Search the Community

There is no strategy here, I'm not legally bound to intercept, sad you take this that way. CGI trailers are not promises. (That's why they wrote a "not actual gameplay") If they say, "this stuff you see in the trailer (like a part for instance) will be in the game", that's a promise (like they said that everything on the roadmap will be in the game). If they say that their "ultimate goal" is to have what we have in the trailer, that's not a promise, that's just them telling us that they will aim for this ceiling. That's PR talk for you, it can be scummy but that's how you don't get disappointed , by searching for actual promises. Either way you said "Nate said that the colonies weren't going to be that big", that's would be a "promise" but you and I can't seems to find it, so for now we can only hope. So yeah, they WANT us to build those things, it will MAYBE be the case but we cannot be sure. While what's on the roadmap WILL be in the game (at least if they go that far). And I will also say to everyone, please don't buy things on promises but on what it's currently offering (so never preorder).

What did I miss? Why has this turned into such doom and gloom, talk of cancellation and such? These things take time folks, there's already been some solid bug fixes and improvements, we haven't even touched the first roadmap step yet so keep the faith folks.

Months have gone by since some pretty severe unresolved bugs were reported. An update on "when the next patch will be rolled out" was promised "next week" and that was two weeks ago. Isn't it telling that the community pretty much automatically assumes that "June" means June 30? We've gotten very used to vague timelines being meant as "at the very end of..." — if we're lucky. Given that the patches tend to get rolled out on Friday COB so any wailing will hit closed office doors for an entire weekend, I'm going to assume it'll be around June 23. Because rolling it out early June will be like the Spanish Inquisition: nobody is going to expect that. And again, managing expectations, expectations that were set in a negative way. If it's not mentioned, it's not fixed. "We know what bugs have priority and we're working hard on it," and we're rewarded with a video showing that solar lens flare now works correctly in edge cases. Nate, take note: this was not interpreted as "with all bigger issues fixed, we're now down to fixing minor optical stuff." Because by now that's not the expectation we have. Instead, it's interpreted as "we could have spend time on REAL bugs but we opted to pour all our resources into this" I'm still in the "KSP2 will be great camp," but I'm not the only on that side of the fence who's been getting quite salty lately. If it doesn't worry you that staunch defenders of the product are getting cynical, it should. There's lots of talk showing new features and announcing another month before the next patch comes out (with by now very low expectations it will address playability issues). Interest in the game will continue to drop with every patch adding new features without addressing the pain points. There's no reason to believe the 1.0 launch will be less incomplete than what KSP 1.0 was, so even if we ever get to see that (2 years from now? Three?) it will take another 2 or 3 years before it's in a state where most of us expected it to be right now. I still hope we will see that moment, but by now it looks like I get to play KSP2 when I retire and not earlier.

Well, why not let the people responsible for the technical side of the game speak? It seems to me that the constant advertising of several people making models for the game is just wickedness. It is unlikely that any of us slept and saw the fins in the game, we expect something completely different. If you want to brag about something - show something related to colonies, we haven't seen anything with them for over a year. Or something about science. Why did a specialist in writing texts come to the topic to make excuses? I remember at a bad job the boss suddenly added important purchases for an important project to me and for some reason suddenly sent me to talk with the customer, despite the fact that neither one nor the other was on the list of my duties and I was not really brought up to date. As a result, I received a lot of criticism for nothing. It's kind of a similar story.

Well at least we'll always have these numbers to talk about, no matter who does or does not start threads in the future.

I've seen it mentioned in a document about general repurposing of the shuttle's tank, among other things like using it for the body of a space telescope or as an orbital fuel depot, along with the aft cargo carrier concept. I have seen some mentions in the BDB documentation about a shuttle external tank with Skylab. For general tank reuse stuff, I recommend reading through the Space Studies Institute's report on it: https://ssi.org/reading/ssi-report-on-tank-applications/ If that page is awkward to read it on, here's just a normal PDF version: https://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ssi_externaltanks_gimarc.pdf There's also plenty of things on the No Shortage Of Dreams blog (IIRC earlier you said this had no relation with it) that talk about ET utilization: https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2023/03/space-shuttle-external-tank-et.html And via Astronautix: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html Judging by the graphics you used in the post above with the new solar shield, I'm betting you've read this document, but if you haven't: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790011998/downloads/19790011998.pdf It's worth reading!

