Search the Community

Firstly he'll likely not answer you. This is how things probably went down. T2 PD and IG knew the state of the game. T2 gives them all a paper on which is stated what they are allowed to tell us before and after launch. This is to ensure to not scare people of that the game is in an unfinished unplayable state. This is basic business. You as a customer has to look through all that marketing talk (The game is almost done.... only final touches left.... we have all so much fun with the game.....etc) and come to your own conclusions. My conclusion is .. i think there are passionate people behind the project, but thats not enough .... I lost all my faith in IG that they are able to accomplish what they had planned. I think everything that happened so far and let to this point that KSP2 has failed and this has a lot of reasons. Sure MAYBE we will get a final product sometime in 3-5 years, but this wasnt planned and it wont be anything we were promised over the last 3 years. Its sad. And everything i read here are excuses.

the fact that you constantly talk so much about QA and that is a process that hinders development and going further faster, you guys missed a whole lot of bugs introduced with this update. 10 minutes 10 bugs ... i just wanted to test the frame rate improvements, but i didnt get to it, cause it was too frustrating building a simple rocket. thanks for nothing

I doubt that any staff member of IG, Take Two or Private Devision will talk about their internal company politics and managment wisdom (or the obvious lack of it). At least if they want to keep their job and get another one in the industry in the future. Concerning the steam sale: I guess the publisher want to make some money. Since most people don't want to pay the normal price for the game in it's current state (I wouldn't either even if my old potato would be able to handle it) they propaby said "Hell, let's try to see how many people will buy this for that price so we have at least a little bit revenue out of this mess". I don't expect an official confirmation or denial for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I hear ya.. But's what's the point of all the talk if nothing really comes of it? What's that saying?... "Actions speak louder than words". The end result of all this "Moo with no Milk", just sets unrealistic expectations and when patch 15 comes out and doesn't address anything substantial/creates more issues, then people just get mad and the devs lose credibility. Just shut up and do the work.. Stop talking about it. We have to wait anyways, better to wait without being reminded how much everyone regrets being a part of the current KSP2 experience.. This is a joke.

Right... People should Stop listening to what the Devs are saying and just look at the results of their actions. 1) Pre Alpha EA release with many foundational problems to the most basic functionality of the software. 2) Two patches that marginally fixed some performance issues, but for the most part created even more foundational bugs. 3) Development (Coding) cadence slowed down to roughly half the rate. 4) Third patch came out and performance increased, with more added game breaking bugs. Either T2/IG want to turn this around but they can't because they don't have the skill, knowledge or the resources to do it.. Or, they don't care at this point, have decided to ride it out for as long as minimal revenue comes in, while at the same time cutting costs and laying off staff. The only reason they continue to communicate to the community, release poorly written patches and promise, is because the blind faith will support the limited revenue stream up to a certain point. The social media posts, forum posts, blogs, vlogs etc.. don't cost anything and can be done with a minimal staff. But the re-writing of broken code, the adding of content and the improvement of the product costs money and talented coders aren't cheap, especially the ones that are hired to sift through foreign code to fix a bunch of stuff they didn't write. I gave KSP2 the benefit of the doubt during the first few months, but I'm not blind and it's completely obvious that either they are, 1) Simply trying hard without the necessary resources, or, 2) Just pretending, so they can barely salvage a dying revenue stream. Rant #2 over.. Ps... I would have way more respect for the efforts of T2/IG if they just went completely silent and put their heads down and fixed this mess, to surface a year later with version 1.0 fully tested and vetted for release. The talk and BS is absolutely the fuel to my fire.

No lawyer that ever lived could talk their way around those laws.

Can't talk about artificial gravity and not mention thrust gravity. KSP2 lets us have proper torch ships with persistent thrust and can be left alone to burn in background. Those need to be considered too. I'm quite sure that time will be quite short between that gameplay loop coming in and someone modding in an Epstein drive or the like.

