Search the Community

If the devs bring in science trust me most of the discussion will be on science. That’s more interesting for everyone to talk about. I’d like to talk about resources and asynchronous options for multiplayer but it’s hard to have those conversations not even knowing what science will be like. And, to keep this merry go round conversation going, KSP1 was much cheaper than KSP2, was a new idea combining Orbiter like mechanics into a sandbox game without any prior game to get ideas/solutions from, was made by far fewer people, and had more progress down its “roadmap” over any 3 month period than has KSP2 over its lifetime. When your game is less playable with less features than the prior entry in the franchise, is more expensive, and is progressing substantially slower than the first game yeah people are going to get grumpy. If you then apologize and try and start off with a clean slate and return to overpromising and either under delivering or never delivering yeah people will get upset.

Honestly, I think the hard part about trying to stay positive about the future of the game is that many of the things, that would normally be sources of hype, have been proven to be unreliable for people to be putting their hopes in. So of course we can't change that. It's weird feeling like their has to be a dichotomy, between positivity about the game and negativity. I want to be want to complain about the things wrong with the game, but like many others I would also like to see this forum, if not full, at least largely so, of people engaging with the game and enjoying themselves. It's frustrating when the core problem is that people feel that they can't get engaged with the game enough due to all the bugs and whatnot. It's a valid feeling, full stop. I just wish the game was in a state where it was more interesting to talk about what we're able to do in it, than to talk about how difficult it is for us to GET to that point of engagement.

If people cannot expect an early access product to be enjoyable, it follows that potential buyers should buy the product to support its development into its promised state. Otherwise, why is the product even in early access? But when we talk about consumer expectations of early access, we must also consider the expectations set by publishers and distribution platforms of potential buyers, as exemplified by the warning you get on Steam for any early access product: In essence it tells potential buyers: "Buy only if you would be happy with what you got with no further changes." And indeed, arguments to that effect have been made on these forums many a time in discussions about the state of the game and early access. From this, it follows that potential buyers should wait until such time as the product is enjoyable and not to expect it will be developed any further. So... Are we buying early access games for what they are supposed to become, or what they are right now with a potential bonus in further development? Certainly, the latter is the safer guideline for a potential buyer. But if everyone strictly followed it, there would have been a lot fewer sales at launch.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. After the unfixable Kraken attack that kept exploding the station, I've just lost all motivation to do the station. But that really isn't BDB related, so if you want to talk about it anymore, please message me on the Dreaming Big thread, thanks. (Context: Dreaming Big is a mission report series by me where I make super large space stations.)

I agree, they talk too much! They should simply shut down all communications and focus on making the game, dropping patches and updates when they’re ready. The only communication they need are release notes. Later on if they want to solicit actionable feedback on game balance or mechanics that they can’t get via telemetry then maybe ask about that. But all these announcements, AMAs, dev blogs, bug status updates etc are doing more harm than good. They only add fuel to the fire!

I feel like at this point in my life I have a basic understanding of how corporate culture works and can read between the lines. Obviously anyone working for a company isn't going to bad mouth their product, or their management, or their peers. It seems kind of weird to me that anyone would expect them to. Within those constraints there's so much people can say. I work for a 6-person firm and those rules are true for us too. Everyone came into the KSP2 EA with expectations about that would look like and it's pretty clear the product in that moment way underperformed. All you have to do is look at the Steam rating to see that. I'm honestly surprised it's as high as it is. And to me thats the entire problem: the game is much buggier than an EA release should be. No amount of corporate happy talk or axe-grinding public flagellation will change the fundamental fact of the matter, so I find all the backseat complaining about Intercept's PR misplaced, pointless, and tedious. When we see Nate or Chris or Dakota or anyone from the actual dev team chiming in they're being good soldiers, trying to maintain a hopeful, positive attitude for the game and Im sure to a certain degree for themselves. Obviously they know what the reality is and that folks aren't happy so I see no utility in rubbing it in. But yeah, you're gonna have to take everything you read with a grain of salt, understand statements in the spirit they're meant, and not let yourself confuse subjective interpretations and unfulfilled expectations with malintent. The actual headline, main assertions--no microtransactions, none of the roadmap content on the way to 1.0 will cost extra, etc. are all pretty firm commitments and aren't just subjective interpretations about what "soon" means. I have no reason to believe they'd go back on actual promises. The actual people making this game are trying as hard as they can to push this game uphill so that it can be something really great. I feel like its okay to see them as people and let them do their jobs.

