Search the Community

i think where the criticism begins is with IG having a QA team and the game released in the condition it was with basic things not working is where the trolling starts. I'll admit i was one of those people who was like "what the hell is this?" "QA approved this?" when i first tried the game. Reading things nate said that "productivity was suffering because the devs are busy playing the game". And i think to myself...all these people playing the game before release and nobody noticed this bug or that bug? I noticed it right off the batt. How can they NOT know? Basic stuff like reentry and all the other bugs makes people think "i paid $69 for this?" THATS where alot of it is coming from. It is hard to wrap your head around how can they release a game in this condition AND for this price? So if you could talk about that, that is what people like me wants to know. Who pulled the trigger on that decision to release and in this condition? Its not even a matter of who...but WHY? I understand NDA and all that but if you could answer that question I think it would prolly calm the negativity down a bit and offer a little more InSite into how this process is going to work going forward. if we just knew why then we could all move on. But see this is the problem.....I see stuff like AMA (ask me anything) but then i see its not really ask me anything its ask me about the pre-screened, pre-approved, questions the team approve of and not the questions everybody want to know. They go around all that. We see things like you guys have to have "media training" before you can answer questions or deal with the public and then turn around and praise yourselves on how transparent the team is and in the meantime the forum and steam are blowing up with negativity about the game. So what do we see next? Here come the PR marketing guys to try to save the day and talk the game up with contests and stuff nobody really cares about they just want their ksp to work. In this post/thread you were pretty straight up with us and i appreciate that yet the elephant in the room still exists. This is my way of giving what you guys asked for and thats constructive criticism. I hope we can both learn from each other

Probably... Actually, I'm gonna hop on investigating how it's done. A fun video I remembered due to this talk: The video mentioned in the comment, or rather, comment response above. Yes, you're thinking correctly. This indeed IS the longest text ever put as a description of the link.

