Search the Community

You're mistaking style and user experience. Making ksp2 style skeuomorphic wouldn't change a thing on its ergonomics (Well a bit on contrast), same as changing ksp1 style to a more "modern" design. That's why I said it's something we can like, because it's subjective. And no, everything in the ksp1 interface is not logical or polished. That was the point of my post, that we should talk about specific points to take the best of both worlds. (We don't even know if we are talking about the flight UI, the vab or the map view). For the improvement of ksp2 over ksp1 (that I don't want them to undo, even if some of those are really tiny things): Flight UI: The staging placement on the right: much more logical, same side in the vab and in flight (and on the same side than the MP, EC... infos) Important flight info located in one place: the navball (I don't know why those infos where separated one at the top and one at the bottom) The navball to the side: highly controversial take but I'm sorry, apart from nostalgia it makes no sense to block the view with this. At least we could change it. We can grab the throtle Fuel remaining showed with numbers Vertical acceleration is a much more readable thing (a round indicator is imo very bad) Timewarp always shown SAS controls are a bit more intuitive (and icons change when you are in a landing/launching situation), maybe a bit too big though VAB: Subcategories: that's saving lives, so much better to have things organized Size on each parts: same when I go back to ksp1 I hate that this feature is not there Craft saves pictures are bigger, it lets me see a bit more what I'm looking at Icons are more logical, coherent and polished (Also a bit bigger sometimes) Translation and rotation tools squished together Map view: Altimeter doesn't disappear when I'm switching to map view Can move the focus with the mouse (not only on a planet/rocket) The maneuver trajectory is shown and is not instantaneous: This one is less of a UI thing (I think?) but still is much more intuitive that way. Orbit tesselation (Dev diary about that: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/201736-developer-insights-9-–-orbit-tessellation/) No need to double click to focus, but right click and click on the button "focus": I think it's better because you're not missclicking and we can focus on our vessel without shortcut. (I went back to ksp1 and omg I can't focus on a planet easily) SOI displayed The UI intercept icons are better for colorblind: This one is not quite perfect because it's actually confusing to know what 1A and 2A means, but I suggested a better solution here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/215896-intercept-ui-indicator-is-confusing/?do=findComment&comment=4265820 which was improved by Kavaeric (last link of this post)). I wanted to mention this because in a UI we also think about accessibility (and not just make it an option), contrast also falls under that. For the things that ksp1 does better: Flight UI: PAW obviously (but I want both because the PAM is sometimes useful; as linked in my original post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/218109-bring-back-ksp1s-paw-menu-system-alongside-ksp2s-current-pam-menu-system/) Smaller white space in the PAW (The PAM in ksp2 has too much white space) VAB Info per stages (TWR my beloved) When we grab thing for staging, it's more clear what you grab (It follows your mouse) Map view The DeltaV remaining in the maneuver is shown More saturated orbit colors Most of what I want is here and I won't list them all (Even if it's not all of what ksp1 does): https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/217412-uiux-suggestion-patched-conics-ui-proposal/ Note: I probably forgot a lot of things (Making a UI is hard). I didn't necessarily state features that were missing from ksp2 which can still be added easily without changing the UI (like a maneuver editor) so you would maybe want to add some things in the "what ksp1 does better". I also didn't mention bugs because those are not intentional and are meant to be in the bug reports forum and it's not relevant for the suggestions forum. (Like the maneuver clipping through planets or the PE missing on different SOI). Finally some of the things are not strictly UI. That's how I want to hear about the UI: precise point. Then we can discuss what's specifically wrong. We can't guess what people are talking about when they say "The UI is bad".