This is very much how I feel (except I don't play ksp1 anymore). Game sucks, so be it. Don't really care anymore. When it's good enough to play (in my opinion, dont really care about version numbers or ea) I'll probably play it. For now, very much looking forward to cities skylines 2 (talk about a different path to release)

If they can achieve this I think they’ll change the sentiment not only on Reddit but also solidly get steam reviews back to mostly positive. And we’ll have tons to talk about on the forums. Yes this is how I would prefer as well. I thought they were solidly on this strategy after tweeting out the apology and timeline… and then they missed the one date they gave. Community trust is low, the reviews are more negative these days there’s no reason to give dates you can’t make 100%. Whatever happened in the past is the past, and I was ready to move on to their new developments but then those new developments were more “promise things” and then not deliver those things on time. Combined with communicating the delay on Twitter, and the update on the new “date” on the discord. So, from my perspective, they tried to start a clean slate with an apology (which I bought in on) and then proceeded to follow the SOP that got us into this mess. All that said, from the poll on Reddit it seems most responding to the poll (skewed by sample selection bias I’m sure) don’t expect science within 6 months. So, the good thing about low expectations from the community is that surpassing expectations is a sure fire way to regain good will (see no man’s sky.) Right now we’re all just guessing, but I hope it plays out the way you think it will. I just, 6 months ago, even with the buggy launch, was having fun (assuming the bugs to be short lived) and definitely thought we’d be in a better position by now.

its just disturbing how little i know about cars. you think learning to drive would be a right of passage. but how the hell can i be 42 and have the possibility of vehicle ownership turn into an existential crisis. im gonna have to talk to my shrink about that.

When I walk home from work, I sometimes look up at the clouds and imagine the re-entry streaks of players coming home from their travels. At night I see the faint glows of interstellar ships burning to leave the solar system. I look off into the distance and in the radiant heat on the horizon I see the contrails of science planes doing research. The park pathways mark the busy routes of my transport rovers. I look at interesting buildings and ask myself: "is this what my colony will look like?". When it rains, I imagine what color the weather is around tall mountain peaks on some distant planet. I talk to AI about space-ship designs, I dream about the future and.. I know that some day I will explore the stars with all of you. Keep the dream alive, keep KSP2 in your hearts!

