Search the Community

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.

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 ...

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".

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.

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.

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 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.

Yes, Nate also said that this parallel workflow was speeding up subsequent releases versus the cadence of bugfixes... and that didn't happen, with 2 proposed bugfix releases before colonies having failed to even show up let alone have a date for the first one 4 months down the road. That's what I mean with "don't exist": They weren't there, even if under "muh parallel development" they were supposed to start working on stuff as soon as FS! left the dock. Once again, all they could show from colonies was static assets on editor scenes., same kind of hot air they were showing before release saying they had a full game. Allegedly, and that being considered only as a way to have some compassion to their work. Even if this is something they've actively denied and the people working on whatever was scrapped was... themselves still under the same leadership. Sure you could talk licenses, but it's useless if we don't know how much really was lost, that's a magnitude order more conjecture than whether KSP2 is currently dead. This + things like using the same middleware, and hitting the same walls as the prequel with the fuel flow calculations were heavily worrying.

KSP 1.12.x Kerbal Atomics [1.3.3] Last Updated January 22, 2022 This part pack is designed to provide some new nuclear thermal rockets for your spaceship-building pleasure. There are eight new engines, one in the 3.75m size class, four in the 2.5m size class, two in the 1.25m size class and one in the 0.625m size class. They are fuelled with LiquidHydrogen, and in some cases can use Oxidizer to boost their thrust at the cost of specific impulse. Liquid Hydrogen is less dense than liquid fuel, so for the same Delta-V, you will need more tank volume. To store your liquid hydrogen fuels, I've provided ModuleManager/B9PartSwitch configs that allow you to change the contents of stock tanks between LF/O, LH2/O, LF, O and LH2. These should work with most mod tanks, but no promises. However, Liquid Hydrogen is very temperamental and without the proper storage it will slowly evaporate ("boil off"). Therefore, I provide special cryogenic tanks bundled with the mod, that use a small amount of Electric Charge to stop the evaporation. This mod is designed to synergize well with Cryogenic Engines, and with the various Near Future Technologies mods I make. It is also fully integrated into the Community Tech Tree. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: RealFuels support? A: Talk to RealFuels people, not my issue. Q: Oxidizer isn't LOX, it's something else! A: You are completely free to do whatever you like and change it Q: How do I stop the engines from using LH2 and use LF instead? A: Install the NTRsUseLF patch in the Extras folder. Q: Why can't I refuel the Emancipator? A: It's a cheaty engine. It has a disadvantage. If you want to refuel it, you need to download NF Electrical and install the high complexity reactor integration patch. Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source If you appreciate this project, please consider contributing to my caffeine addiction! I really appreciate it, and also helps justify this time sink to my wife , which results directly in more models.

Yeah, it's not so much about how much money the studio can make, but about how much money it can be making in the nearest future. If a studio made a ton of money in the past, but has just released a game and will release the next one in 3-4 years, they'll still get the axe. The problem is that over the past few years, borrowing money was basically free for large businesses. If you weren't borrowing to open up a studio and spin up another project, you were leaving money on the table. Over the past year and a half or so, the fed rates climbed to a fairly high level. Suddenly, all these studios aren't free anymore - you're paying significant interest against the money you've borrowed, and anything that's not generating revenue right now basically becomes a significant drain. Consequently studios get cut left and right despite the publishers taking in a lot of money from sales. The only real conclusion we can make about the IG situation is that nobody expected them to release a polished, revenue-generating game within a year or so. And we sort of knew that from the state of Early Access. There's a game there, but it's not ready for the main marketing push, and won't be ready soon enough to offset the ongoing development costs if you have to pay interest on it. It's hard to say what exactly this means for the future of KSP2 without looking at the overall cash flow of T2, and hey, look at that, earnings call is coming up in a few days. They'll probably talk about IG and R7, but even if not, based on what they have in flight, what's bringing in money, and how much is going to the studios they currently have operating, we'll be able to get an idea of how much money T2 has to spend on smaller projects. Two likely possibilities is that either a) they've cut enough to have a small stream to afford a smaller 3rd party studio to take on KSP2 or b) they are waiting for some upcoming releases to bring in more cash. At the latest, we're looking GTA VI release, as that will inject a lot of capital to spend on other projects. That would mean development resuming in 2025-2026, though, with v1.0 coming in in 2026-2028? But unless the game just straight up gets canceled, which right now it doesn't sound like it will be, that's the worst case scenario. A lot of things can speed it up, and there might be a smaller studio PD is already talking to in regards to KSP2. We should have some idea soon. There is a grim possibility that KSP2 is already effectively canceled, and T2 just didn't want to make the announcement before the earnings call. In that case, we'll also know about it soon. I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I'd be remiss not to acknowledge it.

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.

