Search the Community

Not necessarily. Do you know the Enigma encoder machine from Germany used during WWII? Someone coded it in VB6, creating the machine application where you pressed buttons. At the same time, he released the source code. Various applications could be developed by reusing the code already written on the rotors and pegboard. An interesting application is that you typed the message, pressed a button, it was encoded with the Enigma and it was passed to Morse effortlessly. And vice versa. That is why I do not think we have to start from scratch, but we have to access what has already been written and talk to those who participated. Documentation is very important, whether written or transmitted verbally.

Vanamonde-stradamus @Dakota and @Nerdy_Mike are also under NDA's, which are probably stricter than what the mods here have signed. And I really do believe that if any of them knew anything AND that if they could talk, they would have already. Very well said, especially the part about other hobbies. I've long put off trying to learn how to play lead guitar, and I have the time to do so. I mean, I had the time when I was playing KSP1, KSP2, Juno, NHL 20, Madden 18...you get the point.

There's a very strong selection bias in these. Worth looking into, but without a metastudy, all you really have is that climate has changed in places that had wind turbines and solar panels built. It also changed in most places where it hasn't. We're kind of going through a major climate shift. That's the reason we're looking into alternative energy sources, remember? And there is absolutely nothing establishing a connection between the change and the infrastructure. You'd have to study hundreds of sites with and without infrastructure change to even pick up the connection when the averages have shifted so much over just a few years. And yeah, the bias in the Russian article is obvious. Yeah, huge "citation needed," on this one. Windmills can certainly cause the moisture to fall out as a rain. Any obstruction to the air does. Forests, famously. Except, it's deforestation that leads to desertification and not the other way around. The law of conservation of matter, that this paragraph refers to, precisely tells you that if the windmill made the air drier, that moisture ended up somewhere. It ended up as fog and clouds behind the windmill, resulting in rainfall on the terrain. That might have been rainfall that didn't happen somewhere else, but it certainly hasn't resulted in less moisture reaching the ground on the net. If anything, the dryer air will promote more evaporation over the bodies of water, resulting in even more rainfall. Again, see forests and differences in rainfall over plains vs mountainous/hilly terrain. Rapid temperature increases we're seeing due to the CO2 emissions, in contrast, have been linked to a lot of areas getting drier weather. Also to some absolute monsoons in other areas, whether or not they installed wind farms. And you want the real kicker? Take a look at CO2 concentrations over Europe, and compare them to the maps shown in the article. Heck, some of these are precisely mapping to the coal emissions from the Germany's increase in coal burn after the nuclear power plants were shut down. The author's just another pseudo-intellectual unwittingly picking up the lines from European coal industry. Unsurprising, really, given which news sources that industry backs in Europe, and the political climate in Russia. It's shockingly easy to lie to people with no media literacy using charts. And yes, the author does talk about nuclear energy. And so do the German coal firms. In the key of, "Oh, yes, it would have been better to keep the NPPs running, but who knew? Now we have no choice but to mine more coal." Germany screwed up big time. But pinning the climate impact caused by resulting coal emissions increase on wind farms is not going to make things better. Rightly so.

It was said that they will talk as soon as they can, but bureaucracy can be quite a torture at times. If they don't talk within 48 hours I begin to believe we will hear something end of June at best. The team has a heart. I believe in them. Something will be said. They just can't talk now and they feel the pain too.

Well... I have been trucking on in the game with the challenges + extra steps I put upon myself. But I must admit that a driving factor for me last year was the encouragement from the forum. As of now its actually not the state of the game that kills lust to play.. its the despair of the community. I think its even worse on the official discord.. I feel the KSP2 general chat only talks about substitute games for KSP2.. and when ever I post something I did in game.. no one seems to care. I know that this can come off as very self centered.. or like: If it come across as that - it is not my point... my point is, that when ever the game got tough it was the encouragement, suggestions and feedback from the community that got me going.. And none of my other acquaintances care enough about space travel to understand it when I talk about what I am doing in the game. So what I am really saying is.. I miss the community. I have decided that once Im dont with my current mission report - ill stop playing KSP until further notice.

