounts they're aiming for... Once again my nose picks up a sour smell.

Totally agree that the scroll tapes are completely unnecessary, the PFD was meant to show that you can still include them in a concrete, compact way.

In real life, most people found out that keeping things compact and short helps, not overly exploded elements all over the place. Edit for clarity: This is the PFD with every possible element activated, this is what it looks like at its absolutely most cluttered worst.

I just gotta say, it's infuriating to me when I'm inside submenus or even just pause menus and escape doesn't actually escape. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE KEY, GET ME OUT OF HERE, GET WHAT'S IN FRONT OF MY FACE OUT OF IT. In game > escape opens pause menu and stops the game > if I press escape again I ESCAPE THE MENU BACK TO THE GAME Not even sure if it's the case with submenus, just wanted to vent.

Yeah, it could also be part of colonies. I'm definitely not, it's just more ammunition for KSP2 having no reason to exist if it's just gonna repeat the mechanics of the first one. Of course, the die isn't cast yet, but signs haven't been positive so far IMHO. I'm sure their plans is to get Science out this year, I think my previous prediction was in the october/november range, and I stand by it. You can't have a full year without features and expect anyone but the most desperate to stay interested.

Finally! Something!. The effects look good but I keep my critique: They still need what happens around and after the heating, some particles going away and/or smoke in the case of ablators or non-shielded parts, some aero effect like vortices, and so on. As for the sneak peek shots: Stars and Nebulae visible when the sun is up will always be a point of contention for me. The terrain itself looks properly detailed, but way too overkill in shininess, whether it's bits of gold, or straight up reflections, still overkill. Are those Kerbals different skin colors? That mountain doesn't look the same quality as the terrain on the first picture, or anything that couldn't have come off the first game. I like the thing on Laythe, definitely looks like bones. That terrain is overly simplistic though. That crane definitely looks to be for containers, or a similar payload, will it just be decoration or does it have a purpose? Mission control looks like it involves... some gameplay very similar to what we saw in the first game. I prefer the lego type stuff to pre-made parts, but I'll admit any day that this ring looks great.

[Snip] I'd like to keep the quickness of the first game, with an option to just type parameters, like they did with tweakables. I think that'd be the best way to both have the quick setup, and the option for the parameters to be entered manually. What they did right now is redesign a very quick and well implemented system that didn't need a redesign at all.

Some people aren't able to get a refund. So, since you can't process people still being critical of the game... you have to stereotype them. $1 in '90 is $2.34 now. Gaming in the 90s had a user cap of about 10 million, but it's about 3.9 billion now. Inflation might be ~234% since the 90s, but Gaming as a market has also grown %39000. If anything, due to the huge surge of demand for a non scarce good (thus no limitations to meet said demand), games should've gotten cheaper. In fact they did when Digital started, and digital-only copies were worth half of their physical counterparts. TL;DR for this: Inflation is not an excuse, it's plain greed. I have Starfield open, have been dabbling into Snowbreak for about a month now, and before that I've been playing a lot of other games. It's clear from basic stats that people are not playing KSP2. Not sure what your point is here, unless it really just boils down to wanting to silence people and only interact with people who think the exact same way. I might recommend the discord if that's the case. They're reported already, a lot of them have been since release. In fact I'd go as far to say that, barring edge cases, most possible stuff is already reported, and very well reported if you bother to check that subforum. Thought you were new here. Also, those complaints remain unsolved, and as such will never stop being current. You're literally asking people to look the other way when stuff is still right in their faces.

Positivity becomes toxic both when it goes against common sense, and when it is enforced. Sure, the mods stopped it, but people tried, this thread is probably the peak of that. I agree with the rest of your post, though I did not fall for the hype (you won't see me in hype threads). It's different for everyone, but I was already smelling sour stuff back when everything they could show after the amazing trailer was clay renders and unity editor asset scenes. I've been called names and told to shut up since like 2020 (for KSP2, for KSP1 it's even before that) so at this point it just slides off. I'm not gonna discuss that there's people patiently watching, that have all the control in the world and the will to see KSP2 through, no matter how long it takes. However, we have to remember that they're a business first and foremost, specially with TakeTwo on their back. If they're gonna develop 1.0 for the 10? 100? 1000? people that will wait the years it takes for 1.0, then it is clear the project isn't profitable, and god forbid they pull a SQUAD for 1.0, just waking up a day and deciding to call it that just to move on. Time is a very limited resource in regards to garnered interest around the game, a lot of the people that lost interest will not come back. This is not KSP1, KSP1 is one of the very few games to have a positive trend curve for most of its EA life.

Couldn't read them all because some of them got deleted, apparently because you're enforcing your way of thinking on others (I could still see them on another platform). Having tried 0.1.4, no, the game is not on a good state (and I voted such on the poll). The game is definitely better than it was at 0.1.0, I'll give you that, but I'll also tell you that almost any game, even some scam asset flips on Steam, come out in a better state. Also when you gauge how much better the game has gotten, versus the time it took... yeah, it kinda offsets it a lot. As for positivity of the forum itself, it doesn't matter, they have the discord for that and that's clearly where they hang out after "cultivating their community" to hound you if you dare not praise them 24/7

For all the toxic positivity around, it seems it's limited to posting on the forums and not actually playing the game. 400 peak on release, next day already dropped. This is half the pull than the previous update had. At least this might help understand that time is indeed a limited resource. If they take 10 years to make it, they'll end up making a game for 10 people.

(Emphasis mine) I'll do the usual: this should say "delaying a fourth year".

Talk about loaded questions. My biggest gripe with the talk about performance is that 90% of all the "gains" comes from removing elements from screen. Take a look at how low graphics looked in 0.1.0 vs 0.1.4 and it's pretty damning that there's been minimal performance gains, only fidelity losses.

Congrats on getting the patch out. Haven't had a chance to test it myself yet but some reports are pretty worrying. Props to Nestor for coming in here with extra info, specially about fixes that didn't make it to the list but are in the game. Sad to see reports about this one are mixed yet again.

Another Another Another Another tweet:

Let us never forget the active detractors for this idea claiming that "it is obvious they're working on everything, what do you need a public tracker for", "people will spam it with bad or fake reports", and "the game itself will show their progress", along with other stuff, whilst laughing at people who proposed the idea and discrediting KSP1's bug tracker.