////////////////////MISSION UPDATE\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ - Finishing K.G.02 - Last Instillation of Methalox - Heavy Tug Drone leaving K.G.01 enroute to the Mun with 32t of Methalox. Foreword: The mission can finally continue as planned. This is the first chapter in the end of this mission. After fixing K.G.01, burning it into a 0° inclination and refueling it. I have finally gotten to the point were I could make a mission to refuel the heavy tug drone that didn't quite make it back to K.G.01, after its first mission to K.G.02. I can now finally fly it back to install the missing fuel tanks. All that is left is to instal the Methalox tanks, Burning K.G.02 into a 0° inclination, and dock escape vehicles and crew to the station. Once these small steps has been complete. The Kerbin - Mun fuel station mission will finally be over. Without further ado - let's get the last methalox load enroute to the Mun. Mission Tasks: A. Launch Methalox glider to K.G.01 and return 1st stage to KSC - Success B. Refuel glider at K.G.01 and rendezvous heavy tug drone - refuel and land at KSC. Success C. Rendezvous Heavy Tug drone with K.G.01 and load cargo - launch mission towards the mun - Success Lessons Learned; Lessons Identified: A. Glider right before stage separation and the return of Stage 1. I have been rather successful in founding a good formula for launching my methalox glider into space, without the rocket flipping and or expending to much fuel getting up into the mesosphere for the first stage to make it back to the ground again. Refueling K.G.01 - which took 3 missions - I tried to find a easy way to land the rocket in the vicinity of KSC. So far my approach is to burn back towards KSC - without getting a AP above 70km (as it can take quite a while to be able to maneuver again once you leave the exosphere). Once the rocket is enroute back towards KSC I keep it horizontal facing prograde. I will periodically burn, while in the thermosphere (~30km to 70km) gauging the rotation of Kerbin. I have found that aiming roughly here yields good results: As soon as the rocket hits the Mesospheres I follow the prograde down, and land sufficiently within KSC - I am calling it a success as long as i am landing on the flat terrain within the mountain range surrounding KSC. Now I had a bit of trouble finding out were on the map the landing pads actually are.. and so far the only fix I could think of was placing a tiny rover on one of the landing pads - I picked the middle one in the hopes that in the future, if i cant land on the middle one, maybe i can land on either ones that are adjacent to it. Speaking of rovers - can we have a talk about how janky rovers feel? My wheel base is pretty wide.. and even though it was I was still struggling keeping the vehicle on 4 wheels... and when it was time to stop at the landing pad.. the result was as follows: I thought it was kind of funny that the rover crashed into a tree, even if they are not collidable. Any way it works, Now I know were on the peninsula the landing pad actually is, which has made it a lot easier to "line" up KSC. Some times the pixelated icons dont help the game - I know it's the style they are going for.. but I think it hurts the UI more than it benefits it. Any way - the mission to K.G.01 was successful and the landing of the first stage - very succesful. See a detailed walkthrough in the spoiler section bellow: B. M.F.R.G. docked at K.G.01 and being topped op to bring as much fuel to the Heavy Tug Drone, as well as making sure it can make the journey there and back again. The journey to the heavy tug drone and back to KSC was pretty straight forward. For some reason the Δv bug - where it shows 0Δv when its a fuel line connecting the fuel to the engine plate - wasn't there after the undock from K.G.01. It meant that I could actually do maneuver nodes which immensely helped the rendezvous. The correction burn of almost 7° inclination was a bit tough for the terrier to perform - I would drift away from the intersection point before the inclination had been corrected, but the rest of the tour went easy enough. The drone was successfully refueled and the glider made it back to KSC - I even had to do a night landing. It's interesting when you only have the map, your speed and your distance to the ground to go from. I learned though that the glider can maintain speed at ÷10° - which means you can extend the glide a lot. For detailed walkthrough see spoiler section: C. Heavy Tug Drone - rendezvous with K.G.01 and being refueled before being loaded with cargo. Bugs, bugs and bugs: This part of the mission went relatively smooth too - I Identified further issues with the inline/shielded parts. Apparently they work fine as long as you don't load or quickload while docked to them. I had loaded half the methalox tanks to the heavy tug drone when i went to sleep, and the day after I found that all my saves were a Clamp-O-Tron was connected to a Clamp-O-Tron shielded they would be registered as docked, but not acting like they were docked, moving independently of each other. How ever I found a fix! The shielded/inline parts will not show the option to undock - the normal clamp-o-tron will. However I have experienced inline/shielded parts stop working if you undock with the functioning clamp-o-tron. This time I tried to make a costume undock action for the shielded port and it worked. I even tried to do the same with the clamp-o-tron shielded on top the Cockatoo on the K.G.01 habitation module, where i made an action group that forced it to undock, even if nothing was docked to it, and afterwards I was able to dock my probe to it. It made me happy to know that K.G.01 is not broken anymore! (relevant bug report has been updated) Synergy Issues: I found out that the station has another synergy issue. While the Heavy Tug Drone grew in size to be able to go to the Mun and back again, the fuel tanks did not. Right now K.G.01 has 64t methalox - How ever the heavy tug drone has 33t fuel in it. Right now K.G.01 Hydrogen capacity is 80t distributed in 4 tanks. It will take the Heavy Tug Drone 4 tours to move the 80t fuel to K.G.02 (which is half the K.G.02 capacity of 160t fuel) - and right now K.G.01 only has methalox for 2 tours. before needing to be refueled - 16 M.F.G.V launches. A part of me wants K.G.01 to have enough fuel to perform all 4 Hydrogen Launches without having to refuel - which means I have to double the Methalox capacity of K.G.01 - there are two solutions to this: Image of double docking port - and extended methalox tank. Solution A: Make double docking port adaptor for K.G.01 - This will double the fuel capacity without changing the fuel tank design. It will probably also look dope AF. But! Every adaptor is 10 parts - and every extra fuel tank is 7 parts. Which means I would be adding. 96 parts to K.G.01 - and it already has a pretty poor performance. Solution B: I make a new fuel tank with 16t instead of 8t - It will mean that K.G.01 and K.G.02 will not have the same tanks. - This could be resolved over time though. What do you guys think? Go crazy and hope for performance improvements - or be sensible and put on less parts/bigger tanks? Any way - detailed walkthrough of the mission in spoiler section bellow: Moving Forward: Now I will return to K.G.02 for the first time in a while. I hope my experience navigating the buggy waters of KSP2 will spare K.G.02 for any breaking. I will at least do my best for it not to happen. Next up will be the instillation of what ever solution I find to K.G.01 - as well as escape vehicles for K.G.02, a correction of inclination on K.G.02 and last but not least, crew. Stay tuned for more.

