Search the Community

Not at all; and I highly doubt they mention anything in regards to plans for KSP2 specifically on the earnings call; other than the potential for more clarity on the closures and the reduction in costs related to it. KSP2 was already dropped from their quarterly reports last year where it was previously still noted as having an expected console launch... checks date... Oh, it was already supposed to have launched on console. In this call, they talk numbers not specific details of future plans; and any forward looking statements they do make are going to be focused on positive outlooks, such as expected revenues from GTA6.

I cannot stress how HARD I bounced off the game. I KNOW it's not the game for me. I didn't return it (like I did Stellaris, another game everybody loves but I knew INSTANTLY I'd never enjoy after about 15 minutes) but still, it's far better off pimping in my uninstalled games list, than it is getting sweared at incessantly as I think of the dozens of other things I'd rather be doing than hands-on learning a billion undocumented ways I'm not supposed to fly my ship. Maybe it's better now. Steam says I last played it in 2018. I'm not really all that willing to find out. Steam also says I put 7.5 hours into it, which frankly shocks me. You talk about docking protocols. I never even made it to a space station.

I think the thing people are going after with talk of a class-action would be the promises the company made regardless of the product being in EA. All the hype, all the talk about how they'll finish and everything is good. All the tidbits about velocity being good, and timelines are being met. I think this is where people are aiming. And that's a damned hard thing to prove outside of court, let alone inside of one. While there are laws that protect consumers from outright fraud, it's gonna be pretty hard for anyone to prove the company - TT, PD, IG, or some other entity in the umbrella - was intentional in deceiving the community. But, if they want to pursue it...I say good luck, and I hope they have enough cash to see it through.

It's the problem with Google, it will trimm the results to your profile. This is a list from mine (using the very same link I used above): Jovem Nerd Estúdio de Kerbal Space Program 2 será encerrado após demissões 2 weeks ago UOL Kerbal Space Program 2 Is Getting Review-Bombed After Take-Two Shut Down Its Developer Dec 22, 2023 IGN Kerbal Space Program 2 Is Getting Review-Bombed After Take-Two Shut Down Its Developer 2 weeks ago UOL Kerbal Space Program 2 Is Getting Review-Bombed After Take-Two Shut Down Its Developer 2 weeks ago Game Developer Update: Take-Two confirms Kerbal Space Program 2 is safe despite Seattle layoffs 2 weeks ago PC Gamer Kerbal Space Program fans react with anger over Intercept Games closure, and you know what that means: Review ... 2 weeks ago Epic Games Our guide to exploring deep space with Kerbal Space Program 2's For Science! Update Feb 6, 2024 Space.com Kerbal Space Program game director and ULA CEO talk STEM collaboration and companies' futures (exclusive) Feb 23, 2024 Olhar Digital Jogue como Elon Musk! Kerbal Space Program está por menos de R$ 20 no Steam Jun 9, 2023 Terra Jogamos: Kerbal Space Program 2 é mais acolhedor que antecessor Feb 24, 2023 <some others I'm omiiting> Yahoo Finance Canada Take-Two is shutting down the studios behind Rollerdrome and Kerbal Space Program 2 2 weeks ago TechTudo Kerbal Space Program 2: veja gameplay, história e requisitos mínimos do jogo Feb 25, 2023 And so goes on. You see, your initial statement: It's a heck of an overstament at best, or just don't hold itself at worst. For the best or for the worst, KSP in on the media.

Marginally? What exactly makes KSP1 only marginally better than KSP2? I agree that KSP1 has its flaws and problems. But if you think that the buggy dumpster fire that KSP2 was at launch, or continues to be today, is only marginally worse than KSP1, then nothing anybody says here will make any sense to you. I mean, of course it doesn't make sense to me. It is like how a Flat Earther sounds when trying to explain their beliefs. Right. But they do those "man on the street" things on the late night talk shows all the time, and they ask people general questions. "What's the capital of the US" and "How many ounces in a pound" and "Show me where Maine is on this map". And you know what? Most of the people that they show - not that they ask, but that they show on TV - can't answer the questions correctly. By your own definition, that makes basic US geography and simple weight conversion mathematics niche areas of interest. Again, bad analogies. I'm not on about asking "do you know what color the 0.625m stack separator is in KSP?" or some ridiculous trivia like that. I am on about asking people if they are even AWARE of this game's existence - caps for emphasis . It might shock you to know a game hardly anyone is aware of outside a specific industry is basically a niche, even if you may find it possibly shaking to think that a core aspect of your life is inconsequential to most people. A lot of people heavily invested in niches seemingly tend to go through some kind of denial, exhibit A ; ). Frankly, I have never heard anything said about this game unless I went out of my way to look for it so I'm leaning towards niche.