Maybe - tbh I didn't know the forum before I started to bug report. I used to only engage casually with KSP1 - mostly just watching youtube videos of the game. How ever, I have been low key following the KSP2 since it was announced 3 years ago. But up until release I started to read what I could find about it and figured it would be like paying to Beta or Alpha test the game - I wanted to support the developers and bought it. It lived up to my expectations... and since release I have clocked 344h as of now - which i think is quite impressive giving im also juggling a full time study and being a father to 2 small children x) Maybe - but maybe its directed at the wrong place. Was it the devs that decided to launch now? was it the men in suits? - was it launched now because otherwise it would not get out? In my experience the people actually building the game are very passionate about their projects and want to release them in as good a state as possible. I dont know.. I've read quite a few posts from veteran KSP1 players who say that KSP1 also had a rocky start when it was in beta - sure you can talk about the price.. I guess its high - but its you who decide to buy or not. When I bought the game. I knew that it was buggy, had little to no features and was gonna be like beta testing the game - meaning its more about finding and reporting bugs and investigating bugs than playing. I knew the roadmap was without dates - I accepted that they didn't want to put dates because dates are seldom met any way (which is also my experience with previous early access games) and that was the foundation that I decided to do my purchase on.

They didn't. Generally, they don't go into any kind of detail on gameplay systems. They might show some parts, but don't talk about the systems behind them. Even on colonies we only have the very old information that there are some kind of population boom events and that milk runs will be automated, but no details on anything.

As of now the multiplayer is planned to be added to the KSP 2. That's the one of a many ways how you can enrich the cooperative experience of players. But what about missions? Now we have weekly challenges posted by the KSP team. Why not to make this a game mechanic, where all the players can design the mission goals and share those with the community. I mean the missions like those from the KSP 1. The ability and the creativity of the developers team is enormous yet limited. Some dedicated players can set the scene and develop an unique scenario, nobody else could even imagine. I don't talk about the goal setting only. I think it might be cool to allow users spawn vehicles and kerbals in their scenarios (remember rescue missions from ksp 1).

So I know its been a couple of years since any of the mod creators for this have replied, so I'm not too hopeful for an answer, but I am curious if we're supposed to be using "useRealisticMass=false" or not for this? I've tried multiple combinations and it feels like leaving the settings on "true" leads to fairly small rockets, while setting either of the options to false leads to comically oversized rockets (i.e. just to put a single Kerbal in orbit takes an absurdly large rocket and is nearly impossible with early tech). In searching through the thread I noticed at one point there was some talk about an update to rebalance things and remove the reliance on the setting, but looking at the patch notes there was only one update after that before it development stopped and its unclear if that rebalance happened in that update. So basically, I'm left with the following question: Have the configs been reworked such that we're just supposed to use the default RF settings, or are the current configs not rebalanced and we're supposed to set realistic mass to false and really work hard to engineer workable rockets? Thanks