Take away... all of human history. So the counterfactual with no atomic bomb research involves no WW1, am I right? In which case fission is discovered and people understand the implications (power/bombs), but no one works the military angle because Kaiser Wilhelm II (he died in 1941) has no military interests, nor does the crown prince—who was kinda hoping Hitler would restore the monarchy, so... nah, he's all in for peace, he probably turns Germany into a hippie commune or something. Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia. There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand presumably never gets killed, or are we assuming WW1 doesn;t start for some other reason? So his son now head Austria-Hungary I guess. Europe is still the "Diplomacy" map—but totally peaceful. For reasons. And somehow the Japanese, run my militarists after the Meiji Restoration—interested in chemical and even bio-warfare have no interest, again, for reasons. Sorry, they are inevitable. Not if, when. That's all that changes. The US started because they thought the Germans were working the issue—having just discovered fission. That the Soviets did the same is unsurprising. The Germans might have had more luck had they stolen from people working harder on it (espionage), too. The reality is that fission bombs are not hard to conceive of, the stumbling block is the materials. As soon as people try for the peaceful use for just power, they will get bomb grade stuff as "waste," so bombs are inevitable. Yes, I am counting air attack. I was explicit in saying the Japanese Empire was under attack, not Japan (though they had been bombed, once). Japan (meaning home islands) was impacted from the start (not huge in 1942, but increasing over time). They imported all their oil (80% from the US before the war), and most other inputs into their economy. The war started to capture the Netherlands East Indies—for oil. They succeeded, but they never had a large enough merchant marine to supply themselves on their own, and they started a war with... everyone. Then the US submarines of course waged unrestricted warfare on their merchant shipping. This was incredibly effective, though the sinkings right off the coast of Japan were minor to start. Much of their wartime supply came across the Sea of Japan from China, though, which kept them going until our subs owned those waters as well. Japan would need to literally mine Uranium from somewhere they controlled, this was likely a huge limiting factor. Not to mention they just had so few other resources. Minus ww2, do they still occupy much of China, or does our no WW1 counterfactual result in a peaceful Japan? Japan had already lost long before, but they refused to surrender. The bombs absolutely worked, and precipitated surrender. For many years histories would show that Japanese diplomats were cabling home saying they should negotiate, and that they tried to talk to the Soviets. Books before 1996 lack some of the declassified codebreaking information—now we know what the replies were from Tokyo. In short, "No negotiation until after we bleed them on the beaches." (paraphrase). We might have put off the invasion, and merely burned their cities to the ground the "old fashioned way" (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had only been spared as test targets). They still burn, it just takes more sorties. Course the Soviets then invade Manchuria, and the IJA forces in China that had a fairly calm war, then get clobbered by 1945 Soviet power, which would make their previous interaction with the Soviets look like a garden party. They would have likely been killed to a man by the Soviets, just as the Marines had to kill virtually all (they rarely surrendered), so would the Soviets. Only in fixed, old fashioned land battle, no islands... real TANKS (which the IJA lacked and were kinda terrified of). Also artillery. The Japanese were incredibly weak on artillery. So the Soviets grab up much of China, and the US has to invade Japan (which was planned—read Downfall, if you haven't, great book).

3 cores, three times the number of sensor limits that could be violated. I also think talk of reusability limits being violated is premature. Also, the centre core is never before flown and the side boosters have flown twice. This falcon heavy is a rookie by falcon standards. It could be they've recently encountered a new fleet issue that they're currently keeping an enhanced eye on, or it may be a higher number of scrubs right now is just dumb luck.

I won't enter the matter of the discussion, I haven't seen the video and I won't (never really liked Matt move from good gameplay videos to being yet another sensationalist infotainment gaming channel). But I've skimmed the thread, and I think it's missing an important consideration about Harvester being hesitant to talk about KSP2, or being careful, or whatever is the point of contention here even is. He is a developer releasing a new game, a new only marginally related game with a very different scope and size. Kinda like Obsidian when they released Outer Worlds. How well did it work for them presenting themselves in the marketing with those bold: "From the only true, real, original, and good creators of Fallout and Fallout New Vegas" claims? Well, sure enough Outer Worlds wasn't the Fallout NV 2 people hyped it up to be as a consequence, and they had to spend the last few weeks before release trying to set realistic expectations. Back to Harvester, Balsa never really took off, and I still haven't checked what's going on with the rebranding, but sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game, as it will almost certainly backfire.

