Search the Community

You answered the question yourself. They will not do it just because a random crazy dude sent them an email. The employee receiving it will just delete the email and forget about - Kraken knows how many of the emails I received at day job nowadays are SPAM and go the same way. But now it's not only a random crazy dude, it's some serious bunch of people, some of them influential community members. Additionally, we got a nice brainstorming where the pros and cons of the proposal were discussed, getting a grasp on how to better sell our fish. Sending an email to someone there (as long as we find one that would at least read it) is the final logical step, but never the first. About making plenty of money, assuming this is really happening - how much money more do you think they would make once the worst and more annoying bugs are properly fixed, cleaning up the code base and making at least feasible to repurpose it on new products (tablets, mobiles, whatever - there're wristwatches nowadays more powerful that the desktops that used to run the first versions of this game!)? In essence: we are a bunch of skilled workmanship willing to do some Pro Bono work with our free time in order to get this game tight now. Some people can do it in the shadows, outside this Community and for their own benefit. Some other people prefers to do it in the clear, inside the Community and giving back to it what this Community had given to us in the past. In the end, this is really the only choice to be made: who they want running the Modding Scene? People relying on shady practices or people in compliance with their own EULA? And that's the problem: we don't want another game, we want this one fixed. There're already open source initiatives around, but none of them will remotely open our savegames so we can keep playing them. And this is what really matters in the end for the users. And that's the confusion: we are not pledging a way to create a new KSP, we are pledging legal access to the KSP's source code so we can fix bugs and do a better job on modding it without relying on shady practices in violation of the EULA and Forum Publishing Guidelines and Rules (no to mention some few draconian legislations around the World), and nothing beyound that. Don't you see a problem here? A Community publicly relying on shady, EULA infringement practices in an officially sanctioned Forum? it took me some time to understand "C&D", the result that appeared the most on Google was "Construction & Demolition" But then I found "Creative & Development" and I finally understood. Nope, you are not getting it. The problem on long discussions like this one is that people usually don't have the time neither the patience to read trough all of it and we ended up in a misunderstanding. We do not want to clone KSP. We want legal access (even if limited) to the Source Code (and only to it) so we can do better our job on fixing bugs plaguing users and improving our Add'Ons. We don't want rights over the Creative Assets (meshes, lore, characters, textures, config files, missions, etc), we are not intending to recompile and redistribute the thing. You see, the Source itself is already available on the wild for people that knows how to use certain tools trough shady practices that this Forum consider piracy (believe on me about this one) and so I can't really talk about. But there're people around here (apparently the majority of us) that are not willing to engage on such shady practices, and so the only real way to do a better job on this Scene would be by having legal access to the Source Code, even than a very limited way - we don't need the right to change and redistribute the code, because we are not pledging the right to do derivatives. What we want is the right to legally read the Source Code without risking our SASes by violating the EULA (as well some few draconian legislations as mine) - not to mention this Forum's Publishing Guidelines. The Genie is already out of the Bottle, the Source is already being read by people that don't mind such details. Our pledge is to give us the same right, under EULA and Forum Rules compliance, so we can do a better job without disrespecting such EULA and Forum rules. Additionally, about Development… It's my understanding that game companies relies on outsourcing all the time. Why outsourcing the source code to Open Source workmanship would be bad? Apple did that in the past (Darwin), to say the least…

Why not just ask T2 directly? They won't just do it because a bunch of people signed a petition. Literally send an email to (publicly and legally available) anyone at T2 if you guys believe this is doable. All this talk about a turning point and doing the right thing seems rather pointless. This is a community of maybe 5000-10000 people spread across the globe. Maybe 50% of those people will actually get on board. It won't just explode and become a social movement so I imagine asking is really your only option. I think the real solution is not to bark up this tree and waste the energy because I agree with most: they just wont release the source code for a barely 10 year old game still making plenty of money. The best possible solution (IMO) is to start an OpenKSP project (like OpenTTD, google it, highly successful). I am not a lawyer but I believe if you recreate the game with your own code they would have to issue a cease and desist to stop you. They only typically do that if it eats into the bottom line (this is a corporation, lets not forget). This is also easily possible but I imagine in the time it takes to recreate KSP with original (not crappy) code, KSP1 would hopefully be at a point where OpenKSP isn't a bottom line issue. Also issuing C&D's is typically not good for publicity especially in the PC game sphere and would probably tarnish the game's reputation.