Marginally? What exactly makes KSP1 only marginally better than KSP2? I agree that KSP1 has its flaws and problems. But if you think that the buggy dumpster fire that KSP2 was at launch, or continues to be today, is only marginally worse than KSP1, then nothing anybody says here will make any sense to you. Right. But they do those "man on the street" things on the late night talk shows all the time, and they ask people general questions. "What's the capital of the US" and "How many ounces in a pound" and "Show me where Maine is on this map". And you know what? Most of the people that they show - not that they ask, but that they show on TV - can't answer the questions correctly. By your own definition, that makes basic US geography and simple weight conversion mathematics niche areas of interest.

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

Because the quantity has so far surpassed what niche was intended to encompass that it obtained international recognition in the gaming / development industry & soared to vaulted heights that still maintain It as one of the top 500 games being played on steam DESPITE more than 2/3 of people pole not using the launcher and 15 years past its launch date? No one has excused anything for the game. Many here will talk at length about shortcoming and various hard limits the game has. But most require some form of supportive argument to engage. Tired rhetoric & diatribes fall to engage people for long. A couple Stata posts or detailed examples of a social impact to support their frame with a "your wrong the game sucks" will only continue the discourse for so long before the majority feel your stance has been sufficiently invalidated.

I mean, KSP was basically a hackathon project by beginners in the industry, who managed to make a successful game despite all odds and sometimes despite of themselves. It's full of problems, but I think you're being too harsh on it. I get that you're annoyed that people want to pretend that there were no flaws, and HarvesteR and the rest of the team were game development savants who got it right on the first try. And I mean, even HarvesteR doesn't believe that, clearly. But you're still overcorrecting. You core statements are not wrong, but the way you're delivering them is antagonizing. You know that classic, "Soylent Green is people!" scene? It can be like that sometimes. And HarvesteR did say something that's very much true about how KSP1 happened. He essentially said that the fact that they didn't know what they were doing has got them to try things that others would have discarded, but ended up working for the game. And that's sort of the value of an indy and hackathon projects. But on the technical side, yeah, KSP is one giant technical debt. Even some of the things they correctly stumbled into and talk about as learning experience, I could have told them on day one, because it's a fairly typical problem. And that's the bottom line. A game can be a technical and design disaster, and still be good, because it did things other games didn't. You really have to recognize both aspects of it if you want to try to replicate the success while cleaning out the debt, because it can be very hard to tell one from the other. The rocket wobble of KSP was clearly just a side effect of using Unity's joint system. But would completely, perfectly rigid rockets feel like playing KSP? I think the question alone can start a fierce debate between the fans and developers alike. And that's kind of where we are with the whole project.

BFR. Big Fat Rocket. But replacing Fat... Also, Cobalt has said that they may do the big Nova for KSP2... though... lets not talk about that. Also also, iirc, Cobalt did express that he liked my version of the C-8. Perhaps we could bully, eh I mean persuade him to do my C-8 has the official BDB C-8. Though, my C-8 is basically just the c-8 from the c-8 wikipedia page.

So, I've got a few questions as it relates to communication and development. Can you share with us where you are at with updating your internal calendar as it relates to when we can expect the next KERB? I know you just got back and all, but we are jonesing for info here. As far as the KERB goes, are there any plans to be more verbose in the status of the bugs being worked on? For example, "Researching" doesn't tell us what you are doing with a bug, especially when some bugs have been around and in this status for months. What is being researched, and what about it is so complicated? Same thing for "Need Additional Information". What info do you need? Something from the community? The original reporter? Who and what? It has now been 3 months since the last patch, and there has been zero talk about the next one. Nor has there been any talk about colonies other than to show the same station orbiting Jool a few times. Can you give us any information on where the team is at with the next patch, or with colonies, or when 0.3 might drop? And why the complete silence on all of this? It is early access, but we put our faith in you guys and we haven't had that faith rewarded much (if at all). Can we talk about procedural parts again? We have been told that procedural tanks are too complex, but Juno has them. And ill have to look again to make sure, but I think HarvesteR's latest project Kit Hack has them. What is so complex about them as it relates to KSP2? Finally, we need to discuss maneuver nodes and dV calculation. Has the development team shared anything with you that you can share with us as to how these are being worked on, and what potential solutions we may see? Both of these are critical to the game.

