cfds

Where does KSP take aspect ratio into account? Flexing is just a function of number of joins, not the length of the parts.

The real problem with this discussion is that the devs should have had it five years ago. Even looking from the outside, it was clear that the main problem with KSP 1 development was the constant uphill battle against Unity physics. It was a mess of band aids, cludges, and hacks, and tended to break in surprising (and difficult to test) ways. That they still decided to go with it shows that they either did not believe that they could find a better solution or that they actualy believed the idea that KSP is a lolplosion simulator first and foremost. Neither is good news for the more serious players. Unfortunately, there are probably more than enough people perfectly happy to spend 50€ to spend a few hour crashing stuff around the space center to validate this approach...

Well, this at least answers the question whether they plan a native linux version...

The problem with visible bending is that it is not just a visual effect that gives the user feedback: It has knock-on effects on the physics computation, leads to offset thrust and incorrect heading/bearing values, especially if the satellite inside the fairing is the "control point" for SAS. The current single joint simulation has nothing to do with how materials behave in real life, and the "feedback" the user gets is not helpful: The problem is never that the rocket is "unrealistically skinny", the problem is that the rocket has too many joints. The only way bendy rockets would be sensible is if the underlying physics simulation were a lot more complex: At least joints between parts would have to be some form of triangle lattice, ideally the parts themselves as well. KSP 1 did not do this because they simply did not have the capacities and we (begrudgingly) accepted it because of "small team of amateurs". That excuse does not fly anymore when a professional studio is doing the development.

So a relative deflection of 0.3% to 0.4% (depending on the height of the sensor on the rocket and assuming no flex in the launch platform or the clamps)? Also known as "not visible to the naked eye"? Zero flex may not be entirely correct, but is far more correct than visible flex. Which, again, is not an intentional feature but a limitation of the engine.

The wobbling of rockets is a direct consequence of the use of the Unity chained rigid body system, that Squad introduced because they did not know better and Intercept kept because they prioritize visuals over substance. There is no intend to "teach" or "punish" players for unrealistic designs (otherwise a stack of four 0.5m tanks wold have the same wobble as one 2m tank), there is just an engine that is not suited more than a very basic single stack rocket. Unfortunately, there is far more money to make from a horde of "casuals", who spend two hours crashing Kerbals into the space center, than from a handful of "core player", who want to have a robust game that allows them to explore the system to their heart's content...

I meant to express that they skipped the "souposphere" model that was used in the early days and went to the less bad one immediately.

I think there is litte disagreement that KSP 1 is a janky mess that somehow (mostly due to volunteers who cludged their fixes onto this mess and maintained it tthough update after update) became a success regardless. We kind of accept the problems with Unity PhysX because we realize that a team of amateurs had basically no other option to get the game of the ground. We accepted the bad and slightly less bad aerodynamic models, because there was FAR to fix it. The "space program" part of "Kerbal Space Program" was only reluctantly tagged on on not very well thought out, but mods kind of helped there as well. The art style was all over the place, but again mods fixed that. We were annoyed when every update brought a whole new set of bugs (and broke all our mods), but after two or four rather quick hot fixes there was an improvement over the previous version. The weird thing is that the devlopers of KSP 2 either believed that the jank is part of the charm (some remarks regarding the wobblyness of rockets point that way) or are simply not able to provide a better product. The graphics are way better, but that is the thing that mods fix the most easily. They started with the slighty less bad aerodynamic model, but obviously it is just as easily broken by updating things as the one of KSP 1. They use the same chained rigid body system that KSP 1 already showed to be a liability. Orbital stability and SoI changes seems to be actually worse than KSP 1 ever was. We have yet to see if the "space program" part will be implemented in a better way. It just looks like after multiple years of development with much more than "Indie" budget they just have the same rotten foundation as KSP 1 has, but with nicer graphics.

This is correct, but creating a predictable flight model should also have been done ways before thinking about any kind of release...

