Search the Community

I can actually recommend a really good podcast on spotify on the topic of space race. I am currently halfway through it, it is really detailed while being easy to understand. They talk there about USA and the soviets. https://open.spotify.com/show/28QHTa6Asoh6ETNZ6dNtSB?si=MWSwXZSaRrGgeW3VoDXrhA

My take on this FWIW: the player should have to be able to fly a pod to orbit and back before being able to lock to pro/retrograde. But then the player shouldn't need to do it with every pilot. They debrief, they talk among themselves. They build a better simulator. A player should have to be able to dock to prove they can do it - just like Gemini did. A player should be able to land on Mun. Perhaps don't make the process as long-winded as KSP1. But the player shouldn't get all the aids at the initial stages. The Soviet and American space programs didn't. They had to go work it out for themselves.

That sucks, I have had to deal with people like that. It's not your or your friend's fault. It's theirs. File an incident report and talk to the office and counselor. Do your best friend's parents/or guardian(s) know/believe that they wouldn't say any of that type of stuff? If trying to convince the adults is a good option, do it. Whatever you do, don't overreact. Be the bigger person. Don't go after them. You could try to probe them, but that probably won't work. I really, really, REALLY, want to give those girls a piece of my mind. Why can't people just be nice to each other?

Dude, you've still got a chance; go talk to admin ASAP!

Half-Life 2 was amazing for the time, it also was one of the most expected games of its era whilst still being retro-compatible enough thanks to its wide array of settings. It got a 96 on metacritic and an almost ubiquitous 100/100 from multiple publications. It was another momentous genre-defining game like the original. Half-Life being a super linear shooter meant the sequel was well received as just that again and a continuation of the story. In fact, I did say this before: Singleplayer shooters can get away with little to no evolution as what you want from them is a continuation to the story and to shoot some new stuff. The only thing that went wrong with HL2 was the multiplayer component, but that's because the prequel's was such a globally acclaimed giant that it's still alive to this day (and I'm confident there's at least an order of magnitude more players from third world countries that are not on Steam for reasons). As for Prince of Persia, I only ever played the DOS/Sega original, and a demo for Prince of Persia 2 on DOS, so can't talk about the trilogy.

social networking (not media) was a good idea. myspace was superior to facebook in every conceivable way, you could personalize your page, you could talk to people in your own town, you could meet new people. i got dates, nsas, discovered local bands. the site monetized itself only as much as it needed to exist. facebook in comparison is a sterile dumping ground for ideological propaganda and an engine for divisiveness. you dont meet new people, no, they demand you pony up your contacts and force feed you spam while you wait for friend requests and likes. it does the exact opposite of what myspace did and made it too corporate to boot. i only have a facebook to use my vr headset, i have 3 people who asked to be my friends and never said another word, it wouldn't be so bad, but i know two of them personally. i guess you are supposed to communicate by posting memes and ideology and it sorts you to your designated echo chamber. other platforms ive not really used. its just not worth it. i think i have a reddit that i dont use, dont have twitter, idk if youtube counts but i mostly watch it as a tv alternative. tik tok is pure narcissism and i avoid it like the plague. especially the phone screen format. i remember when they came out with the hdtv standards and proclaimed a 16:9 display optimal for human vision, so it really pains me to see people using screens the wrong way around. dont much like youtube's copycatting either. of course when humans are given multiple options for what to use, they always pick the worst one (qwerty, bluetooth, touchscreens, discord). tech companies are the worst. much of the products offered are last decade's features with this decade's bovine excrement. marketing solutions to long solved problems. oh and you need an account, a pc, and a smart phone and sign away all your personal data to use the service. even if you pony up you are still the product. a decade prior you go to a store pick the product off the shelf and pay anonymously with cash, no accounts on external servers. i really miss those days.

Yeah hard to talk about this without digging into the P word. Im just looking at total system efficiency and how the question 'who's paying?' affects what does and doesn't happen and who the real beneficiaries end up being.