Another great and transparent upnate Nate, but i do have some notes and concerns i'd like to share with the teams about this one: First, on 'wobbly' rockets. While i am really glad to see the teams view seems to mostly line up with what the majority of the community wants, i did want to point out this; To be quite frank: wobbly rockets should not be a thing, under virtually any circumstance. This sentiment of wobbly rockets being a core part of the KSP experience is in essence a glorification of a bug that got accepted by the community over time, born out of nostalgia. I want to remind the team that KSP2 can, and should, be its own distinct work. There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep features that made the original so beloved, but you really shouldn't be afraid to do away with features that just dont fit into the vision for KSP2. If you keep wobbly rockets now, you risk having to have to come back on that decission once builds start to exponentially increase in size, which will eventually happen as big features like colonies and interstellar get added. To illustrate, here is a space station i made consisting of 1K parts, with no struts attached. The results speak for themselves: In my personal view, a craft like this should not require 100's of struts eating up the partcount just to prevent it from folding in on itself. Autostrut isnt the answer either, and i agree that it should only be applied as a last-ditch effort. I believe any and all craft that have a part tree comprised of same-sized parts and appropriate adapters between different sized parts, even radially, should stay perfectly rigid in any situation. This also means that rotated or offset parts should have no effect on rigidity as long as they comply with the above rule. Same applies to docking ports. The only exceptions where wobbly-ness should be applied are crafts consisting of a stack of mismatched and differrently sized parts, or boosters under thrust that are connected to the main rocket using insufficiently large radial decouplers/ibeams/trusses. Concerning wings, you said: i agree with this, but i dont think wings themselves should be completely rigid. Long wings with a thin root thickness should have some flex to them, but it should be applied to the wing itself rather than its joint. My views on this are based on how rockets and aircrafts behave in reality; even the craziest of rocket designs usually dont have any flex to them as long as they are pressurised, even in extreme situations (like Starship doing flips going above mach 1 with 2 holes in its side recently). Jetliners and gliders with long wings on the other hand, do allow for some flex in their wings. i don't see any reason why this should be different in KSP2. While i understand there is a certain nostalgia about this whole topic, do not forget that it is ultimately still a bug that should be eradicated if you truly want to 'slay the kraken'. Secondly, i wanted to say a few words about the decision to reintroduce Biomes for Science Mode: as someone who has completed nearly all science experiments in all possible situations in KSP1, please implement this differently from the way KSP1 did. Biomes in and of itself are not a bad thing, but if you allow players to do each science experiment in every biome to gain science, it quickly becomes a chore rather than a joy. Having to biome hop from one bland, boring terrain to the next that looks virtually identical just to do the same experiments, both makes the process extremely boring and too easy. You are probably well aware of the fact that the tech tree in KSP1 was easily completable without ever leaving the Kerbin system in KSP1, which was a direct consequence of this issue. For starters, each biome should be unique and provide the player with a distinct feature of the celestial body. Good examples of this are Oceans, Beaches, Mountains, Craters and points of interest like the Mohole and Dres canyon. Bad examples of biomes are Lowlands, Midland, Highlands and patches of regular non-outstanding terrain/ocean that were just given a different name. A much better system for biomes would be a mix of microbiomes and larger visually/scientifically interresting biomes. For example: Ice Geysers, Volcanoes, Rock/Ice formations, Icebergs, Fissures, meteorite remains and similar small-scale surface features would make for great micro biomes. Examples of good 'mayor' biomes include (as mentioned before) Beaches, Oceans, Rivers, Craters/Crater rims, Regolith Patches, Mountains, Plateaus, Poles/Ice caps, Ancient River Deltas, Basaltic Plains/Mares, (Salt) Flats, Canyons/Cliffs, and all the one-of-a-kind point of interests. There is one big caveat with these though: all of them should only be able to provide science once. Naming different craters and having each be a different biome does not make a lot of sense in the context of science gain and quickly inflates the possible science gain from any given body. Entering a new location with the promise of a new