Granted: I have heard among this clan, You are called the forgotten man (Is that what they're saying, well did you evah!) (What a swell party this is) And have you heard the story of, A boy, a girl, unrequited love (Sounds like pure soap opera, tune in tomorrow) I May cry (What a swell party this is) (What frills, what frocks) What broads! (What furs, what rocks!) They're bootiful. (Why I've never seen such gaity) Neither have I. (Its all just too, too risque really) This french champagne (domestic) (So good for the brain) that's what I was going to Say. (You know you're a brilliant fellow?) Why thank You (Pick up jack. Please don't eat that glass my friend) (Have you heard, about dear Blanche?) (Got run down by an avalanche) No! (Oh don't worry, she's a game girl you know, got Up and finished 4th) The kids got guts. (Having a nice time? Grab a Line!) Have you heard that Mimsie Starr (what now) She got pinched in the Astor bar (Sloshed again, eh?) She was stoned. Well, did you evah? (Never!) What a swell party this is! Hey, check out that act! (That's a lovely dress. You think I can talk her out of it?) It's great, (aah it's great) So grand! (so grand) It's wonderland! La da da da... (We sing), oh we sing (So rare) so rare (Like old camembert) (Like baba au rhum!) Don't dig that kind of crooning chum! Have you heard? It's in the stars Next July we collide with Mars. Well, did you evah? What a swell party, a swell party A swelligant, elegant party this is! (I drink to your health) Naw, lets drink to your wealth Your my bon ami Hey, that's french A liberty fraternity Have you heard? It's in the stars Next July we collide with Mars. Well, did you evah? What a swell party, swell party Swelligant, elegant party this is! I wish for quality.

Chapter 4 : Kerbin surface activities, Deep space telescopes & Eve foldable glider Baobab study: After all those years, I finally made it, my first helicopter using breaking ground parts (yeah I know, it took me some time ) It's ugly as a kraken face, if anyone has ever seen one, but hey, it flies ! Our kerbals will takes this to do some test takeoffs/landings/hover flight, and fly to the nearby biome in search for weird giant trees... We'll do a more streamlined and nice looking version in the future for sure ! This is just to measure safety, and maneuverability ! Acrobatics : Then, I designed a little and maneuvrable plane for Jeb : Space telescopes : I then deployed 2 space telescopes, one for taking very high definition pictures of Kerbol's bodies, and the other to track for potential DSP (Deep Space Pebbles) endangering Kerbin... Eve glider & further exploration of Moho I designed this unmanned Eve glider, for the next Eve window. It will be attached inside a 1.25m fairing, with a heatshield, itself attached to an orbiter.Upon entering Eve SOI, the reentry module will detach from the orbiter, and perform a direct Eve entry from its hyperbolic trajectory. Once passed the heat and fire things, the glider will detach and unfold its wings. It can also do incremental deploy, to control wing span and thus lift/drag. Sweet goal would be to aim at a spot with a lot of biomes, and glide as long as possible ! I tested this on Eve and could achieve a landing at 7 m/s, so no landing gear needed ^^ And water or land are both fine : ) For comms, it uses a standard C 16-S, and will talk to the orbiter which has the bigger relay antenna. It's in 0.625m size (using tweakscale), weights ~500 kg, and can even fly without any SAS/very little imputs ! Here's also some video of me testing this Kerbin : Aaaand finally, I designed a new heavy orbiter for Moho, that would do all the high resolutions scans of its surface, and also carry a small lander : It features deployable panels, both for the scanning instruments and the lander, to protect them during their deep space journey In the meantime, I did the first crew rotation on Starlab-1. I can confirm our Kerbonauts didn't turn into green gelly, which is fantastic ! I also started working on a very low tech SSTO reusable spaceplane, to improve funds efficieny (since we're not the richest space program right now....). Next coming soon ! Cheers

Unfortunately, small talk is really the only thing I do when talking to new people, especially girls. I have social anxiety with large groups of people in a social gathering, and I usually just sit in a corner with a few people making awkward small talk until it's over, so small talk kind of sucks.

Hello! - I finally got around to draw myself an avatar and update my profile somewhat... Still need a banner.. but I'll get there. I thought It was time to introduce myself so I wasn't just one of those blank spooky avatars. The Quick Facts: I'm 32 years old, as of now. Father to two: a 5 year old daughter and 2 year old son and I just ended a 10 year career in the Danish Army to pursue my lifelong dream of becoming a "Graphic Storyteller" - Fancy way of saying comics artist. Hard Sci-fi lover, Outdoor person and Artist. The Long Version: I have been roaming the forum since March where I finally got out of my KSP closet with the launch of KSP2 doing this: Before that I've been low key following a few KSP content creators on YT... and I tried KSP myself back a few years ago, but found it a bit overwhelming and didn't know how to get going. In KSP2 having less tools and goals at my disposal actually ment it was easier for me to pick an direction, which became space stations xD - I guess its a bit like that if the buffet is really big... you just dont know where to start. How I got intrigued by KSP is probably a good question to answer. I've always been bit of a Hard Sci-Fi lover. I am also currently educating myself as a Graphic Storyteller - and have been brewing on a Epic Sci-Fi Multi volume graphic novels series for a while. I want to write it with realistic space.. So no FTL travel, no "Dog fights in space" or gravity generators... Something like The Martian, or Interstellar - but with the scope and conflict like Star Wars (I guess something like the Expanse..? but I wouldn't know... Its one of the many shows on my "To Watch List" I started when i became a father) Any way... That meant I looked into the nuances of space travel... and it turned out it was a "gateway" drug into a NASA/ESA and Space X fascination. One thing KSP also got going for it is you can play it only paying half attention.. and my children find the goofy Kerbals very funny. My daughter right now is also very much into space. And KSP is an easy way to rub that itch. Besides my family and loving wife I guess my military career has been very formative for me. I've served for 10 years, 1/3 in reconnaissance, 1/3 as infantry in a "cav" unit and 1/3 as crew on an Armored Personel Carrier. I wont bore you with the details. Other than that I love hiking, kayaking and other outdoor activities (unfortunately becoming a father has left little time for stuff like that) I guess that's enough for an introduction now - But I am not shy to talk about anything, so if you wanna know more you need only to ask!