If I got a dime every time - a version of KSP changes its prize to $40 - a version of KSP is released with aerodynamic problems on the basic capsule that show that nobody bothered to test flying a basic rocket to orbit and back I would have $0.20, which is not a lot, but it is strange that it happended twice...

So KSP2 is sold for $20 and developed by a small team of enthusiastic but inexperienced developers without the backing of a publisher?

Or even better, to opt in.

But "missing content" is absolutely ok for early access. Content can be added easily, fixing a broken foundation is way harder.

It is not weird if you consider two points: * People who can create an engine that acts as a solid foundation for future development are more expensive than 3D modelers and animators * Engines that act as a solid foundation for future development do make far less flashy promo materials than 3D models or animations So if you want to create a good game, you start with the solid foundation and add the flashy parts later. Otherwise, you create a flashy game, sell it to the hyped masses, and hope that the problems of a wobbly foundations magically vanish (or are excused by the aforementioned masses high on copium).

I have the nagging feeling that the Steam EA rules apply only to indy developers, not to publishers who could remove the Civilization or GTA series from Steam..

There is no technical reason to have a set of tanks with their own CoMs that combine to a rigid body where the CoM moves accordingly to the fill state of the single tanks. Unless you are just trying to ride the coat tails of Unity...

Paying them now means telling Take2 that you are fine with paying $50 for the current state of the game, nothing more, nothing less. And the "I will buy this game no matter what"-attitude is why game publishers feel justified to drop tech demos on the market for at least AA prizing...

Since there were bridge building games in the late 90s that simulated exactly this and worked fine on the computers of their time: Yes. But if your only effort is to tweak parameters provided by the Unity implementation of a chained rigid body like some hobbyist you will probably not get there.

Well, considering that my family still uses the same set of dice for 30 odd years: Probably. It is a factor of 1150% on top of your quoted $0.02/hour, so it looks like it. And no, I do not count things that do not exist yet. $50 buy you exactly the tech demo that was shown, which has less features than a game that costs $10 on steam often enough to consider that its retail price. The other $40 buy you a lottery ticket for further development. Perhaps the roadmap will be finished some day and the game will be worth the $50. But perhaps Take Two decides after the first update that already have the money of the "Shut up and take my money" crowd and it is too expensive to try to develop enough to convince other people to buy. And wasn't the original release data some time in 2020? And this is early access, not a release...

Unfortunately, this remains to be seen. And the fact that rockets noodle about like in KSP without KJR (or autostruts) does not bode well.

You sound like you will be buying the game this Friday. So you will be able to show me the part of the contract or the EULA where further development is promised then.

I knew the inane "But a movie costs $10/hour" - "argument" would appear sooner rather than later. In a movie, all you have to do is sit back and be entertained (I guess you mainly pay to enjoy a movie on a large screen with surround sound?). A set of Yahtzee dice costs can provide endless hours of fun, that does not main that they a worth more than a couple of dollars. In this sandbox you can do nothing more than in a very bare bones version of KSP. And there is no mod support (Scott Manley mentioned it in this very video). And there is especially no promise to deliver more. It boggles the mind how many people are there to buy an empty shell of a game at absurd prices and keep this .. business scheme going.

KSP is a sandbox. The 1500 hours were YOUR effort, not Squad's. The price is for the effort that the company put into the game. The $10 that KSP costs most of the time on Steam is a fair appreciation of Squads effort. Also keep in mind that you pay the $50 for the game that you see exactly now. The publisher could stop the development next week without any legal repercussions. You get no right to any completed game whatsoever.

Yeah, the fact that they still use the weird "Indian rope trick" physics, coupled with the displayed performance and the absurd price tag, I won't touch the game until it is really released. And steeply discounted.

The usual mierdas touch of Squad development. Integrating a mod into stock does never come out right, even if (as in this case) the actual mod author is doing the job...