PDCWolf

And we go back to the circles: You expect people to believe that from the same guys that stated re-entry heating was gonna be in on release, and then "shortly after", plus all of the already sourced claims they failed to fulfill. Good thing we're not supposed to take anything they say at face value since those are not promises, right? Can't have the cake and eat it. Either their words are trustable, or they aren't. So far, facts have more often than not failed to align with anything they say. This is the last bug status report. Of course it doesn't mean that any of those bugs are gonna make it, since compromise is always assumed to be 0.

Transparency for sure: "Our spec is this, we're at this point right now, anything that doesn't make it by around this date won't be part of the final product unless stated otherwise". Considering the normal development process for features (spec > prototype > design lockdown > development > implementation, YMMV), you should definitely know at least what do you want from the feature. After that, a simple "We're aiming for Early [month] at the earliest possible and only if everything goes perfectly". Also I'll just tangentially remind you that nobody got mad at the current delay. Sure, there's the usual questioning of how an allegedly very critical bug goes undetected until 2 weeks before release but that's normal. I'm also gonna repeat what @moeggz said regarding these kinds of ad absurdum replies: "I think such exaggerations are unhelpful and are a big part of the reason the forums are such an unwelcoming place. "

We live in a world where being responsible with communication is sadly an impossibility, or so it would seem.

Lmao. Regarding multi-threading, there's lots of evidence to it already being implemented, specially with the visible racing issues that plagued earlier builds. They also mentioned at least once that part of the performance optimizations down the road include "pushing processes out of the main thread". As a side note, hunting for every bit of information when they seemingly fire it off from a shotgun and it lands wherever gets tiresome. We need a proper compilation thread for all the stuff they've promised said regarding this or other topics.

Well, if you did read the reports, then you'd find out: Nothing indicates KSP2 is a good earner. Save for PD's own 2 slides, it's almost not named anywhere else. The only attribution to the franchise is thanks to KSP1. No KSP2 related numbers. So, as I was saying, you don't mention that stuff to investors, unless they specifically ask. Specially when you waste a comparatively big amount of money versus what went into the original, to get margin-of-error level returns that still don't surpass game 1. Only if and when KSP2 outsells 1, or has a huge sale boost, or a big update coming, or breaks even the investment, maybe they'll mention it.

At least these replies make awfully clear you didn't even bother reading the reports. I'll give you a free clarification: For an indie game, T2 did what no other publisher would've bother doing: Investing in two different studios, including the hiring process for the second, give them 3 deadlines, and an EA launch when those were missed. Comparatively, that's almost infinity more than what any other publisher would've done for any game. This points to them really thinking KSP2 is or has the potential to be a golden egg goose. However, you also have to understand that, for the literal biggest publisher in gaming, who also owns the 3rd or 4th biggest publisher in mobile, that's peanuts, and whether KSP2 thrives or not, it's still less than 1% of their total earnings, it literally fits inside margin of error.

There is no evidence of the opposite either. You don't need to discriminate every little money flow unless specifically asked for it. So long as the numbers at scale are correctly represented, there's no issue in not specifically mentioning KSP2s status. Doesn't it worry you to see KSP2 listed under "labels that drive recurrent consumer spending" and right next to every single one of their MTX scam centers? And no, I'm not being alarmist, just saying you chose a really unfortunate bit to quote. Yes, the KSP2 name shows up, it doesn't show up as top earner or even as a particularly good earner, only for corporate speak and to remind investors that it is a thing.

Funny you'd want that discussion when the evidence you don't is right there. You tell them the franchise is doing great (which it is, listed as one of the 5 million + copies seller), you just don't tell them how the individual games in that franchise are.

You don't mention that stuff to investors. First off because the media does, second off because investors can look at broken up numbers and realize by themselves. Edit to add: You can always check for yourself. Right now, KSP2 is mentioned, and KSP earnings are under the "franchise" denomination. KSP2 clearly hasn't surpassed its predecessor and has to still hide under it for investors' eyes. https://www.take2games.com/ir/quarterly-earnings <<< You can also see PD's other game here, for now set to "Early 2024".

You can blame both sides for that, them for picking the softest, most useless questions, and the community (mostly discord but I saw some here) for asking them, or rather wasting questions and diluting real ones, in the first place.

Look at the bigger project from the money T2 really had to put in: They financed two studios to make this game, including the rehiring process on the second. I highly doubt any other publisher would even bother wasting that much money to sell less than a million copies.

You can find the source for that and other similar claims right in this same thread. I couldn't find the source but I'm 100% (yes, not even 99%) sure they told at least one of the main media event youtubers (SWDennis, Matt Lowne, ShadowZone, Scott Manley, EJ) that heating was gonna be there on release. The problem with comparisons like these is that we'll always fall back on the fact that KSP1 development, with all its ups and downs, was mostly fronted by 5 indie dudes, after being manned by mostly a single one in his spare time after work for 3 years, whilst KSP2 has been in development since 2017, by 2 different professional studios and the literal biggest publisher in gaming financing them. That's why these comparisons don't work, people really need to stop thinking lowering PD/IG/T2 to the SQUAD standard is somehow a justification. If you can make a proper bug report for that in the subforum (or find someone who's already posted it and upvote them) that'd be helpful.