biome, just to have it be one you've previsouly visited but with a different name, was one of the biggest dissapointsments and sources of tediousness with the KSP1 biome system. Another change from KSP1 that would tremendously increase the fun to be had in science mode is assigning each biome/situation with its own specific set of experiments instead of just allowing all of them. An example of this would be to have for example a Regolith Patch biome have experiments like 'regolith composition analysis', 'surface sampling' and 'test kinetic deformation', while a biome like the Crater could have 'Analyse Ice composition', 'measure light level' and 'Collect Meteorite Sample' as experiments. Some of these experiments could be made to randomly fail, forcing the player to move to a different closeby location where they have more luck (eg Ice might not be present in every crater). Some experiments could also be mutually exclusive; if already collected a meteorite sample from a 'Meteor Remains' microbiome, the experiment wouldn't be available in the Crater biome anymore. I understand that this would make for a very complex and intricate science system, but it would greatly improve the diversity of collecting science, balance science gains on any particular body, and break with the monoty of just performing the same experiments in the same situations over and over again. And implementing science in this manner also opens up what i think is a huge possibility: Abandoning science points entirely, and instead directly connecting branches of the tech tree doing experiments in specific situation. To illustrate this, lets look at a theorethical 'ground parts' tech branch in the tech tree; to unlock the first basic landing legs, you could simply have to recover a vessel after a flight on Kerbin. To unlock the next, you might have to either collect a surface sample or perform a rock analysis on a regolith patch, basaltic planes or salt flats biome biome on the Mun, Minmus. To unlock the next legs and/or wheels, you could either have to do the same thing but on a more difficult body to reach (like Ike or Gilly), perform a more advance experimenton the previous bodies, or collect Data from more biomes, and so on for the next level of tech in the branch. Having the tech tree work in this way adds a fun challenge while still alowing the player some freedom to choose how they go about aquiring a new part. It would also greatly compliment the new Mission system! Discovering different biomes was another one of KSP1s more lackluster aspects of science mode. This could very easily be remedied by having a family of parts that tell you which biomes ,are near, in what direction they are, and display the current biome on the HUD. these could be either different parts that each provide their own function, or one part for different tech levels that progressively adds more feauters. Another really handy feature to have would be a notification when the players enters a biome/situation where new science is available for the experiments that are present on the craft (could also be done with a dedicated part, or just be an option in the settings) Finally, a quick word on this sentence: The way KSP1 required you to bring back most experients, sometimes even multiple times, for full science gain was not only annoying but also not very realistic. For the sake of gameplay, most science experiments in KSP2 should be a 'do it once and you're done' kinda thing, where transmitting the experiment gives you all science immediately. The exception to this would be surface samples and/or colected rock fragments, which would have to be returned to either Kerbin or a Colony/Space Station with processing facilities. This would greatly encourage the usage of science probes, and add some much needed functionality to space stations (and not in the 'put your science here and we'll double it' way). If you really want to add science experiments that cant be completed instantly, having some experiments that require time to complete would be a much better hands-off way to do it. Collecting data on a planets upper atmosphere for low orbit for example could be an experiment that requires ~a month of in-game time or so to complete, and would require you to do nothing more than place the science experiment in low orbit, start it, and come back later once you get the notification that it's finished. Sorry for the ted talk, this got a bit out of hand! This is the first time i've shared so much feedback under a dev post, so i hope i've done so in a respectful and comprehensive way. I did this because i really feel strongly about these features in particular and believe i am somewhat qualified to share my opinion on them. I truly believe that if even some of this advice is taken to heart, it could lead to a better science mode especially than anyone could have ever expected. However you may choose to tackle these issues tho, i wish the teams the best of luck with them and can't wait to see what they come up with!!