When we talk about nuclear weapons, you hear 4 countries that show up on that list.. Namely America, Russia, China and India. Well, now we have a new Space Race between America, (Both NASA and Space X), China, Russia and now we can throw India into that same list of  lunar Landings.. This proves one thing in spaceflight.. Even up and coming Countries do have the right to land on the moon. Not just an exclusive few... It sort of reminds me of that old Comedy film called The Mouse on the moon. Where a small country like the Duchy of New Fenwick get to the moon first.. But as was pointed out in the movie , it's not who gets to the moon first, but rather the first to get home.. To get the Prestige. But at least now we know one thing.. We now are starting to get a community started on the moon. I'll be only a matter of time when we have actual bases up there.. Who knows? We might just see it happen.

News of Deep-R has left my SPH design team quite crestfallen, I have to say. I have never seen so many of my engineers quite so distressingly crestfallen. Very, very crestfallen. As Chief of Engineering & Design, I had to give them a pep talk. Here's how it went.

i too was thinking about getting wheels. neighbors 2 doors down are moving and want to sell their minivan for five presidents, and i have the funds. its stirred up kind of an existential crisis. i can get it, but i dont really know if im up for this kind of big change. id talk to my shrink about it but the car might be sold before then.

Its also important to note that around a month and a half ago a community member was fired from the team, while the planned slowdown in comms for summer started before this, this definitely played a role in the recent reduction of large scale communications. Anyways to actually talk about the tweet, a bit ago we got confirmation that the purple heating isnt necessarily what eve will look like. IMO the most interesting thing about these pictures is how it ties into something Nate said a while ago. I dont feel like digging up the quote but a while back nate said something along the lines of (iirc, actual wording was probably very different but this is just to get across the vibe of the comment) "Different atmospheric compositions make different heating visuals. While this isnt something we plan on implementing for version 1 of heating, its something that we want to do in future development". The fact that they're showing off multiple colors implies that they may be planning to release the different atmospheric reentry effects first go, which is neat. Its scope creep but in a way I dont really mind, its not like reentry vfx is top of peoples ksp2s wishlists right now and it seems nice from a development perspective to have stuff just be mostly done and you dont need to poke and prod at it much anymore.

This AMA was extensive, in depth, but still weak, as that depth is on what I gauge are the wrong places: personal stuff, personal wants, personal dreams. Also for the next time, I'll make sure to submit my questions to Kavaeric or Spicat. There's the loaded question about the heat system, which is a simplification of the one we had yet it still comes loaded as "complex". From the thread on the heat system it became clear to me everyone is ready to answer to praise, but nobody was ready to answer genuine questions or respond to possible criticisms or player concerns. In the science question pitting KSP1 against KSP2, that the only answer is approachability... yeah, not happy with that answer. Whilst the answer on the modding questions were good, there's 0 compromise in them, which is a common theme by now, y'all talk about what you want, and not about what will be. Orbital construction: seems pretty basic, he does mention "hundred meter long ships"... is that in a couple giant parts or many normal parts? Colonies: "We are designing...". Bad. I prefer to think it's just a missed form of speech than really starting to design colonies now. Interstellar: Good, a second confirmation that FTL is not in the game. Heat on cold colonies: yet another missed opportunity for colonies to be anything more than set and forget.

No, you got impatient and posted early. I just made sure the pic you wanted to post was on the right number. It was done for you, so no talk of stolen please. TUBM is calm.

