Kerbart

Matt Lowne: "My well engineered rockets shouldn't wobble" Me & others: "Your rockets are clearly not as well-engineered as you think they are" I never used autostruts and I don't have wobbly rockets. I applaud Matt's daring designs, but the monstrosities he tends to launch have little to do with engineering.

This is a case where perfect is the enemy of good. Testing all parts that way won't be done because it'll take way too much time. The point is to run a few "full game" scenarios and uncover bugs anyone playing the game encounters but testers (because they test a scenario and don't play the game won't. Testing every single part full sequence is definitely desirable but will add like three weeks to a release and be deemed impractical. A more incomplete test (albeit better described perhaps but I'm not versed in game QA) might lack many things but the one thing it has going for it is huge: it's hard to find an argument not to do it, as it can be done by one tester in half a day or less.

I find it inconceivable that a civilization capable of interstellar travel cannot build Von Neumann machines. Infact, it's more likely a civilization bui,ds them before gaining the abiity to travel between stars. So, if you don't want your neighbors to strip-mine their corner of the galaxy and then start with yours, you work on exterminating them. I'm not saying you'd have to, or that it's ethical, but it is certainly a motivation.

I don't know about you but in my book "using the launcher even when people try to bypass it" pretty much is forcing people to use the launcher. By now there's a pretty long and consistent history of misdirection, overinflated promises and underwhelming delivery. There's also pretty damning Steam stats which I'm sure management keeps an eye on as well. If on the one hand we hear Intercept constantly repeat "the game is GREAT! It's a JOY to play!" while Steam stats suggests player support for the game is cratering, there's going to be questions from stakeholders on how progress on the game is doing. I don't think it's out of this world to assume intent over this "error," even when it's reverted after community backlash. When customers who paid a royal price for the product are getting cynical, don't be too rash with saying "well well well, don't be cynical." I don't think the blame for that lays with customers.

I don't see a 1.3.2 hotfix?

I doubt it's a bug. Seems to me it's very purposeful. It'll boost the player stats on Steam.

Those are valid points and what is missing there (but surely you are thinking along those lines) is that Science should matter. In KSP1, Science yields anonymous points that can be used for anything. Instead experiments with engines should be needed to unlock higher Isps, or a class of engines in the first place (not a single engine, there would be grinding). Same for fuel tanks, or pretty much any part. Make science relevant for progress in the game, find a way to assess the quality of the experiment (materials study in various orbits over an extended amount of time means higher crash limits) and apply it to the progress.

I'll admit that I'm clueless on QA in general, and particular about how it's done at Intercept Games. However, as my day job requires me to create financial reports covering large amounts of money (let's just say that I need to adjust the column width in Excel to fit the numbers in the output) I do have some experience in quality checking, and from my laymen, Monday Morning Coach, Captain on the Quay viewpoint it seems some checks are being skipped. See, I know what to look for.. Discrepancies by week, month, product, and a couple of other dimensions. So my quality checks look at those. But there are always the things you don't look for. So, I pull out the detail reports for our top-5 customers, and for another random 5. And that's the step that's missing with KSP2 QA. Run a handful of extended play-through scenarios: Build a ship from scratch in the VAB, launch it, put it in orbit Build another ship from scratch, launch it, dock with the first one Undock both ships and return to Kerbin Build a ship, launch, and land it on Mun, plant a flag, and return to Kerbing Build a ship, launch it, and land it on Minmus, plant a flag, and return to Kerbin Build a ship, launch it, land it on Duna, plant a flag, and return to Kerbin Between those 5 builds you can cover a wide variety of parts. And granted while not covering all situations and scenarios, it will cover a lot of ground. Current testing seems to focus on prescribed scenarios bound to known errors, and for time saving purposes those are either pre-saved or set up using a "cheat" dialog. And that's ok. You want to know if bug #684 has been addressed in all 12 known scenarios, and there's hundreds of cases you have to go through. But clearly, clearly, the vital act of "spot-checking" — in this case just playing the game — is not performed right now. Or if it is, some people need to get fired. There are just too many bugs in the game to believe a serious effort is made in that direction. If there is play testing, then why do we now have a hotfix for the fairing UI bug in the VAB. HOW WAS THAT MISSED? Fairings respawning on engine plates every. single. time. How could someone not see this and report this? Please. Add a handful of actually playing the game to the test book.