This was my worry, that we'd see a repeat of for science, dropping a milestone every december-ish. Mathed out a similar prediction earlier, in another thread, actually. On the specific topic of communication, I do think its just as much of a substance issue as it is a cadence issue. We've spent the last year and change being told there's plenty of work going on it the background, things are progressing great, our internal builds are so much fun - And then the community asks to see it, and we get crickets. And while I totally understand a reluctance to show off anything you're not dead certain you can deliver, it doesn't add up to a lot of people, because the trend of it actually happening hasn't been there, even before the game released at all. Lemme break it down here. The game is announced, the community goes wild. we're shown a bunch of cool stuff. Crickets, corporate drama, some date shuffling, and we don't really see much of anything. For the most part the community understands this, as we're being told that we're getting a full release of KSP2. Nearing the dates, it becomes an early access, and most of the stuff we've been talking about for the years between announcement and now is pushed out to roadmap. The community is disappointed but understanding, and takes the reassurances that what is launching will be absolutely solid as solace. The community then gets the first release of the game, and its pretty bad. We're told it'll be fixed up right quick, and the launch window features will be coming shortly. Then its not fixed up quick, and the launch window features are pushed out almost ten months. When asked to explain this both along the way and afterwards, we're more or less told that its because of parallel development in various features that'll speed up the content cadence. But we're given at most some extremely surface glances of this parallel content, and its extremely difficult to actually identify any signs of meaningful progress. The community requests more information and expresses discontent with what is being provided so far, and is promised some level of improved and expanded communication, but with no commitment to any specifics. At the same time, existing communication avenues dry up, providing even less insight into the active progress of development. This triggers another round of communication concern and inquiry, to which the community is told that all the work time has been put into planning out the next levels of work, and therefore communications can't be prepared just yet. This is followed up by information that suggest the patch cycle is stagnating, not accelerating in its timelines. Those last two parts is where it starts to fall apart, because its a bit of a leap for someone to accept that "We have multiple parallel development streams making content" and "We have nothing to talk about because we're planning what we will be doing next" are both true at the same time. If you've had a year of parallel development streams, it doesn't make sense to the average person that you have nothing to show for it across all the streams - While corporate communications is reluctant to talk about anything meaningful that might end up not getting added, the people who already paid just want to understand what the development team is doing and where it might be going, even if they hear that a thing is later cut for non-viability. But if you can move past that and accept that first combination condition, then the patch cycle appearing to be on the same timeline as the last one doesn't add up, suggesting that at a minimum, the parallel development chains aren't going to yield any meaningful increases in patch rates. Effectively, and likely with no malice, the community now has years of being overpromised and underdelivered to, and the scope of those overpromised and underdelivered situations have been coming in smaller and smaller - First it was the entire thing, then parts of the thing, then update cadences, now patch cadences, now communication cadences - Every step feels like its been backwards to many. And I do want to be clear that it is "Many" and not "All" - I don't speak for the whole community, but discontent doesn't have to, not on its own. This isn't an element of the community being told "You won't get this" and then being mad, this is that element being told "We'll do better" and then not getting anything better, over and over and over - Even if the rest is fine, that group is entirely in their rights to be angry about it at this point, because they're feeling lied to. And I think it shows in the cancellation of the KERB and its reception - People for the most part agreed it wasn't working and were ok with it going, the discontent was that it was the only remaining reliable communication path, and that's the thing we keep asking for. Most of us salty folks don't care if we get communications every week, two weeks, month, or even three months - Within reason, we don't want the game to reach that 2028 date in my quoted post . But what we do want to know is that if you come out and say "First of every month, meaningful update", that I can swing in on May 1st and see something that's actually of substance to the game. Not a filler dev article though, I guarantee you that we'd prefer 2 paragraphs and a screenshot of one singular colony feature sliver or a long piece that ends with "None of that worked so we went to the drawing board" over 10 paragraphs and math diagrams about how clouds in gas giants work IRL but why Jool doesn't do it the same way. That might be cool, but its completely irrelevant to the roadmap we want to hear about. The last thing I want to hear is "We'll provide updates on our plans to provide updates two weeks from now" and then come back in two weeks to hear "So we've discussed the initial plans to create a cadence for communications that'll provide details, but we're pushing out that information a few more weeks, check back later". KSP2 is in a bit of a do or die scenario - Not the game as a whole but its communications. You need to decide publicly and vocally, whether you will actually provide more meaningful information and details on a meaningful schedule, or will you prefer to work quiet and just roll in whenever you feel your ready. Trying to play the middle ground of "we'd love to we're totally working on it and doing it" without delivering is just making the whole thing look worse and throwing a lot of doubt on it. You're setting yourself up No Mans Sky style, nodding along to nice sounding things that people ask about without the seeming ability to deliver. You can look at is as "Look how much damage a single comment about development streams has done to expectations" as a reason to clam up, or you can look at it as a reason to speak more to explain what context was missing from that comment as to the actual development streams. But you need to make a decision. And that's the end of my rant from a community perspective. From a personal perspective, I find it disappointing and frustrating that a fully funded and well staffed studio full of professionals are struggling to meet the standards that indie early access games set in the early 2010's, before anyone even knew how to do any of this. There was this indie game called Kerbal Space Program managed to make frequent and meaningful communication updates to its users, while also having frequent and meaningful content patches and enhancements. These updates were relatively small, simple, not particularly heavily edited, and even included stuff that ultimately didn't come to pass that still informed the community as to what the focus at the moment was, and where things might be going. I am getting more and more of the feeling that our "Communications" are being treated as investor statements and press statements rather than being intended for us.