I suppose a younger person who might get married later and have someone to leave the money to could err on the side of whole life, and cash it out should they find themselves permanently single. I didn't get life insurance until I was married, FWIW, never occurred to me. I suppose that's a bit like the P-47 pilot I heard give a talk at an 8th AF luncheon years ago. He said that as young men, if during a briefing they were told, "9 out of 10 of you won't be coming home today." every single one of them would be looking around the room thinking, "You poor BLEEPs."

talk wike you are thwee ill go first: mommy said i cant eat the wrapper! waaa

I haven't been following because it's crazy talk. Likely designed to distract the rubes.

You can count me as a hard skeptic on this. I've seen a number of analyses of the 'go-fast', 'gimbal' and 'flir' videos and I remain unconvinced there's any actual hard evidence there. The recent testimony is really bizarre and interesting. Still, without like actual instrument data to back this stuff up I can't help but feel unconvinced. Anyone else been following this? https://thehill.com/homenews/4118340-ufo-hearing-live-updates-lawmakers-former-officials-strange-sightings/

You see, this is the main reason I like to talk to people that previously maintained/create any code I maintain (both on hobby as in Day Job®). There're only a few ways on doing things right, but a huge amount of other ways to do things wrong. The more I know about the later, better may chances on the former. However… My personal experience on modding KSP (and I have some reasonable knowledge since 1.2.2, as I choose to keep backwards compatibility on everything I do), is not soooo kind about the team (or at least, part of them) that took over after HarvesteR departure. There're a lot of huge, huge mistakes and bugs lingering there for almost a decade, and they failed to correct fix them - worst, they created worst bugs and unnecessary collateral effects by naively trying to tackle down some of that bugs. There're a few decisions on the thing that really made me mad over the years. I'm not complaining about bugs happening - bugs are unavoidable consequences on doing new things. I'm complaining about they not being diagnosed and/or fixed. Other thing that caught my attention is he explaining how he found the need of doing a more detailed city to play at - since the crafts would be essentially toy sized, things around should be way more detailed than if the crafts were normal sized. People are going to look at bricks, not at walls while playing! Another thing that I found pretty clever: the use of Cities: Skylines as a Scene Editor for the KitBasch's city, taking advantage of an add'on that implemented Open Street Map I think. I'll buy this game as soon as it is on sale (and the thing works on MacOS!) Take in consideration that he signed a (probably pretty nasty) NDA when he left, and I'm almost sure that NDA is still in force. So, there's a chance he was feeling exactly like that (besides I doubt Nate would be the gunner).

Skeuomorphism (what ksp1 UI style is) is a design that was trendy around 2010 but isn't anymore, just look at Iphone evolution. Imo it's horrendous but I get that some people are a bit nostalgic about it. And about ksp2, I hate when we bring the UI and people are just binary about it like "ksp1 UI is better" and the opposite. Talk about a specific point because there are horrible choices made in ksp1 (like the placement of things) in the same way ksp2 have some (like the parts manager). Let's try to have the best UI, not the exact previous one with its flaws. The UI changes every single patch, so this UI is definitely not set in stone. (Remember the previous maneuver? A lot better now) I find it a lot more productive to be precise about things and even find solutions rather than say "ksp2 bad, ksp1 UI better" which is frankly not always true. Actually, some previous topics already made that so go discuss specific points here:

Absolutely NOT in my opinion. He made so many wrong calls, that KSP1 started progressing in a right direction only after he left. if you talk off-record over a beer or two to any of late KSP devs who has seen Harverster's late days in the team, you won't hear many good words about him. That's not to take away his achievement of the very creation of KSP, but at some point things turned for the worse. That just shows once again importance of leaving at just the right time before your star has finally set for good.