Heya everyone! Below is the transcript to the AMA we did with Chris Adderley on 8/17 live on KSPTV. You can find the VOD here. If you catch an error with the transcript, feel free to @ me in a response! Thanks everyone, Dakota --- Can you introduce yourself and your position in the studio and maybe talk a little bit about what you work on? (skyzip4k) Were you modding before KSP? What made you want to mod (games) and how did you know a game you wanted to mod? (James M.) What is one thing that was different from your expectations and your change from modder to developer? Are there things that we're challenging as a modder that now make more sense from your perspective as a developer? (moeggz) As a fan-favorite modder turned developer, what's one particularly memorable or satisfying moment you've experienced while working on KSP2 that you'd like to share? (Heretic391) Hey Chris, big fan of your mods in ksp1 and i honestly consider them essential. What have you learned from your days as a ksp 1 modder has helped you in your role in ksp2? (6ar6oyle) from being a mod developer to a dev on ksp2 what has been your favorite moment? (the_tunnel) What mistakes did you learn from making your mods in ksp1 that helped you on issues for ksp2? (Spicat) Which milestone update are you most excited to work on? (tycothepug) Is it fun working on KSP2 intercept games? (noobyeeter69) What’s your favorite mod of ksp2 so far? (Spicat) How closely does KSP2's team follow developments in the aerospace industry? Does it help you guys come up with ideas for parts or other features to add in KSP2? (novaraptortv) what is your favorite part that you can talk about that's been made? Also, what's your favorite type of cheese? (afterglow79, Discord) What are things that you can’t make too realistic for gameplay reasons? (Spicat) Is it true you derive sustenance and nutrients from reading white papers and looking at whitebox models? (Kavaeric) What is your favorite mod you made for KSP1? Bonus question: What is your favorite mod for KSP1 you didn’t make? (Tycothepug) What are your hopes for the future of KSP2? (Heretic391) What other games are you guys playing at the moment? (Burntout) What is the biggest challenge in creating a complex heat system like we will see in a future soon in KSP2? (_gonb_) What do you like about the new heat system? Also, blink 3 times quickly if you're being held against your will and forced to answer softball questions in a positive manner. (RocketmanKSP) In the first AMA, Nate mentioned different reentry colors, what will those looks like? (Spicat) With the heat limit of most parts reduced over KSP1, how do you plan to make KSP2 spaceplanes capable of surviving re-entry? Are conformal heatshields in the plans? (hakko__) What are the biggest differences you can highlight between Science in ksp1 and Science in ksp2? (Spicat) What would you say has taken the most time in the upcoming science update? (Tycothepug) was there a particularly difficult science instrument to design and implement? Why or why not? (no2tm) Will modding support come in small waves, like how heating will be expended with every milestone update, or will it be a (mostly) one time update? (Abelinoss) Will Kerbin recieve visual updates to its biomes to give it a more "alive" feeling? (M4D_Mat7) Are there plans for resources/guides to help modders mod within the planned game dynamics vs. “modders gonna mod” and mod without any clear direction/instructions from dev team on the best way to make stable coherent mods? (picospace) What are your favorite tips and tools for new modders? (Socraticat) If I wanted to get started with modding, what route would you suggest I go down? (James M.) Are there any features you modded into KSP 1 that you are bringing into KSP2? What is your favorite? (Pokaia) KSP is a very physics-intensive project. KSP is also a game that needs to be both performant AND fun to play. When these areas are in conflict, how do you decide where to draw the line? (funphaze) What is your favorite part in the game (If you have one)? (datau03) What's your favourite step of developing a new part? What's your least favourite step? (kavaeric) How has your work in [KSP1 modding] translated to the design strategy in KSP2? (Kavaeric) How do you determine how much detail and fidelity goes into a particular part? Rocket engines, in particular, are very complex things laden with tubes and other components. Where does the simplification start while remaining true to the aesthetic of a rocket engine? The same goes for fuel tanks, science parts, and the like. (no2tm) I'm sure the team reviewed and rejected a lot of theoretical engine design concepts over the lifespan of the project - My question is, what