Yaivenov

I said the exact same thing to my friend when I saw the debris during final relight.

This is exactly why I refer to T2I as the investment bankers. They just specialize in a particular form of entertainment media for their investments. This is also why it was such a bad sign for the IP to be bought by them. Investment bankers simply have different motives and priorities which are typically in opposition to the motives and priorities required for the creation of quality art; the creation of quality art requires that profit be subordinate to other priorities, and that is simply not the case at a hedge fund.

Don't wait too long. My refund was refused due to purchasing it so long ago regardless of the lack of play time or the misrepresentation in their advertisements. Yes I did it through the "I have a question..." real person, not the automated denial system.

Perhaps I can summarize in neutral language. A chief director of game development should be intimately familiar with every facet of gameplay and game design and this should also be done without interposing any factors that could obfuscate the true state of these facets. Mr. Simpson's fidelity to this axiom appears to be in question.

The simplest implementation would be a co-operative/limited multiplayer style with guest players tied to the host's instance, but able to look around and take control of specific kerbals or craft within the physics rendering area. Time warp is controlled by host and use is deconflicted through player communication.

I'd be interesting in knowing how many players would have never purchased KSP2 if they had known it was a rip and not a rebuild. I certainly would not have.

It would seem like one of the motivations for secrecy was to conceal the fact KSP2 was a straight rip of KSP1 rather than a ground up rebuild; something the entire community of KSP1 knew needed to happen for any real advancement/expansion of the game mechanics. Any communication between subject matter experts like HarvestR, LGG, Scott Manley, et alii would have immediately revealed this fact and communication of such to the community would likely result in reduced sales of KSP2.

Choosing a creative director with a track record of making grandiose promises and then not delivering was the second (huge) red flag. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Nate Simpson has I believe three different failed game titles to his name with KSP2 making his fourth. One more failed project and he'll be an Incompetence Ace. The first red flag was when an investment bank bought the IP.

Indeed. Gabe for president?

The part that truly upsets me the most is the disruption to the KSP community and KSP1 playership. KSP2 didn't just flop. It also split the community against each other and drove away many people.

Valve putting an income cap on the early access program might be a fix. As in if the sum gross income of the studio and all associated parent corporations exceed a threshold they may not use Steam EA.

Full disclosure: bought KSP2 for $50 when it came out. Unplayable. Sat on it expecting development. Tried again after updates. Still unplayable. 4.8 hours total game time since purchase 15 months ago Finally requested a refund citing several reasons (especially the violation of EA policy by making explicit claims of future development) but I definitely mentioned the closure of the developer studio. The response? Lilian directed me to contact the developers. Yeah. Thanks Lilian.

Not wrong. I'd only believe the sincerity of the likes of Manley or Dodd. People who were rocket nerds first and just happened to fall into influencing.

Quite. With the now-indefinitely-delayed interstellar features of KSP2 I am now once again eyeballing whether or not I can somehow merge Interstellar Extended into my V1.23.3 RSS/RO/RP-1 build. Would anyone happen to know if there have been any major compatibility efforts in the last year?

I think an apt description of what KSP2 should have been would be the "optimization of the KSP1 physics and feature code on an improved engine allowing the implementation of features not feasible in the original program." Or at least that's what I always seemed to infer from the developer's statements. Logically, the very first thing they'd need to do would be to hammer down a fully functional and streamlined physics system, ie. KSP1 without the Kraken as all else would be living within that system, and then conjoin it with a likewise optimized graphics system. All else, art assets, feature code, etc. comes after these two most critical functions of the program are established. And it just doesn't seem like they got there with those aspects thus hamstringing all other development. I postulate that they perhaps didn't have enough math skills for those two tasks. Who were the coders assigned to this task, what is their level of mathematical literacy?