I'm gonna talk about the possible human remains found in the sub. I'll put it in a spoiler box since it will probably be upsetting to some;

@AngryBaer 1. On that I only mean the broadest strokes. Colonies, resources, interstellar (and multiplayer tho tbh that one I’m not as excited for.) The steps and exact vision will be different and no I am not expecting feature parity with CGI trailers with hundreds of ships. Absolutely some take this point too far like you say. 2. This is a good point. I couldn’t imagine yelling at a waiter regardless of the quality of service. And this is why I try and and make sure the object of my frustration is clearly communicated. I’m angrily criticizing whatever suit decided to charge $50 for this and launch in the state it’s in. To me they were either wholly incompetent, or willfully deceitful launching those trailers knowing what’s going on behind the scenes. Either way those type of publishing decisions is what I want the gaming community at large to stop putting up with. People who complained about the developers going on vacation were rude. As far as “where is re-entry comments” my view is quite simple. They know they messed up there yet they don’t acknowledge it. I mess up constantly. I apologize to my wife, my coworkers even my son who’s too young to talk. An acknowledgment and an apology shows mutual respect. My irritation with this situation is 90% the lack of acknowledgment or an apology. It seems more similar to people who gaslight and manipulate out of taking responsibility and lines up more with the “ksp2 is an intentional scam” narrative than I believe is true or would like. A post about thermal systems was the perfect time for a “we are sorry we missed our goal on the timing of this feature but here is how we are working hard to make it awesome.” That line would make me not bring it up anymore. Not getting that line to me is disrespectful, but I agree with the point and will do my best to keep my voicing of this frustration limited and pointed at the right people. It’s just easy to get more frustrated the longer the problem is ignored. I agree that the investment was large enough they will try to recoup that by funding development for a long time. My fear is that it’s already been a long time and the pace of progress has not given reason for confidence. On communication style, absolutely there has been improvement. They are still not as open as most EA titles I have played during development. Most are able to say “sorry” for not hitting a stated development milestone on time or, if they know they are still building a system in the game from the ground up, do not promise it to come out “a short while after launch.” But I don’t want to be a negative Nancy, I agree progress is being made just sharing why I feel there is still some criticism here.

@moeggzYou can't expect the KSP2 apologists to be polite when they don't face nearly the sort of scrutiny that the 'haters' do from the powers that be - and they know being rude and getting people to fight in threads they don't like gives those same powers the excuse they're looking for to lock them. Win-win from their perspective, they get to trash talk AND they get to silence people.

Just as the more determined of the apologists have taken the contrarian view and will grant infinite patience and understanding now matter how absurd the contortions required to grant IG the benefit of the doubt are. Potato potato. Is hanging out on a game forum, discussing an EA stage game where the devs are clearly on their own road and not at all paying attention to the community, a productive use of time for anyone, whatever their opinion is? I personally find it cathartic to share my thoughts, but I'm not under the assumption that I'm changing anyone's mind or doing something productive with my time. You asked a question of 'why' but you yourself seem fairly locked in on your own take too. These have gotten somewhat better, but my sense is that it's more 'we literally can't gild the turd more because the release is the release' When they talk about long term plans - and when you look at the pre-release communications, especially over the years, it seemed like they BS'd as much as they possibly thought they could get away with. Even Nate's more recent comms about how the delays are for better QA (next release - major showstopper got released and had to be hotfixed) and for feature work (no feature work is evident) still rub me the wrong way.

It actually could have been much clearer, but generally people who actually know what they are talking about (which is quite obviously the case here) tend to also know better than to talk excrements about other peoples work that they know nothing about.

This is how a developer who's awkwardly struggling to say something nice while also being totally honest sounds, in transparent and unscripted human statements. Such a breath of fresh air. I absolutely love how he then moves on to talk about how there's no wobbliness in his current game, because even he knows that was jank to be learned from and moved past.

One further note: The current maintainer of TweakScale has not requested to have TweakScale removed from CKAN. CKAN has a strict policy that such requests are to be honored; mods are only in CKAN if the author agrees to it and doesn't request removal. You can draw your own conclusion about how seriously to take talk of "ditched" and "support" based on that.

5/10. I appreciate the philosophical stuff about human flaws, but the way you talk is too formal and suspicious. Of course I am a human, I have passed a Captcha test before.