For KSP1 reentry effects there's only 2 parameters: scale of the effect, and color of the effect. Color is driven directly by mach number (might even be just a raw speed value, faster = redder), however that and the scale of the effect are also modulated by altitude. You have to understand that the heating is not scaled but the visibility of plasma is. In real life you wouldn't see plasma until like 3000m/s, which is way above the speeds we orbit Kerbin at, so we'd basically never see the glow. That's why the speeds at which the effects appear in game were reduced, and thus cause the effect to appear on ascent where it instinctively shouldn't.

Such claims that they have everything at certain levels of development and ready to go falls apart when you look at 0.1.4 getting a performance destroying bug two weeks before release, or re-entry VFX being on their second iteration, or the fact that heating itself is going to come in little steps... Jesus, imagine how fun integration tests are going to be when you want to add incomplete pieces of many different features on each update...

Yes, definitely, and not just a little. There's 2 things that are pretty much the main drivers of our pace in exploring space: Safety and cost. KSP2 fails hard at portraying either: You kill kerbals? here's more, you can even set them to respawn after a while. Leave them stranded or put them unattended on centuries long missions? no issue. Uncommunicated and cramped? no worries. Orbiting the sun with a window to check outside? just close your eyes lol. High radiation orbits? not a dent in that DNA. Badly designed rocket? you can bruteforce anything into anywhere, save for wobbly stuff (unless you have the supercomputer required to simulate the needed amount of struts). Wanna set down a colony on the sun? just add more radiators. Coming back from the mun? just dive straight into the atmosphere. Wanna make a spaceplane? Here's the most overpowered, unbalanced jet engines ever to feature in a videogame. I could go on, but really the only challenges remaining are physics and piloting. A bit of googling (or the new tutorials) solves the former, and worst case scenario mechjeb solves the later. Add to that the fact that the current state of the game is just an incomplete KSP1 alpha remaster and the returning player experience is pretty much dead unless you really like to torture your computer or telling yourself that you're somehow playing a better game.

Yeah, they probably do convey more about the state of the game going silent and only talking about hopes and dreams.

Of course this is my opinion and nothing more, but what happened with the heat devblog, and all the answers we got from Nertea... to me it looks like those systems aren't even designed yet, they mostly look to be barely gathering requirements or prototyping, without a locked down design yet. The statement is followed by an image that for me makes it super clear that the first stages of heating will come with Science, NOT 0.1.4, or at least that's their goal. I do subscribe to the idea they're building as they go, considering patch speed and how a massively destructive performance bug can pop up 2 weeks before releasing a patch. It is also my opinion that the communication did improve at some point, but just like their game they had a massive regression, and now we're back to being tone-deaf again, just in a different direction which is not saying enough, or anything at all in some cases.

The source indicates heat is gonna be in science, not 0.1.4, at least that's what I understood from that dev blog.

That's fine, thanks for the source. Cool.

You can quote as if you were replying on that thread, and just copypaste the generated quote from your reply into this one. Can't help you with the internet though.

Source? Or are you just stating there's going to be some raw heating code in it? Also, no, the system was clearly dumbed down, the only advance is making it warp compatible, at a huge step down in complexity.

Try as hard as one might, KSP2 will never be its own separate thing from KSP1. The comparisons will be there for as long as the product exists. If they'll always be negative... that's something that could change.

This AMA was extensive, in depth, but still weak, as that depth is on what I gauge are the wrong places: personal stuff, personal wants, personal dreams. Also for the next time, I'll make sure to submit my questions to Kavaeric or Spicat. There's the loaded question about the heat system, which is a simplification of the one we had yet it still comes loaded as "complex". From the thread on the heat system it became clear to me everyone is ready to answer to praise, but nobody was ready to answer genuine questions or respond to possible criticisms or player concerns. In the science question pitting KSP1 against KSP2, that the only answer is approachability... yeah, not happy with that answer. Whilst the answer on the modding questions were good, there's 0 compromise in them, which is a common theme by now, y'all talk about what you want, and not about what will be. Orbital construction: seems pretty basic, he does mention "hundred meter long ships"... is that in a couple giant parts or many normal parts? Colonies: "We are designing...". Bad. I prefer to think it's just a missed form of speech than really starting to design colonies now. Interstellar: Good, a second confirmation that FTL is not in the game. Heat on cold colonies: yet another missed opportunity for colonies to be anything more than set and forget.

The good first: The reentry effects look good. I do feel it still is a bit underwhelming. I'd say they're a good first step in the right direction. From my perspective they're missing some flair, and clearly some scale: As for the delay... Remember when I said they were only able to make compromises two weeks into the future? Scratch that. Should I be glad QA caught this one? or should I be disappointed QA is catching such terminal stuff 2 weeks before release on a multiple months dev cycle?

Did you read the rest of the post or just that? Just in case: It was a judgement of KSP2s worth as it stands now except with all bugs and performance fixed. Heck, let me remind you it's even against Steam EA rules to try and make bank on what plans you have or what the game could be. KSP2 has already broken rules 2, 5 and 6.