Where Do We Go Now? "Thank you for joining us with a CBS Special Report this evening. We bring you news from the Caucasus region of Southern Europe, the Armenian SSR, a member state of the Soviet Union, has declared its independence, officially forming the Republic of Armenia. There are unconfirmed reports of combat between the Soviet military and local militia, but this is denied by the Soviet government. This comes as protests in the Ukraine have ramped up and have spread to other member states. General Secretary Gorbachev has objected but has stated that he will not interfere with the will of the Armenian people. While he begins to push internal economic and political reforms within the Soviet state, citing them as necessary for the nation's survival." On the 16th of April, 1988, the Republic of Armenia is formed. The Soviet Union is facing a crisis, internal turmoil, and economic stagnation have driven Armenia to independence, and it seems as though Ukraine will follow suit eventually. Gorbachev is beginning a series of reforms to preserve the state, which may lead to a completely new Soviet Union in the coming years. But politics shmolotics, we're here for some space exploration. On that front, there is still a lot going on in the rest of 1988. For NASA, their plans have had a wrench thrown in them, as the Shuttle is now grounded at least until next year after the Enterprise incident. That mission has revealed some long-standing issues that NASA has otherwise ignored or tolerated. A Congressional hearing on February 10th has much of this come to the surface. Nobody is taking this lightly, it was a miracle that Challenger was supposed to launch 3 days later and was ready to fly. Had it not been, the crew would've had no chance of rescue. This is the first time NASA's faith in the Space Shuttle has been shaken. The Congressional hearing brings a heap of information against the Shuttle, with one particular bit being how long it has been since the Operations & Safety Manuals were updated, with the last minor revision in 1985, and the last new edition in 1982. Even that edition still contains much from the original 1977 manual, for Saturn-Shuttle. John Young has done his best to keep everyone in line, but he has found himself fighting a losing battle since around the end of '84. Those below him have run wild and although he has managed to keep the agency functioning well, a lot has slipped through the cracks. But this is a chance to right the ship and get it heading on the right path as it heads into a new decade. Seizing that chance, the Space Shuttle Future Committee is established, to determine the path forward for NASA's Space Shuttle. Different teams from both NASA and Rockwell are allowed to present their plans. But one stands out amongst the sea of pro and anti-Shuttle plans. A plan that will keep the Shuttle going, better than ever, and pave the way for a future successor down the line. This plan was originally outlined back in the January 1984 Space Shuttle Technical Report, from Dryden and Ames, but it has been presented to the committee now as a solution to the uncertain future of NASA's winged icon. It is called the Shuttle Improvement Program, or SIP. Although some of its ideas are a bit outlandish and unnecessary, it has many good solutions to the common problems the Shuttle faces. Mostly to do with the high cost of processing and maintaining it. But it also has many suggestions to improve operational safety and procedures. The committee eventually agrees to a revised version, with some removals and additions. The core components of it are changes to the TPS tiles for easier maintenance and access to the hardware behind them, and a new propellant for the OMS and RCS systems. That propellant is a mixture of Ethanol and HTP, affectionately named E-HTP. This change also means new APUs to finally rid the Shuttle of toxic hypergolic propellants. With all of these changes, Shuttle processing should become much cheaper and easier, as well as quicker. With the SIP team estimating 30-day turnarounds being possible. On top of the SIP program, NASA decided to extend the grounding of the Shuttle program until the autumn of 1989. This is to allow for a massive amount of maintenance and upgrade work to the Shuttles, which have fallen behind on upkeep due to the demanding flight rate. With only 4 Shuttles now in the fleet, and only 3 at the Cape, they