Not if I were to maintain a pretense of development in order to avoid being sued by Valve, the customers, or the FTC for outright fraud. Release a pre-alpha tech demo (that was supposed to release as a full game) as an early access game while also firing the entire staff? Very obvious they weren't going to finish the development, very obvious cash grab with a said unfinished product, very obvious lawsuit. But, realize you have a pile of garbage on your hands that will never even equal its prequel let alone exceed it, and you've already sunk a boatload of money into it, what do you do? The answer is dump it on the market as "early access", string along the development at life-support pace for a while, after a sufficient period of time then lay off the useless dev team, transfer the product to a one-person maintenance staff, and forget about it. Maybe some more sales will slowly trickle in from unwitting consumers, maybe not, but now they can focus their corporate profiteering attentions on their next victim/cash cow.

It is my opinion that the Early Access release was a cash grab executed when it became obvious they were never going to complete the project. It was just an attempt to ameliorate their financial losses.

Around 180k.

That move screams to me "loss recovery," aka damage control. T2 had spent years worth of development and had nothing significant to show for it, so they ordered the tech-demo released "early access" to recoup some money before shelving the failure and moving on to the next IP.

Is the center of pressure (lift) moving forward of the center of mass when you do this? Try looking at it in the VAB with the boosters off and the core at partial load.

I am attempting to find the real life fission reactors for space craft. The Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators are right where they're supposed to be but I can't find the fission reactor generators: SNAP-10a, BES-5, TOPAZ, TOPAZ-II? Is there a mod I'm missing or have the configuration files for thermionic reactors just not yet been written?

Why are you so good to us? ETA: after reviewing Bob's Panic Box I find it does what I have already managed to do in a slimmer format but it does not feature the mode switching I am seeking to achieve: The ability to change which action groups the abort executes during flight based on preset parameters.

First off, thanks for maintaining this mod, I use it extensively for automating my launch vehicles and the versatility is wonderful. At the moment I working on implementing a multi mode abort system utilizing this system but there seems to be a mission link: a relay that can be disabled. The purpose of the relay would serve as an interface between the abort command button (backspace) and multiple abort options which are arranged in extended action groups so that only one of them is activated; one relay is on, three are off, all four of these relays are commanded by [backspace] to execute, but only those which are on would actually execute the command relay to the appropriate action group. The abort modes and switching I'm trying to implement: Launch command begins startup procedures, Switch to Mode 0. If engine failure, execute: Mode 0 - Pad Static Abort: Shut down S-1 engines, shutdown ascent guidance, Switch to Mode 0.5 If catastrophic failure, execute: (engine explodes, sympathetic detonations, etc.) Mode 0.5 - Pad LES Abort: Fire LES motors, decouple service module Launch clamp release, Switch to Mode 1. If engine out causes <1.1 TWR, or catastrophic failure, execute: Mode 1 - S-1 LES Abort: Shut down S-1 engines, shutdown ascent guidance, fire LES motors, decouple SM, activate 5 second delay on S-1/2 Range Safety Device Staging to S-2, Switch to Mode 2. If catastrophic failure, or more than one engine fails, execute: Mode 2 - S-2 LES Abort: Shut down S-2 engines, shutdown ascent guidance, fire LES motors, decouple SM, activate 5 second delay on S-2 Range Safety Device Velocity/altitude exceed LES/CM survivability, Jetison LES, Switch to Mode 3. If catastrophic failure, or more than one engine fails, execute: Mode 3 - S-2 Stage Abort (To Orbit): Shut down S-2 engines, execute early staging I have managed to arrange for all of the above, but the only thing I have not be able to achieve is selective command forwarding, so for now [backspace] is basically permanently locked to mode 1 and the others get assigned to number keys. ETA: The timer block would work just fine if I could use action groups to switch its ability to function on and off.

As a navigation aid would it be possible to add a feature to the flight planner to display markers for lagranian points based on frame selection?

Yes! As a difficulty option though. Maybe an intermediate cosmetic-only setting of a cracked and leaking visor too.