Kerbart

Finally. I'm glad they prioritized them over all those bugs that make the game so unpleasant.

We're having fun! You know that ends when it's released. Then it's just misery!!

All I know is maybe we'll see 1.5 this week, and maybe we'll see 0.2 in December. With the glacial pace of patch updates, no one in their right mind would expect 1.6 in the first place; there simply isn't a window available for it.

And still someone was complaining it still showed wobble. Not sure if that was trolling or not, but given how the discussion about flexing has gone I'm putting my money on "not."

It's a game. There's always going to be a compromise between reality and keeping the game exciting/challenging. One can argue that it's not realistic togo to the pole for cryogenic research. Then again, we're also teaching that building rockets is as easy as putting Lego's together. I prefer it when there's an obvious — even if it's wrong — relation between the experiment performed and the research it yields, over "after a temperature reading you unlocked ladders" Both are wrong, but I still prefer one that teaches that choices have consequences over the other.

Not randomly. Anth established that it happens for every 1,000m travelled and it's apparently due to the coordinate system bein reset after 1,000m (to prevent Kraken attacks). I'm trying to do the same thing and it absolutely drives me nuts. I have little hope it will be resolved by 0.2 as it's not a wobbly rocket.

Yes, but I think that was after he published his most famous work. Also, a lot of the work was based on observations by Tycho Brahe who definitely did not use a telescope. That doesn't mean they didn't use instruments but the orbits of the known planets were established without the use of telescopes.

There's a scary number of bugs "under investigation" or "reproducible" which suggests they won't be fixed when 0.2 comes out (given that only a few others have a "targeted for 0.,2" comment). It requires imagination beyond my capacities to see how 0.2 is going to be an enjoyable release when there's still many issues like jittering rovers, inability to use engine plates, sinking through terrain, SAS not working properly during timewarp, and without being listed I assume the docking/undocking problems reported by some don't even make it to the list. And then there will be the dozens of bugs FS! will introduce. Are we now reaching the point where new features and hence bugs are introduced at a faster rate than bugs are being solved? Because the thrill of new features will dissolve pretty quickly when the game remains an exercise in frustration.

You're not wrong The postponed KERB was supposed to go out today...

It can go either way. December (or whenever 0.2 will actually be released) is a long time away and aside from lofty stories from a source known to be consistently overhyping the product and downplaying issues we have yet nothing to go by. Does the announcement now mean that the work is nearly finished and just a matter of rounding up details, while the rest of the team already started on Colonies? Or dir they just kick of the work after the summer break and hope to finish it by December? IG claims the former, but IG says many things. As others pointed out, For Science! seems to be a major overhaul in many ways, not in the least adding an exploration mode that will be there for the remainder of the roadmap. Colonies is mainly parts with some extra functionality, as will interstellar be just "more of the same." So development for those can be relatively faster. We also don't know how much resources are currently tasked to fixing bug (one can only assume a few heads max) and how many there will be in the future. Given that it takes about two months just to roll out a patch that addresses only a handful of bugs, a roadmap frequency of 5-6 months seems overly optimistic. Probably one a year.

I feel your pain. I tried to drive a rover around in the local area (other than the KSC) Every minute or so, the rover would spontaneously flip over. The game would then violently try to correct it. Sometimes the rover would sink into/through the scenery The rover on the runway was not the rover I built - discombobulated parts right out of the box Apparently Anth reported on these issues which seem to be related to readjusting the origins of the rover coordinates every 1000m travelled. My fear is that it's these kind of bugs that will remain unsolved, when patching decaying orbits and wobbly rockets will be heralded as "we fixed ALL the bugs"

Oh yes. The optimistic view is that the majority of resources were poured into FS! and the reason bug fixing went so slow was because this project had prevalence. Since that project is now nearly complete, more resources are poured into bug fixing. The 0.2 release will be a glorious release and all will be well. Or... it's the usual hype, the "WIP" we've seen is mostly wishful thinking and "no more wobbly rockets" has as much meaning as the "we slayed the kraken" around EA time. Existing bugs are still there and FS! will introduce a whole new family of them. I hope the former but experience over the past releases makes me gravitate towards the latter.

That sounds great on paper but when restarting Exploration mode for the 5th ti e it will get old and grindy. Especially if orbits are statically defined so you already know where to look. For a long time I considered this to be great and from an science/explorer view it is. But in the end this is about pushing the limit where you can get the little green guys, and not a masterclass in astronomy. Mapping/picture taking would be a great way to unlock other missions. Long distance telescope shots of Duna lead to a request to take pictures up close. Close up pictures lead to a survey for what are the highest peaks. The result of that leads to a temperature survey from the top of one of them, and so on.