Is there anything in particular you're hoping to achieve by being a troll that actually comes out and says "Hey guys! I'm a troll!" I mean, It defeats the whole purpose... And if we read the bit you quoted... "someone you believe is a troll" vs "someone who is a troll" Couple of things wrong with what you said here. First, you are the one that keeps shifting the goal posts and burden of proof. I've asked you pointedly and directly what proof you have to show that the game cannot be fixed, and you have yet to answer the question. In this latest example, you try to dodge the question by stating that neither I nor Lisias have proof that it can be fixed...and then state that Lisias has provided some explanation that you believe is hear-say. Secondly, I'd like to challenge you to go find where I stated that the game can be fixed. In fact, I'll even point out something I said in this thread as a direct response to you: So you either read what I wrote here and completely ignored it, or you glossed over my post and failed to see it. Either way, you are wrong when you say that I am saying it is fixable, primarily because I never said that. Go ahead and look through my posts in this thread; I've got all day. This assumes I'm not reading your posts, but rather just spamming the thread. Neither of which is true, because I am in fact reading your posts, and I'm responding to them directly. Copy/Paste only works when you aren't interested in actually talking. The big issue here is that you haven't even defined what you mean by "not fixable". I could make the assumption that you are talking about modding the game and not the actual code...but that doesn't seem right. Mods may make it appear that the game is fixed, but no, the underlying code is the problem as that still has issues for anyone who hasn't used the same mods someone else has. So let's assume, then, that you are talking about the underlying game code itself and attack this conversation from there. Are you a programmer? Have you had the chance to actually look at the underlying code and analyze it to the point where you can say with 100% certainty that it cannot be altered so as to make the game "fixed"? Have you had in-depth conversations with the actual developers on this topic, and if so, can you share those insights with us? My final guess here is that you don't even know what you mean when you talk about the game being "fixed", nor do you have an idea of what state the game would need to be in to be considered as "fixed". I think you simply have had bad experiences with bugs and just assume the game isn't fixable. Not that you've tried, of course; why else would you continue to not answer the question, other than to protect your own narrow viewpoint? I'll retract my claim as soon as you show me a build of the game that loads in a few seconds, can handle thousands of parts without turning into a slideshow, and doesn't implode if a Kerbal ragdolls in just the right way.

Couple of things wrong with what you said here. First, you are the one that keeps shifting the goal posts and burden of proof. I've asked you pointedly and directly what proof you have to show that the game cannot be fixed, and you have yet to answer the question. In this latest example, you try to dodge the question by stating that neither I nor Lisias have proof that it can be fixed...and then state that Lisias has provided some explanation that you believe is hear-say. Secondly, I'd like to challenge you to go find where I stated that the game can be fixed. In fact, I'll even point out something I said in this thread as a direct response to you: So you either read what I wrote here and completely ignored it, or you glossed over my post and failed to see it. Either way, you are wrong when you say that I am saying it is fixable, primarily because I never said that. Go ahead and look through my posts in this thread; I've got all day. This assumes I'm not reading your posts, but rather just spamming the thread. Neither of which is true, because I am in fact reading your posts, and I'm responding to them directly. Copy/Paste only works when you aren't interested in actually talking. The big issue here is that you haven't even defined what you mean by "not fixable". I could make the assumption that you are talking about modding the game and not the actual code...but that doesn't seem right. Mods may make it appear that the game is fixed, but no, the underlying code is the problem as that still has issues for anyone who hasn't used the same mods someone else has. So let's assume, then, that you are talking about the underlying game code itself and attack this conversation from there. Are you a programmer? Have you had the chance to actually look at the underlying code and analyze it to the point where you can say with 100% certainty that it cannot be altered so as to make the game "fixed"? Have you had in-depth conversations with the actual developers on this topic, and if so, can you share those insights with us? My final guess here is that you don't even know what you mean when you talk about the game being "fixed", nor do you have an idea of what state the game would need to be in to be considered as "fixed". I think you simply have had bad experiences with bugs and just assume the game isn't fixable. Not that you've tried, of course; why else would you continue to not answer the question, other than to protect your own narrow viewpoint?