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

Really? I seem to recall that this was in Nate's "I'd love to do that but" bin. Do you have a source? Have any mechanics related to them been confirmed? Same thing here? I don't mean to rain on your parade but it does seem to me that you're drawing rather large inferences from a few things that have been confirmed -- to get from gravity rings to simulating kerbal bone strength and requiring medics is a pretty big leap! What I mean is -- it's fun to speculate about what might be in the game, or talk about stuff that you'd like to be in the game, but I think it's super important to keep the distinctions clear, otherwise you're just imagining a version of a game that'll never happen and set yourself (and anyone who gets drawn in) up for a big disappointment!

Talk about a precision landing.

10/10 just a great person to talk to also i am part of the ksp forums folklore lol

What's there to talk about? Blackrack's immense work for sure, but other than that? Yeah, there's gonna be easter eggs, and mountains. The rover doesn't seem to have anything new on it, or anything you could look at and say "wow they added that to the game!?!?!" The whole concept of POIs doesn't really add much to the gameplay.

Of all people, you're the one to say it Who are you and what have you done with Vl3d? This place is boiling at any sign of dev activity for the last 3 years and now there isn't much to talk about I'm speechless

Not much to talk about - it looks stunning. I'm excited for the new way Kerbol is rendered.

Nah, you just can't find a sample that agrees with your view and thus are ready to think everyone else is just a groupthink. Again, the subreddit has 1.5 million followers. If you wanna assume they're a hivemind and not viable as a sample because reasons when they represent almost 30% of the entire market share this game has the hope of achieving, then there's nothing to talk about, you're not interested in representativeness, just pushing a point that's completely not based on reality. It's an option, you're not forced to skip the entire system. Meanwhile KSP2 skips the whole system for you.

I know the feeling Sometimes you've just gotta go out on a limb and out of the comfort bubble and make a friend or two! That's what I did and I've got folks to talk to in every one of my 6 classes. In any eventuality, I'm glad that the forums can provide some solace and relief

Well, the devblog has it right there, so you can compare the intricate system in KSP1, which worked to take into account the transfer between parts, and thus by nature the distance to heat dissipating parts, and also naturally by that simulation you'd have gradual buildup of unattended excess heat. Now literally nothing of that is taken into account. Also, re-entry is a single situation, and at the level of the simulated system it's just another heat intake point. Well, in my ideal world a sequel would present an evolution on most systems, otherwise what's the point? Also, whilst new features are really nice, Colonies and Interstellar have been done by mods, so they'll get compared to that when those arrive. As far as we know, they haven't even bothered solving the sequential vs simultaneous dilemma for interstellar missions (which we know includes timewarping at least decades). Drop the ball is the name of the game for now. Your biggest mistake is thinking prospective customers and refunders are not important, so let's rectify that: prospective buyers are the majority, even if you consider only the people who've bought KSP1 (5 million, vs not even 1 million who own KSP2 currently) as the only target demographic. This demographic limit we'll put in place so that we don't assume prospective buyers are infinite. Now, to conceptualize why the power of prospective buyers on the product is clearly enormous right now, consider the following: Both Lisias and my metaphor are equivalent. The people who will potentially purchase the game are the ones who have the most pull right now, the bosses in my metaphor, the mechanic's client in Lisias'. Why? because what they want in exchange for the game, is those people's money. Now, at this point a lot of people are surely crying "entitlement", but that's how capitalism works, and that's why customer integration has become so mainstream on almost every process, at a level or another. In fact, as further proof of this argument, again consider this: The people that already gave PD the money? In the eyes of PD they're completely worthless past their continued testing of the game and bug reports they may make. I'll rely on your job as a moderator to know this very well, as you know the people that were mad at the 20% discount were the ones who'd already paid, and the people who were mad that Nate "came down" (because they couldn't say it without being despective) to talk to refunders and the people "mocking him and his product instead of those supporting him" were the ones who'd already paid.