No Mountain High Enough Before I start, I just wanted to say thank you all so much! The thread has reached an incredible 10,000 views! I would've never expected such a positive reception, and your support and kind words mean a lot to me as I continue to write this story. Beautiful desolation, as Buzz Aldrin put it. As the crew of Orpheus 1 stand in awe of the lunar landscape, they are reminded that they have a busy surface stay ahead of them. EVA 1 is dedicated to the crew setting up the first set of surface instruments and experiments. On top of this a few deep surface samples are taken. The EERM for this mission is rather different than the original unit used on Apollo 27. After the blatant stability and performance issues, the vehicle's chassis, suspension, and drivetrain were given a complete overhaul. Now looking more like a 6 wheeled lunar pickup truck, the EERM is expected to handle much better for this mission, and NASA expects the crew to put it through its paces. Launched 2 days after ACOV departed from the Moon on a Jupiter 423-A, the EERM will be landed once again by an automated LM descent stage. Although this isn't the optimal landing setup, it is the only available option as Grumman begins to jointly study new landing vehicle designs with NASA for missions beyond Orpheus 3. Once the crew complete EVA 1, they are allotted a rest period, as the EERM and its descent stage reach the Moon. The crew begin preparing for EVA 2 after they awake to the song "Ain't No Mountain High Enough", as the rover begins its descent to the lunar surface. The landing site is an area roughly 2 kilometers north of the ALSM's location. The astronauts will take a slower pace walk to conserve oxygen until they reach the EERM. Upon landing, the EERM is autonomously rolled off and deployed. The descent stage purges and safes itself, and the crew begin their 1 hour walk to the rover. Reaching the rover, the crew step onto the back, as it depressurizes and allows entry for the astronauts. Hatch closed, the rover re-pressurizes and the crew are able to take off their helmets for a much more relaxing ride back to base camp. Once they have returned to the ALSM's landing site, they disembark the rover, and conclude the EVA by deploying the second and final set of surface instruments. The crew are then given the next 2 days to focus on scientific work on samples and other materials inside the lander, before embarking on Geology Expedition 1. This covers a total of 50km around Mare Crisium, with many stops to collect samples and record data from portable instruments. There are 4 such trips throughout the course of the mission, on top of 3 more EVAs. Each of the 4 trips takes a different direction from the landing site, effectively trying to form "quadrants" of exploration around the landing site, with each GE being dedicated to a quadrant. This leads to a staggering total distance covered of nearly 180km. The redesigned rover holds up exceptionally well, and is definitively a necessary component of Orpheus missions going forward. But after 2 fruitful weeks on the lunar surface, for the crew of Orpheus 1, their time on the lunar surface comes to an end. Departing from the surface on May 26th in the early morning hours back on Earth, they are content in their job well done on the Moon. Rendezvous with ACOV is successful 3 hours later, the crew dock to their spacecraft, transfer all of their equipment and samples, along with themselves, and bid farewell to the ALSM. ACOV then performs a rendezvous maneuver of its own, to reach Tranquility for refueling before the return trip home. Arriving at Tranquility, an anxious 2 hours pass as ACOV is slowly refueled. The fueling job is accomplished by a deployable mechanism on the side of the tanker module that attaches to a fueling port on the service module. The same pressure differentiation process, on top of some assistance from pumps on the mechanism, permits the transfer of propellants. There are two mechanisms and two ports to accommodate the transfer of both fuel and oxidizer. As mentioned, the process takes about two full hours, after which ACOV undocks another 30 minutes later, and gains distance from the station before performing the Trans-Earth Injection maneuver. The cruise back to Earth is rather uneventful, only characterized by a few (just a few) hiccups with ACOV's new navigation and star tracking system, which is largely derived from the Space Shuttle's. The computer which controls the system has a bad habit of shutting down and rebooting itself with even small errors. This will likely be fixed to make it a more robust system before Orpheus 2. Screaming through Earth's atmosphere 4 days later, a gentle thud and blast from the retro rockets concludes Orpheus 1 as ACOV performs the first ever touchdown of a US crew capsule, on the dry lakebed of Edwards Air Force Base. Touchdown, as opposed to splashdowns, are an essential part of reusing ACOV, and will minimize the refurbishment and maintenance necessary between flights. With the first of a new era of lunar missions complete, next up is the all-important first half of the Mars Collection finally arriving at the Red Planet. On May 26th, Mars Scout successfully inserted itself into an elliptical orbit between the planet itself and Phobos, the innermost Martian moon. This orbital location is ideal for planned flybys of Phobos and eventual flybys of Deimos as well. Following it up, on May 28th, the Erikson lander separates from the orbiter stage a few hours before its insertion maneuver, and comes screaming through the Martian atmosphere, before deploying parachutes, and separating out of its aeroshell, making a soft landing on the Martian surface in the Srytis Major region. However there are some major issues... To start, although yes it is a successful landing, two of the instruments immediately fail after landing, one of these being the main television camera on the lander. This means that the Erikson lander cannot return back color images of the Martian surface, on top of the other failed instrument being the internal hydrometer that was to detect moisture content in collected soil from the onboard scoop. Thankfully the rest of the lander is functioning as intended, and will continue to perform the planned scientific mission. The orbiter stage and Mars Scout are also working as intended, and will return their own images of Mars. There is also still a second identical Orbiter/Lander with the second half of the Mars Collection. Keeping the Viking name trend, it is named after the King of Norway during the invasions of England in 1066, Harald Hardrada. The Hardrada mission will launch at the end of 1986 during that transfer window. With these missions out of the way, the rest of 1985 is comparatively sleepy. The headline Galileo launch has been postponed to next year due to an issue with one of the spacecraft's electronic buses during environmental testing at JPL. With that major delay and minor PR crisis, NASA looks forward to a positive few Shuttle missions, as Columbia returns to flight on STS-81E with a new crew to Skylab. This flight ties Columbia with Atlantis for the record of most flights by a single Orbiter, and this race continues to heat up as Challenger and Discovery are not far behind and both seeing regular use. Speaking of Discovery, the next flight just a few weeks later, STS-81F, performs the second deployment of the Long Duration Exposure Facility. Retrieved back in January 1984, it has proven to be a fascinating platform for space science, which pushed NASA to deploy it a second time as soon as possible. This mission is short and straight-forward, concluding successfully after 3 days in space. With all this talk of NASA's accomplishments, the Soviets decide they'd like a bit of the limelight. The world's foremost communist nation has been undergoing quite a lot of turmoil in this part of the 80s. Their leaders keep passing, with Chernenko dying in March of this year. But the newest head of the USSR is different. A man by the name of Mikhail Gorbachev. He brings a new attitude to the world superpower, he stops to talk to civilians on the streets, he is far less threatening and aggressive, and his wife is one of his closest advisors. The Reagan Administration remains weary, but the two are scheduled to meet at a summit in Geneva this November. Politics aside, Gorbachev is supportive of the restructuring of the space program, and pushes them to finally select 2 new robotic spacecraft to be launched by 1991. After much deliberation, they choose the unique route, in order to snag a few firsts. The first spacecraft, Tserera 1, will be a Ceres orbilander (orbiter/lander spacecraft) that will be the first to visit, orbit, and land on the largest object in the asteroid belt. It is expected to be launched by 1989 or 1990 if all goes well. The second spacecraft, Merkuriy 91, will be the first spacecraft to orbit Mercury, the innermost planet. As the name suggests, it is expected to launch in 1991. Both spacecraft are expected to launch on Sokol-K, where its new hydrogen upper stage will be very useful. To conclude the year, as Reagan and Gorbachev shake hands at the Geneva Summit for the first time, NASA holds a press conference to detail its progress on the Magellan mission architecture. It is, in total, a 3 hour long conference, but a summary is published in the major newspapers the next day. Magellan 1 is now NET 1992 Michoud expansion is expected to be completed in 1988 Good progress on early architecture pathways, teams are still submitting designs and refining options Funding is above threshold, no delays expected from budgetary constraints Looking into Japanese and European partnerships Long Duration Skylab Endurance Mission (LDSEM) will be conducted next year to study the long term effects of the transit time to Mars. With this promising update, 1985 is concluded. As everyone looks forward to an incredibly busy 1986. Компонент 1 станции доставлен на Байконур, график запуска остается в соответствии с ожиданиями.