I've got my ticket for the long way 'round Two bottle whiskey for the way And I sure would like some sweet company And I'm leaving tomorrow. What'd you say? When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my hair You're gonna ban me everywhere, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone I've got my ticket for the long way 'round The one with the prettiest of views It's got mountains, it's got rivers It's got sights to give you shivers But it sure would be prettier with you When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my hair You're gonna ban me everywhere, oh You're sure gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone

I know I've been in a particularly bone picking mood lately but I saw a Thunderf00t meme and long story short I watched his IFT-4 stream and wow. I knew he had some bad takes, but I assumed he was a couple steps above a conspiracy theorist. It is more like 1-1.5 steps above. Hopefully this will be the last sort of this post I'll be making for a while. I cannot stress this enough, do NOT take your space news or opinions from this channel. I saw someone posting his stuff earlier but as a summary so you know better: Opens stating that this is launch will blow up a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money Says they are burning 2 billion a year and will be bankrupt soon (Starlink revenue alone is over 4 billion a year from just normal users) Says the only technical challenge to solve with reusability is relighting engines and that the real problems are economic So many times he decries something impossible because they haven't reached a certain milestone yet. Decries SpaceX for delays, when delays in space are normal, Starship program isn't even abnormally delayed compared to other ambitious programs (SLS, Dragon, Starliner, JWST). Constant comparisons to different development programs, still in "must work first try" mode "SpaceX has not revolutionized spaceflight" although this does depend on your definition of revolutionize. "Everything SpaceX sells is at a loss" Holds promotional videos up to the standards of a full flight simulation Says the darkness in the engine trail isn't right (To my knowledge has been seen before) "Green flash, bad engine ignition" either camera artefact or the metal in the hot stage ring burning Confused by shutdown venting of engines Mistakes the jettison of the hot stage ring for reaction control thrusters (???) "Clearly the booster is not gonna make it, it is in an uncontrolled descent with not enough oxygen left to light up the engines" with no indication of control loss after a lecture of how inaccurate the fuel gauge can be in zero g "As a general rule I don't like gases escaping from my rocket" "Gases aren't supposed to be leaking out of a rocket" plenty of valid reasons for that, emptying main tanks for landing, RCS, engine purge "We're not gonna see inside the starship because it is a completely empty vessel" Yeah, and? Suggests use of AI for writing postgraduate theses (admittedly only for fluff/introductions) "The bright white flashing is the engines burning" Statements during re-entry: "We've lost attitude control" "And there goes the control" "It's gonna go pop in a second" "It's over" "Send in the clowns" "The feed will go blank in a second" "We've lost aerodynamic control" "It's gone" Thinks it is day during the landing "This is falling way too slow" during landing, insinuating that it is just a piece of debris, that's about how fast it fell on previous tests, actually faster because it is still decelerating Does not realize the ship conducted a landing burn, thinks it hit the ocean Thinks the illumination from the landing burn is the ship on fire Calls the cheering employees morons "This flight has shown that Starship is a complete non starter" "Starship has cost 15 billion in government funding" is only true if it actually cost that much and you assume every single government contract went directly to Starship dev, that's like saying my college education cost $15,000 in government funding because I drove buses for the city and used my wages to pay for school. In fairness, he does have some valid points: Validly debunks lack of orbital refueling on the published Dear Moon flight path (in defense was the possibly the optimistically massed carbon fiber version of Starship, possibly with an expended booster) Valid points about Cybertruck, Roadster V2, supersonic electric jet, hyperloop, and Tesla's business practices City on Mars is something to be skeptical of Launch pads should probably not be as close together as they are in the promotional video Does take it all back (talk about the booster failing) when the booster lands successfully There has been a tide change with respect to public opinion of Elon Gets physics of re-entry correct "The top stage doesn't work and it can't get anything to orbit" is a correct, if lacking context, statement (no payload door) "You can't do rapid iteration with billion dollar vessels" is a valid statement, but if the 30+ vehicles they have made actually did cost a billion they would be bankrupt. "meters per second is the appropriate unit for this" The one thing he said I wholeheartedly agree with. This man is living in another reality.

