cfds

At least since version "1.0", I had the feeling that the success of KSP was despite SQUAD rather then because of them. As far as I am concerned, SQUAD has not developed a game, put provided a platform (or shall I say 'sandbox'?) for modders to create a game from. And that is just not worth the 20-odd euros I paid them. Especially since the they try (or tried) their best to tear down that platform twice a year.

Luckily I missed that, otherwise I might now regret to have thrown even more money into an account that I cannot use anymore without accepting another set of terms of service with a company I do not have any deals with... KSP cured me from buying early access ever again, now it also cured me from buying directly from a developer ever again.

It's funny that buying a game directly at the developer and making sure that they do not have to provide a cut to an intermediate is punished at every corner: No discounts on DLCs like ever, and now being forced to create a new account with a company one has no interest of doing business with. Makes me really regret having supported SQUAD in the beginning. Well, when KSP2 comes out there will be some 90% sale on steam and I can rebuy the game then. It certainly will be cheaper than buying the DLC directly from whatever company now pulls the strings.

The only excuse for KSP1 stock aerodynamics is that the game was developed by amateurs. Since KSP2 is developed by a professional team, I expect a professional aerodynamics model. The "worst" consequence of a FAR-like stock model is that rockets look like rockets and supersonic planes look like supersonic planes...

The QA process of Squad has pretty much all the time been: "throw it out untested" -> "block all complaints by referring to the bug tracker" -> "ignore the bug tracker". Though completely reworking something as central as docking port behaviour for the last planned update, not testing it, and then partially fixing it (instead of just using the old behaviour for old docking ports and creating a set of new docking ports with the new behaviour) is close the lows of 1.0 and 1.1.

This is a very strong statement to make when a patch just enters QA... And the second part is even more weird, as up to now, it sounded like KSP2 was developed by an actual game development team, so I am now wondering, what the current developers of KSP1 hope to add to the proceedings.

Because recovering only saves you money if you launch the exact same vessel again. SpaceX does not save money be recovering boosters, but by reusing them.

Sometimes I wonder if the only job of Squad QA is to make sure that the launcher.exe is in the installer package...

The ratio of "stuff regarding KSP" to "topics take2 wants to send you newsletters about" is depressingly low in this "survey". At least I could always answer "-" in these questions, and, after a long fight, "Other" for country...

There seems to be a basic rule in KSP development that a feature that copies a mod function has to fall well flat of the original mod... Or the developers are afraid to violate the original "only one mission at any given time" paradigm.

Well, the SP is for "Space Program", and the aspect of managing a space program is severely lacking in the base game. So it would just move the title from 66% wrong to 100% wrong, which makes this not really a compelling argument Personally I will go with 2.5: The Kerbals are not integrated well into the game, going kerballed you gain some small bonuses and have to pay with only adding some seating to the craft, but they are not actually detrimental. They do add a tiny bit of flavour, but that (together with the "kerbally" part descriptions) sometimes adds to weird mood missmatches.

The problem with ground anchors is, that including them naively just introduces another node with an infinite force to the graph.

At best, they have trademarked it, as you cannot "copyright" a three letter abbreviation (otherwise you would have violated their copyright twice in your response..) . And using "NFA" in any context that is not flight academies does in no way violate a trademark...

Well, the bug is classified to have "low" severity in the tracker, so my best guess is that they are actively trying to introduce it into the KSP2 code base as well...

The probability that a SQUAD implementation of atmospheric effects (or any feature at all) is less laggy/buggy than an existing mod is unfortunately close to zero...

Why the "vessel categories" are hard coded and not fully configurable is one these weird decisions of KSP development that will never be answered...

A few problems regarding a Space X collaboration: Space X is a launch provider, not a space program. The previous collaborations were with NASA and ESA, not ULA or Arianespace. Space X cannot be disconnected from Elon Musk. [snip] so do you rally want to have him associated with KSP?

Exactly. Career and science mode feel like they were the exact minimum they were told to add by the corporate lawyer to make the description text ("Create and Manage Your Own Space Program") on their main page not a clear cut case of false advertising. There is barely and aspect of managing a space program in the game, they should have been honest and call it "Kerbal Lolplosion Simulator". And don't get me started on the mostly pointless chained rigid body system and all the tacked on "solutions" to prevent it from glitching crafts apart...

Hmm, still do not like the sustainer engine look for the mainsail. The throat is far too narrow for a true first stage engine. By now I am pretty sure that the SQUAD graphics team is swapping the looks of engines optimized for high and low ambient pressure on purpose to troll us...

"Dude", 1.0 was the update were a Mk1 capsule could not reenter safely...

Looks to have the typical SQUAD quality: sensible base idea good details on the new object questionable texturing choices (why is a "cooled lava flow" painted orange?) no effort whatsoever to integrate with existing parts of the game, in this case the planetary surface. It looks like a "alien organs" loot drop from a 2000s space rpg.

Thinking that you, personaly, are fine with paying more for KSP is completely ok. Comparing it to other forms of games (like cards or 5thHorseman's board games) can be valid. Comparing it to movie tickets is pointless.

Could we please stop using this kind of comparison? Or at least be honest about it? If you compare KSP to a movie, you can only count the time you played scenarios created by SQUAD. If you count the time of enjoyment that you created yourself, you have to compare the price of KSP to a set of dice or a deck of cards.

I did buy the game when it was still called an alpha (and paid more than what it now costs on steam...) and there was some hope that it might actually turn into a game that lets you "create and manage your own space program".

1.0 is setting a very low bar, though. Yes, there have been improvements, but you can also argue that a lot of these improvements the developers a giving us from the goodness of their hearts are actually just bringing the game to a state that can be considered "released". And we still do not have a career mode that is worth the name...