I just made quick but extensive tutorial about the FDAI (navball) - Flight Director Attitude Indicator. An incredible instrument ! First flown on Gemini, then Apollo, the Space Shutlle, and still used today ! : ) I talk about its history a bit, as well as its functionning, and then how it used in KSP retro styled IVAs, with some examples Cheers

I'm working on a patch that will add fire storms (I asked him how to do it, pretty straight forward in that regard) and eventually fire tornados to Moho (there was talk of him adding in tornadoes & hurricanes, I'm just going to make them fire-like if possible). So patching all the planets in OPM by an experianced planetary modder (I'm not) shouldn't be too hard. Apparently Auroras are also on the list to be developed, it will be quite a mod once fully released.

We should probably talk about colonies and career mode somewhere else since this is about heat. But no you aren’t understanding the way that plays out. There have been a huge host of improvements big and small, but like I said they’re just buried in bugs and rushed execution. Again if you want to talk about that we should do so elsewhere and not clog up the thread.

I love seeing the thought process behind design but, and I mean no disrespect, it's not like we have any shortage of "here's the stuff we're planning"-type posts. The issue that people on these forums tend to have is that they aren't seeing the results from all the design talk. I think what would be most cathartic at the moment is hearing from engineers, so we can see exactly how these designs are being implemented. I think that ties into why people are upset over not seeing gameplay footage and whatnot. Like, it's all well and good to see mock-ups explaining a design, but we've had so much of that since release while seeing the actual nuts and bolts has been very scarce. I hope you (though, more specifically, whoever the people are who decide what information is released) take this as some more constructive criticism. The game has been in development for, let's just say, a while. It's been released in some form for almost 5 months. So I just don't have a lot of interest in more posts about art or design. That stuff is all fun but I've also seen creative teams, startups, Kickstarters, etc, spend so much time on pre-pro and planning but, when it comes time for rubber to hit road, nobody knows what to do next. In this case, I guess that'd be the engineers, so that's what I've been craving lately.