need to stay in top-tier condition. They will all, besides Columbia, receive their first major round of upgrades during this extended fleet grounding. All of this means that Orpheus 4 has been delayed a whole year. But no worries, it gives more time to prepare all of the necessary hardware on the bright side. As well as giving NASA more time to review their operational safety and change things up. In June, a major step for the Magellan program is completed. The expansion of the Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana is completed. A new "second campus" of sorts that will be dedicated to LTV and Magellan MTV construction. Speaking of the Magellan MTV, its design has been finalized, and it has been publicly announced as the "Multi-Mission Exploration Transfer Vehicle" or MMETV. It is a single-core design, and it will use 7 of the same NTR motors used on the LTV Mk2. Optimized for carrying 50t to Mars and back, two will be used on a normal Magellan mission. NASA is committed to launching Magellan 1 in 1992, and it is to be foreseen if that target holds. Now let's talk a little about the aftermath of the Enterprise incident. In the weeks following, Enterprise was slowly recovered from the dry lakebed of Edwards Air Force Base, with major pieces being flown back in the Super Guppy. The recovery was made difficult due to a puncture in the OMS pods that had hydrazine leaking everywhere, but that was cleaned up, and the rest of the propellant drained, as it miraculously didn't explode. Nevertheless, after returning to the Cape, the components were laid out in one of the Shuttle maintenance hangars at the Cape for inspection and assessment. About 70% of Enterprise was able to be recovered, so NASA has not ruled out the potential for a reconstructed display at some point. But for now, Enterprise will be contributing to studying the Shuttle's structure under the conditions it faced, to help with SIP. On top of Enterprise, Spacelab was also damaged beyond repair, but both NASA and ESA have been talking about a brand new "Spacelab 2" of sorts for use between Skylab's de-orbit and the beginning of the successor station. That idea has been accelerated with the destruction of Spacelab. It will be similar to its predecessor, but with a flat top, to finally get rid of an emergency procedure issue the original always had. If the astronauts had to go out on EVA and manually close the payload bay doors, they would be stuck in there throughout re-entry with the original Spacelab, as they could not get back to the airlock. This will be fixed with Spacelab 2. With NASA sorting itself out for the rest of the year, the spotlight goes onto the Soviets, and wait... Japan?? That's right, Japan makes a thrilling announcement in September, that they are beginning work on their first domestic launch vehicle, moving away from licensed versions of Thor-Delta. Not much else is revealed, other than that they're starting work on it and they hope to have it ready around 1993. So not too thrilling, but certainly interesting. Otherwise, the spotlight is on the Soviets, as they take flight with Buran for the second time, with crew. That's right, with Igor Volk and Aleksandr Ivanchenko at the helm of the Soviet's shiny new Space Shuttle, they take flight on a 2-day solo mission, with a scientific payload in the back, to demonstrate manned operations. This mission takes flight on November 10th, 1988, the same day Orpheus 4 was planned to land on the Moon. Buran lands under a clear night sky at Baikonur 2 days later, with this mission again making headlines around the world. The Soviet Space Shuttle may have just arrived on the scene, but its making a name for itself even ahead of the Soviet propaganda surrounding it. With a second one now under construction, to be named Sarma, it looks as if the Soviets are committing to this fancy new spaceplane. The year wraps up with the 1988 Presidential elections, to replace Ronald Reagan, as his 2 terms are up. It comes down to his VP, George H.W. Bush, against the Democrat nominee Michael Dukakis. Bush wins in a landslide. As Reagan's VP, he championed both the Orpheus and Magellan programs since their inception and has stated throughout his campaigns his intention to continue the pro-space exploration policies of Reagan, and even expand on them. Another good administration for NASA, to be foreseen about the country. Рейс 3 в Полюс

