Kerbart

My thoughts exactly. I'm fine with currently not having 1.875m parts, but they turned out to be very conveniently sized. Not having a size going in between will be a challenge in th future.

I'm not sure about that. My theory is that the initial (2019) design was not a lot more than KSP1 "overhauled." When the new team came on board they revamped that vision. Now they need an architecture that supports all the extra stuff they want. Here's a fictional timeline I'm pulling out of where the sun don't shine: Take over initial 2.0 project, study code base, where is it heading, come to conclusion this is not a viable long term design? - 3 months Develop plan for what game should be instead - 6 months Come up with architecture supporting the roadmap - 3 months I have no experience in game development but I cannot imagine these processes can be finished in mere weeks. On top of it, these are all "sit together in a room with whiteboards" kind of processes and it was at the height of the pandemic, so that doesn't speed things up either. Of the original 2.0 game a lot of the assets could be recycled - there wasn't anything wrong with those. So from the looks of it, it might seem that the game was in this state in 2019. In reality that's just the shape of the parts and how they're rendered - about 5% of total development? C;early a lot of work was done i between, that's just work we don't see that easily.

You mean they moved it to a different part of the website? It's still on kerbalspaceprogram.com I'm sorry, I don't buy into the "evil corporation wiping out previous claims" coverup narrative here.

You mean these? https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/110-dev-diaries/

Great news! And that's just after one week. Looking forward to see what you're adding next week. Keep up the good work!

The question is not what "should" be done — that's open to opinion and we know how that goes. Put yourself in IG shoes and approach this rationally, which some people will call "cynically": We want the number of happy players to go up We want to number of unhappy players go down With all the issues going on, fixing performance will do nothing for them. It will merely increase the number of people that can play KSP2 and then will be unhappy about it. Surely if there's low hanging fruit to improve performance they'll go for it, but in terms of player satisfaction, the ROI on performance improvement is going to be absolutely horrific, Their priority is to stop the bleeding. Stop people from rage quitting the game. That doesn't mean every single bug, like the "don't use M for ship names" bug, but the rage quitting bugs. Only when those are addressed it makes sense to go after performance, otherwise they will just be increasing the number of people that have practical experience in disliking the game.

I had a bit of an epiphany last night which might come over as blindingly obvious until you seriously reflect on it: the games (1 & 2) are not the same. I was about to give up playing KSP2 until the first patch comes out (hoping it will get a lot better from there) staring at yet another effed-up orbit and discovering that , after a successful recovery, Jeb, Bill 'n' Bob were no longer on the roster. I have one messed up station on a 40° inclination that needs fuel to straighten its orbit. As I built a refueler probe, a bit more resilient to the various bugs I had ran into at that point, it kinda struck me what I was doing wrong: I'm building and flying as if I'm playing KSP1. The hardest thing is unlearning what we've learned, and with what we're used to, and start playing it again as if you've never encountered the game before. Once you let go of those "why can't I do..." and accept shortcomings just as "'tis the way it is" the game becomes a lot more enjoyable. Noodly ships? Don't build flying Burj Khalifa's. Build flying pancakes. We used to do that in 0.20. The problem will get fixed, but as with any engineering problem, deal with what you have at hand. Decouplers don't decouple? Easy, don't activate engines in the same stage as you fire a decoupler. Yes, it should work. No it doesn't always. So don't do it. Reload the game -- while that is a recipe for disaster too, I've learned that when things don't work but should (decouplers, stabilizers), simply reloading the game can fix it. Don't try to do things the game can't do. I have a habit of deactivating tanks on refueller tankers so that precious content doesn't get used. Well, the game doesn't support that yet. Or fuel priority. I can ragequit, or simply shrug and say, I guess I have to pay more attention and redistribute what I have in my tanks on the way to a rendez-vous. Which, by the way, taught me that fuel transfers are now amazing. So there's that. Complex missions relying on docking/undocking all the time, assembling ships with robotics? Maybe now is not the time for that. During the KSP1 evolution we've gotten used to being adaptive, especially when new features were added to the game. We can choose to be a bit resilent (I never adapted the "go up to 10km, then slem your ship in a 45° angle" launch style as I found it unnatural), and at the same time just be flexible in what the game currently demands for play. Some of that you can't control, but where you can, adapt, don't get frustrated with it's wrong — just play along, work with the game, not against it, and hopefully it'll get better over time.

I won’t call it unplayable yet but it surely can be frustrating. Decouplers not decoupling, ships uncontrollable, ships going to full throttle when switching control to them… There’s a lot of potential for fun, but also for ripping your hair out.

Cold feet?

The organic way KSP has evolved led to this. There are a lot of elements in the game that never came out of an overarching vision, but just grew that way. It’s something a lot of the why did development take so long complaints overlook and I suspect Nate was the first one to revisit those foundations and define them. If that led to setting the timeline back one year so be it, it was needed.

Does the part that decouple have a stabilizer on it? The game seems to render satellites with just a probe pod but no stabilizer as "uncontrolled," regardless of torque capabilities of the probe core.

In a universe where the creator of the game decrees that "flying by the seat of your pants" is the intended way to play the game. Which was fine pre 0.13 or thereabouts, but they held on to that for way too long.

