PDCWolf

Has the concept of heating changed at any point based on the feedback posted to its thread? 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? 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?

There will always be people for which nothing is enough, it is not good to extrapolate that to a whole group of players. We have differing viewpoints then. I could make a list of the stuff that I feel remains unaddressed, though at this point in the discussion I don't think it'd do much. Do you want me to write it for them? mind you that the following might contain satire. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which part is humor and which my real hopes.

It's exactly the problem I mentioned, you can't tell the people that present clear evidence that you'll "look into it". No, the time for looking at it is clearly behind, specially on real time communication. They can't go back in time, and they can't magically work faster, so nobody wants that, but at least don't tell people to their faces that "velocity is good" and the feedback is "overwhelmingly positive". Own up the reality of your product, do not blame your community and berate them. Thank you.

I do vividly remember one of the early MSFS having your plane disintegrate into parts on crash (only the default cessna and extra 300). However, your argument is still missing the semi-soft-body physics that go on to simulate wing flex and its effects, the simulation of aerodynamics on lift and drag and the interaction of mechanical elements on the wing with the flow (which is simulated, unlike KSP). Breaking joints and shooting off rigidbodies (or outright disappearing them if the crash is hard enough) hardly counts as "simulating the results of a crash". It seems there's an epidemic of overstating how taxing or impressive rigidbody physics are.

Black holes don't work, it's why people asked for a bug tracking forum: if I say A is bad and don't hear anything back, then I assume nothing happened. A lot of people will say A is bad, not hear anything back and move on to another game, I'm sure that if the goal really is to see a good KSP2 somewhere down the line, then you'll easily understand how important is to receive a response when you knock (and in some cases kick) a door. Bugs got their subforum now, with upvotes and bug hunters engaging the community. Now we need CM/PR/Devs or whoever it is to engage the community as they should about the complaints that are not bugs. The apology is more about yesterday, nothing else. I can also obviously not talk about literally anyone else but me, as I'm sure there's a lot of people that don't even care about an apology, or even care about what happened yesterday. I can't talk for them. More to help people avoid what a lot of players seem to perceive as a very toxic customer vs team relationship. You wouldn't join an EA for some game that hasn't been able to put out new content in 6 months and doesn't have it on sight until end of year, whilst also still carrying release bugs and what happened yesterday. There's also the very basic fact that if you don't mess with the hornets they won't sting (not sure how this saying translates to English), what part of the community is doing is a response to what they get. Entirely a matter of perspective. I heavily disliked what Dakota said yesterday on Discord, as that's berating and provoking the community, even if you remove the botting accusations, he still went way over the line. I'm also not sure which threads you happened to visit but it is very obvious that if people are posting evidence of users harassing others, coming at them with "we have a very tight code of conduct" in their faces is not gonna be well received.

AAA games do. Entirely agree there, now... And is set to become another revolutionary genre-defining CRPG like its predecessors were, and along with all its features it has no business being compared to KSP2 unless it's to highlight how in the same time PD hasn't been able to complete a quarter of a game. I think my point is clear enough: T2 has been more than patient, gave 3 delays on top of at least 3 years of development time, hired 2 different studios, and is still funding the development as per the words of official statements. Saying they "rushed" PD and are doing everything out of greed and are culprits of everything bad is, at the very least, an insult to a reader's intelligence. For starters, save for a slight bettering of the dev updates, and the bug forum (which still offers no progress tracking) any complaint so far has completely failed to been even recognized. IF you consider the stuff that went on yesterday, where a good part of the community was called "easily sway-able toxic bots", and how the discord and forum were exposed for what they are, then at the very minimum an apology is owed, even if just to count as maintaining a minimum image of professionalism. Warning people off this trainwreck is a good second, and yesterday it even got to the point people started pushing for KSP2 to be banned off the subforum because the CM has done nothing but continuously come back to harass and provoke the community whilst clearly averting any sort of serious discussion. This is it, nowadays being critical in the discord means people are allowed to harass you. Being critical in the forum means people are free to write inflammatory comments aimed at you. And then they have the gait to blame others for "toxic behavior".

Your idea of fun is irrelevant to the comparison. Now, for your message and the following: The physics and even more so the system level simulation that goes into premium products like PMDGs aircraft or a proper study model is infinitely more complex and demanding than whatever basic on-rails scaled space planetary and patched conics+rigidbody interaction KSP needs. Whilst also still including this-gen graphics. It's not an apples to oranges comparison in sofar as they're a comparison of hardware required for (in one case) much more complex and intense simulation. Being different genres doesn't mean one gets a pass for being hilariously unoptimized.

Let's do an exercise: I'll work the salaried position, you make an investment and call me when 6 years down the line you have nothing to show for it. I'll play the one telling you to be patient and that you don't have the best interest of me and those who matter at heart.

Again, you can't blame them for being impatient, they gave 3 delays and the game is 6 months later nowhere near being worth a $50 EA release. Patience is the only thing they've shown. This blaming T2 argument is just entitlement but in the other direction, thinking investors and publishers owe you a perfect game to their financial detriment and years of having a team busy on a product without any return. It only happens to be socially acceptable to blame people with money even when they're clearly not at fault. How many years do you think they waited for ST to announce the 2020 full release date? That's not 2 years investment horizon, we don't know how far ago they started development, but it could be as early as 2017 when they concreted the purchase (which fits nicely with a 2020 release), giving them 3 years of supposed way and only hitting another 3 year wait wall. Again, another case of it being socially acceptable to blame rich people. How does the people with a stable development position and a salary get screwed over by people who made an investment they might not recover? again with the same. Please do, this needs to at least be as public as possible, let everybody know how they're running their stuff.