I have felt this over the past 2 months. I used the forums regularly, then the new game came out and I just kinda stopped. I stopped playing the original and stopped playing the sequel. I get that there would be talk about the new game, but the negativity was so overwhelming that I closed off from ksp. Even my friends who had never played either games were talking about how big of a flop the sequel was, so I stopped playing. I'm glad to be getting back into it, though.

Before they was brave and talk about more fixes. Now few fixes... Previously, they talked a lot and, apparently, did little, but now they say little and do too little, so there’s not much to hope for either

Well the second paragraph is what is (probably) the most incorrect one and also doesn't go well with your first. Science will surely not just be duplicating what we have in ksp 1, even new parts are very different. Also you talk about months in your first paragraph for the first content update while you talk about years in the second one. So if multiple elements are false, people tend to discard the whole thing even if one thing is true in this. I added the actual quote because you're interpretation of it is probably incorrect and I didn't want people to spread false or inexact devs words. At least now everyone can do their own interpretation. For the first paragraph, I will add that he has maybe misread it (like me the first time I read your message) as in "1 or 2 years" for the first major update.

I see on places like reddit and social media more and more an odd social behavior where people are seemingly unable to offer a critical or corrective view on things, but can seemingly only express positivity, supportiveness, or unity when the situation may not be appropriate. This is such a situation. KSP2 release and everything leading up to it is the epitome of customer and community abuse by a game developer, as has become increasingly common in these years. People are seeing similar actions by game companies and are feeling increasingly abused and taken advantage of. Once upon a time, games shipped complete or didn't ship. They were performant or the company went out of business. (I don't need to be told what early access is, this isn't it, this is like shipping a car with no transmission for full price to be installed sometime soonish, maybe?) People are chafing about the whole industry and the industry needs to feel it or it will never stop. Remaining positive will not help. I'd rather read a helpful critical review than an unhelpful pep talk any day. Imagine how many people would be wasting money and stress if every steam review on every game was positive so as not to be negative.

It seems inevitable in the modern era that a debate which boils down to testable/provable statements will nonetheless feature people talking about how they "feel." Believe me, I understand that people feel this way, myself included, and I understand why. The purpose of this thread is to talk less about how we feel and more about why an impartial third party SHOULD rationally feel a certain way. I'm sure you have many examples of marketing and undelivered promises- would you like to contribute to more substantive discussion by directly posting one? I believe that there are some clauses in the EULA that claim all player-created mods as property of T2. I don't have a quote ready for this, and I'll probably look to find one. In the meanwhile, do you have a source to back up your claims that T2 would be within their rights as set out by the EULA to do what you're describing? Or, better yet, a link to an example of it happening with another game? For those who are concerned that they will spend time finding evidence only for this thread to be taken down, if you would like me to, mention it in your post and I can make a backup of it in a word doc to post onto reddit or something in the event that this thread gets canned. However, whenever I see moderator intervention, it's usually because someone is being abusive, aggressive, or unreasonable- in other words, the opposite of the nature of this thread. They seem to allow for even the sharpest of respectful criticism of the game. I would think that they would be happy to see reasonable, substantive discussion as a counterpoint to the very posts which they have to remove. I'm not worried about them taking this down. EDIT: I'm not sure if this post comes across as combatitive- that is not my intention. I just don't want things to snowball until this becomes yet another broad discussion thread.

