Search the Community

I think the 'Waiting for Godot' nature of the updates is a pretty good explanation. I played 80 some-odd hours between the Release & Patch 1, hoping that I was doing something good by providing bug reports, videos and feedback. By the time Patch 2 dropped I was so frustrated and bored by what KSP2 offered I just walked away. Maybe an hour into Patch 2. Just could not muster the interest in fighting bugs to keep playing. Part of my initial burst of interest was directly driven by the years of waiting and desire to see what was new - but the fundamental bugginess along with my negative reaction to the then Comm Strategy of 'everything is fine, let's do a challenge!' just drove me away. So... To the extent there are a lot of people like me, we're waiting for the next drop. Will check it out without much hope for anything other than some bug fixes & QOL tweaks. Likely to see a bump and another drop. The promise of Science will bring back more of us. The new content, along with some further anticipation of bug fixes & QOL work might keep us around longer... and then numbers will drop again as they keep patching stuff that should have been working before the EA release. Colonies? That is gonna bring people out of the woodwork - and likely see a slew of new purchases. I don't disagree with what you wrote below this quote - but 10 years ago, KSP offered something unique, quirky and fun. No one had seen a game like this - and knowing it was from a small indie studio, along with a relatively negligible price compared to actual release games incentivized people to be charitable. KSP2 is a totally different story, not only given what you wrote - but also the fact that we had every reason to expect a whole lot more than we got. Seeing as that horse has been beaten long enough - I'll jump to the good; if they can manage to pull this out, there will be a solid percentage of the (what? 5 million?) people who bought and played KSP coming back for a crack at KSP2 when the buzz says 'it's finally working, it's finally playable.' Add 'new' people to the title and if they get it working, Console Kids: they have a chance to be a success story. (Still, despite my optimism, I think the reputational harm will linger and they'll be more notorious for following an industry practice of dumping incomplete games as BS "EA" for early monetization, giving players poor quality for the money in the way that NMS and others have 'succeeded' through failure. People talk about those 'success' stories, but not without a strong whiff of resentment.)

I was specifically talking about the terrain, not ground texture, rings, or something else.. And what they did is not the "same thing" as ksp 1, that's just false. They did in fact improve the terrain as I said (but still need to be completed with a better ground texture). For more info on what they did, here a talk at GDC about the terrain. One piece of information that can answer a part of the initial topic, I found it pretty interesting:

Comes directly from Nate. It's his talk about automating routes that gives off the Satisfactory vibes. I totally abused that one playthrough. Wasn't proud of it - but I did it to get over a hump. After that - I really liked the need to get my Kerbal outside and set up stuff on the surface. Gave me a reason to have the critter on board at all. OKTO could do everything except drop stuff off.

how does one make, keep, and better friendships? i struggle with all of these- if you're trying to make a friendship, you talk to someone, right? say hi? well after that what do you say? talk about the weather? well that's only gonna get you so far. you could talk about common interests, but having common interests means you both know what is to be known about the subject. and keeping/bettering friendships- how does that work? so far playing video games together is a pretty good way to keep a friendship, i've found, but what if the person doesn't play games? and how much should you text people, and what should you text them? because i don't know, i only text people when necessary for practical reasons, but i've been told that i should text more. I'd certainly like to text more, especially if it'll help friendships, but I don't know what to say, and when I have an idea, I'm too anxious to put it to any use- am I being annoying? if it's a question or advice, am I just selfishly using them as a resource and nothing more? and how much should I text? and how do I get out of what I call the "acquaintance-zone", where you've talked to someone, kinda know them, but not that well, especially if you don't get to see the person too much?