yes ! It's : warning_24.png. Other mod having this issue for instance was the Notes mod, texture pathing name is ok as well, I had checked before, that's why this seemed weird to me. I compared it to the what the log complains about, and it's litteraly the same texture path to the letter... I'm actually running Windows 11 ! French ! Horrible haha And this is what it does indeed, texture turn purple, accompanied with a slight freeze due the error logging. I went around that by placing the toolbar at screen edge, and using the auto hide feature, meaning that the texture wouldn't be purple all the time, if the toolbar remains there all the time. Cf. Toolbar forum thread where I talk about it + also found a user by accident having the same issue : https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/what-did-you-do-in-ksp1-today/comment=4293508

Just to clear up a few things: Intercept Games has been hands-off when it comes to community moderation since KSP2's launch. I can't speak to how it was before I got here, but I've been pretty adamant about letting the community moderate itself. There have been quite a few times that the forum moderation team has reached out to me about a disputed situation and, they can attest, that my usual response is "here's my two cents, but I defer to your decision-making. You know what's best." I did community moderation for about 3 years for a different role and so I can form guidelines that I think lead to the best discourse (like the new Discord rules), but enforcement is always best to be laid upon the shoulders of those most integrated with the community - the KSP forum mods and you all using the report system to flag rule-breaking messages to them. The only actions I've taken personally have been on the Intercept Games Discord against hard-and-fast rule-breakers (transphobic comments for example), when I was around and saw the comment first. All other actions on the forums, subreddit, and Discord are taken by community members like yourself that work hard to create a space to encourage discussion about our games - for which I am, and I hope you all are, thankful. None of the community moderators on any platform are paid or in any way pushed to sway sentiment in one direction or another. While we've made significant changes to our communication style over the past couple weeks/month, that is not a result of any one user or even a group of users. As the liaison between the community and the development team, I read basically everything posted on all of our community platforms and social media. And it's my job to come to other teams with actionable sentiment, but also not overemphasize the importance of one piece of sentiment over the other. People often blame community platforms (especially in gaming) to often be echo-chambers, just either repeating the same positive (or negative!) sentiment over and over, with the opposite opinion always being drowned-out by the most vocal. I'm sure that some PhD student could probably talk in detail about what leads to this trend, but when it comes to actually bringing these messages to the development team, I work pretty hard to keep things equal to ensure the team is given the best insight into how the WHOLE community is feeling, not just the vocal majority (or vocal minority.) On the transparency note, I personally have been advocating for our new "style" since the very beginning. That's not to place blame upon any member of the team; it's to show that we think very critically about everything we do here and, very often, popular complaints about any sort of action we take were first voiced internally by members of the team. We understand the current state of the game and we're working hard to meet your expectations. There seems to be this idea that our entire team is "acting like everything is okay" and that we're all just blindly trudging ahead ignoring everything around us. I can tell you whole-heartedly that that is not the case. Every single member of our team wants this game to be the best it can be and we're all very attached to Kerbal as a brand as well. We want to see the game succeed, reach new heights, new audiences, and there's nothing more enjoyable than seeing someone have a blast with something you worked so hard on. That's why we often highlight some of the amazing creations created by members of the community internally and on socials. It's easy to get discouraged, especially with the vitriolic nature of some of the discourse around the game (more on that later) - and so we do our best to keep morale up and show how important KSP as a franchise is to you all. Just this past week, I got to share with the team a note sent to me from a community member about how critical KSP1 is to his relationship with his son who has a learning disability. The community team wouldn't be putting such a focus in this area if we felt like everyone on the team was comfortable with the state we're in. Outside of the actions my team is taking, there is a ton of work being done to progress towards each step of the roadmap because we know how important it is to you all that we not only get the game to a playable state, but also add new depth to the game through new features, parts, and progression systems. --- On Respect The Forum's guidelines exist to "keep our community welcoming to all and to encourage mutual respect." The Discord rules say to "treat everyone with respect and politeness," and to avoid "encouraging or engaging in disruptive, aggressive, abusive, disrespectful, creepy, or inappropriate behavior." Some of you have a deep connection with this franchise. A deep connection. I mean you're here actively participating on the official KSP forums, right? And at the same time, many of you feel cheated, lied to, disappointed, and many other negative emotions towards our team after the wildly anticipated release of KSP2. Often that's directed towards Intercept, but then others, who ALSO feel a deep connection to this game, feel the need to defend against the negativity. I think through over the past few months, there has been a relationship breakdown between many members of the community and the development team and it has caused a schism that, as described in this thread, has split this forum (and the general KSP community) in two. It comes down to respect, I think. At its core, a portion of the community feels disrespected by the development team after investing their time (and potentially money) into KSP2. They feel like they aren't being listened to and demand an explanation/apology/someone's head on a silver-platter. Trust is an easy thing to break and it's often incredibly difficult to build back up that relationship to it's original state. For those people, we're doing our best to build up that trust again. There's always the possibility that sometimes we have to share bad news, but our goal is for the good news to always outweigh the bad. My hope is that, in the future, you can look back on these past few months and see how much progress we've made towards changing your mind. I only ask two things: As we work towards rebuilding, you meet us there. Keep voicing your opinion and telling us when we're wrong - but attacking the team (and community members) with a bitter attitude is only going to work against our goal of building back to that ideal. Keep focused on what's in front of us. It's very easy to look back and say "oh they did XYZ wrong days/weeks/years ago" and speculate on why things happened one way or another, and you might be right - but none of that helps us move forward, towards Science, Colonies, Interstellar, Multiplayer, and beyond. --- Sorry for derailing this thread a bit, but OP's post really spoke to us on the community team, and we've also been having roundtable discussions about this exact topic for a couple weeks now. Appreciate you all, Dakota

Yes, I have tried to design a shuttle several times on different saves, just to have all craft files destroyed by a bug that causes subassemblies attached together vertically to end up in the floor of the VAB when reverting to it from flight. This is the main reason I stopped playing this week. But I talk to the bug hunter about the bugs instead, and try to post or add to the bug reports in the bug reports section in the forums. I feel this will help much more thant to just post old critiscism about the game. The game have to be critizised in it's current state, but I still believe that the developers will make and finish off a great product in the not-so-endless time they've got, as you stated. Yes, as this is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. This thread is also about the forums in general and not about the game, so mentioning the game in my post would be straying off topic. Also, I mentioned the game here: I don't see the need to mention it again in the second post. My post is not about the people 'bashing' the game either, it is about many of the replies I see here, and probably some of the replies that have been removed. But a lot of the replies that got modded away into the realm of snipping, probably isn't entirely from the "bashers" either. This is just pure speculation though.