Yes, you're over the target, so expect flak and possibly thread-be-gone. Yes, they did make a lot of grandiose statements that turned out to be laughably unbacked by a deliverable product. Yes, Nate's language communication style is somewhat expected of a team lead, all the more so if things are less than ideal in terms of morale and product viability. Yes, many in the community felt deceived and misled by the marketing and undelivered promises. Yes, the game is likely to be cancelled despite all of the encouraging talk of funding. The only real matter of import is whether or not T2 will try to shut out mods from KSP1 and implement a locked ecosystem for paid mods. They do not care for competition as has been seen in cases of modders remastering certain of their IP better than their developers did. They may come to see KSP1 modders as eating into profit possibilities if they cancel KSP2. And then maybe they just thought since KSP1 was "early access" with tons of people super excited to play from day one (I was there, Gandalf), they could abuse the crap out of it and charge 50 bucks for bugcity and take (potentially) years in EA and we'd beg for more? Free development at player expense! Suits approve! Didn't work out like that, though... And no, to those who weren't there, KSP1 was NOT this half-baked and unfun, even in the earliest states I played. It was fun and refreshing. Everyone was excited. Bugs? Some. Features? Some. But even with it running at 15fps on my potato at the time, the best game I ever played. One person dreamed up KSP1 and delivered a large part of it themselves after other employees were added later. I've seen one or two dedicated and inspired devs produce some of the best games I've ever played. They've got 50 people working on KSP2... the heck happened?

It seems to me that in those social networks, KSP2 is practically not remembered. I know several sites where it is no longer possible to talk about this game, since everything is clear to all the other interlocutors. What to discuss?

After some time adjusting ongoing mission gravity assists for Ke-Eve-Moho, my kerbal brain needed a well desereved plane break : Jeb is indeed experimenting a new way interesting way of flying He looks rather stoical, considering his situation With this flight, I did complete a contract asking us to fly under the 2 bridges of the lvl3 R&D center, but I was so concentrated not blowing Jeb in 36 pieces that I forgot to take screenshots : / well he survived ! After, I designed a folding lander/glider for Eve and tested it on Kerbin ! Here's the video, it flies ver well, even with no SAS and minimal control input ! This 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), and weights ~500 kg ! Cheers

Point... Missed. Jim tried to explain it. Think about a car. Someone builds engines. Someone builds windshields. Someone builds tires. You don't take the guy who knows glass off the windshield line just because the lady who builds tires keeps putting out triangles. You either get a better tire maker or teach her why the circular shape was chosen back in the stone age. So even if the car won't be ready for a while due to engine and tire issues - if you tell the window guy to go home without pay, by the time the tires and engine are resolved you won't have a windshield... And still won't have a car that works. Edit - that said, I don't disagree that Nate's post was crafted in a way to almost guarantee annoying people. They really need to talk to a Crisis Communication consultant. Comm strategy since release has been really poorly done.