I don't know where you got "Resource Nodes" from, but I think it's a good idea. My expectation is that resource availability will vary by biome like KSP1. I question whether your description of building rovers and separate mining sites will be a necessary part of colonies. I expect resource extraction and conversion to mostly come in the form of colony buildings, to be completed entirely on the site of the colony. This would be more simple, perhaps in a way that's less interesting, but also less tedious. I bet we unlock large parts by or before we get colony parts. Or maybe they will be on entirely separate branches on the science tree. But more importantly, the best engines regardless of size will depend on mid- to late-game science unlocks and on resources extracted from colonies. That's basically how Nate described it, yes. The first time colonizing a new star system will undoubtedly be the most interesting part of KSP2. Will it be sufficient just to plop a colony module down on the first planet you see? Or is it better for the player to send out probes and scanners to find ideal conditions? Can colonization be brute forced merely by producing hydralox? Or will it be necessary to manage resources carefully? How difficult should it be? Many questions for Intercept to consider. I can feel that, and it's probably too late to speculate and make suggestions, but how would that work? Maybe I can imagine recovering samples from the oceans of Eve, bringing them back to Kerbin, and making an exciting discovery that enables the construction of new pressurized parts. There could even be a text blurb or cutscene to talk about the chemical makeup of the ocean and how it led to the discovery. Is that how visiting each body should work? There might be something interesting to that, it might even be educational, but would it be grounded or realistic? In the real world, I think improvements in space technology come more by trial and error than by observing celestial bodies. KSP1 concedes on realism there and I don't see how or why KSP2 should do any different. Ultimately whatever the player discovers about the universe is going to be logically disconnected from the part unlocks that he gains by those discoveries, no matter how talented the writing team is. Beside that, the type of science that you're imagining would risk harming gameplay. To my mind it would look like a rigid checklist of tasks for the player to complete. Probably no one wants that. KSP1 is fun because it is open ended. I would like to see a new vision of science as much as anyone, but the more time I spend thinking about it, the more I feel that Squad got it right the first time. KSP1 science never forces the player into narrow gameplay constraints, and it rewards the player for milestones, for missions, and for direct science gathering while hopping from biome to biome. It is far and away better than any implementation of research gameplay that I've seen in other games or in any of the suggestions that I've read on this forum.

In KSP1, the illumination on the planets was set by simply adjusting several colors for the filters. You could do pink shadows and an orange sky. Checking scatter is pretty easy - will the flag turn a different color at sunset? If not, then in KSP2, several light filters have been added to the planets for different situations. Many players do not see retracing, so developers who keep up with the times can also not add it to games, limiting themselves to the usual reflections of the 2008 level. But in this case, there is no need to talk about RTX

I called it a "conspiracy" for a reason. However I was indeed talking about the immediate follow up video in my previous post, the one called "thoughts and impressions". Maybe you're talking about another video? There's one about performance posted FEB 22 called "Performance and Content issues": He starts by saying the first hint of performance issues was the system requirements... He was invited to the ESA event on the 9th meaning he knew the performance of the game playing on a 4080... 8 days before the reqs were released. He said not everyone experienced problems, and he only suffered micro-stutters and anything else wasn't consistent in occurring. He then goes on to say that the PCs on the event were having performance issues which he magically didn't experience but show up on all non sped up footage. That's all for performance, and he goes on to talk about content, he doesn't mention the lack of re-entry heating for release, so he maybe still has the information that it was gonna be part of release like he mentioned before? Later on he talks about the game having 300+ parts, and say PD has been very open to the game being EA and missing content, saying it's ok to wait for more content to arrive and that it could be that way for quite a while. After that, he criticizes the price, something I agree with. Again, a clear lack of critique and an even more dreary feeling that he either got extremely lucky, or is reluctant to actually take an issue with a game having performance problems in a 4080. I hope by now you can clearly see how this softball approach is something I strongly disagree with. Playing on release I had my ship explode on launch, explode on save load, had the KSC following me, had the game be barely playable, unstable orbits, had to battle the UI and control choices constantly, had my ship fall through the surface, the crash screen appearing for no reason, my save deleted, and so on. The game didn't have "performance and content issues" it was (and still is for a lot of people) unplayable.

That it is not a cosmetic feature as you stated, and I clearly fail to understand where the game being finished comes into play into that argument, which is why I asked. Just in case you've gotten lost or want to clarify something I might've misunderstood: You were the one to mention the cockpit has been made but incomplete for at least 3 years. I mention that it could be either because they're juggling artists or are incompetent (which the former already implies, but hey). You mention it doesn't matter because it is a cosmetic feature irrelevant to gameplay It is clearly not, as it is a part of an actually promised gameplay feature that requires all IVAs be done. You bring up colonies to (I guess) imply that IVAs are not relevant to anything "important" and that could be why they might not yet be done. I feel compelled to remind you that it's not just "IVAs" and they're actually part of a feature. You ask me if the game is done, which I guess implies we can't talk about anything being incomplete because the game is not done. If I understood correctly, then that's gotta be the dumbest argument. If they don't actually complete things, the game will never be done, specially if they can't complete a cockpit in 3 years.