There's lot of interesting concepts out there for radiators and I would certainly like to represent more stuff than just linear things. Look up Curie Fountain radiators for example. Cool ideas! I am definitely no stranger to making nuclear engines of lower power create heat, and I can say with some certainty that it isn't fun (can probably dig up a few pages of arguments from one of my older mod threads, haha). You need a big gameplay bonus to saddle the player with the negative results of heat production, or it feels like busy work. The studies the SWERV is based on also effectively say that the math works out if you keep the Isp below 1800s or so, and the engine's heat generation is fully covered by the exhausted propellant, and while I'm a little skeptical, it's not like we've ever built a functional closed-cycle gas core reactor to check. That being said when these capabilities come in, we'll definitely figure out what plays well, and what appropriate trades to make a player try to work in. It might be that the SWERV is a good place to introduce a player to the concepts of having to add a little cooling for a powerful engine. In addition to what's said in the devlog, it might be worth highlighting a few things Conduction 'resolves' effectively instantly on any significant timewarp unless you are using a thermally isolating piece of kit. Your vessel just tends to a specific equilibrium - one that results in everything being fine if you have enough heat rejectors, or death if you don't. It is more math for the same result. KSP1's conduction model was... interestingly used. The two places you'd run into it most in average gameplay was reentry, where the tools you used were heat shields and service bays, which actually had special modifiers to NOT conduct effectively (or eliminate flux altogether). If you run conductive physics only the vessel that's in focus, you've now created two different thermal paradigms, and a player has to understand what context their ship is operating in to predict their regime. Both regimes should operate in the same way. If your fission reactor is running at 3000K, yes, you will probably bleed heat to things beside it. However, your reactor has probably melted down now and you've got way larger problems. Those problems are the ones we want to focus on. From my previous employment and analysis of these kind of problems, that aligns with mission-level reality. Specifically Systems that are thermally vulnerable are thermally isolated, and tend to be very vulnerable (+/-50 K is the highest range I've seen between difference between instrument death and survival) Environmental conditions are far more important than other spacecraft components. Two macroscale components next to each other don't affect each other at anywhere near the same scale. Both are affected by the local environment before either (this isn't strictly true for the microscale, for example an imaging device increases in temperature while it takes pictures, which could bleed to the other side of the detector array. But even then, we'd thermally isolate them and then supply external cooling or specify a duty cycle for cooling off) I've got some ideas, but the first iteration of this system definitely focuses on cold = good, hot = bad. Thanks! It's important to not go to deep, but also represent it as a real challenge. Good questions! Kerbals don't produce any heat, but they do participate in the simulation. So they are an object when outside of their capsule that can be affected by flux, and have a temperature increase. They'll be thermally squishier than parts, as they should be, so that having things like thermally resistant rovers might be fun. I can't really talk about that too much right now, stay tuned! Yeah this is one of the big pain points of a high resolution system. That goes into player UI tooling. We have solutions in mind, but have to see exactly how you all use the system and where the pain points are. Your comment about inputs and outputs is exactly right - we look at it as making sure you balanced the I/O. We assume the kerbals build their capsules correctly and that they know the heat exchange piping better than you do! That would be a good goal, I personally don't love its looks though, so it'll be reluctantly Flux and temperature have to be tracked per part. We assume that radiators added to a vessel include the piping for a high efficiency heat transfer system, because well, we do that with electricity and fuel flow. It's a similar level of detail. Yes, I took a ton of lessons learned here to heart when we were building the concepts for this out. It's important to make a distinction between element complexity and system complexity, because that's a trade you are often making in any system. If you make a system out of high complexity elements and plug it into a high complexity system, that's scary. It's very challenging to design, implement and particularly, test and tune. Complexity isn't necessarily good, and though reality is complex, representing reality through system complexity isn't always good. A nice self contained example is how parts in KSP1 have heat tolerances in the 1-2 thousand K - though the system is more complex at the part to part level, the result of the complex interactions creates a need to balance out heat spikes with unrealistically high heat tolerances. The core requirements for this system have to cover more user stories than KSP1, and I'm definitely aware that in doing this, I'm always going to break someone's workflow, or create something some players won't like. In this area, we think that serving stories that are completely unavailable in KSP1, like coherent heating from systems, tracking of part heat at high timewarps, and simulating heat items on vessels that aren't in focus, are more important than that. I don't think that's actually wrong. If you have excess heat in space, you can solve it by one of two ways: add a system to take heat off (let's call that vessel architecture) or don't go into that situation in the first place (let's call that mission architecture). That's what we get here. We have situations where you solve a problem with vessel architecture and a ton of heat rejection equipment, and we have situations where you solve a problem by changing your mission. The latter is pretty wide, but that includes things like flying skimming reentries to bleed off speed so you don't need a heatshield, or building your colony near a water body so you have access to easy water cooling. The essence of this is making sure we are representing the right problems, and making sure the right tools are there to use them Hey, that could be a airless planet you're talking about! The point is there though, and functionally, there will always be places where a system will not represent reality. In even more places, a system will not be plannable. Lack of plannability is bad. The example there is pretty interesting because when you dig into it, you need to know a lot of variables. How long is the day? Is the colony ever exposed? Is there orbital eccentricity? What happens if a tiny edge of the colony is exposed? Even if you ignore atmosphere dynamics, radiator re-emission, etc, it's a really hard problem!

The writeup explaining the system is excellent, however the nature of the system and some stuff left out are clear problems: You're trying to tell me this is more complex, yet all you talk about is how it is more simple. Telling me how the sequel improves over the original is a main selling point, and whilst you tell me there's more elements, at the same time those elements are handled in a simplified way, in what's certainly a regression. Another thing that it fails to address, that seems to be too easy a conclusion for readers to come to: how is the heat system not entirely solved by just "add n radiators or heatshields"? Specially now that radiators are procedural parts. Your "shadow of a mountain in a sun-grazing planet" colony example is probably the worst one, since it clearly ignores atmosphere dynamics (hot stuff makes air hot, should saturate radiator output). When. Yes, it becomes more important and more glaring of an issue with each passing day. Re-entry heating was promised as a release feature in the media event, then as a coming soon 143 days ago.