It's understandable, but also the reason P.D. would not be prone to consider this without some public pressu encouragement. This is some crazy idea of some code monkeys, or there're public support for the stunt? People are really willing to get their paws dirty, or they are just taking the cool aid? Whatever they are going to choose, they will have to live with the consequences forever - so they need to know if the idea worths the shot. Having people supporting the idea is one of the criteria exactly because of this. Please consider being the one that creates the momentum, we surely need the help! Flight Gear is Open Source, and it predates all the features used on X-Plane to the point I really think X-Plane helped to fund this in the past in order to test ideas and algorithms for their product. FG is really impressive, by the way - it lacks some polishing, but the game itself is solid (I play it now and then). Thanks for the question, I had forgotten about it and remembered about it while thinking how to answer you! You will find a somewhat extensive list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games . And something I didn't knew about, Space Engineers is listed as having the Source available!!! Boys, we have another Study Case of Success to advertise! Yes, but I have some bitter-sweet remembrances about this ordeal. I want to think that I had helped a bit to inspire the move, but this is also an example on how things can get harsh in the process (and, also, why I'm conceding that P.D. would prefer a "Share Source" model initially). I had some bad moments on Orbiter Forum due licensing, it was really nasty (second to none). Things got really harsh when I realised than since the source code being used as base for almost all the add'ons on the scene was ARR at that time, a lot (if not almost all) the add'ons published at that moment were in copyright infringement and that was pretty hairy. And I was right, by the way - and, yes, they shoot the messenger. A lot. Things got ugly to the point a somewhat influential author tried to push his weight on me using exactly the copyright laws - essentially proving my point. The only reason I got involved on KSP modding is exactly because the Add'On's Publishing Guidelines. That allowed me to use OSI licenses on my work, and that had paid off more than once, I need to say. Copyright trolling is a thing. So, in essence, going Open Source is not an easy solution for all their problems - and it may create some new ones. The point I want to stress, however, is that on the medium and long run it will worth it, and it will worth it a lot not only to us, but also for them (see the Flight Gear example above!). Our job, right now, is to get their attention and openly and frankly talk about the possibilities - and we also need to be open minded to hear a counter-proposal that could be something completely different, but it would also solve our problems. We can lose a battle and still win the war: Our main goal is the wellbeing of the KSP Scene, and having access to the Source is the best way I know to achieve this. But if something better is proposed, hell, we should jump in the same. I'm cautiously optimistic about we having a chance, but there's a lot of pitfalls we need to avoid - we need to focus on our goals, and not on the path we think will leads us to such a goal. I'm convinced that opening the Source is the best way to accomplish what WE (us, as users; us, as authors, and they, as publishers) need to keep things tight - but we should be willing to hear any counter-proposals, someone can have a better idea. But, until such better idea is proposed, The Source Must Flow!

Posts like this make me relieved I refunded day 1. This game should have not entered early access without heating and basic science. Between not being able to properly manage community, (Seriously all you have to do is follow successful examples out there like Satisfactory) and having a very bad procrastinatory update pattern, I have no hope left that this will succeed even though I desperately want it to. The warning signs where there from before day 1. Videos not really showing development, too much focus on cinematics, no live streams, simple bugs identified before launch not being fixed on launch, very little communication, only “corporate talk” in updates, no hot fixes, and most importantly little to no transparency. All of these point to things not going well in the backend. Not that I don’t think they can’t turn it around, but the fact that haven’t even started to makes me not trust them. I’ll return when thermal and science hits (if they get there) but before that this game may as well be in a pre-alpha state. The little bird was too young to leave the nest and got dropped on the floor— the parents don’t seem to care.

More like Mocopium, this whole game has gone to crap and all the devs can talk about is an update that isn't going to be released for at least another 6 months. I am losing all hope in this "game" and judging by the playercount most other people have also given up on this so called "successor" to ksp. I don't even see a point in giving feedback to the devs either, considering they quite literally do not listen to what everyone is telling them and the entire studio is descending into a pit of hell because of this. I have tried my best to conserve my anger but every dev update it just gets worse and worse to the point where I wonder if the devs are filtering out most negative comments on the forums and just letting everything go wild over on the steam forums instead of just listening and changing their horrible and unsustainable development plan. If the devs are reading this (which they most likely aren't considering they are just brick walls when it comes to critique) then please for the love of god listen to what your players want instead of blindly believing in this narrative that it will all be fine if you just keep ignoring all the criticism and occasionally look in the forums to find some bugs you can fix in the next patch. Please do better and listen to your players instead of a made up narrative that you have been following ever since launch.

Did you? This is not a single person battle, he needs support. Help to promote the post on reddit (how about a reward?), talk about it on your social networks, spam your twitter with it. Help him to be heard. Talking about the benefits of the ordeal is just part of the solution, we need to be heard by enough people so P.D. would perceive the initiative as a positive move for their customers (and not only a caprice from a few code monkeys). Even if they like the idea, they will not consider opening the source just because a bunch of KSP enthusiasts are asking fot it - they need to see value on move (they have a company to run, and bills to be paid), and with more people talking about, the perception of value increases, and so increases the chances they consider it. Think on it as a very nice feature you want the developers to add to the game: you talking about how nice would be such feature is just the first step, you need more people talking about how nice would be the feature, so the developers would consider implementing it. This is not different, except that now we are proposing a "feature" to P.D.'s management instead to developers.