Floor 4875: Your cubicle at your office 60km away from your house. Your coworkers include various forum members and moderators, cartoon dogs, B1 battle droids, portal Cores, and an Automaton trooper wearing a business suit. You go to your bosses office to talk about planning the floor’s monthly corporate party. asee your boss, a young blue Australian cartoon dog, loudly fire one of your coworkers, and you decide to go back at a different time.

No, we are just the cash cow to slaughter. The high Lords are not required to talk to the rabble, they already milked us and are now free to do with our money what ever they please.

I'm going to say something contentious. Now that manned flights are growing closer, we have to address a fact that isn't being spoken: space travel is dangerous. The Artemis program, or something connected to it, may have the first death in space in over a decade. Maybe not in the first launch, not in the second, hopefully never. But for all the talk about commercialisation, this is space exploration and it is not safe. This isn't pronouncing doom. As Chris Hadfield says in his TED talk on fear versus danger, NASA has considered risk, reduced it where possible. He also said that the Space Shuttle was a complex flying machine and the chances of a catastrophic event was, when he flew, 1 in 38. He still went. SLS and Orion is less complex, we have far better robotics than Apollo ever did, and an honest-to-Oberth partially-reusable 'space truck' in Falcon 9. However... we cannot fully design out the chance of death, nor pretend that we are not putting people in harm's way. SpaceX makes it look easy. SpaceX also has "Stay Paranoid" emblazoned on the desks of Mission Control. Even the Apollo 9-like mission proposed in tandem with SpaceX could result in deaths. What brought this on? A blog post by Wayne Hale on the laser-focus on monetary cost as the be-all, end-all of space exploration: https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/blood-and-money/ If in the future something does go wrong, I have a polite request for the few people reading this: don't go mad. Do not argue yourself into the hole that all exploration should be done robotically. That you knew this would happen and humans should never have left the ground, never mind Earth. Do not let your fear control you. If you see someone else who likes space falling into the same trap, I request - because I can't make you do a damn thing - that you pull them out. Wayne Hale thinks the risk is worth the reward, that it is brave to take on this risk, and so do I.

I did a little sleuthing, and it's (I believe) the oldest parts in all of the mods. I may be interested in sprucing it up, though CardZ has first dibs if he is inclined, we'll talk about it. The Vostok in general is a sizing nightmare, unique because it so tightly integrates with the upper stage, and as it winds up at 1.44m ingame if you take the scaling flat. You will certainly end up with a few weird parts. But that's a problem after I release the Proton (maybe, idk what I'll do next). The Blok-E of course matches Card's new soyuz upper stage diameter 1.625m in game. The capsule would probably end up about 1.5m