I doubt it's te intention, but not posting a link to the AMA broadcast on the forum certainly gives the impression the CM's rather not see interaction of the forum. I can see how Discord and twitter are easier to manage as they interaction tends to be more linear (as opposed to forum posts with threads all over the place) but forum posts also tend to go a bit deeper. Giving the impression that you're willing to drop quality in exchange for convenience is not a favorable thing.

It's not just after load. It's after a visit to the KSC as well. At first I thought it was related to the new engines with extendable nozzles but it appears to be of any engine type. It happens when an engine plate is used, regardless of the size (same/smaller) of the engine mounted. The respawned fairing is the engine plate fairing, not the decoupler or engine fairing. In some cases the respawning will result in rapid disassembly.

First of many I hope. Quick patches for oneor two bugs is my preference over having to wait another quarter for the next megapatch. There's enough issues that, when fixed, would greatly improve the current state of the game.

And encourage forum use? Are you insane?!

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 Home 22H6 Build 19045.3086 | CPU: Windows 10 Home 22H6 Build 19045.3086 | GPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz 3.60 GHz | RAM: 32 GB Two things happen when loading a game (started from a fresh 1.3 campaign) Vessels that were left in Kerbin orbit no longer have fue (methalox) on board. They now show the shroud attached to the engine plate that previously (when saving) wasn't there. Returning again to those vessels in a later stage might result ih a spontaneous RUD Included Attachments:

I agree with [2] being the reason but not for the motivation listed. At least not short term. The project had delays over and over, maybe for good reasons, maybe not (we won't know). And there's plenty of precedent of sequels that got delayed for a very long time (Duke Nukem) and even cancelled (Half Life 3). So, not in a sense of "we need money" but rather "the game will never get published if we don't force them" a hard deadline was set. Maybe we're actually talking about the same thing (you mention [3], after all, as a separate possibility), but I'd say "because they felt it would never launch without a hard deadline" We know that deadline was set a lot earlier (the "fiscal year 2023" in a financial report a year earlier) and I suppose the discussion late 2022 went a bit like "sorry we can't make that deadline" followed by "find a way to make it happen." Reverting back to a release with most features stripped out must have been a painful and awful process, but it would give a chance to have less bugs. Imagine we had the "full" release with a half-baked science, colonies and interstellar implementation. What we have now is far more manageable and it's already a fluffing mess. I suspect most of the code actually was rewritten from scratch, simply because we wouldn't have as many bugs as we have now. That also explains the long time frame. That we see similar bugs as in KSP1 doesn't surprise me. Most of the bugs seem to be logical errors, and if code is supposed to do the same thing it's easy to make the same errors. That's why starting from scratch is such a mixed bag. Yes, you leave behind spaghettified Frankencode that evolved over a decade, but you also leave behind all the fixes for weird things no one thought of at first. It's all understandable that IG doesn't tell us the whole story. No corporation will happily hang out their dirty laundry. It makes them look bad and rarely anything good comes out of it (remember not just customers, but investors read those Mea Culpas as well). The downside of that is that through all deceit and misinformation (looking at where we are four months after the release it's incredibly hard to be not salty about what we've been told and what is delivered) we now really don't know where we stand. A year from now we can look back at this and either say "they did come through in the end" or "we should have seen the implosion coming." Time will tell.

I would never have bought the game for $50 had I known in advance that, at one point in time, it would be discounted at a holiday sale or special event! Imagine they’d do this on Steam with other games! People would revolt! The thought that someone would pay less than me causes unbearable agony! Isn’t this against the Geneva convention?

They can also go up instead of down. I have watched debris in aparabolic curve with an apoapsis over 300 km.