This is a serious topic, and unfortunately, KSP2 fails on all fronts here. And I can only talk about problems with interface, but I'm sure there's plenty more things that can be improved. Plus, if anything, the 0.1.4 made it worse. Look at this Let's start from the top left. The "hamburger menu". Known to exist in most mobile apps, but absent from most desktop applications, except some browsers. Alright, it's a good idea to have a button AND a hotkey (Esc), just like staging does, but does it have to be an actual icon of a hamburger? Probably a snacks joke, haha. Okay, it's there but... it only works one way. There's no button to go back from the menu. Not very intuitive, is it? Meanwhile, a button with similar function (opening a menu of options) in App bar looks entirely different. Next stop is on the right, the GFORCE window. Or is it a Gforce window? Maybe it's crew portait window? And if it is, why does it show empty seats? Where's that cyber Kerbal dummy that devs have shown us ages ago? Anyway, what matters is that the name has a hard time explaining what it is, because the GFORCE only applies to that thin strip on the left. And I think another issue are the window names. Not only they're 8 pixels tall (at 1080p screen), very inconsistent in letter shape - look at any two same letters close to each other, they are not identical because the whole thing is badly compressed, but also inconsistent in letter size and style - for example, the resources window has the title made of 7 pixels, but also the separator isn't a dot, but a hyphen. And the whole theme makes it look like it's some placeholder codename, not an actual thing. Why is it ORBITAL.INFO, and not Orbital Info? Why is it TIME.WARP and not Time Warp? There's no reason to have it like that in a product that's not a prototype available only for the dev team. Font choices. On that one screenshot I counted 12 (Twelve) different styles, including changes in font size. That is the opposite of unified interface, feels more like a bunch of different bits made by 5 different people, glued together to make a UI. We've got window names in two (at least) sizes, orbital parameters (also at least two sized AND styles), the navball there you can find another 3, timewarp window with 2 more, the resource window with another new size, and staging with at least two more. Iconography. There isn't much here but there are two identical radiotelescope icons that do different things. One shows radio connection, the other is Tracking Station. That can be confusing. Also, all planets in the top left list have the same icon of Kerbin. I know it's an icon for "planet" but it's the same for moons. The Navball. Oh the navball. I should explain that I am slightly visually impaired. Wearing glasses, short sighted, astigmatism, recently fighting (without effects) focus/contrast issues in my right eye. And there's no other way of saying this, the new dark mode of the navball looks like crap and is unreadable for me without leaning in and squinting. The tiny, very densely packed numbers blend with the background, the center bird blends with the background lines, the SAS icons can be barely seen against what's behind them. You could say to increase the size of the UI - but I don't think I should. I'm not that blind because, in KSP1, with roughly the same size of the ball, I had no problems reading the numbers. Here though, it's a complete blur. Honestly, the most readable thing in this whole screenshot, is the FPS readout.

I already had plans to upgrade my graphics card. KSP2 did not add much to that because I knew the media event PCs were absolute beasts and even then they struggled. What did push me over the edge was the AMD+Starfield promo. I went for a 6750XT Qick Ultra. I was very happy about my purchase, as I got it for an amazing price before the economy hit a huge snag in my country. However... turns out the devs followed another bad practice: None of them had AMD gear to test the game on, and KSP2 was working really bad if it even worked on exactly the 6700 and 6800 series GPUs. Talk about stuff piling up.