@regexIf I did quote you, I feel stupid. I meant to not quote you, so I apologize that i did. It was my mistake. The rest of what I said was NOT aimed at you. You don't need to itemize what I said and attack my points. I mean its a free country, so do what you want, but I'm not trying to specifically attack you. I was saying in general that there are some themes that keep being presented and I was questioning those themes, not you. Edit to ruin my non-existant credibility: Its funny seeing who comes out of the woodwork to to tell me I'm wrong when I wasn't trying to talk to them in the first place. Many people have taken up the point that KSP1 sucks hardcore and we should be glad KSP2 exists. I disagree. I'm happy to discuss this in a format that does not involve personal attacks. Edit 2: The fact that we are discussing such menial tings means that KSP2 has nothing positive to discuss, or we would be discussing it. I mean that in the best of ways. It feels like being disappointed at your kid at this point...I'm not even mad. I just want the best for this franchise and when I see things that actively erode that, I say things.

There's been a lot of talk regarding space infrastructure, such as space trains or space elevators. Personally I dislike most of these proposals because they tend to circumvent game features more then they expand on them. Instead of designing a rocket to send materials up to orbit, you just select the space elevator launch pad and you're in orbit now. Space train falls into this issue as well because it'd be hard to make a space train designer that's integrated with the rest of the game. I do think there's one major piece of space infrastructure that can integrate itself with a lot of game systems organically though. Mass drivers/space guns have been a frequently discussed topic for sending large amounts of payloads up to orbit cheaply. These are large and expensive pieces of hardware, but capable of saving loads for resources. Personally, I think this game would benefit from two types of mass drivers, but first lets establish some commonalities in function between the two. The first commonality will be some colony behavior. When fired, mass drivers will consume large amounts of energy and produce lots of heat all in a short burst. This means you have to build the infrastructure to support the energy and thermal loads from a mass driver. Launching from a mass driver will be as simple as selecting the mass driver launch pad, you can also select the exhaust velocity of the mass driver with power consumption scaling alongside it. Each type of mass driver will have a mass and/or size limit as well. A spacecraft will first spawn in/on the mass driver, with the same orientation as how the mass driver is pointed. Then, the mass driver will simply make the spacecraft move with the exhaust velocity of the space gun in the direction of the orientation. This means that if you do this in an atmosphere, if you're not careful you can overheat your spacecraft. Now, with all the common behavior established, lets get onto the differences. The first space gun you will unlock will be a light gas gun in the style of project harp. This part is expensive but requires simple materials. The barrel (thus max exhaust velocity), is constant. This space gun needs hydrogen to fire. This space gun will consume any excess power to pressurize this hydrogen to get the gun ready to fire, when fired this hydrogen will be gone. This means the demand for the burst of power is lessened, thus less energy infrastructure is required, however the inefficiencies in this will lead to more heat being generated. This space gun can also be reoriented freely, giving it a lot of versatility. With the small barrel, the spacecraft has tight size and mass restraints, with the max diameter being 1.25 meters. The fast acceleration of this means that any craft will have to be unmanned. This gun is best suited for the early days of colonies, requiring minimal infrastructure to support it, however its versatility with orientation gives it a unique edge later in the game when you want to do things like a single launch to get from a moon to a planet. The second mass driver you unlock will be a linear railgun. This railgun will be expensive, and require fancy materials to make. This railgun would be modular, you can add additional railgun units to the end of it to increase the length thus the max velocity. This railgun has a few downsides. It accelerates much slower then a light gas gun, meaning you need a longer track. It is also linear, the direction it is constructed will be the only direction it can launch a vehicle at, this means that this works best when built around slopes. The railgun only consumes energy as well, this is both an upside as it means you don't need to waste hydrogen, but its also a downside as it means you need more energy infrastructure to support it. To make up for this, this comes with plenty of upsides as well. The size requirements are practically removed, allowing much larger launches. This gun is also more energy and heat efficient compared to the light gas gun. The lower acceleration also means that you can allow kerbals to fly on this thing without them turning into mystery goo. The railgun is best suited for built up colonies, the linear nature could in some situations could require colonies built on the slope of craters just for launching goods, and the increased need for energy infrastructure can complicate things. However the increased energy efficiency means that it can increase the efficiency of orbital delivery, and the ability to launch large manned missions from this is also very useful. This would also be highly useful to launch planes as well.

Personal remarks removed. Keep it polite and talk about the game rather than each other.

So they have showed us pictures of working multiplayer earlier. So yes. They are well away with interstellar parts and colonies. Before 3D modeling, texturing, painting, glow effects and how all those materials behave in planetshine, sunshine, moonshine and so on, they will sketch out parts on iPads or paper or napkins or whereever. Talk about them. Brainstorm them. So there are loads more to come, that they most definitely are working on! We are just not allowed to peak behind the curtain yet. But why oh why, why do you find the need to just post this here? This does not give any meaningful content to the forum. I would love for you to flesh out your post a bit about why you don't believe and maybe start a (healthy) discussion about it, but please. Just posting this does not keep the forums a great place.

