Kerbart

That’s all?

"Seven? Seven what?" "Yes"

Maybe the ESA release ran with some optimizations that were tuned specifically for the hardware used? It wouldn't run on some of the other tested hardware, and the release version had to use a slightly older version that was less picky about the hardware. A theory I just made up so those who are more intimate with game design can shoot holes in it an tell me I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, and they'd be right. But do tells us your theories in that case! What does seem very naive to me (and it looks like you agree with me) is assuming that work on The Patch started only after the release on February 24. Work on that patch started way before that and probably even before the ESA event. Which means that everyone basing their timelines on "look how much they fixed in Patch One" is in for a rough suprise: The first patches will cover, from a bug perspective, the low hanging fruit, the easy to fix things. The more complex ones will either require more time, pr there will be less bugs patched if patches are released at regular intervals The first patch cashed in on work starting way before release. Even the second patch will contain fixes for bugs that were started way before the first patch was released but that "hidden development" will be less and less with each release We're already seeing non-roadmap features being added - for instance proper colliders for the garage (and hopefully not just the garage but launch platform and tower as well, for instance) which in turn will introduce new bugs that also need fixing All in all I expect the pace of bug-fixing to drop significantly. Based on nothing but reasonable expectations and the picture Intercept painted skillfully while willfully withholding the details about things not going well, I'd think the roadmap milestones would be covered about once per quarter - science in the spring, colonies in the summer, etc. Now I'm expecting Science in the summer, and colonies in the winter—but that could be December or February.

Any guess is based on assumptions on how close parts of the game are to being ready for publication, and to what Intercept considers "ready for publication." We've learned the hard way that there's quite a chasm between what we players think the base game and its features are and what T2/PD/IG thinks they are. So I agree that any prediction is pretty much based on nothing and is wishful thinking/doomsaying at best. Once Science is out and we have a few patches under our belt it makes more sense to quote time frames but at this point there's very little to extrapolate on. I used to think "before the end of the year" but given the state the game is in I'm not that confident anymore.

It's not inconceivable that the interaction between the physics part of KSP2 and multiplayer is quite complex, where "Science" is merely a matter of collecting science points and interacting with biomes and is far less impacted by such changes. Last thing Intercept wants is cancelling multiplayer or rolling back performance improvements as one turns out to be incompatible with the other. Also, and this may sound unbelievable as it is, there are people who claim that KSP2 is merely KSP1 code with a graphic update, and multiplayer is the biggest part of that being not the case. So that can be a motive for showcasing it all the time. Especially since the community has some not completely unfounded skepticism regarding delivery of the multiplayer promise.

I agree with you. I never needed auto-struts in KSP1 and I think of the whole kerfuffle over them as re-entry heating when it was introduced in KSP1. People were so used to unrealistic practices when it wasn't there that they were complaining how it "broke the game" when it was introduced. Virtually all videos I see that "prove" how bad the problem is in KSP2 show tall rockets with giant payloads on top, and then complain about "unrealistic noodling" while conveniently omitting "unrealistic design" as a factor.

Great video! While the game might have some issues with flexible joints, a lot of it can be avoided with proper design, as you show here.

I was under the impression that topic was settled by the Insane Clown Posse?

To be fair, asking unreasonable troglodytes to be reasonable (and for clarity, none of the pople responding in this thread falls under that category) will have little effect either. You know what works? Blocking them. There's only a handful of truly toxic posters, and I can assure you, once you've added those to your ignore list (just clicking "ignore" is not enough, you have to check the boxes and then click "save preferences") the forum becomes actually enjoyable.

You’ll find me genrally on the side of supporters of KSP2, because the critique, in many cases, seems overly dramataic and exagerated. I have little sympathy for claims that anything less than 60 FPS is unbearable, that “all rockets” behave like noodles (I never needed autostrutting in the first place) or that the game is missing features. Especially the latter when it comes from “I,ve been playing the game since […] because those are the players that shoukd know better about what state to expect the game in. At the same time, Intercept did paint a very rosy picture about the game and could have done a much better job in managing expectations, especially given the price For me, the price isn’t the issue itself but if you’re setting your EA price at 75% of the launch price, I expect to get 75% of the game. Again, managing expectations. At the current pace it looks like we’ll need two or three more patches before the game, by most standards, becomes enjoyable—most players can handle the lack of features, it’s the bugs that limit the enjoyment one can get from the game right now. A dev-insights post on what the game’s QA entails and why we have the large number of “should have caught that” bugs in the game despite that would be welcome.

flight suits - no eva. Worn by early crews and tourists; explains why you can't do EVA's early in campaign mode. early eva suits - can withstand the perils of space, but it's bulk and mass makes it unsuitable for surface excursions surface eva suits - allows surface eva's hardened suits - extra radiation protection, needed for eva's around Jool

Calling every glitch "The Kraken" when they rarely seem to be caused by floating point precision issues.

Why a mod? It's easy to find at least a dozen people around here who will tell you that half of them ("a handful") of devs can write this game from scratch in six months time and it will run at 120 FPS on a potato with Intel HD graphics. I'm sure they're dying to prove that they talk from experience and that these are not empty claims.