1. The interface. The team had a bunch of nice ideas posted publicly (and probably few more never revealed) but settled for style that neither fits the general feeling of the game (high tech civilization heading to other planets, even stars) but also is barely readable thanks to 15000 different font types, sizes, inconsistencies and general clunkyness of the chosen style - retro pixely text was never good at being easy to read, which brings me to the next point: 2. Accessibility. As widely elaborated here https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/219151-can-we-talk-about-accessibility/ it would be good to have some options, considering that many not only fully featured games, but early access titles as well, have those options. And it's important, if you want your game to be played by everyone without limits their bodies made on them. Please also note that in both paragraphs I'm talking about the style. The layout is fine. 3. Discovery-and-situational-based technology unlocks. As opposed to, once more, the science system based on points. We've been through this already. 4. Actual Mission planner with alarms and transfer windows. I forgot if it's gonna be introduced in FS! but it's nearly crucial for long term simultaneous missions. Since you do have TriggerAU on board, he knows his stuff. 5. Fairings that are actually solid. No more clipping through payloads, please. And some additional structural integrity would be nice if, say, I want to build an interstage fairing and hold the munar module in it. Right now the only place where the fairing is connected is on the base. The open top should also work as structural element. KSP1 sort of allowed for mounting points in the middle, it wasn't the perfect solution but it was something. 6. While I'm at it, surface attachments for the tube parts. Please, I'd like to put solar panels there but I can't. 7. Picking the side of the runway on launch. The other side is much closer to the KSC buuldings if I want to take a drive. And I may want to liftoff straight to the west. 8. Once heating arrives, and some more electricity generation systems.. perhaps a way to turn excess heat from <insert a manufactory process or sthn> into power. Even tiny amounts. Balance it so that it needs to be radiated but when in atmo, part of the heat could be worked through a turbine of sorts. 9. Different surface properties on different bodies. Rock should feel different from grass, grass should feel different from sand, sand should feel different from molten basalt that is solid but still hot and sticky. More in linked thread. 10. I dunno, just some basic QoL features that will make playing more pleasant. There's too many to list.