Definitely! It'd be great to see what things we could do with KSP's source code! Yep... It was really having a sort of renaissance before the release of KSP 2! It would've been great to see where it would've gone! You could also talk with the admins to see if they'd be willing to pin or showcase your post. (If Reddit does that lol)

Did Nate mean "release to the public" or did he mean "release a finished game"? Quite frankly I don't care whether there was talk about early access or not, that's not my concern, but the question still remains, when/where did Nate say "the game is nearly completed"?

At work so I can't watch it. Was the talk about problems with physics or the Crisis in Cosmology (Webb is seeing complex structures at a presumed age where many expected immature systems)? I've seen nothing credible that Webb is challenging physics, but several recent papers claiming our understanding of the early universe needs work.

Banned for av talk

Hopefully this is a good topic to stick this into. Just recently there was a bit of a talk about the JWST discovering "problems with physics." There's now convincing research on what's going on, and this is a very good video explaining it in simple terms.

I came to this conclusion not so much because of the offensive remarks (I don't think they will help but of course people are allowed to feel this way and express their feelings). I also don't talk about the many kerbals who are highly criticial of the state of the game but having good points (e.G data mining showing that KSP2 ist actually just a refactored KSP1, managment issues at IG,T2 , obvious showstoppers going into release, underwhelming communication with the community etc). Obviously these girls and guys are NOT entitled teenagers. But to expect that people will doing a walk to Canossa (1), risking their job just to please some angry video game nerds (who will still be angry afterwards) is just ridiculous and childish. To expect that the developers won't have any vacation until the game is feature-complete and free of bugs too. And I can't help but guess that these kind of people never actually had a job in a company with an own PR department. Which people are most likely to not having these experiences? Teenagers. I don't blame them for it but I don't take them to seriously either. They are entitled to their opinion about the game and I'm entitled to my opinion about them (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

How about at least building a proper test stand for the full engine assembly, digging an exhaust trench like others do, and probably not putting so many engines in a cramped skirt where they burn each other (square-cube law?) ? (And that's even before the aerobraking cylinder, which will bring more surprises in its time). Private companies still use public physics. There is no special PhysicX for SpaceX. They talk about the Mars colony, but don't spend money at least on a proper launch site. Nuff said.

Congrats on your space station and refuelling flights, looks great! But I need to quickly interject before you put a lot of work into something that'll only end in frustration. That satellite you've shown there? That may well not work for a communications network. I'm not 100% sure it won't work, but given the "sort of there but not really" implementation status of the commnet feature, the probability is high. You really need to run a test before you spend time deploying dozens of these. It's not that you made a mistake. Given the information available ingame, you chose antennas according to your needs. But if we assume that KSP2 just cloned the KSP1 implementation (or just copied it over wholesale and changed some range numbers), there may be additional factors to antennas that the editor simply isn't showing you. For example, you'll notice that for many ranges, there'll be two antennas - one of which will be significantly heavier than the other, despite there being no difference in stats whatsoever. In KSP1, that was because not all antennas could actually be used as a comms relay. There were "direct" antennas, which were light and frugal with power use, but could only talk to KSC. They could be bounced through a comms network, but they could never be part of one. There were also "relay" antennas, which had the same range but were heavier and required more power, and only those had the ability to act as relay stations in a comms network. The Communotron-16S you chose? Not a relay antenna. In KSP1, it wouldn't be usable in a comms network. (And yes, even though it is three times as heavy as the regular Communotron-16. It was an outlier. It had these stats because it was a strengthened variant resistant to aerodanymic forces, for use on planes or re-entering spacecraft, where a regular antenna might snap off.) Second point, antenna combinability. If you've read the relevant KSP1 wiki page, you may have seen that multiple antennas on the same vessel will add their strength together to increase the vessel's total comms range. Given the much higher ranges on antennas in KSP2, I'm not sure if you actually need to combine antennas for a Kerbin SoI commnet... but just in case this was something you were factoring in: the 16S, being an outlier, was the only kind of antenna that you couldn't combine. Ergo, having two of them on the satellite in the screenshot is just aesthetic, it doesn't actually improve the range. Third point, antenna strength. Any comms network you deploy around Kerbin will remain almost completely unused. That is because vessels prefer connecting to the strongest antenna they can see. And the strongest antenna around, by a very large margin, are Kerbin's ground stations. They are gigantic, and can draw whatever power they want - so they are orders of magnitude more powerful than vessel-mounted antennas. Any vessel that can see Kerbin will connect directly to Kerbin, always, completely ignoring any and all commsats in Kerbin orbit. The only time one of your commsats will be used is when a vessel cannot see Kerbin. Meaning, when it is in a Mun or Minmus orbit, and currently behind the moon, so it occludes Kerbin. As a result, what you really need is not a comms network around Kerbin, but rather one around the Mun, and one around Minmus. I mean... you can still build one around Kerbin anyway, for the challenge It just won't do anything. I recommend that you do a test run to see whether these assumptions carried over from KSP1 still hold water in KSP2. Specifically, you should test if your Communotron-16S equipped satellite can relay at all. To do this, put one in a high Mun orbit, and then have a vessel in a low Mun orbit where it will be cut off from connecting directly to Kerbin. See if it'll bounce through the satellite. Use an uncrewed craft for this, so the game will actually tell you when it loses connection.