It's been 4 months since release of early access and there is still one dominant question in the community unanswered and that is what went wrong. There are multiple interviews where the developers talk about how their focus is on rebuilding the game from the ground up to have it be performant and as buggyless as possible yet years after those interviews happened the game is the complete opposite. Note I am not saying that it's not getting better because so far the updates have been great but I and I think that the whole community would love to hear what went wrong with the development. Is it just a really hard thing to develop, was there a restart at some point, did coronavirus really affect development that much, just what happened? And another thing is the developers stated multiple times that they've played with future roadmap features and had a lot of fun and most of us wonder how that is possible since the game is still barely playable without those features?

I usually play without sound actually - Because I will not play very "active" - A lot of the time I will just be having the game running on "idle" while I talk with the kids, do other things etc. waiting between maneuvers. Also there was a point were I was listening to my own playlists while playing... and I just didn't turn it on again since x) I would advice this yes

THAT specific log. There're some more to compare with. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/KSP-Recall/issues/67 Do you want me to fill this thread with tons and tons of logs so your laziness can be satisfied? In a way or another, here: [WRN 17:47:49.979] [ScrapYard] Part mk1pod.v2:FFF7ABE0 has persistentId=4043188831 and it's being changed to 1590504603. The ClassID is 49675735 and the CraftId (cid) is 4294504548. [WRN 17:47:49.997] [ScrapYard] Part mk1pod.v2:FFF7ABE0 has persistentId=1808313221 and it's being changed to 1590504603. The ClassID is 49675735 and the CraftId (cid) is 4294504548. [WRN 17:48:41.567] [ScrapYard] Part mk1pod.v2:FFF7A77E has persistentId=33424378 and it's being changed to 1590504603. The ClassID is 49675735 and the CraftId (cid) is 4294504548. [WRN 17:48:41.580] [ScrapYard] Part mk1pod.v2:FFF7A77E has persistentId=151739214 and it's being changed to 1590504603. The ClassID is 49675735 and the CraftId (cid) is 4294504548. FOUR times the persistentID was changed, and no LogSpam was triggered, on the same log. Interesting, from my point of view it looks like you are cherry picking the pieces of logs I post, and completely ignoring that I posted the logs where the LogSpam happened, between a lot of logs where it didn't (and told about). Should I post them all here? Isn't easier to just check the logs I posted on the issue tracking, looking for a flaw on my Test Sessions, instead of wasting everybody times making assumptions with little to no evidence to support it? If my test sessions are flawed (it happens), pinpoint the source of the flaw. Talk is cheap, show me the code. Besides, as I had said and you conveniently ignored: There's no doubt that SYD is going to be changed. But without understanding why, you will just move the problem to another place and then someone will have to diagnose this problem again. Until I'm convinced that changing the persistentId is really the source of the problem with reproducible evidences, I will keep advocating for looking the problem somewhere else in the SYD's code (or not). AND AGAIN, I'M NOT ADVOCATING TO WORK AROUND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, I want to understand what's happening and why.. And I was candidly ignoring a detail about this problem: exactly what happens when the LogSpam is triggered? What the real side effects to the game? Memory Leaks? Performance Issues? Savegame corruption? Until this moment, I was focusing on the symptom, because I agree we should be aware about what is happening and why. But if I create a Log filter on SYD and just omit the LogSpam from being written on the KSP.log (what would be a <piiiiii> move, to make it clear, and I do not condone it), exactly what would be the consequences? Because, you see, this may be another case of false alarm, in the same sense that damned ADDON BINDER ERROR that happens when you merely probe if an Assembly is loaded or not.