I would add to this that mods might also introduce new bugs, further muddying the waters for the devs when bugs are being reported.

For a lot of people here that's totally understandable, but just because there's a lot you can't talk about doesn't mean you can't talk at all. It's not a secret that the reception of the game is... shall we call it, mixed? Even a short message saying "we received your feedback. Our goal is to make you love the game as much as we do. Keep in mind that our first patch needs to make things better, not worse, so we want to ensure that what we roll out is well tested, but it might not be as quick as you want it to be. Having said that, we're busy categorizing your feedback, and prioritizing on what we can and need to fix first, and we will keep you updated on the progress we make." which really doesn't say anything most of us already know.suspect is better than total radio silence*. Did the entire team ship out for a three week sabbatical in Babados? For all we know, yes, because we're not told anything. We won't eat you for "empty" messages like that, it means more to us on this side of the fence than you probably can imagine. * But Discord! Yes, but for good reasons a lot of people here avoid Discord, and they shouldn't be forced to get official information from another channel than the official forum they've been using for years.

Apparently it isn't. That doesn't take away that the lack of communication on this forum from IG is absolutely terrible.

Ah yes, Xenon. Another monopropellant! I do agree that it does make a strong case to refer to an actual chemical for monopropellant. And hydrazine rolls better of the tongue than, say, "hydroxylammonium nitrate"

Nor is sandbox and yet we have sandbox mode. I wouldn't read too much in what the road map is saying regarding game modes, it's simply not shown.

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. They're using that agency because it's probably T2's go-to agency for trailers. All the lawyer stuff has been hashed out already, the rates have been negotiated, etc. The music? I don't think the licensing for that particular piece is more expensive than any other hit song, and I think its punchy tune, and yes the lyrics, match the overall vibe of the trailer: Kerbal means failure, not giving up, and reaching your goal. But it always has been like that. I don't think there's any subliminal messaging from the devs. In fact, the devs are as far away from the people who were involved in making this as possible; it's an external agency and the ones that interact with them are likely PD managers. If there is something to read between the lines, it's this: you are absolutely right that making a 150s video like this is far from cheap. If the plan is to simply recover as much as possible out of a dumpster fire before abandoning it, pouring more money in a expensive video doesn't make sense. So you can draw hope from that.

Because there’s only one monopropellant, while we have two kinds of rocket propellant. We could, Werner-style, name them “Stoff A” and “Stoff B” but actual chemicals make more sense. Ironically, Hydrogen, technically, is used as a monopropellant…

the most impressive evidence that this is The Truth is the total radio silence from Kerman who was obviously picked up by the black helicopters overnight.

Well, what you're doing right now is important -- letting the players know "we're aware of your pain, we're working around the clock for fixes. But a patch needs to make things better, not worse, so we're doing extensive testing before releasing." That's all. Nothing is more frustrating for us tham after the release on Friday morning, being confronted with what best can be described at a steaming heap of pieces, and total radio silence. No time tables needed, or miracles. And don't ignore the forums, please. It might not be as cool as twitter or discord, it is where your most loyal fans have been hanging out for the past ten years. They deserve better than being forced to go to the discord cesspit to get updates.

Memory is remarkably short, and you're as good as your last success. IG doesn't have to knock the ball out of the park, or put in in orbit — all they need to do is restore trust, and an update that indeed solves a handful of the biggest gripes will do that. Yes, they messed up, and released a product that makes you wonder if anyone play tested it even once. But let's not put KSP1 too much on a pedestal. It flew a long time under the radar, and the crappiest version simply didn't make it in the Steam reviews. Life was good until 0.24, and all of a sudden we went to 0.90 "because it was such a major leap," and that would have been fine if it weren't followed immediately by 1.0 and there was pretty similar outrage over how the launch was rushed, half the game was never tested, do they even play the game, etc, etc. And now everyone is saying how good it is. It'll probably take three patches to get the game in a happy state. And by then most will love it, and only few will keep repeating stories on the botched roll-out.

And then you dip under the surface of that and MY GOD IT IS FULL OF STARS

Yeah, but what 1/4 part?

Vigilance about your rights and personal data is ok, but a ZOMG reaction to any time those words get mentioned is not good for your mental well being. Many years ago, a photo sharing website called "Flickr" was under attack because "they're trying to steal the copyright of your photos." Turned out their EULA contained an omission and they updated it, requiring your permission to reproduce photos for the purpose of showing them on your Flickr page so you can share them. Technically they were in violation of copyright law by not requesting such permission, and waiting to be sued by some jerk, and they were simply fixing that. When the whole Red Shell thing erupted I took a good look at the EULA. And surely they do ask for permission to access your name, email and even credit card number. And share that with third parties. Guess what, that's needed if you want to pay for the game. And then they have to hand off that number to your bank for the actual transaction. That's not to say that it's paranoia to read the EULA, but in most cases the outrages over what is collected are over things that turn out to be rather benign and simply needed for the business transactions to sell the game. And as mentioned, those EULA's are boilerplate that cover every game sold by the publisher. So theoretically there could be slot machines at the KSC. The likelihood about that is about as close to 0 as you can imagine though.