Remember: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Clearly a matter of semantics but that is what I see as the KSP1 science system. I had high hopes that KSP2 would be something different, but given of what we've seen so far and after re-calibrating my Nate interpreter I suspect that we'll end up with something very similar. I was really hoping for something where the research subject somehow relates (maybe not directly) to what you can unlock with it. But everything hints at the same anonymous points that can be used to unlock anything from ladders to nuclear reactors. Doesn't Discord have automatic transcribing? Teams has it, and to call it "excellent" doesn't do it justice. I cannot imagine that the platform that was used for the AMA lacks such a service.

That's more complex than I thought it would be. You have to type things? Can't just select them from a drop down menu?

Astroneer uses Unreal engine and the current version is 1.26. My rovers still sink into the surface. Another engine is not the silver bullet to magically make everything work smooth and without bugs.

Dangerous for who?

As a Jersey resident I should point out that you forgot the double quotes. The correct way of writing it is: In Chicago we actually eat “pizza” with…

Both versions in the poll are completely heretical and I don’t see the point of engaging the pagans who believe in such false gods. I can only imagine what other viewpoints they regard, in their twisted worldview, as “normal.” Ketchup on hot dogs? Sunday the first day of the week? Frappucino?

Unlikely. If there were a better build, ehy not release it to customers? Besides, I doubt upper management would personally playtest every single game published. But even if — and this would be a purely academic exercise because I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to pull such a move — management was shown a different versionand even different statistics, they would find out pretty easily, especially with the negative publicity we see outside the official (and, give them credit for that, even on the official ones) channels. And whoever would be in charge of painting a rosier picture would be ending their career quicker than the Kraken get hold of a noodly rocket at launch.

If you’re waiting for T2 to crawl through the dust and say “yeah we messed up and the game sucks,” it’s not going to happen. That would trigger a massive refund round and upper management would go ballastic and cancel the project. So, communication is kept upbeat and positive. And questions about cereal are picked in the AMA, because we want light and upbeat. Not sure what you want to hear from them… well what realistically you want to hear. Yes, it’s messed up, and they’re working on it. I doubt they are not aware of the sorry state of the game. And if you think are not aware and think it’s because they’re ignoring the forum for Discord, they’re a lot more salty over there. Thus we await the patches. What else is there to do?

Writing code is hard, especially the “90% is here, only need to finish it” part. KSP1 wasn’t any different, although with a much smallerr scope patches were rolled out much quicker in the beginning. But not after , say, 0.18. Important features were missing there as well and despite the community asking sometimes not added for years. It’s an ambitious project with a lot of moving parts that, last year, quite suddenly was confronted with “go live on February 24.” That means that things like the new terrain system had to be shelved and replaced with the old system, and everything else had to be adopted for it, I assume, based on what we have that most of the work done after the Feb 24 announcement was spent on piecing a working version together from many parts, old and new, to get something to publish. It’s far from perfect, and disappointing. The lather based on high expectations (set by marketing, not in the least the pricing) and that’s unfortunate as the game deserves better, Take it for what it is: early access, and a work in progress. Don’t go out and replicate the most complex KSP1 missions. You have KSP1 for that. Instead, pretend it’s a puppy. Watch it grow, learn its strength and weaknesses and remember that KSP 1 took many years to be where it is now.

Imagine Lex Fridman doing an interview with Nate! This is pretty much how it would look like, kinda.

Some of the concerns are legit, but the plea gets watered down by listing known bugs. For instance, Kerbals disappearing after a mission will be addressed in upcoming patch 2. Some of the decisions are clearly in the "I don't like it, so it's bad" category. You're in mission control, you're staring at a mission control monitor. A 1978 Space Invaders font and primitive icons emphasizes that feeling, a retina Calibri font does not. That's a styling choice. Perhaps we get skins in the future where you can specify that, but I doubt it's "generally" considered a bad font choice. There are also a slew of things that are attempts to improve the interface, or at the very least take a fresh look at things, The burn indicator is one of those things, very deliberately moved away from the navball (remember there are plenty comments "the navball is too busy"). Yes, there's information missing, and that's valuable feedback. Be very careful stating "KSP2 is bad because it's not KSP1," which is, maybe unintentional, the tone of your post. Yes, that's the point. At least you're not making the mistake of saying that features are "not intuitive" — usually only for KSP1 players who have hundreds, if not thousands of hours under their belt. In the same sense. a tutorial that spends more time on "basics" is not "dumbed down," it's doing something that wasn't there in KSP1; showing a bit more of the why instead of just how. That isn't to say that the game is perfect. It's Early Access, and to be honest, in a disappointing state. But things are not different because the dev team isn't aware of KSP1, I'd say it's the opposite. They are very aware of it, and trying out new things to improve the game, especially for those who never played it before. There's two approaches to this subject. One is what you chose to, a emotional plea with many stylistic constructs that "scores points" with the audience that doesn't like KSP2. Like listing things that are known bugs, or known to be slated for improvement. And that's choice everyone is free to make. Another approach is a constructive approach, listing what was changed, how it worked originally, why the change doesn't work and how to improve it. And skip the known bugs, especially when you know they're being addressed in the upcoming patch. What's the point of saying "hey devs, X doesn't work" when they clearly know X doesn't work?