I know this is on the no-no list, but since the devs are chatting about reviving it maybe we could offer ideas on how to implement it? If no mods feel free to lock. I think at present the devs are right to consider how life support becomes something fun, easy enough to understand, and scalable for new to veteran players, and not just an extra thing to accidentally go wrong. This especially becomes a concern when people have many multiple flights in progress, and warping one may exhaust resources on another. Worst case would be sending a probe out to Dres or Jool, and accidentally killing all your kerbals in SOI. To some degree this could be helped by an alarm clock, but even this would have to be somewhat sophisticated to be useful in order to let you know life support was running down in time for you to do anything about it. Even under decent conditions, you could end up in a very tedious place if for instance you had a crewed station around Kerbin and a flight en-route out Jool, and had to constantly break warp on your Jool ship to go back and resupply at your station. Sorting out these issues and balancing everything is no trivial task. My thinking is if it is going to work, it has to be both simple enough not to be tedious, and complex enough to still be challenging and fun. I also think it might be a good idea for the consequences of failure not to be quite so dire as to cause major rage if things go wrong. Updated 1/7/2016: So as this has become the default life support thread I'd like to open this beyond my personal musings on the topic to whomever might have fresh thoughts on how it could be included. We've discussed the topic on in this thread and others at length, the various pros and cons of TAC, USI-LS, Snacks, and what type of scheme might make sense make stock. To summarize our consensus as best I can, any stock life support system ought to: 1) Be a single, simple, LS resource that can be understood at a glance. 2) Be toggleble in the difficulty settings, and offer a less serious consequence for failure like going on strike or hibernating as well permadeath. 3) Offer a 3 to 30 day grace period, either in the form of 'hunger' as in USI-LS, or as a small standard stock for each pod to cover most Kerbin SOI missions. 4) Include a prerequisite mission pre-planner with mission time estimator and alarm clock functions so players could plan ahead and stay informed of each mission's LS status. The exact mechanics of extending and/or regenerating LS are more flexible, but the goal generally ought to be to make a system that is as simple as it can be while still asking players to consider trade-offs in terms of cost, weight, and logistics. Such a system could potentially add an important new layer to the game in which players need to think carefully about time as a cost, as well as adding the tension and urgency of surviving in a harsh environment. What follows are my own ideas on how such a system could be executed: Let's say we stuck to a single main resource: Life Support - Measured in "days" and slowly slides from green to red based on the number of kerbals on board. Different crew capsules could have different stocks, but let's assume each starts with 3 days worth for each available seat. There are however a few ways to extend this: 1) Life Support Tanks - Generally these are sized so that each kerbal consumes 4kg per day by default. Visually they could be designed to look like they hold air, water, and snacks. Tanks don't empty, they slide from green to red as they become waste. Life support/waste can be pumped from one tank to another, at which point players could easily jettison waste tanks if they desired. Small Life Support Tank - (.625m inline and spherical RCS size radial) - 0.125t - 160f - Supports 1 kerbal for 24 additional days (necessary for Minmus, but not Mun missions) Medium Life Support Tank - (1.25m inline and large RCS size radial) - 1.5t - 2400f - Supports 1 kerbal for 360d, or 3 kerbals for 120d etc. Large Life Support Tank - (2.5m Inline) - 7.4t - 12000f - Supports 1 kerbal for 1800d, or 3 kerbals for 600d, or 6 kerbals for 300d etc. 2) Scrubbers - These basically increase life support efficiency at the cost of weight and power. They will probably be essential for interplanetary missions. Because their reductions are across the board, the more kerbals using one the more cost effective it is. However, adding additional like scrubbers will not reduce consumption past the first. Waste-o-matic Jr. - (1.25m low-profile inline) - 0.6t - 1200f - Draws 0.5e/s - Kerbals on-board consume life support at 50% their normal rate (worth it for 1 Kerbal after 150d, and 3 kerbals after 50d) Waste-o-matic Sr. - (1.25m materials bay size unit) - 1.2t - 3200f - Draws 2e/s - Kerbals on-board consume life support at 25% their normal rate (worth it for 1 Kerbal after 300d, 3 Kerbals after 100d, and 6 Kerbals after 50d) 3) Greenhouses - Greenhouses use energy to convert waste into usable life support. When facing sunlight they provide some of their own power and are balanced based on average daily life support output, meaning these numbers would hold at Kerbin but more power would be needed farther from Kerbol. Greenhouses can be set to continual production, stand-down mode, or daylight auto-switching, but if left without power they become defunct and will no longer produce life support. Hydroponics Bay - (2.5m science lab size cylinder, rotates to face Kerbol) - 3t - 6000f - Draws 2e/s when not operating, and 6e/s when producing - Replenishes life support equal to 3 kerbal’s consumption every 6 hours while in operation (worth it for 3 kerbals after 300d in Kerbol or polar orbit, and 600d when not) Large Greenhouse - (3.75m dome) - 4.5t - 9000f - Draws 3e/s when not operating, and 9e/s when producing - Replenishes life support equal to 6 kerbals’ consumption. (Worth it for 6 kerbals after 275d Kerbol or polar orbit, and 550 when not) All of these factors should be calculated by the game, giving a single "Remaining Life Support" number in days both in the VAB and in the vessel resources bar in flight. This way you could play around in the VAB swapping out different parts and watch the days remaining rise and fall and aid your decision making. I think until you get to greenhouses things are intuitive enough for a new player to navigate them, while still offering some fun challenges to veterans who want to optimize off-world farming. 