Programming. A visual scripting system, layered on top of a standard LUA/Python for more experienced players to replace the action group system. It would allow simple conditional action groups even to players that don't care at all about programming, with things as simple as parachutes deploying automatically or lights turning on when there's no sunlight, and get them curious from there. Electric and methane powered props and rotors, along with aerostats and airship parts. We have an helicopter on Mars right now, and it has flown for 65 times already (of the 5 planned), flying stuff, even where you don't have the oxygen for jet engines, is already here in space exploration. Returning from Eve with an air launched rocket from an electric plane has been my favorite KSP1 mission in 10 years of playing the game. A non-resource based and non-lethal life support. I don't care about having to carry Kerbal Fuel on top of rocket fuel, I want to have interesting design constraints given by the environment I'm going to explore and the duration of the mission. Non-lethal to preserve the existence of rescue missions, maybe make that a canon thing with emergency hibernation capsules or something. Robotics But not for props and rotors. Those should be single-part engines, just like wheels and rocket engines. Functional Bases and Stations. Even before colonies, I want a reason to be building a base/station, be it science, surveying, training, tourism, mining or whatever else. I don't want to build a space station just because a procedurally generated mission told me so, i want them to be part of the gameplay loop. Not just colonies, even that small entry level LKO outposts resembling the ISS, it has to have a reason to be there other than "I want a ISS replica" or the game rewarding me a couple hundred science points and then ignore its existence. I'd like for it to be functional. Being able to store/edit/recover specific named crafts. Especially when resources kick in, I don't want my first ever supersonic plane to be scrapped for parts and rebuilt every time it's used. I want to have an hangar with all my built planes, and have them serve multiple missions each. Construction times (and refurbishment) Self-explanatory, not a big deal for people not wanting it, just time-warp it away, but it adds a layer of logistics I would enjoy. A Strong supply automation system. I don't want it to just transfer resources from point A to point B, being able to "Certify" a booster for automatic recovery (and then hangar, and reuse, skipping the construction times the next time you need it), being able to send back to the KSC a mother-plane after it has released it's air-launched rocket. And, on the other side of things, having to do test runs, and hops around the KSC landing pads to "Certify" said booster. Testing environment A test environment of some sort, a "simulation" in which we can test landers, parachutes, gliders, and whatnot in the condition of the target body, but only after we've unlocked it by bringing the right instruments in that environment. The last 4 could all be buildings (or even multiple buildings each), in the bases/stations/colony system for that functionality I talk about in point 5 (A mining rover garage to store your mining rovers on your Mun mining outpost, ILS equipment for the runway at your Laythe AirBase, and a wind tunnel to test new designs...). And, number 10: The color picker. Every other reply here adds it and I'm jumping on that one to. Gimme the hex values for colors, and a custom palette thing where I can save the colors I use more often.

I think the issue with fail-learning is that people talk about how this worked well when the Europeans crossed to the Americas and the US expanded westward, but ignore the massive costs involved in that. Someone from Bulgaria made a good statement when talking about the p-word over on the For All Mankind Reddit. To use it here in the context of how we should go about colonizing space, “yes, the 1800s pioneers were successfully in colonizing, but with great loss of human life along the way. That was fine for the 1800s but unacceptable for modern society.” IMO, I think it’s in engineering where that “fail-learning” is best applied, but a good level of discussion by multiple parties is necessary for ethics and broader goal planning. Soviet space goal planning in the 60s was not unlike Musk’s “we’ll land on Mars in 2024” style of doing things. It cost a number of people their lives, such as in the Soyuz disaster of November 1966. A little more thoughtfulness might have prevented loss of life, and if the program wouldn’t have been so secretive, it might have benefited from think tanks auditing the design bureaus’ engineering practices, in the same way Soviet nuclear strategy was influenced positively by both civilian and military think tanks. That’s not a jab at present day SpaceX by the way. They’ve clearly done well so far, with a darn good safety record and impressive engineering feats. I’m talking about SpaceX in the 2040s or 2050s, which may be a wildly different organization from the one we have now, much in the same way 1990s NASA did not resemble 1960s NASA that much. The Soviet method of management and organization performed just fine for Sputnik and Vostok, but failed when they tried to go to the Moon. There’s a thin line between insanity and genius, and I’m just concerned SpaceX will tip the wrong way in the future.

