Kerbart

I was more thinking along the lines of Intel HD 500?

Are we playing the same game? Because I do have agency over what parts I pick for my rocket. Practically any video I've seen about "noodle rockets" involves incredibly bad design by stacking larger parts on top of smaller parts and expecting it to be stable. Then there's the unrealistic expectation that a single strut should stabilize that monument of bad engineering ("I have strutted the ### out of it," without exception, shows me a picture where three or four struts are applied). You think structural flexing isn't a problem of real life rocketry? You think that in real life engineers are not frustrated that they can't launch whatever they want? Are you aware that the ISS was launched in many parts, not as a single structure, because that would certainly have noodled during launch? There's more to getting into space than just the rocket equation. Read up on Hooke's law. You're barking up the wrong tree here. If physics where as realistic as you want them to be, your rockets made of single procedural parts would still flex and break in flight. Just not at the joints.

On top of it, the most laughable argument against wobble is "not realistic" because it tends to be a really bad problem with unrealistic rockets and far less with well engineered ones. "In reality my rocket wouldn't wobble like that" "In reality that pile of metal you dare to call a rocket wouldn't make it off the launch pad"

Ah, I see. I would still be optimistic about the interestingness of the presentation though. My experience with non-(game-) dev conventions is that if you're a corporate sponsor at a certain level you do get slots. And it would be a waste not to fill them. Not sure if it was IG, PD or T2 who was the sponsor but given that KSP2 runs on Unity, one way or another they'd seem like a good candidate to fill that slot, one assumes (I doubt the sponsorship money came from the IG budget). And yes while corporate and marketing will quickly label anything "interesting" (I once signed up for an "interesting" podcast that suggested data science and the next three episodes were interviews from HR with VP's celebrating their 25th anniversary with the company, but I digress), the developer who's actually doing the presentation doesn't want to look like a total tool, so it probably will be interesting. Even if it's just regular PQS he might give insights and what was tried and why it didn't work; no doubt others can learn from that as well (no experiment is ever a complete failure; at the very least it can serve as an example to everyone else).

Well, yes, this is how these conferences work. Months in advance tickets go on sale, with a detailed agenda, as no one wants to spend $1500 on a conference without knowing what the presented topics are. So months before that speakers are requested to submit their topics and the most interesting ones are picked. At least six months ago, if not longer. It's not inconceivable that IG was working on a better system and initial tests looked promising. Then some showstoppers were discovered during testing. Do you go ahead and hope you can fix the issues on time? The agonizing decision was made to revert to PQS because, well, Feb 24 was on the horizon. This is all speculation and conjecture of course. But it's also a good illustration of what have they been doing in the past three years. Working on improvements, that not always work out. And reverting back to the original system isn't just a matter of swapping out two libraries, as there probably is a ton of code depending on it as well. If improving code was only as simple as adding the line make_code_go_fast = true;

Part of me says yes. But from a realistic perspective, and if we want to see continued development, DLC is unavoidable and Robotics is just too much of a golden DLC oppty to release in the base game. Given the hundreds, if notthousands of hours of playtime we get out of the game I’ll be happy to see it as DLC, rather than not getting it at all.

The cinematic trailer takes a lot of “artistic license,” and I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions from it. It would be nice if theyhave chutes though.

It used to be that in the Old Days, before KSP 1.0 even was released, Webec would indeed show blacked out sections where, if you were doing window sharing, a dialog box (even non modal ones) or anything else covering would result in a blacked out box. Nowadays anything running in the window you share regardless of it being in the background or not, will be rendered perfectly. I'll try it with OBS but my expectation it is. Which is also not perfect in Teams, as I'm often troubleshooting and my colleague shared a window, not their desktop, and now I am completely oblivious that they pulled up something else, and they are oblivious I'm not seeing it.

If you get a popup notification, it will show up when recording the desktop but not when recording the window. I know how it works in other software but not games, and the answer is yes — at least in Teams it works this way, and given that this usually all evolves around the same system calls, I have little doubt it would work any other way.

KSP’s history, including the micro-history of version 2, is full of “should have but doesn’t” subjects. That alone is not a viable source for “it will be there.” However, someone will mod it, and it will be DLC either to beat the modders to it (unlikely) or to cash in on the proven demand for it.

When they copied over the codebase there was no DLC and the used the feature set available at that point. Not the strongest argument given that they revamped the game a couple of times since (those years were spent on something after all), but that’s the narrative why it’s not there. I can see adding it as DLC eventually. Where he are going to slot in 1.875m parts between SM and MD is a bigger question. And given how much fun Robotics and Propellors are, it’s a shame if they don’t get added back.