was the most absurd/fantastical one that the team reviewed and rejected? (Profugo Barbatus) how will orbital construction work with all the super big parts that cant fit in the VAB was the VAB kept on the smaller side to make this orbital construction feature more important (cooling.1200) How do you go about designing parts for theoretical technologies that have no real-world analogs to use for reference? (Seth) What process do you guys follow when designing, creating, and importing a part? What design guidlines do you follow? (isaquest) How do you decide how parts are made? For example, with the Mammoth II, how did you decide to make one colossal engine, rather than splitting it into four RS-25's? How did you come up with the plumbing? (failspace) How will the "rotational" artificial gravity ring part showcased in the teasers and trailers work? Will we have multiple iterations of varying sizes? (M4D_Mat7) What do you think is the most interesting part in terms of gameplay, so how, when and where to use it. (rick_huijgen) Will we see more than one engine per ‘engine class’ at some point? e.g. multiple Medium Methalox Sustainer engines, gridded and hall effect ion thrusters,… (The Space Peacock) Is there still the option to add the non-dynamic wings from KSP 1? (bygermanknight) what size scale can we expect for intersellar ship parts? (mgb125) How is the colonies stuff going, there's been some recent concern on whether launching rockets will be free in science. If so, will that be an issue for progression? (Pugnuts) In your previous role as a modder, you did modelling AND scripting, do you still do both of those at intercept? (clayel) Do you sometimes have to revise your ideas because of performance constraints? (piotr) What are you guys working on right now? what is the priority list? (Benozkey) For features that divide the community, we often hear the argument to "just make it an option". For you, when should a feature be an option and when this choice should be made by the devs? (Spicat) What have been the biggest or funniest challenges/bugs in the development of Science and Heating? (paradact) Will rover wheels be changed in the future to be better? How do you figure that out? (jaypegiscool) what will interstellar travel look like ? just a burn and a time-warp until destination or an animation (.lord_octave) Earlier on, I got the impression that there was going to be the potential for vessels/stations with truly massive part counts (far greater than KSP1, which would choke really hard on larger craft), but, as it stands right now, optimization is not at the point yet where you can go very far with part counts. Assuming I was not misunderstanding, is this still going to be a thing eventually, at least by 1.0? (GigFiz) Could we see the addition of a linear aerospike as a usable part for SSTOs? (NovaRaptorTV) will we ever be able to use any fuel type with nuclear engines, instead of just hydrogen? (Spicat) How will Metallic Hydrogen engines play into late game interplanetary travel (german4730) Are there plans to add light sail interstellar probes? (lunarmetis) Will there be inflatable modules in KSP2? (gordonlemons) Will there be more loading screens? (M4D_Mat7) Could we see space telescopes like Hubble and James Webb make their way to KSP2? Will they have the ability to be repaired on orbit and also collect science the player can use? (NovaRaptorTV) Are there more plans for environmental effects? Will there be Kerbal footprints/rover tire marks, etc? Will there be dust in the air on duna, etc (jaypegiscool) When colonies are implemented, will heat be required for habitation modules in colder environments? (Pleysu) Has any consideration been given to procedural fuel tanks? Alternatively, reducing the number of fuel tanks in the list and/or providing more variety in shape by implementing a part switcher? (regex) Considering that grid fins are confirmed for KSP2, could we also potentially see Telescoping Landing Legs(like on Falcon 9 and New Glenn(I believe)) in KSP2 as parts we can use for reusable boosters? (NovaRaptorTV) Are there any plans to implement parts that would enable underwater exploration, such as ballast tanks and pumps? Great work on the game so far btw! (DibzNr) If you were to add another class of spaceplane parts, what would they be based off of? I can see something like VentureStar or Star Raker, or a something more like a traditional airliner. (NovaRaptorTV) How do you pronounce “Nertea”? Ner-tea, ner-te-a, nert-e-a? (jimmymcgoochie) Does Nertea come iced, or is it only hot? (corelar) Any unanounced features/parts/systems that we have had no hints of, but are in the works? y/n (gallitagen) What's your favorite type of donut? (gordonlemons)