This. The code would be dead simple (relative to "rocket sim"). Further, if you remove game physics for anything not in the physics bubble and, keep track of orbital parameters and not coordinates, then you don't even need to know where anything is until it needs to be displayed. You could have any number of bodies in elliptical orbits and give them 0 computational effort until you needed to display them. Perfect for high timewarp, and orbits cannot decay, or for that matter wander due to cumulative FP rounding error. As you say, SOI-crossing orbits are a matter of setting a timer (which they should be getting right anyway to support Alarm Clock in the base game.). For high timewarp, I'd certainly start development with treating the boosting ship as a rigid body. Modeling joints under boost at high timewarp seems like a "nice to have" at best. Until you mentioned the Risk twins, it didn't occur to me why you were discussing 3-body sim. Wow, talk about starting with an overly ambitious dream. Man, talk about stuff to defer until after everything else is working! That was the tail end of the roadmap, and it seems like they started with it. Upthread you mentioned the problems in KSP2 with save data and live data diverging. Is there some common problem with saving/restoring full physics data for the public engines? I've seen small indie teams using both Unity and Unreal just treat that as an unsolvable problem and just not save physics state despite being physics-heavy sims. I'm curious whether that's actually difficult with stock physics engines, or it's a case of buying some game save tool off the store without understanding it, so they're stuck with the positional-only information it came with.

Oh don't talk that way about yourself! I'm in exactly identical situation, my KSP modding experience is basically just a couple MM patches and reading the forum, learning it all as I make stuff.

When I was at AMZN, there was one manager that a coworker and I used to talk about. My coworker once said of him, without one shred of irony, "that guy would stab his own mother in the back for $5." I completely agreed. Capitalism has been good to me, but man, it sets up some really toxic people to be in roles with power that they should never be able to wield.

Real Talk, there is already a mod that has the F-104 nose, inlets and wing... If I recall correctly (checking now will update the post when I find it or fail to) *** Best one I found... is the dropbox link on the OP here... So my memory was not great But it looks like full IVA if that helps

Yes, it could be possible that these assemptions are to maximaze safety, but we don't quite now. Maybe starship can survive with a little number of tiles missing, with internal damages and the need for refurbishement. But it could be possible that SpaceX itself don't know if the ship can survive to that without actual testing in real life, so who nows ? It's also possible that these safety margins for crewed flight to mars will be implemented later down the line, whith block 2 or 3. We will talk more about this subject Tomorrow, when we will have (HOPFULLY) an example to look to

Like the majority of the community, I am sickened by what is happening. I feel like we got bamboozled, even worse now than when TT put the game on sale 3 months after selling it at a premium price. I was pretty vocal then that it smelled fishy, and that it reeked of greed that the company would sell it at $50 to those of us who wanted it right away, but then decreased the price as a "sale" to get more buyers. It sounded like they were fishing for more revenue to justify keeping the lights on, and some of us were pretty loud about that. Couple that with the complete lack of communication we had to go through. EA, at its core, is supposed to be a way for developers and consumers to interact while a product is being developed, right? They push out an incomplete game, we buy it, we give feedback, they communicate that they've received feedback and are implementing x fixes, we get the updates, we give more feedback, they talk to us, round and round we go. Right? Not here. Not with KSP2. We begged for the company to talk to us. Tell it to us straight; we aren't going to be upset if you have to delay or come back and say that things aren't going the way you wanted them to. Just talk to us. That's all we asked. And they refused. They got our money and then left us in silence. Sure, we got a dev blog about this lighting issue, or eclipses. We had, at one point, the KERB to tell us what they were working on...but then they took issues off that list before stopping it altogether. All told, we were taken for a ride. And we paid for that privilege. The company said "Hey, we've got this thing that isn't done yet, but give us cash and we'll call it EA and you'll eventually be rewarded". And like horses to water, we lined up and shelled out our hard-earned money. Which they took, and then gave very little - if anything - in return. We paid for the right to be ignored and shut out of development news. We paid to have the community fractured, friends yelling at each other, and the company laughing at us the whole way. We paid to go through this. This exercise is exactly why I didn't get into EA releases with other games that are in my library. I only 1 time before entered EA or a beta-playing phase of a game before, and that was for Harebrained Schemes' Shadowrun. Which went off without a hitch, by the way. But even with that good experience, I had read too many times where things just fell apart and didn't work. Heck, I was close to going in on Cyberpunk, and I'm glad I didn't. But KSP? I couldn't resist. My better senses were telling me to wait, but my heart over-rode them. And Take Two broke it. All told, and to finally respond to what you wrote (I took long enough to get there, didn't I?), I doubt anyone gets a refund. Doesn't matter if you went Epic or Steam, the refund "rules" are pretty clear: less than 2 hours played, less than 2 weeks after purchase. And TT will hide behind that as a way to make sure they don't have to fork the cash back over to Steam or Epic. It would be a nice gesture if they did...but it won't happen. That money is already pocketed and spent (so to speak). So what can we do? Nothing. Not a damned thing. Sure, we can post and protest. Sign one of the petitions going around right now. Take up coding and try to create your own game if you must (even I downloaded the Unreal Engine last night and am going to give it a whirl). But nothing we do is going to amount to anything. We aren't going to change their minds, we aren't going to get our money back, we aren't going to be able to save the franchise or the studio or the employees who are out of jobs. Nothing we do in the end will matter. Where does that leave us? Hopefully being cool to one another. Perhaps talking about KSP1. Maybe finding other games to enjoy. But KSP2? Gone before your time, and we barely knew ye.