By the time it’s implemented as intended people will be used to “one vessel per workspace” and oblivious to how it’s supposed to work. I’m usually not on the “after three years this is what they rooled out” fence, but this is one of those cases. It seems they did the hard part but never finished it. With the way it currently works my “load vessel” dialog is littered with autosave workspaces that do very little.

Once the patches have lifted the game out of the "broken/unplayable" bin (not my words but many consider it that way) the frequency will drop considerable, probably to 6-8 weeks if not longer. I'm also assuming that right now the team is working full throttle, you can only do that for a limited time before everyone burns out. I'd say half a dozen updates for the remainder of the year with Science rolled out in the second half of the year and a continued focus on bugs and QOL improvements before the next EA milestone is published. Science will be Make Or Break for many, as it will give an indication what the previous three years was spent on. If it's merely a polished version of KSP1 science there's going to be a lot of (justified) disgruntlement. With the pressure slightly off, they probably want to make sure it's released in a much better state than what the game currently is in. I don't like it but you do have a point.

You can always add more. What really needs to happen is that the g-forces of rotation is taken into account. Nothing will take the flavor out of overpowered reaction wheels as the crew stroking out from negative g's.

That's a good question, and the answer, likely, is: no one. Let that sink in for a second. Paying salaries, renting a building for three years. When you're leaking money like diarrhea something has to happen, this is not a COD title that is supposed to rake in tens of millions in the first week. We'll never know what went on exactly but by the looks of it, the original plan was that the game would have been released by now, and the financing of it was likely modeled on that date. Pumping money from profitable parts to loss giving projects is a great way to bankrupt any company which is why it's generally not done. The rational solution is to just shut the project down and take the losses. Between that and offering IG the chance to keep the project going while partly financing the adventure with EA revenue, I'll take the EA. It's also a way to speed up delivery. Shareholders may be swayed to keep the project under wraps for another two years while the developers decide to backtrack certain decisions to make the result even better. I suspect this happened with the project a couple of times, and there's good things and bad things about that. Now they're forced to commit themselves, and that has plusses (we get to see a game) and minuses (as we're very aware) to that, too. But a year from now it's very likely that EA is far better than waiting another two years for a full release, painful as the next six months may be (after that we should be in a good spot and it will get only better from there on).

I have a hard time imagining how that tiny orange piece breaks out of the fairing by itself when it's on top. If it's the entire thing, then strutting the top part isn't going to do much?

Don’t launch a tall 2.5m top heavy load on top of a small 1.25m do king port. Couldn’t you have launched that part upside down? So that the booster is attached to the wide part?

The API is object oriented and there are interfaces for many popular languages including C#, Python and Java.

Insulting the people who are trying to help you. Smart move!

I think what he's trying to say is that while 70°C is a high temperature, it is in the working range of your GPU. I would follow Joe's advice, something is seriously wrong if your hardware it's struggling and given that most of the commenters here don't recognize your symptoms in their computer, it's not unreasonable to suggest that, one way or another, your hardware has issues. Cooling efficiency depends on temperature gradients and if a GPU is running at 120° (you're describing melting so I assume it's way over the 80° it can handle just fine) that gradient is already quite large and lowering your room temperature isn't really doing anything. If it is, something is seriously wrong with the airflow in your PC case, even when it's open. For what it's worth, my 10 year old $1200 hardware (which includes a recent GPU upgrade) absolutely runs fine without any thermal issues when running the game, and yes, I checked, it was one of the first things I did. I'm not saying you don't have problems, clearly you do, but consider the option that it's not the software, but rather the hardware setup somehow unable to cope with the demands, as it seems to be an isolated case.

Is the patch going to be rolled back? It's kind of a showstopper.

The list is surely impressive but they likely got a head start. Remember that they announced last week they were ready to go but had to do testing, and that the initial release didn't have the luxury of allowing for delays. I'm going to guess that the release version was frozen at least one, maybe two weeks before release, so work on known bugs had already started back then. That doesn't take away that it's a huge update, and the time span is still pretty short, just not as short as it appears it is.

It's a feature, not a bug. It's an incentive to go beyond the Kerbin system. Don't build Mun and Minmus landers, build Eve and Duna landers!

AFAIK the only thing fixed regarding physics-less part is counting their mass towards the mother parts

New vessels or ones launched before the update? I get the impression that seems to matter.