I’m a little bummed that docking physics is STILL not on the list of things needed to be fixed.. : ( especially since this has been an issue since launch.. about 8 months or so ago. I have reported this issue as a bug here on the forums before. I’ve seen others talk about it on discord. I’ve seen Matt Lowe himself mention it a couple times now on his videos on YouTube. . So I’m confused as to why this isn’t being worked on. This is a major issue that’s preventing me, and likely many others from enjoying the game. Can a dev please reply to this so I know that it’s at least known and if there will be any sort of fix for this soon? I really want to enjoy this game but the docking and undocking is very unstable and has been since the beginning of this games early access launch. Just this morning I was trying to do a mun mission and when I undocked my Lander from my other vessel it blasted it away, up at an angle. Rather than a smooth disconnect and slowly moving away as it should. And recently I was not even able to dock with my other vessel at all. It would just bounce right off the other vessel and would not dock at all. The dock part was previously connected to a decouple, which apparently breaks the docking physics once that’s disconnected.

This is a thread where we discuss and talk about... you guessed it-Easter Eggs! First and Foremost, the Orange Circle on Bop. I have not gone there myself, but I've seen pics of it. What do you think? My guess is that the corpse of the Elder Kraken is interfering with Bop, due to being buried in the rock of Bop.

maybe grammar then talk

yes Talk:Spacecraft

Did you mean: Talk:Train?

train:Talk

In a sense, it's a continuation of my "landing legs settings" question. There are many "tall-and-lanky using landing legs" landers, such as this guy (not mine). However, they are able to land easily (I think) without the bouncing and falling over syndrome during my test. So why are they able to do it, while my attempt failed until I gone with this?

Yes, but sinking ships is much more challenging and relevant. Starship would blow up if you strafed it with an 20 mm gun on an plane not to talk about any naval gun as it would be filled with methane and oxygen gas. On the other hand the military has interest in starship, primarily for much larger and cheaper satellites so they would be helpful.

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.

Hello all, For those looking for a KSP Podcast... So we've been running a KSP podcast for many years (since 2015). Due to one of the hosts previously having some serious real-life issues (me, actually), it has stalled a couple of times. But we've recently come back with a rigid schedule that has us recording every two weeks. I am wondering if this community is aware of it, though? The four hosts were all KSPTV streamers (Matoro (formally MatroroIgnika), TheReadPanda, DigitalPsychosis and AkinesisGaming) on SQUAD's own Twitch channel when it used to run, so our community is centred around there mostly. I thought I would take an opportunity to reach out to the (very obvious!!) KSP forums. There's no doubt that we discuss KSP2 on the show now, but we still play and talk about KSP1. We also talk about space news, astronomy and science after our Kerbal discussion - it's not solely about KSP, but Kerbals are at the centre. The show is recorded live on Twitch at https://twitch.tv/matoro, or you can download the show 'Boosters and Spacetape' from pretty much any podcast platform. If you have a favourite platform that you want us to add, just shout it out. Because our audience is with us live on Twitch, our interactions happen as we record. However, it would also be nice to have some off-line interaction too from 'at-home' listeners. Constructive feedback is very welcome. There we are - a KSP podcast that has been established for quite some time, and will continue to run for some time to come (for better or for worse!!). Just Google 'Boosters and Spacetape' and we'll pop up pretty much anywhere. Here is our Libsyn player: http://boostersandspacetape.libsyn.com We look forward to hearing from any new listeners! All the best, Dan

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.