4) ISRU - There are a few different ways to handle this. I initially leaned toward greenhouses being indefinitely self-sufficient, so if a player set up a base or station with adequate greenhouses they could consider them safe and move on to other missions without worrying about resupply. Another simple option might to use something akin to USI-LS’s fertilizer, an intermediate resource consumed by greenhouses in order to operate. If this were the case I would advocate for this resource to be replenishable by converting ore or another harvestable resource directly into fertilizer via a large resource converter so there would be some simple method of living off the land. What also might be nice in the difficulty settings would be a softer consequence to failure than mass kerbal death. Kerbals who run out of life support could go into "hibernation" or “on strike” and wouldn't be able to steer or EVA until the vessel is resupplied. They might also lose some or all of their accumulated experience. Death could still be the consequence for harder difficulty settings. Any LS system to my mind really requires some way for players pre-plan and manage missions in flight. I actually think this could be rather simple, and really ought to be a component of the game with LS or without. All we really need is an Alarm Clock function in the Tracking Station into which maneuvers, transfers, intercepts and LS exhaustion dates would be listed, and a Mission Planner added to Mission control where a player might select "Starting Body" and "Target Body" and be supplied with: Time until next Transfer window: x [Set Alarm] Delta V to Orbit (100km): x Delta V to Transfer: x Time until Intercept: x [Set Alarm] Delta V to Capture (100km): x Delta V to Surface: x And repeat the process for the return journey. This could be staged into building upgrades or even expanded by completing gravoli scans of a given body. Then all a player would need to do is compare the dates from the Alarm clock with the life support rating in the VAB (with some padding) to know that they were properly equipped. Though this is wouldn't be strictly necessary for Life support, I thought a really simple, forgiving way of abstracting habitation for kerbals might be to include a secondary resource called “Happiness”. Happiness - Kerbals leave the launch-pad with 100% happiness and remain so for 25 days. After that, a lone kerbal will deplete at 1% per day, meaning they will reach zero and become “unhappy” in 100 days. For each additional kerbal on board, Happiness depletes at half the rate, meaning 2 kerbals will be happy for 200 days, 3 kerbals will be happy for 400 days, 4 kerbals 800 days etc. At the time of reaching a goal Experience pays out based on how happy they are at the time it was gathered. The whole experience system needs some major work, and obviously if this was part of it everything would have to be balanced around it to make interplanetary missions more rewarding. Aside from bringing extra kerbals, Happiness can be extended with the following modules (Percentages stack with multi-kerbal bonuses, but not with other module bonuses) Small Living Quarters - 2.5m cylinder - 2t - 4200F - draws 1e/s - Reduces happiness depletion for up to 3 kerbals by 75% Large Living Quarters: 3.75m cylinder - 5t - 6800F - draws 3 e/s - Reduces happiness depletion for up to 6 kerbals by 75% Inflatable Habitation Module - 2.5m inline toroid that inflates to approx 5m. - 7t - 11000F - draws 5e/s (while deployed) - Reduces happiness depletion for up to 12 kerbals by 75% Training Module - (inline Dodecahedron approx 3.75m) - 5.5t - 9500F - draws 2 e/s while dormant and 12 e/s while operating - Replenishes kerbals' Happiness up to 90% and allows level-up without returning to Kerbin So 3 kerbals with a small living quarters will arrive at Duna at 75% Happiness, and 6 Kerbals with 2 small or one large quarters will arrive at 97%. You could of course just bring a training module, but it would come at a steep cost. I guess this is a lot of modelling to request, but with about 12 new parts I think there's the bones of a real-feeling colonization platform. Even with a pretty simplified system like this there's a lot going on, and in practice I imagine keeping track of how much life support each vessel has left would still be a challenge. A big part of this would be showing the user when the vessel will deplete both in the tracking station and in map mode, so you can see early on a warning marker along its flight path where life support will exhaust. Also vehicles in the flight list would have a life-support bar showing how much remains and a red date of when it will exhaust. Update 3/28/2016: Here is my best estimate at one-way and round-trip durations for bodies in the Kerbol system, pretty valuable information for anyone thinking about scale/balance in regards to LS balance and scaling: Mun - One way: 1.25d, Round Trip: 2.5d Minmus - One way: 9.25d, Round Trip:18.5d Asteroid Missions - Round Trip, 25d - 215d Moho - One way: 110d, Round trip: 310d Eve - One way: 165d, Round trip: 890d Duna - One way: 300d, Round trip: 1170d Dres - One way: 555d, Round trip: 1290d Jool - One way: 1050d, Round trip: 2530d Eeloo - One way: 1560d, Round trip: 3320d Anyhoo this is my best crack at it. Love to hear others' ideas.