Lol yeah I saw that thread, you're getting shredded out there. But it's not your fault. The community is up in arms and for understandable reasons that have very little to do with you and a lot more to do with the history and the state of the project, how it was hyped for years and ultimately a huge let down for many people. Intercept really squandered years of positive community building by Squad and rebuilding it is going to be difficult. I'm sorry you didn't see KSP in better days. Talk to JustJim who used to do QA if you want to hear the stories.

I realize that, but my wife's cousin was basically a diplomat/spook, and was fluent in Chinese. Lived in Beijing, then Hong Kong (he had a 2-floor apartment (!) with staff on the side of Victoria Peak). I think he would likely not get fooled—plus having a bunch of this around was literally part of his job as USN attaché to the PLAN—he'd get his cohorts drunk and hope they'd talk too much, and they would reciprocate at their functions hoping he'd drink too much, lol. Not to say he'd never get ripped off, but I imagine his staff did some of the footwork here to have the right bottles around for the locals he was entertaining. Unsure what to do with it, to be honest. Even at the lower end of prices it's more than I would spend. I could get a unicorn bottle of something I know for a fact I would enjoy for a fraction of that (since I'd not pay much above suggested retail for any whiskey, I'm an aficionado, not doing it as an investment). If I crack it open it will be for some event with enough people that I can spread the trying around.

Tempers are getting too high. Please stop trying to tell each other what to think and how to express it. Talk about the game rather than each other.

If you're gonna remove all variables and your end result is "I really want this game even if only to talk about it", you were never doing an opportunity cost analysis, you're just trying to justify your spent $50. If you or anyone wants the game that much, that's great, but don't say it's the result of a cost of opportunity analysis, it is not. We were talking about a cost of opportunity analysis. Thankfully for business owners worldwide, they're not subjective.

i think where the criticism begins is with IG having a QA team and the game released in the condition it was with basic things not working is where the trolling starts. I'll admit i was one of those people who was like "what the hell is this?" "QA approved this?" when i first tried the game. Reading things nate said that "productivity was suffering because the devs are busy playing the game". And i think to myself...all these people playing the game before release and nobody noticed this bug or that bug? I noticed it right off the batt. How can they NOT know? Basic stuff like reentry and all the other bugs makes people think "i paid $69 for this?" THATS where alot of it is coming from. It is hard to wrap your head around how can they release a game in this condition AND for this price? So if you could talk about that, that is what people like me wants to know. Who pulled the trigger on that decision to release and in this condition? Its not even a matter of who...but WHY? I understand NDA and all that but if you could answer that question I think it would prolly calm the negativity down a bit and offer a little more InSite into how this process is going to work going forward. if we just knew why then we could all move on. But see this is the problem.....I see stuff like AMA (ask me anything) but then i see its not really ask me anything its ask me about the pre-screened, pre-approved, questions the team approve of and not the questions everybody want to know. They go around all that. We see things like you guys have to have "media training" before you can answer questions or deal with the public and then turn around and praise yourselves on how transparent the team is and in the meantime the forum and steam are blowing up with negativity about the game. So what do we see next? Here come the PR marketing guys to try to save the day and talk the game up with contests and stuff nobody really cares about they just want their ksp to work. In this post/thread you were pretty straight up with us and i appreciate that yet the elephant in the room still exists. This is my way of giving what you guys asked for and thats constructive criticism. I hope we can both learn from each other