Agreed. But a binary fill (of the capped storage unit, possibly coming with an equivalent reduction in the amount of the resource at the mine, still thinking about my thoughts on depleteing material sources) means both play styles get equivalent access to resources. The player who wants to plan his missions based on what the next available transfer window is isn’t hampered in resources compared to the one who is ok warping through it all. Yup. The ideas are fun to talk about in the abstract, but the specifics of balancing it all will be quite tough. I was never one who wanted very complex life support in the game, but in late career saves I always felt guilty warping a great length of time and leaving several kerbals in tiny tin cans in orbits or on planetary surfaces. I would rather there be some incentive to not do that, but recognize I may be in the minority on it. A “this command pod is good for 6 years, then will be inoperable due to Kerbal death/hibernation” would imo lead to more intentional and planed gameplay decisions. I still don’t think that needs to be in the base game. However, for those who like to keep those considerations in mind binary fills would allow that style (even if just player limited) to not be hindered while, from my perspective, not taking anything away from the other side. They can still time warp as much as they want, there’s just no need for the more timeline methodical style to do so. Make the limiting factors the other ones here discussed, and I can approach advancing those limiting factors with a goal of minimizing Kerbal time in tin cans while others can disregard that.

I agree storage/colony VAB limitations (coupled with ways to expand those limits as you progress through the game) are the key to making the core gameplay loop fun and engaging. I guess whether or not the tanks are binary or gradual isn’t a huge issue, as I’m sure there will be mods to let you do whichever method the devs don’t chose. Balancing all of this is going to be one heck of a challenge tho with the many different ways people play KSP1. Hopefully they pull back the curtain on these systems soon, they’ll be more to talk about with a general idea of how this system will work.

Not sure where you were getting that idea from my posts. The launch cost for a basic rocket should be the same amount of funds, metals (or whatever material) and fuel regardless of where you launch it from. In the early game, metals and fuels would be unlimited, but funds would be tight. So you need all three for consistency but only funds matter. Mid-game, you're maybe launching from Duna. The funds cost of the rocket is now trivial because you have lots of funds, not because the cost changed. The metals and fuel costs now matter a lot, because you need to somehow get them on Duna, not because the amounts changed. I hope that's clear. So the focus of gameplay naturally changes from "I need cheap launches from KSP" to "I need ISRU". And later still you need lots of metal and fuel, so the gameplay evolves to "I need a colony that makes these resources at a scale where I no longer care about them." In the late game, none of the resources for basic rockets are scarce at all, you've finished that part of the game. Now it's all about whatever resource powers near-future tech, with exploration to find it and perhaps unique challenges in extracting it. And for the end game you need that, not just as simple ISRU, but as an automation/colony challenge to make vast amounts of it for the interstellar ship. OK, I'm utterly baffled by where the "grinding" comment came from. I assume you've ever played Factorio or some game in the genre it created, so you know it not about grinding. You simply can't progress the game that way, you have to embrace the new mechanics. And as you do the resource you worry about shifts over time. Yes, I totally a agree that "X or Y" can be more fun than "X or 10X", but that's much more dev work. Forgive me if I suggest that's not a useful direction, all things considered. (As a point of reference "451 games" (a kind of immersive sim) are all about "X or Y" to pass every challenge, and while I find them immensely fun they're so expensive to develop that only a few have ever been made.) That being said, Factorio is a whole lot of fun and it barely has any "X or Y" elements at all (coal liquefaction, and belts-or-bots are the only ones that comes to mind, and the game was a success before those). There's an amazing amount of player agency and choices to make in how you solve the problem, rather than which problem do you solve. You also talk about player choices that skip some steps, and while that can be fun for expert play, a lot of that doesn't have to be designed in. Expert players will find all sorts of skips you never designed in. But I don't think you should make content that, on a first playthrough, many players will skip (other than easter-egg type stuff), because again that's an expensive approach. Limited dev resources are usually better spent making content that all players will see. Of course, KSP does have replay value, so it wouldn't be a waste, but to me any sort of (designed-in) "alternate path" stuff should be added after the game is finished. It makes good DLC/expansion content, after all. But there is some "X or Y" in this approach and even a bit of "skip" choices, in that at each transition point between "how do I produce enough Resource A" and "how do I produce enough Resource B", there are interesting choices to make. E.g., as you start making a colony on Minmus, do you try to bootstrap that with lots of launched from Kerbin, or lean into colony ISRU and have it mostly build itself, or as an expert player decide "you know, I bet a colony on Gilly is a better long-term bet, and almost as easy" and skip Minmus altogether, There's no real problem with rocket parts and fuel being unlimited on Kerbin, any more than inexhaustible ore patches are necessarily a problem with automation games. You don't need to limit them on Kerbin, you just need something that makes launching resources from Kerbin at scale impractical. For the mid-game, when you're e.g. trying to build a colony on Duna, I would go with simply he funds cost. Lets assume you need really substantial amounts of metals (or whatever the construction resource is) to build and expand the colony. While the funds cost launching individual rockets might be a non-issue at this point in the game, the cost to launch 1000 is a different matter (or as Pthigrivi suggests, time could be the bottleneck.) As soon as you add automation to a game, the challenge becomes about scale, because the gameplay is about producing unlimited resources. Just because you have some unlimited source on Kerbin doesn't trivialize the game, but is rather the start of the chain. For building on Duna, you could try to launch everything from Kerbin, but as long as that doesn't scale well that's fine. As long as launching from e.g. a Minmus colony is a much easier approach, it's fine. Assuming here that a Minums colony would become much more efficient toolchain for launches to Duna than KSC launches, which wouldn't be very hard to design in.