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.

Personally, if it doesn't have an ascent autopilot and a landing autopilot, I'm probably not going to play much until a mod comes out that adds such. Or maybe I will play it, but I for sure will be intentionally over-designing my craft to compensate. I'm not a terrible pilot, but MechJeb is simply superior in every way to my skills, especially in the ascent autopilot part. Also, I've been playing since KSP 0.13.3 when they just added Minmus (no other planets) and you still only had like 20 parts in the game in total. KSP used to be an entirely different game, where you tried to get into space and who knows if you make it or not until you do or don't. There's plenty of remnants of that in modern-day KSP 1, and some of them need to be shown the door. Which one am I going to talk about today? This persistent community opinion of "do it yourself before you have the thing do it for you". IRL, not a single rocket has ever flown to orbit under manual control. They've all been on essentially MechJeb (of varying degrees of complexity). IRL, EVERYTHING except maybe the most final of the final parts of docking and landing are all 100% computer-controlled. Yes, there were a few times that the Space Shuttle was hand-flown thru reentry, just to prove it was possible. Apparently, RTLS of the Shuttle should it have a problem on ascent was also to be flown more or less manually. However (and I know this is going to be controversial), the Space Shuttle shouldn't have ever had wings for the job it was stated to do, that happened because the Air Force wanted to do "a stunt in space" and I do mean "stunt" as in movie stunt because it's about as practical. That stunt is to fly into a polar orbit (something the Shuttle never did in operation) directly into a rendezvous with a foreign spy satellite or something of that nature, put it in the cargo bay (somehow, nobody's ever shown me how they intended to secure the thing so it didn't throw off the CG of the orbiter, or how they'd measure the satellites mass so quickly), and then deorbit and land right close to where they launched from, ALL WITHIN A SINGLE ORBIT. You want a hollywood stunt, you look no further, that's the biggest stunt that's ever been proposed. Could the shuttle have theoretically done it? I won't say the chance is zero, but it's certainly not good odds, and IMO chances are high that they'd get shot down over Russia by ASAT weapons for trying. Did that make the shuttle's design incredibly tightly constrained to the point that it's what we have in museums today? Oh very much yes, we could have had something much more attainable and reliable and affordable if it hadn't had to pull this crazy "air force on drugs" stunt that nobody seems to have said "hey this is crazy, you can take your idea and pound sand" to. Just look at the Chrysler SERV. Much more modest spaceplane, with a fully recoverable first and 2nd stage, and it still has a pretty big payload bay so yes you can loft your own spy satellites with it. But going back to the talk of the autopilot. The fact that the shuttle did a few stunts doesn't invalidate the fact that literally every rocket to reach a stable orbit has done so fully under the automatic control of a computer of some sort, or at the very least a heading hold autopilot and an autopilot that tells the rocket to "pitch to this angle to the horizon at this time" with many data points, to emulate a gravity turn. Ascent autopilots don't have to be crazy complex to work well. Like I said, they can be as simple as a heading hold and a smooth or not-so-smooth transition from vertical flight to horizontal acceleration. But please, PLEASE, let me have an ascent and a landing autopilot sooner rather than later. I guess I could be asked to prove it 3 times, but I'm just going to build a rocket dedicated to unlocking that and then be done with that design forever, it's going to be unmanned if that's at all possible, and it's going to have very generous performance margins that I know I can do the mission in, unlike the vehicles I would be building WITH that automation, which I would be able to design with much tighter margins because even if the automation isn't as efficient as a human player pilot CAN be, what it DOES beat a human player pilot at (especially when that player is inexperienced), is consistency. Given the same design, same starting conditions, and the same target (either of an orbit or of a location on the surface), that automation will do exactly the same thing every time, because computers are deterministic machines, and if you feed one the same data, it always outputs the same result. Because of this deterministic nature, the autopilot could actually be USED TO TEACH the player the very things some people in this thread are saying need to be proven by the player before the automation would be unlocked. So, say you have just loaded up the game for the first time, and you've built a rocket you think can reach orbit. You click on the launch button, and instead of your rocket launching, the game saves the scene and loads something else. What you get presented with is a tutorial about gravity turns and how getting to orbit is more about going fast sideways than it is about gaining altitude. This would be followed by a demonstration scene loading with an example rocket, and this rocket (since the autopilot is deterministic) would perform the ascent and gravity turn as the tutorial's parameters told it to, thereby demonstrating with ACTUAL in-game gameplay about how to get to orbit, with the gameplay pausing at certain moments to point out what the autopilot is doing at certain points (such as "vertical ascent", "gravity turn", "Ap fine-tuning", "Coast to circularization", "circularization", and if needed, "fine tuning orbital plane and LAN/ArgPe" if the craft's design is slightly inefficient and perhaps biased to fly left better than right, for example). See, IMO the animated tutorials can be nice, but nothing beats showing the player what it should look like when things are going right. You could go even further and show what it looks like when certain common things go wrong, for instance "TWR too low early in ascent" (could even make reference to the famous "More boosters" line here), "boosters hit center core" (show player that the Sepratron is great for preventing that), "Upper stage TWR is too low" (burns up in the atmosphere before it can make orbit), or the most frequent one of all: "Rocket is not aerodynamically stable" (but make it super obvious by putting a lot of fins on the front and showing that it wants to fly backwards). You could even use this "guided simulation tutorial" kind of experience to build up a simulation in the vein of a "How to not go to space" video. IMO it would start out best with some (to seasoned players) "monstrosity" of a crazy looking rocket that "should be obvious that it never gets to space" (again, according to seasoned players), and as things go wrong (the first thing that should go wrong is "check yo staging"), the rocket's design changes according to the advice given, gradually evolving thru a series of "intentionally shown mistakes" in to a rocket that is finally perfectly capable of reaching orbit with enough fuel left to deorbit or maybe reach the Mun. EDIT: Why do it this way? Well it's simple. This game is INCREDIBLY complex, and if anyone's familiar with the concept of a "learning curve", KSP doesn't have one. KSP has a pretty much vertical "learning fortress wall" that is incredibly tall and is angled at like 89.999 degrees relative to horizontal. In other words, it's incredibly difficult to understand these things about spaceflight without having your hand held the whole way thru the process. Can that be annoying to people that know what they're doing? Of course, so an option to skip these tutorials should be present (and unlike the skip options in some video games, it should in actuality skip literally the whole tutorial, the only advice the player should be given should they hit the skip button is to point out where to find the button to start the tutorials again). But if they don't skip the tutorials, the player should be shown the concepts needed to get a rocket into orbit (or whatever the tutorial is trying to teach). A concerted effort needs to be made to break each concept up into small digestible bits of info that won't make the player's eyes glaze over, we're talking about complex science here (there's a good reason people compare complex things to being "like rocket science", and if KSP doesn't use rocket science I don't know what does) and "eyes glazing over combined with inability to process the information presented" is an entirely too common reaction to science subjects, so we need to be aware of that and work to prevent it from happening (somehow, not sure how, but it needs to happen if this game is going to be popular). :END EDIT

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.

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).

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.