Let's just say, the first delay was the studio change, the second was COVID, the third and the downgrade from full release in october 2022 to EA was ?????, yet here we are saying T2 rushed them. We should be thankful that T2 didn't kick them out like they did ST and call it quits.

Do we know star theory set unrealistic expectations? Are we really down to accusing one of the most prolific and successful publishers in the history of gaming of being scammed by a 20 people studio? If we assume that's possible, do we also assume IG/PD didn't literally do the same to get us where we are? Bethesda pushed Starfield back, T2 pushed KSP2 back 3 times.

You can't honestly keep blaming T2 after they gave them 3 delays and an EA for a product that was supposed to be released as a full game 3 years earlier. We need to stop with the scapegoats. If they know and they've seen it, then act like it.

How does this make sense? How is it justifiable that a Unity game with the capabilities and state of KSP2 can have the stones to ask for more resources than a software that is able to livestream and render photgrammetry whilst also processing hundreds of aircraft systems and parametric physical simulation of aerodynamics all in real time?

Communities like Reddit work specially well when (and in the specific case of KSPs) they're not handled officially. People are happy here in the forums because most dissenting views are deleted and their 20 people hivemind is safe, and in the discord people are even allowed to insult and harass you if you have a dissenting view. That doesn't happen in KSP's subreddit unless there's real rule-breaking involved, so it's no wonder a lot of people get really apprehensive when Reddit is brought up. Stuff from the forums does get posted there too, and is most times well received, specially when it's crafts, mods, or other stuff that displays proper effort like well thought out suggestions. In fact, Imma do you one better: Maxmaps, HarvesteR, BAC, Blackrack, and even some forum mods back then would actually go to 4chan, because believe me, the echo chamber gets suffocating. And whilst here was all praise and postcards from laythe, they actually got feedback that made it to the game from there.

This blew up big on reddit today, there's actually some pretty incriminating images. I honestly can say I didn't expect it to be that bad.

The forum is not free of sin, allowing certain people to post clearly inflammatory content, but corporate discords... yeah, no salvation on those, they're straight up a cultivated pandering echo chamber and when something isn't liked, just slowmode the normal users and let the praisers speak.

Well, the simple thing to do is go there and look for yourself, people are angry, and they even bother to leave replies about it. You'll actually find some threads with much more replies than up/downvotes

You're assuming the downvotes are "to stick it back" or some other reason instead of organic. I urge you to just try Occam's razor once.

I'm saying the KSP subreddit has 1.5 million members. He's saying that there's a single guy, with 3 to 10 bot accounts, that automatically downvotes his every post. Further on, there's evidence that the community reception to update posts is not overwhelmingly positive, which you can easily check on this flair-filtered query: dev posts receive very little positive feedback, much less overwhelmingly positive. However, I'm being asked to believe that in 1.5 million people, there's a single guy "sticking it back to them", and not 3 to 10 angry people online right when he posts. As someone else said in another thread: Puhleeeeeeeeze

Yes, it's exactly why I know those aren't bots and every comment isn't "overwhelmingly positive".

Seeing this post and then this is a trip: Dakota accuses Reddit (or some of its users) of botting to downvote his posts, because the posts on release notes are "overwhelmingly positive". And when things are not overwhelmingly positive, it's because the negative sentiment "snowballs" after being "swayed" by bot downvotes.

Source on this?

I think this discussion has grossly derailed from the reality we know was promised for the game. Apparently designing ships (SSTO, reusable or disposable) is at no point a confirmed part of the logistics gameplay, and shipping lanes being abstract means limitations on KSC/Colonies' ability to produce this or that will be arbitrary and not physical (i.e. a gravity well/atmosphere). We also know they're using the same vessel structure and proto-vessel handling, so reusable stages being recovered are so far not a thing nor will they be. What we do know is what already exists, so they may take inspiration from KSP1's career adding simple and arbitrary Mass/Part number/Area limitations on launchpads, which may or may not be upgradable to infinity. Sources from 3/24 AMA:

It did after people tried it and had to go back because it was unplayable. However, I'm sure there's a lot of people caught in that limbo where they wanted KSP2 and were ready to say goodbye to KSP1 and now don't feel like playing either. Pretty much what @Brofessional said. You can also see that a lot of people turned tail and tried Juno during the release. They probably didn't find what they were looking for there either, which gives the theory that they're on that "limbo" a bit more weight. In my personal case, I picked up KSP1 a bit before the release to do a farewell mission, only to be greeted by the disaster that was KSP2, and actually went back to playing 1 for a couple months, even now I still boot it up once in a while.

Why would you think the release of the sequel would do nothing for the original? If anything it's way more curious that those people are just lost after the fiasco that was KSP2s release, since they're not playing the new one and didn't go back to the previous. There's also the free gift on Epic, which for some reason may have pulled people from steam (into a crappier system but w/e). Finally, since the launcher was added, there's a chance some people began using the .exe though I really don't think that's the case. Before the biggest money in gaming (T2) managed to somehow publish a sequel that 10 years later manages to be even worse, the bar has been lowered. Thus, comparatively, KSP1 is better and is set to remain better for a long time. It works much more often and is more performant than the sequel, with a bigger and still somewhat active modding community. Also funnily enough the same people that we should be angry at for leaving KSP1 broken, are almost the same ones developing the sequel with the same publisher behind them.