@LittleBitMore Thank you for writing this! I am still sad that most replies under here does not fit under the umbrella named "constructive critiscism" of neither your post, nor the game. A lot of those beautiful, sleep deprived words from a state of emotion really went lost in all that translation. I came to these forums shortly after I bought KSP2 in March sometime, and I don't always like to be a part of this community. In a lot of the replies here I don't see "I want to enjoy the game, but this and this bug..." or "I love how beautiful the sunrise is but I'm getting 5 fps and this is annoying" or "I feel the $50 asking price for an EA is a bit stiff". I see the same arguments, but wrapped around a brick that is time and time again thrown into the windows of the offices in Seattle. Throwing bricks through winows only leads the people inside to bar the windows. Also there will probably be some people turning up on the streets outside who strongly disagree to the throwing of said bricks, and then you've got an argument that nobody wants to take part in, and yaddiyaddiyaddi you get my point. All I see is someone beating the dead horse over and over again (not my words, stolen from someplace on these forums), and of course someone who percieves themselves as a shining knight of light and brilliance have to come from the darkness and say "you are awful for throwing those bricks, and I also disagree with what you wrote on the notes wrapped around them!" There definitely is people on both sides of this raging wildfire here that should stop "fanning the flames" as you wrote in your post, @LittleBitMore. I have probably (definitely) responded to some posts here that I shouldn't, and have probably (yes, definitely) written some words I shouldn't. Some of those words also got that infamous "[snip]" If you don't want your critiscism to turn into bickering where some random person on the internet belittles you of your opinion, try wrapping that opinion into some nice words. Give critiscism to the developers (and indeed, there should be critiscism delivered regarding the state of the game and what the dev posts were written about in the beginning) by talking about something you like about KSP2, list all the things you think should be better (which indeed is a lot of things), and then finish off on a good vibe of some sort. Two days ago I got so fed up by playing KSP2 that I quit, and I haven't touched it since. The VAB is not a nice place to be right now. I have looked in the bug reports sections to see if my bugs have been reported, and hung out in the KSP2_general channel on the discord where our, as of right now, only bug hunter @Anth12 is a regular. In the chat we talk about the state of the game, how much we'd like it to be better and lots of other stuff, and it is generally a very nice place to be. But to make a point of this little digression, about once or twice a day, someone just posts a screenshot of the player count, like some kind of a "gotcha" (not my words). Of course we will belittle the fiftysixth person to post that. We have seen it before and we are tired of debating it or defending it. The same way some of you are tired of defending your opinion from probably people like me. But I truly just strive to make this forum a better place, because stating the same tired and old arguments about the game being bad, and trolling or flamebaiting the people who do this, only makes it a lesser place to be in.

LOL. I wouldn't get my hopes up. All these devs do is talk and under deliver.

The problem with the coverage of the game is that 4 months ago we were shown a whole one screenshot with heating, and a month ago a whole one scientific detail. And that's it. And now some vague wording. Will we see heating this year? Or science? I know one game in early access, in which the developers once a week talk about the percentage of completion of the upcoming update. You leave us too much scope for fantasies, and since we have already received much less than we were promised, many people paint in their imagination a completely unsightly picture.

How many bugs do you want them to talk about?

If the weekly reports they're submitting aren't up to your standards, perhaps you should talk to them about their performance, see if you can get them some additional training, or just talk to HR and have them replaced.

Can you please talk about or briefly as a side note in the next dev update even if its another photo of the effects, or a sentence? Thermal/Re-entry effects/aero effects and how the HDRP test/implementaion is going? i would much rather have something that is said by a person that knows what's going on.. I think that some people might be interested in how the implementation of the HDRP is going or the Thermal/Re-entry/aero effects.