I watched 2012 for the first time. I found it to be a pretty entertaining movie, which asks some interesting questions about morality when comes to saving the world, albeit perhaps not so original ones. It was refreshing to watch in 2024 when all the movies seem to be about relatively normal life, while the end of the world talk comes from IRL stuff (barring superhero movies which require a perennial doomsday to defeat). I can’t decide between the oligarch calling an Antonov aircraft Russian or the Chinese Mi-26s airlifting giraffes and other animals as the most funny part. Interesting to note, while the Chinese do not possess Mi-26s, they do operate a number of Sikorsky S-70s, which are partially depicted by way of Blackhawks with PLA insignia also used by the Chinese in the film. Given the neutrino “mutation” nonsense in the beginning, I was thoroughly surprised that the arks ended up being ships instead of spaceships. Considering the shipbuilding giant it is today I’d say the premise of building a massive ark for 100,000 people isn’t too far fetched, although doing it in the Himalayas and in total secrecy might be. I also found it funny that Japan, Russia, and China got stuck on the same boat together. I’m a Japanese person who has an interest in the Russian (well, Soviet) and Chinese militaries. I have seen a loosely similar concept explored in Japan Sinks: 2020, in which many Japanese refugees end up in Russia, Japan Sinks: 2023, in which a good portion of the Japanese population is evacuated to China, and I myself considered exploring the concept with the idea to conduct an amateur study of what kind of resources would be needed to relocate the entire population of Japan to new-built cities in the Russian Far East in the event of either a fantasy Japan sinks scenario or a climate disaster which renders Japanese summers unlivable. The latter is an idea I did not pursue. I also considered looking at the cost of moving the entire country into balloons on Venus, but I didn’t look at it either. My Mars city calculations over in the S&S section have now dissuaded me from taking a look at any such situation in a capitalist context. But I digress. As far as apocalyptic stories or movies go, I like this one in that it has a relatively happy ending. I feel that “man just tears itself apart” type stories are too rooted in Hobbes’ view of man’s “true” nature without civilization, which was never meant to be an actual sociological or anthropological take on humanity and was simply a philosophical argument. The truth is that we are very kind animals. It’s wrong to think that every man and woman would become a murderer the moment the kings and their courts were toppled; I think this idea focuses too much on the way law is used to restrain people and not enough on how morals do too. Yes, we can be violent. But if we were not primarily an altruistic species, I don’t think we would have gotten this far at all. “Men” (I use men in the sense of man vs. savage) created civilization, not the other way around. IMO, of course. Oh, and by the way, I now really feel like Moonfall was just an attempt to emulate what 2012 did but in an over the top way. I think 2012 works because the social phenomena of belief in that doomsday was popular. The idea of the Moon being an alien ark and it crashing in to Earth? At best a few dark web conspiracy lunatics know about it, at worst Roland just made it up himself and hoped people would be interested.

Does anyone know if Kerbal space program one enhanced edition for the PlayStation or other consoles is still getting support or updates? I just picked it up for the PlayStation and really enjoy the game but unfortunately things I see on YouTube videos I am incapable of doing. I was just wondering if we're going to get the same updates at some point. Forums from other locations people talk about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any support for the game and sometimes the last post is as far back as 2022. So I was just wondering I really enjoy the game but I'm wondering if I spent my money in vain due to the fact that I'm not kidding any more support for the game.

30:37 ... I have messaged Nate Simpson cre creative director of ksp2 30:45 and I said look I know you're obviously going to be under some massive corporate NDA so you can't really talk but can you 30:51 tell me anything and all he was able to say was I'm very much looking forward to talking when I can thanks for 30:57 understanding ...

Respectfully, The post did talk about them working on each of these problems: And even more he talked about fixing one of the main annoyances that come with the problem. While this doesn't necessarily fix the Delta-V calculator, It shows that they are committed to fixing the issue and making sure that the game stays fun while they work on it: I don't mean to disregard your concerns but I think if we are asking for more quality communication we should keep a positive attitude when they deliver, especially when it's specifically acknowledging what we have been saying for a while. I'm not saying anyone HAS TO be happy with where we are but I think a positive outlook is always better especially if one main complaint was asking for them to talk about what they are working on before it's here.

Worth listening to, interestingly Matt reached out to Nate to ask if he could say anything and he more or less just said what the others have been saying; "Can't talk now, maybe later".