*Raises hand* I will first admit I wasn't right in all the things I said, but I was right in a considerable majority of the things I said. I could probably write an hours-long "I told you" post delineating every single thing I called that became reality, but it's always been wasted effort when people just handwave you away as a "toxic doomposter". During the "delay era", I was worried because the trailers had performance issues. During the "post covid" era, I was worried because they were showing barely asset mounts and no real gameplay of anything but rockets flying (they ended up having to stick a "not real gameplay" label on a lot of videos). During the "it'll come out as early access" era, I was worried because why would you remove everything from your game you already allegedly showed working?. Finally, after release, I knew it was mediocre garbage and looking at the sales numbers and reviews it was obviously gonna need a lot of work to be exceptionally good mediocre garbage. Then the work just never came, they were exceedingly sluggish. Some time after, the AMA series came out and I realized it wasn't even gonna be "maybe fun mediocre garbage". That's when I realize the game was creatively and technologically bankrupt. Every devblog talked about dumbing stuff down, every other devblog was just some dumb deflection instead of showing real work... "here's how we made an algorithm to draw a pretty circle" like dude, really? "here's some ms paint mockups of how we made the heating system less complex which somehow means it's better." They were not putting in the work or creativity. Plus it was around the time people started to discover massive foundational issues like save bloat, performance rot, and so on. They also teased that the solution to wobble was just gonna be autostrut again... Then the buildup for science started, whilst we still had an unreadable UI, heating wasn't still in almost a full year after launch, all they had added along the way were some engines and fins... They just couldn't get anything visible done. The FS! media event kinda looked good, until people here began analyzing it in detail. It was obvious there was no thought applied to the tech tree, and it was much more linear... dumbed down. Science itself was dumbed down to a single blinking light and all in one parts. For Science was probably when the meter changed from "I'm worried it's gonna be a really bad game" to "there'll be no game." The update just completed the vision of how slow, amateur, and incapable they were, and I'm now even vindicated in saying that since it's been revealed that they were indeed just hiring juniors. It also didn't really sell... only about a thousand new reviews popped up on Steam, some of those indicating refunds as well. That's when I became 100% sure the game wasn't making it if they didn't violently 180º. They didn't. They kept dripfeeding us meaningless "sneak peeks" of lazy all in one parts, they refused to talk about anything colonies, and they made a killer devblog about... how their game doesn't even have eclipses.

Last time I got problems on College, I had to drive half the campus to talk to different coordinators - each one on a different building, each building about 5 to 6 KM from the other. Send the emails and stop complaining - trust me on this one, you are good!

It's especially sad because if you have to say those things it usually means you haven't done any of them, so you have to convince people by telling them. That's why people use the phrase "Those who do, do. Those who can't, talk."