(Not directly related to KSP2, but rather, the community's reaction to it.) I haven't been active on the forum recently, and I wanted to talk about some cool stuff I was doing in the (absolutely amazing) Planet Jam 2 pack for KSP1. I browse a little in the KSP2 forums just to see what's going on, and I'm gonna be real: thinly veiled tension or outright hostility seems to be the norm in the KSP2 subforums, and this has on occasion leaked over to the KSP1 or offtopic subforums too. Look, I get it, I really do, KSP2 simply is very much not what it was announced to be all the way back in 2019. There's a ton of missing features on the early access alpha launch, which notably arrived 3 years after it was originally scheduled to release. Most computers can't manage 30fps right now. I myself, since the launch of KSP2, have been completely unable to even go to the Mun and back without some mission ending bug destroying the craft, squiggling my orbits, disintegrating my kerbals, or so many other tiny and silly things that somehow break a mission (for example, just last week, after planting a flag on the Mun, I simply was not allowed to board back into the craft). All of my recent forum topics are me complaining about KSP2 bugs. I too was a bit disappointed after paying $50 and not getting a stable experience that was reliably enjoyable. I too was real annoyed at the several missing parts and features that you can just find in stock KSP1. I do not play KSP2 regularly. However. I feel like a schism is being driven in the KSP community about the state of KSP2 due to the incomplete state of the game. Tensions are rising specifically because some users feel cheated or scammed out of their $50 which they could've used for better things. This tension wasn't there before KSP2 (obviously), and as a forum user who hasn't done a whole lot here since KSP2's release, the contrast between the lovely, unified, and supportive community of old KSP1 (i say "old" relatively, I joined in like 2019), and the tense, warring community of modern day KSP2. This community doesn't feel the same anymore. A lot of people blame the developers, which I think is definitely a little out of place. The developers have gone through some serious hardships (Take Two pulling the contract from Star Theory and causing internal stresses, as well as severe stresses from COVID, both happening at nearly the same time), and are still working hard. There's evidence in the game files and code that long-term future features, such as interstellar travel or colonies, are definitely being actively worked on. The developers have seemed like genuinely nice people over the forums and over live interviews and stuff like that, and they admit the shortcomings of the game and are actively trying to improve the state of things, so I don't think they're being superficial with their interactions with the community. (To me, their interactions seem more like they're going "ah heck, this early access release isn't going great." than "I'm going to maliciously convince every player to like the game even though it isn't good.") Ultimately, the choice to release KSP2 in early access in this kind of state, with these kinds of specs, with those kinds of missing features, was inevitably going to be controversial. I don't think this is the fault of the developers themselves though. I think it's the fault of the conditions in which the game was developed, and the circumstances and difficult situations the developers have gone through. But if it's the fault of anyone, I'd probably blame the publishers, who choose things like release dates, pricing, announcements, and advertisement, and I don't think the individual developers had too much say in it (especially with how far the game was already delayed). Another major contributing factor to this schism I feel has been lack of communication between the developers and the community before, during, and directly following launch, which I feel has mostly or entirely improved since then. This lack of communication did a lot of damage, convincing a lot of people that the developers were just trying to get a quick 50 bucks and a rise out of the KSP community. I genuinely do feel like things can be better now if we calmed down a bit about the state of KSP2 and listened to eachother and to the developers. Nate Simpson and his crew of dedicated and talented game developers genuinely seem like they're trying to interact with the community and make sure everyone's in the loop on all the stuff happening behind the scenes, and everyone involved seems genuinely passionate about their job, their project, the community, and the future. When I bought this game, my ideas was, "if I buy this game now, not only will I save $10 in a few years, but also, I'll get to watch the game grow alongside me." My goal was to watch the development of the game, interact with it hands on as it grew, provide feedback when I can, and sit there and witness it become the game we've all been hoping for. I don't know what everyone else was expecting when they bought KSP2. I do know some people went in with the expectations it was a full, polished, addictive game the trailer promised which they could sink thousands of hours into. I don't mean to be blunt, but we all bought into a public early access alpha build. We shouldn't've expected something completely up to triple-A standards. While the communication issues I mentioned perhaps hindered our understanding of just how rough this game was going to be, I still feel like "early access" should be enough of an indicator as to how patient and tolerant we'd have to be. I know a lot of people have expressed concerns relating to the future of the project, and don't anticipate the game fully reaching its promises. I, however, would like to note that Take Two, despite all their interesting and peculiar business strategies relating to KSP2, have indicated they're in this for the long run, and Nate's also indicated this project isn't dying any time soon, and has expressed confidence in the team's ability to (eventually) meet what they promised so many years ago. I don't anticipate this project's death. I don't expect it to be done any time soon, so I understand waiting a long time probably won't be super fun, but honestly, we kinda need to figure out this whole patience thing really quick. I don't think the KSP community as a whole is doing too great specifically because of this controversy. I'm gonna be honest with y'all. A lot of comments on developers' updates have been short-tempered, cold, and all in all just kinda awful to the developers. This obviously doesn't include whatever's had to be removed by the moderators. I've read things on the KSP subreddit (which is currently down for some reason?) actively vilifying the developers (often specifically Nate since he's the face of the team), which I see to just be completely unfair. Some people are going to the point of accusing anyone who doesn't blame the developers for stealing $50 from you as a shill, which is truly an accusation of all time. (I swear to whatever you want me to swear to that, instead of being paid to say "KSP2 is kinda cool guys", I actually had to pay to say those words.) I've seen YouTube videos accusing KSP2 of being a permanent failure and a disgrace because of its rickety launch, and I find that really quite awful. I'm having fun with multiple aspects of KSP2, despite all its obvious yet temporary issues. I like spaceplanes now mostly because of KSP2's procedural wings. I write this in the hopes that, maybe, just maybe, this post impacts the community slightly in such a way that helps us cool down and engage in civil discussion instead of arguing and bantering endlessly until we all get tired of hanging out here in this cool forum. I genuinely think the outlook for the forum's community as a whole, at least in present times (and maybe moreso a few months ago), is worse than the outlook for KSP2. At this point, the only thing we can do about KSP2 as a fanbase is to wait, listen, provide meaningful and constructive feedback for the developers to listen to, and be nice enough for the community to still be fun to hang out in once KSP2's all done. I'm probably overstating the threat to the forum community as a whole, and I don't think many people will fully leave the forums due to KSP2 controversy, but it sure isn't fun to sit through, and it would be a way more pleasant forum experience if we all just stuck together, waited patiently, and made sure to keep things civil and calm for the time being. We can panic if huge and bad news on the game's forecast comes. (this took me an hour to write! i should go to bed) TL;DR: Lads, lasses, everyone in between, can we for the love of heck cool down a little about the state of KSP2, and just wait a little?