Necro Explanation Reading recently into a completely unrelated subject (Laramide Orogeny - the events that created the Rocky Mountains) I ran into an interesting talk about a paradigm shift in geologists' understanding of how the Rockies formed.* I find that description for shifting paradigms in science relevant here. The quote comes from Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". For a paradigm shift (a change in basic assumptions within the ruling framework of science) these steps occur: Accumulation of anomalies Crisis and emergence of Scientific theories Extraordinary science and scientific revolutions Resolution to revolution and paradigm shift I list a bunch of articles in the third post of this thread - all of which relate to either Accumulation of Anomalies or Crisis and Emergence of Scientific Theories. Webb offers us the ability to conduct Extraordinary Science. The only question that remains is whether we are witnessing the emergence of a scientific revolution! Here's a couple of 'Post Webb' articles to add to the fray: Cosmology in turmoil | CNRS News Is there a crisis in cosmology? Some scientists say yes - Big Think JWST’s early, massive galaxies agree with ΛCDM cosmology | by Ethan Siegel | Starts With A Bang! | May, 2023 | Medium I'll add this bit from Kuhn: "The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another... And the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other." There are a lot of people who's careers are established upon the LCDM model, and to the extent that Webb data or pre-Webb observations conflict with that model, they're going to take a LOT of convincing. I bring this up - because it wasn't long ago that Plate Techtonics was a rejected theory. Accepting it did not come easily. In fact, you pretty much had to have all the proponents of the old paradigm retire / die off for the new paradigm to be accepted. I have no way of knowing whether something similar is taking place... but, again, it's fun to watch. *For reference, the orogeny (formation) of the Rocky Mountains is very different from most mountain ranges.

robotics season ended, and since i dont go to the same school as the rest of my teammates i just cant talk to my friends and stuff... i could text, but i just dont know how...

I'll have to admit that I did not follow the progress of KSP2 as closely as you guys, I had hoped this would be an expansion of KSP in terms of science and exploration. Given how very little talk and hype has been communicated about science (and exploration) by those whom it matters to hear it from, I am feeling disheartened about what the end product will look like. If what you are describing in your post is the outcome of KSP2 then I'm going to be really disappointed (not that my disappointment matters). It sounds to me like the core of the game would revolve around resource extraction, and all other aspects of the game serve that purpose. Boring. I understand the need for colonies and some resources to make interstellar gameplay make sense, but this sounds way too far off from what excites me about KSP. This feels to me like going to a pizza joint for some pizza and they give me a hamburger...I love hamburgers but I came for pizza! If I wanted hamburgers I sure wouldn't have come here. Oh well, guess I'll just wait and see but I am firmly in the "not confident in the outlook here" camp.

17 million feels incredibly cheap for such assets. I don’t know why, it’s not like I have been looking at the debt or defence budget recently. EDIT- Maybe because of the recent talk about launch costs in the SpaceX thread? A Falcon 9 is like $20 million I think.

Toh-may-toh, toh-mah-toh. Both measures are important. But delivered hardware walks the talk. Nothing really to argue about from my view

I have to remind you that they themselves confirmed that what they're using is PQS+, which funnily enough is where the biggest performance bottleneck was found (terrain drawcalls), and that CBT is yet unimplemented. There's a good chance CBT was, in a very early form, present in the media they used on GDC (yet the tools chapter has them first mentioning that they were still on PQS+). What you're seeing is what can be done by extending KSP1s terrain system and I use "extending" as the most positive word possible. Edit to add: As someone who doesn't watch much of GDC, I find it funny that they talk of PQS as theirs, when they took it from some indie a brazilian guy and his coworkers made and made it work hundreds of times worse.