The problem for Take Two is that they are in a position whereby anything they do is doomed. There are only 4 scenarios that play out for them this morning. Scenario 1 Take Two comes out with an announcement indicating that yes, the studio is closing, but they are going to continue development under a new studio. So sorry that this had to happen, and right after we gave Nate the green-light to talk about an upcoming patch, but we're truly sorry and we promise things will be better from here on out. The community will respond with varying levels of "you went through this with Star Theory" and "you have continuously delayed this game" and they'll raise pitchforks and burn TT's buildings to the ground. Scenario 2 Take Two comes out and completely dismisses the rumors and stories, indicating that things are just fine and there is nothing to worry about. So sorry about the misinformation, and right after we gave Nate the green-light to talk about an upcoming patch, but we're truly sorry and we promise that this will not impact KSP2 in any capacity. The community will respond with varying levels of "we've been asking for more communication" and "you have lied to us in the past" and they'll raise pitchforks and burn TT's buildings to the ground. Scenario 3 Take Two comes out and flat admits the project is canceled. So sorry this had to happen, and right after we gave Nate the green-light to talk about an upcoming patch, but we're truly sorry to anyone who purchased the game. The community will respond with varying levels of "we told you this would happen" and "you made all these promises" and they'll raise pitchforks and burn TT's buildings to the ground. Scenario 4 Take Two says and does nothing. No explanations, no messages, no communication. The community will respond with varying levels of "why aren't you telling us what's going on" and "we just know it's canceled so rip off the band-aid" and they'll raise pitchforks and burn TT's buildings to the ground. There is nothing that Take Two can do in the immediate future - today, tomorrow, perhaps the coming weeks? - that will ease tensions and make this all right. Unfortunate for them, and unfortunate for the community.

Honestly, having built forums multiple times over, this is not an easy thing to do. There's so much to talk about like picking the forum software, any sort of hosting or domain names, rules, moderation guidelines, etc. The kind of community we'd want to build making sure it's a safe enough environment for everyone that loves KSP, as well as worrying about any possible legal takedown action from the IP holders whoever they are. I'd be up for it, and I'd support and offer my hand in building it, but I don't know what sort of hunger there is really for the community. Also, as already stated, there's a lot of history here in this place. Including my first posts as Community Manager that I sometimes look back on to remember the good times. All the mod threads, the WIP mod threads, all the vessel sharing, missions, stories, et all. There's just, way to much here and we don't and will never get access to the database to mirror it or save any of it. As the others have suggested, I think the best course of action is a new dedicated KSP fan ran community discord server. That also, is something I have a great deal of experience in building and running and managing, but it's also a lot of work to really set one up well.

Talk like Up-Goer Five: Express complex ideas using only very simple, common words. For anyone who has somehow managed to miss it, a while back xkcd had an absolutely brilliant strip: a schematic of the Saturn V, carefully labeled.... but with all terms restricted to only the thousand most common English words. This is where the KSP community gets the term "you will not go to space today." https://xkcd.com/1133/ This game is to talk like Up-Goer Five. That is, you have to express complex ideas using only the most common English words. Here are the rules: The person before you ends their post with a brief paragraph of something reasonably complex to explain. You need to take their post and re-word it using this tool (it lets you type what you want, and draws a red line under any "forbidden" words): http://splasho.com/upgoer5/ You can paraphrase if need be (you'll probably need to). The one really hard rule is, your "translation" has to fit in that tool's edit box with no red "forbidden words" underlines at all. Post your translation inside a spoiler box, so that people reading your post have a chance to guess an answer first, if they want to. Then provide a technical paragraph of your own for the next person to take a shot at. You're not allowed to answer your own post; someone else has to. But you're welcome to come back again after some other folks have had their turns. Guidelines for the "technical paragraph": Don't make it too long, please. Just a sentence or two is plenty. (Otherwise nobody will want to take the burden of "translating" it.) Don't make it so hard that nobody understands it. It should be something that a typical KSP forum user can understand without having to go look stuff up. Ideally the post should be about KSP-relevant topics, e.g. spaceflight, astronomy, engineering, KSP game advice, etc., but that's not a strict requirement, just a suggested guideline. (Props to @Deddly for pointing out the upgoer5 tool to me, which is what gave me the idea for this game.) Just as an example, here's a sample technical paragraph: SRBs are useful as boosters on the launchpad, because they're inexpensive and provide a lot of thrust. However, they're less efficient as upper stages, due to having a low Isp. Here's my stab at translation, using the above-linked tool to validate it: Fair 'nuff? Okay, to get the ball rolling, here's a technical paragraph for someone to start with: Building a SSTO spaceplane is challenging, because not only do you need to balance air-breathing engines with those that work in a vacuum, but also the ship needs to be aerodynamically stable at high velocity.