It's pretty hard to manage expectations after a huge hype campaign followed by... hummm... a somewhat less than expected initial release. There's a lot of promises (as well tons of plain statements taken as promises) made in the last years that are probably going to be broken, and without a viable release to use as a trade-off (ok, A is not going to happen, but look! B & C were implemented instead!), at least in my book, the less technical details (or any details that can be used by technicians to infer the state of the game) you publish, less work you will have on managing a new loot of fallen short expectations. It's kinda of a catch-22 situation: you talk about, you get screwed. You don't talk about, you get screwed. Finding the less bitter spot in which you get less screwed is the trick. (don't look at me for answers - I'm on the "talk too much" spectrum)

Gotta agree to disagree then, that was a painful read. Whilst you're free to like what you like, I fail to agree on any of the things you like, and some other things are plainly not a matter of personal opinion, like not being able to read the fonts on the UI, or loading times, or "potential" and so on. For loading times, on a new and clean game, the loading speed difference between KSP1 and 2 is minimal. Sure, the initial load is faster, but at the end of the day, a game made 10 years ago loads a whole *checks notes* 15 seconds slower from startup to flight. And that's with KSP2 still being in its incomplete infancy. Potential does not define a foundation. Foundation is a word reserved for how well the codebase and the game systems are put together. If "what I believe this game can be" was a metric, then every game in development has infinite potential and thus the strongest foundation. That's just not how it works. In reality KSP2 has the same engine as the prequel, the same middleware for some features, but a much heavier save system, and also a much heavier inactive-vessel simulation. KSP2 will be thwarted by that in the future. It also still builds and saves vessels as a tree, it still calculates fuel flow mostly the same way (something something "inspiration" from the code of the previous game), it still handles the atmosphere like the previous game, but thanks to that passive simulation and bad saving system, vessels popping into range still kill your game, orbits change randomly, and the game grinds to a halt with vessels and partcounts much faster than the prequel, to the point systems (like heating) have to be "streamlined", and part-counts have to be hammered down with new, revolutionary "all in one" science modules, station modules, and in the future colony modules too... or having the logistics layer be abstracted to numbers instead of seeing your vessels come and go. Right now, saves are just a couple vessels for 99% of players, let alone making any vessel in the hundreds of parts for maybe the last couple missions, and most people play serially too (fully complete one mission before launching the next). So really, KSP2s limits haven't yet applied to most people and thus it's no wonder they really think the game is better off. When colonies and interstellar arrive, along with more resources to keep track of... it's gonna be a mess, yet devs refuse to address it and have let the bug report sit unattended, and only mentioned the problem once in the K.E.R.B. and that's... the opposite of potential. So yeah, you might slowly start to realize why people who talk highly of the foundation, potential, and what not don't seem completely grounded in reality to me, and why the lack of proper technical talk in devblogs is worrying. I don't care at all for how they failed to replicate eclipses, or how they had to tesselate a line to draw a circle, I care to know why we're still stuck on something as primitive as tree based vessels, and how they plan to deal with high part counts, or even something as basic as what their target is.

When assign blame you have to look at those in key roles.. that why certain individuals have a tendency to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden for failure. Nate was the face of this product, for better or worse. I believe he genuinely thought this game would succeed bc the community would be impressed with his awesome vision, so much so that we would be willing to excuse ... certain deficiencies for extended periods of time. When everyone wanted something substantive be the foundation of all those "oooo... purdy!" It kind of fell apart a little. I understand the need for visual aide and demonstrative presentations, but you must find balance. When you hear people say things that are not accurate... they absolutely are going to get some blame for their misinformed position. If they say innacurate things without any clarification to those inconsistencies.. it seems willful. Regardless if that's the case.. the perception starts to shift to one of being intentionally misled. "Fully Funded" - massive lay off "Playable at Launch" "Actual Play Footage" These are what started to turn me off of Nate. Enthusiasm without Substance. I try not to watch any videos with him in it because of this bias. Regardless of what's really going on.. I can see some deceptive marketing material as anything but disingenuous now & view him a smarmy Narcissist. I can't help it.. I wanna be a better person with less judgement in my heart. But loading a bunch of visual content on a liquid poor foundation of code while the community that built the franchise was highly intelligent professional and gifted youths.. I had a step dad who was shaddy as he'll. He was a handyman that took jobs and never completed them.. boy he could talk a great game. I dispised his behavior growing up.. ans seem to now see him when I look at Nate. Sorry can't help it... Community Managers however were not to blame. A thankless job that was impossible to do, bc the proper tools (info) was not provided or allowed to be released.

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