Saturn S-IB, Stage with S-IV upper stage as a satellite launcher would have had a Parawing (folding leading edge, not an inflatable Rogallo wing like Gemini but more like a modern hang glider at the old 60degree delta shape of Rogallo). The four fins would have electrical actuated control circuits to "fly" the first stage back. The payload was the reason it was not done. Saturn S-IC (Saturn V) was designed to have airbrake fins (they are in BDB) and parachutes mounted in the engine bay. The Fuel tanks would be sacrificed as "impact protection," but the engine bay would, in theory, survive impact slowed to a "reasonable" 40-60kts at impact with the ocean. Again they were trying to save the engines, not the whole stage. This made sense for LEO launches with the Saturn V, but the payload was never BIG enough for LEO to warrant such a rocket. Titan UA-1205 was to be parachute recovered (but that one is more "arcane voodoo" than actual we have a documented fact.) There was talk about putting parachutes on Atlas Booster skirts to save the LR89s. But that came to naught because the bulk of the LR89s is directly above the LR105 central engine, so you are still remaking engines. The balloon structure also precludes recovery. Thor/Delta was too cheap to worry about (recovery cost 1.5-5x that of the actual rocket) Beyond The UA120x SRMs, the 156" SRM (Thiokol or Lockheed likely for Saturn V MLV program) was contemplated in recoverable and non-recoverable configurations. The choice was non-recoverable... UNTIL the 156" SRM became the 146" SRB for the Space Shuttle.

Finishing the analogy, humans might get superhuman thinking machine tools soon—but maybe it takes 100 years to make thinking machines that more closely mimic the way a human mind works—just like it took ~100 years to make a robot bird that actually works. here's one of the theory of mind examples from that Microsoft paper: GPT-4: Understanding emotions We will read about a scenario, and then have a question and answer session about it. -- Scenario: Tom just lost his ZURFIN, but he didn’t tell Adam. Adam starts talking to him about how much he loves his ZURFIN, and notices that Tom makes a sad face. -- Q: Why is Tom making a sad face?<|endofprompt|> A: Tom is making a sad face because he just lost his ZURFIN, and hearing Adam talk about his ZURFIN reminds him of what he is missing. Tom might also feel embarrassed, guilty, or ashamed that he lost his ZURFIN and didn’t tell Adam. Tom might also worry that Adam will be angry or disappointed if he finds out. Q: What does Adam think causes Tom’s sad face? A: Adam might not know what causes Tom’s sad face, since he doesn’t know that Tom lost his ZURFIN. He might think that Tom is bored, or tired, or sick, or unhappy about something else. He might also wonder if Tom doesn’t like his ZURFIN, or if he has a problem with Adam. (ZURFIN made up because it did not exist in any training data) There were other examples.

Well it's great to get a direct reply. But... Your words are reasonable taken in isolation, but comparing where you're at to what you've delivered - it's clear that its a consistent pattern of upselling everything. Think back - has there every been a SINGLE thing that you projected to the community that would be done in X time and it was actually done in less than X time? Or was literally everything you talk about delivered late and/or in worse quality than you initially spoke of it in (not counting things that were shipping in a week or two). You say you're communicating 'goals' and you're not responsible for velocity (yet you keep giving us dates). So basically you're agreeing that you are someone who's job isn't to communicate with us accurately, because you will set the highest goal you can and don't really know when it'll be finished. I don't see how that's different from me saying you upsell things. Also - I dunno if you've worked for a manager before that perpetually set unrealistically high goals and then left it up to the team to try and meet them - but it's not a great situation. Is the 'high morale' you spoke of a few weeks more of a goal as well?