Hey there. Thanks for the wonderful mod, amazing to hear you're still working on it! Just going to talk about a problem I encountered with Parallax version 2.0.6 where I would get crashing/freezing/out of memory issues during load screens, and what someone can do to resolve it. From the sounds of it, the upcoming version of Parallax may not have this problem, but I thought I'd post a little write-up anyway in case it helps anyone else using 2.0.6. My system: Intel i5-13600K / 32GB memory / Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB / Ubuntu 22.04 I had been playing with a fairly hefty mod load for a while and thought everything was fine because framerates were good and "top" never showed KSP going over about 10GB memory usage. However, after a while of playing on that save, I started getting issues where my whole system would lock up during load screens and I would have to restart the computer. This was very confusing to diagnose, as I could see my system memory disappearing somewhere but it wasn't going to KSP. It also hardly seemed to matter how many mods I removed from my mod list With the help of the "radeontop" utility I finally figured out what was happening. Essentially, with Parallax installed, VRAM usage was spiking massively during load screens. It was maxing out my card's 8GB of VRAM in a few seconds, then maxing out the GTT memory as well. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand GTT is part of system memory and can be used as overflow for VRAM. By default GTT was set to 0.5 x RAM = 16GB. Once that filled up, the system was getting low on total memory and started paging things out. Obviously that's terrible for graphics performance, and resulted in everything locking up. No idea if it's an AMD-only issue or a Linux-only issue or both. All I can say is it happens during load screens. After scene transition is done, VRAM usage drops down to a very sensible 25-50% (Without Parallax installed, VRAM hovers around 70-80% at all times and doesn't change during load screens) So, if you're reading this and have the same problem, what can you do? Here are the options I figured out - Stop using Parallax 2.0.6 and wait patiently for the update... Reduce your system's GTT allocation. I don't know how to do this or if it's a good idea. Didn't try it myself. Close all other apps that may be using a lot of RAM (looking at you Chrome!) Reduce your mod count so KSP uses less memory, leaving more room for GTT. Not a good solution for me, as I wanted to have more than just the stock planets. Set 1/2 resolution textures in your graphics options. This is actually a pretty good solution... cuts VRAM usage by a lot, doesn't look as bad as you would think. Worth trying. Upgrade your graphics card to one that has more VRAM. No guarantees it won't also get completely filled up. Buy more RAM. Personally I was looking for an excuse to upgrade my system to 64GB anyway, so this is what I did. Now the GTT fills up to a whopping 32GB but there's so much room left over, nothing bad happens. I guess that's a win? Worth noting that even if you don't actually run out of memory, this weird VRAM behaviour does seems to slow down load screens by a lot. Anyway, thanks once again @Gameslinx for the awesome mod, and I'm very happy I can keep using it even if I did just end up throwing more RAM at the problem! And on the off chance any of what I wrote above is new information for you, I hope it's useful for your dev work.

At the risk of sounding condescending, accusatory or offensive (I'm not trying to, sorry in advance), and not knowing how much you can talk about... You mentioned Shana was still hired and working when you joined, pointing to you joining prior to September 2022 where she says (on linkedin) that she left Intercept (something we never discussed in this forum as it was never mentioned IIRC). This means you saw the Design Director leave. Who else did you see? Didn't those consistent layoffs and/or people just walking not set off any alarm?