The purpose of the paper is to assess Exxon's modeling with newer data. (This particular chart is from 1982). It shows strong correlation, which corroborates the validity of the modeling. The delta-temperature is zero-based. There's no benefit to charting the CO2 PPM to zero, because that's not a condition that's existed, and it would be discontinuous anyway, as soon as CO2 concentration ceased being the primary controlling variable in the physical system. The usual datum is 1850 for industrialization, and hundreds if not thousands of temperature stations existed worldwide by 1900. I've actually visited a science station that was built in 1897 and had a LONG conversation with the docent. They did some hardcore observations there. 1 deg C in that amount of time, over the entire Earth is a MASSIVE amount of energy--It's relevant. Particularly since we know that the ocean induces a LOT of thermal lag. So, a 1 deg change represents much more energy storage than a 1 deg surface temp change indicates. Independent models being corroborated. Possibly from the same or similar sources, so I'll give you that one. Originally published internally at Exxon for making business decisions about the effects of drilling a new field. Only obtained by the public in 2015. They weren't trying to impress anyone, and the conclusions drawn were contrary to the business interests. A manipulative chart would have wanted to downplay the effects. Extractive industries have higher profit margins, and it was already their expertise. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal were already in use, but that required investment, and the risk of moving outside of their existing expertise. Short-term profits and risk aversion prevented them from moving sooner. Today, oil company investment in green R&D is about 1% of their budget. (i.e. meaningless). The source for that is a recent TED talk by Al Gore, which you may not respect as a source, but I'm comfortable with him getting basic company-provided numbers correct. See the above. My unsupported conspiracy theory involves oil as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire Renewables are much easier to decentralize and don't provide the same opportunities for control. This is fair and possible, but not necessarily true. The argument is, "Can you get data that's more precise than the precision of the instruments, and is it fair to report it as such?" The answer is definitely yes. Many depleted traces, cross-correlated with each other. This is much more difficult to do, but we proved plate tectonics in a very similar way. Lots of geological and paleomagnetic observations, and I'm sure many of them were contradictory and confounding. And yet somehow we're not arguing about the validity of this: Long-term and short-term data. Those damn geologists and their AGENDA! They were all paid off by Big Dinosaur! It's a Silurian plot! Ours match pretty well now, and I live in a very weird area with crazy geography and lots of microclimates. That said, "Climate is not weather" We're looking at the global average over a long period of time, not the daily bumps and jumps that are highly influenced by local variations in terrain and vegetation.

That can work if there’s sufficient trust between the developers and the community. If there isn’t, it will just make things worse. A lack of trust is a vicious circle. Any event or communication will be interpreted against that background which will only add fuel to the fire. I think IG ought to have gone completely silent! Just release the patches with the patch notes. People would rage like they do now but they would be shouting into the void. And the patches would provide something positive to talk about. When the first roadmap update is ready, make sure it’s as solid as you can make it, and only then reboot communications. There are situations where “silence is golden” does apply and this I think would have been one of them. Putting developers in front of the community hoping that they’ll put the pitchforks down won’t work, it just drains time, effort, and morale that could be better spent on the game itself. Put another way, actions speak louder than words.

I think I mentioned this in the grand EA discussion- there are many dormant threads on this forum that contain untainted discussion about the game, under the presumption that everything is fine and the game will eventually be completed. If that is what you want to talk about, why don’t you revive one of those many threads? I’ll stand corrected and be on your side if anyone starts bickering with you in a thread that’s actually about something substantive relating to the game that’s not a glaring current issue. Which thread do you wish you could post on?

They post a lot of development updates. There’s a lot to talk about there, or would be if the threads didn’t devolve into the usual bickering.