@Dakota -- we now have various YT posts of Nates's presentation of varying quality. Will the actual presentation in all it's digital glory be published by Intercept? So we can all dissect and tealeaf-read its contents? That's a really good looking capture. If people didn't tell you, I'd say you have a talent for making YT videos. Consider making more KSP2 content!

One thing to keep in mind is that the whole science/contracts/tech was a Frankenstruct bolted onto the game in an attempt to overcome the lack of goals in Sandbox. It tried to achieve various things at once and that never works well: Ease beginning players into the game by limiting the parts they can choose from, and learn the basics with small rockets Provide an in-game challenge Make it more realistic by providing penalties for a "moar boosters" approach when building rockets We ended up with a tech tree that doesn't make sense (manned flight before remote flight, for gaming purposes) with certain items in the tech tree in places that were backwards. The Vostok-style inflatable airlock is only available late game, when most of us long stopped using those command modules. And don't get anyone started on the ladders. What was suggested during the run-up to EA release what that the whole concept was given a thorough evaluation, by industry professionals who, armed with spreadsheets and experience, know how this stuff works out and how it's supposed to work out. And instead of bolting it onto an existing game, they can integrate it with progression mode from the ground up. What's more, they already have experience with what worked, and what didn't. Of course a lot was suggested pre-release that hasn't been delivered on, and we'll have to wait until the 0.2 release (I'm carefully avoiding "December," we know how that goes) to see how it works out.

This community is divided on many things but "Science needs a huge improvement" isn't one of them.

But they could change that in a next version of KSP! Sadly it seems that IG opted to completely ignore all of the DLC innovations (especially cutting off the path for 1.875m tanks—how are those ever going to fit in between "SM" and "MD") like ground science, propellers and robotics.

Breaking Ground is a good example. You set up the earthquake detector and then you have to slam something into the ground close to it. It's one of my favorite science missions because you get a reward for being accurate. Also, Breaking Ground Science, because it's more involved, cannot simply be evolved with "let's bring everything all the time." What would make it more interesting if starting an experiment requires a follow-up that doesn't appear to be random but isn't the same every single time either. Even better if it returns something you can use in the game -- either info on planets you didn't have before, or scientific discoveries. Since planetary parameters are static, the obvious thing is that research results directly in tech tree progress -- just not on something free to choose, but rather on what was discovered, just as in reality. Want more structural parts? Research more materials! Want more exploration parts? Research exploration stuff! That kind of approach.

From what I got from earlier posts and the grainy presentation (the stream posted on YT was out of focus and from a bad angle) I think it ties closely to the missions offered. While it still be, effectively, perform a temperature survey around Mun the amount of Science points returned is likely higher, and you don't have to do the same research over and over again to progress. Of course, all of this is wild speculation, based on WIP content we might never see, or only see two months late, incomplete, and not working. There's no way to know that until we get there.

Because they were delaying it for years, and sugar daddy T2 basically said “enough is enough, just publish what you have.” That I have less issues with than with the casual "Everything is great and we'll just pretend there are no bugs” attitude that followed for the half year following that release. At least now they're admitting that the product is bug-ridden, although they still seem to be not in a particular hurry to fix them. My fear is that they're now rushing to get Science in—they only have two months left for that after all—and bug fixing will once again be considered not worth the effort “because we need grid fins”. Science will then introduce it's own scala of bugs—the proud announcement that you can carry careers over milestone updates, which seems like a completely useless feature at this point—suggests that we'll be entering a whole new world of pain regarding loading and saving games for instance.

Ah. I got confused by OP's moniker flatlining and was looking for... well, a flat line. Didn't think he'd mean the single data point that was clearly a data acquisition issue.

They've been able to miss "within a few weeks" and "by the end of the month" promises. Not to mention the 2022 release of the game. I'm going to be very skeptical of the ability to deliver the December update in December. If they can make it as the anniversary update late February in the state they promise it's in, all will be forgiven by me. But my expectation is that it's going to be a similar mess to the first release last year, regardless of when they release it, but especially if they release in December.

You'll have to explain that to me. According to the chart there's around 1,500 active players recorded by Steam. How exactly is that "flatlining?"

In the spirit of realism. With the release, the game has lifted off. We're now in a vacuum. The devs are screaming at us, but we can't hear them.

Ha! A temporary tax!