The streamers do have some interest in the game being a success as their view stats depend on it, so they will be reluctant to burn it. To quote Crisjen Avasarala from The ExpanseI: “don't listen to what people say, look at what they do.” It's more telling to see how much KSP2 content is being created, especially by streamers who don't rely mostly on KSP for their streams.

Far from defending the design, but anything going that deep will have very little inherit buoyancy. Pretty much anything that can be exposed to water will be to remove fatal pressure gradients. so all the buoyancy you need comes from the air bubble inside the pressure vessel. I doubt having too much buoyancy is that much of a problem, it also allows quicker return to the surface in case of an emergency. That doesn't justify using carbon fiber over titanium in this case, but it seems like a legit plus, which doesn't mean it outweighs the negatives of that choice of material. The one other way to create buoyancy blows up in size quickly: gasoline-filled containers. Since fluids are (hardly) compressible they don't need to withstand the pressure. The Trieste bathyscaphe followed that design route. But like a blimp you'll end up with a lot of volume for little buoyancy.

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 Home 22H6 Build 19045.3086 | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz 3.60 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1660 Ti | RAM: 32 GB Identical vessel docked, fuel transferred from one vessel to another. Within seconds after fuel transfer completed, vessels start shaking violently and spinning faster and faster (gyros were on). Shaking similar in appearance to "kraken attack" in KSP1 when attaching solar panels to robotic hinges. Undocked ships to stop increased shaking; both vessels ended up spaghettified with parts stretched out over long distances. Included Attachments:

1) Any experience from other space games that can be carried over? 2) Can you elaborate on how artistic desires vs physical gaming restraints are handled?

For starters, there's the IMO (a UN organization regarding international maritime affairs). It will also make for a very interesting discussion with CBP officials when entering US waters if there's no proper insurance, and the vessel will likely be chained up without it. You're still starting your trip in a US port, and likely you plan to come back to that port. I doubt the Canadians are going to be any more lenient than the USA in this respect. I'm not an expert on maritime law but I suspect that it's not that easy to do this without insurance. Now, agreeably, some countries will have much higher standards regarding classification than others, and that'll likely reflect on the insurance premium. There are many things that make an American flagged vessel very expensive but I assume the insurance on it will be lower than for the exact same vessel registered under a flag of convenience. But I doubt they would have been able to leave port in the US without proper insurance. Does the Maersk Alabama ring a bell? Or further back in time, the Barbary Wars? (if they weren't the reason we have marines, then it was at least their first deployment if I'm correct). Of course that's in regards to American vessels, who are technically considered US territory regardless of where they are. Not sure what the status of the Titan was in that respect. But unless there was a reason to skirt regulations, I assume it was US-built, operated and flagged (all those things are very expensive when done on a large scale but it's a different story for such a micro operation).

Looking at videos of railroad tank cars imploding, one second everything is fine, then next thing the whole thing looks like a crumpled beer can. And that's only less than 1 atmospheric pressure. It seems to me that any decompression would be a very violent and sudden event, and with large parts of the hull (from what I understand) being carbon fiber, it wouldn't fold like metal but shatter. Which in turn would explain a debris field (assuming the debris field is indeed the missing submersible). The bigger parts would be outside tubing and parts.

Suffocation is not a bad way to go. You just get tired, go to sleep and never wake up. Our bodies don't get stressed out over a lack of O2. They get stressed out over elevated CO2 levels in the blood. Keep that low, and a dropping lack of oxygen in your blood just makes you pass out. That's why carbon monoxide is so dangerous; you won't feel a thing. I understand they had enough CO2 scrubbers on board. If you mean the psychological stress about impending death, yeah probably.

Could there be any other vessels that sunk there in the past, responsible for a debris field? Not familiar with the Northern Atlantic there, but it's not inconceivable that it's just from a ship that sank there, say, a hundred years ago?

That's likely the problem. A sub filled with dudes who have more money than god and won't take "no" for an answer, with the CEO at the helm who has a bias towards the bottom line of the company. Recipe for disaster.