I think the thermal system is a good example of why they shouldn’t talk about their systems. The “it’s a downgrade” meme has already caught on, without any of us having seen how much difference removing heat transfer between parts actually makes in practice. (My guess: not a whole lot.) (I also think it’s a classic case of a trade-off: simplifying the system made it a lot less computationally expensive, which makes it possible to simulate thermals for all craft and colonies whether focused or not, which makes it possible to support entirely new user stories — like heat management for a base that’s shadowed by a crater rim a part of the time. Dismissing it out of hand as a downgrade is clearly premature.)

Exactly. We see parts and screengrabs designed to send some of us on deep dives and drive speculative discussions. We get the odd little hint, but overall no spoilers. Some of the older dev diaries did good deep dives on things like calculating orbits, but we haven’t had that level of peek under the hood in some time. So what would be insightful? A bit more technical depth on what they’ve got planned (remember the talk around metallic hydrogen a few years back?), perhaps. Some more transparency on how the foundational work is driving progress on the milestones, maybe. Info that might stifle some of the wilder-eyed speculation - if we’d had better comms around the roadmap and how they were planning on delivering it this place might have been more liveable. Look at how much better things have become since they announced For Science!.

I like Corsair. @Nukecan talk more about the 'flavors' of PSUs. He's got higher standards than I do.

That actually defines the bug. There were variants (or perhaps differing ways of explaining the same phenomena) but essentially, you get a craft into orbit (know that it has a set PE and AP both in space) then go do something else. When you return to the ship now you discover there is no orbit and you're on a steep dive to the planetary body. IIRC there was some talk about this occurring whenever said orbit was below a certain altitude (a generous one; like 50km for Minmus or something). Needless to say, it was widely reported and bemoaned months ago.

I think we (as a community) need to get off that "Four years!" thing. It is very obvious (at least to me) that the game that was advertised by Star Theory is a very different thing than was chosen by IG to be developed. This mismatch of expectations is likely EXACTLY why the transition was made. Sure, it would be great to hear some honest explanation - but they likely, legally, cannot talk about it. So when we gripe about 2020 - I think we're being both unfair and unrealistic. ... Having said that, I do think a LOT of the criticism about EA is both valid and necessary. We (players) are getting rolled by an industry 'standard' that seems disingenuous. Older players remember that going "Gold" meant a largely bug-free game and paying full price was worth it. Now, going "EA" apparently means different things to players and developers. We expect a largely functional product, maybe with a few bugs and lacking some features. We DO NOT expect an Alpha experience that we have to pay for - especially when the price to play is effectively 'Full Price'. The developers apparently disagree. (Note: this observation is not limited to IG... it's happening across the industry). I do look forward to "For Science!". I may wait until the first post Science bug patch to play again... or I might load it up just to see what's changed. Still don't know. My tolerance for disappointment has diminished greatly.

I haven’t had a chance to watch Matt Lownes interview yet but I fully agree the space creator presentation was worth a watch and very appreciated. There have been some toxic comments for sure, but I really appreciated the admittance that the trust breakdown came from the discrepancy of promised features and the current state. Some comments from IG made it seem (unintentionally I’m sure) like they thought the negative views some had for the game were unreasonable. Acknowledging that they were not unreasonable and how they (unintentionally) contributed to those views being formed was very appreciated. Pairing that with delivering a date for content being added was wonderful news. Now I’m still going to wait for the release for final judgement, but if science is performant and low on bugs I’ll be very happy and ready to edit my steam review and start enjoying the game. Because, as I’m glad they clearly see, the majority of negative feedback came from the lack of progress. Fix that, and you’ll see, I believe, a majority come around. And then they can talk as much or as little as they want because even tho the communication occasionally led to gripes, those gripes wouldn’t exist if the game was fun. That’s the fundamental issue, not communication strategy, and when that’s fixed things will get a lot more cheery I think.

1.5 is a step in the right direction. Still, the talk is just that—talk and pretty pictures. We've seen that before and it disappointed before. I'll be overjoyed if 0.2 delivers, but I'm not hyped about it. I'll wait and see.

I have nothing against hopeful thinking, but let's talk hard facts: there are still a lot of bugs in the base game and the new systems and parts will bring their own bugs. What KSP2 needs now more than anything is polish to it's current feature set.