After playing modded KSP with RP-1 and watching For all Kerbalkind i thought there should be more RP-1 related videos. So i came up with an idea a KSP RP-1 project that is based on For all Kerbalkind Each player takes part as their own organization/nation together or against each other Trading vehicles/kOS for money/honor/science, other services, to help noob advantage: functioning vehicles of others (grab and go), help and experience of others, own difficulty if necessary Pro advantage: "sale" of vehicles, kOS scripts and information, play with/against each other (BD Armory? ), own difficulty if necessary My thoughts so far: How is this supposed to work as “multiplayer”? Everyone plays their game with the others or "in the dark" and at a certain interval the players share their intermediate results What kind of interval? an in-game period that we discuss together (e.g. 1 year) What kind of intermediate results ? At least rough information about what you send into orbit and above, as an overview/information for the others would be nice (or to sow envy and resentment ) What do I need to participate? RP-1 Express, at least 1 intermediate results per interval, joy of playing How should trading work? Send craft files to others via file sharing (discord? or at least you know email?) How should I get/lose money/honor/science from others? alt + F12, you know? That should be a fair play with/against each other? Like many things, it's just based on believing in others. E.g. that your boss pays you or that your partner really doesn't cheat Do I have to upload videos? Nope, it's ok if you're just a part of the project Do I have to share my vehicles/kOS? Nope, if someone wants to include your vehicles in their game (e.g. what's going on in orbit) they can also use placeholders (e.g. a probe) Do I have to play as much as the others? Nope, it doesn't have to be a head-to-head race at all times. How many events/secrets from the past are only coming to light today after all this time? Darn it, do I have to wait for the others now? Nope, hand in your intermediate result and if you don't care about the others then carry on playing, totally ok you pioneer But I want to upload a lot of videos/make money with all of this? Welcome to the free world, no one is stopping you I want to play as nation/organization XYZ! Whoever comes first... but talk to the other player, maybe you can move forward as a partner/rival/alliance. we were divided once too (BRD & DDR) I want to play with additional mods! gladly, it doesn't influence the others (except possibly traded vehicles) I want to integrate other people's vehicles, how? Either take a placeholder (probe) or ask the others about their crafts and cheat into orbit (Alt + F12) I don't understand anything but I still want to participate ... breathe deeply, very calmly. one step at a time, Rome didn't fall in a day (Wiki and Installguide) I'll never be able to keep up with the others! totally ok, since space travel began only 4 nations have made it safely to the moon, maybe someone is interested in cooperating? But I'm much better than those suckers! hand in your intermediate result and go ahead and lead our world to new shores, for Shine and Glory! I've only just seen all of this, am I too late O.o?! Nope, e.g. early German space travel: V-2, 1942 (first object to cross the Kármán line); first German satellite, at the end of 1969 by a US rocket ... Do we include all of each other's vehicles in the game? we can, but we don't have to. Yes, we can say we are not interested in other nations, it's up to you Did you drink paint? only if there is one standing around Either way, I'll give it a try in the future, even on my own if I have to would you be interested? your opinion on this? let me know in the comments ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nachdem Ich RP-1 gespielt und For all Kerbalkind gesehen hatte, dachte Ich es sollte mehr RP-1 bezogene Videos geben. Also hab Ich mir da was überlegt Ein KSP RP-1 Projekt das an For all Kerbalkind angelehnt ist jeder Mitspieler nimmt als eigene Organisation/Nation teil zusammen oder gegeneinander Handel von Fahrzeugen/kOS gegen Geld/Ehre/Wissenschafft , andere Dienstleistungen , zur Hilfe noob-Vorteil: funktionierende Fahrzeuge der anderen (übernehmen/orientieren und go), Hilfe und Erfahrung der anderen , bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit pro-Vorteil: "Verkauf" von Fahrzeugen, kOS-Scripten und infos , mit- / gegeneinander spielen (BD Armory? ), bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit Meine Gedanken dazu bis jetzt: Wie soll das als "Multiplayer" funktionieren? jeder spielt mit den anderen oder "im dunkeln" sein Spiel und in einem bestimmten Intervall teilen sich die Mitspieler über ihren Spielstand aus Was für ein Intervall? eine ingame-Zeitspanne die wir gemeinsam beraten (zb 1 Jahr) Was für ein Zwischenstand? zumindest grobe Angaben was man in den Orbit und drüber schickt, als Übersicht/Info für die anderen wäre doch ganz nett (oder um Neid und Missgunst zu säen ) Was brauch ich zum mitmachen? RP-1 Express, zumindest 1 Zwischenstand pro Intervall, Spass an der Sache Wie soll der Handel funktionieren? Craft-Files an die anderen per File-sharing schicken (Discord? oder kennst doch zumindest eMail?) Wie soll ich Geld/Ehre/Science, bekommen/verlieren? alt + F12, kennste? Und das soll ein faires Mit-/Gegeneinander werden? Beruht wie vieles nur auf dem Glauben an die Anderen. zb dass dich dein Cheff auch bezahlt oder dein Partner wirklich nicht fremdgeht Muss ich Videos hochladen? nö, reicht doch auch so wenn Du teil des Projekts bist Muss ich meine Fahrzeuge/kOS teilen? nö, wenn jemand deine Fahrzeuge in sein Spiel einbinden will (bsp was im Orbit los ist) kann man ja auch Platzhalter (zb Sonde) nehmen Muss ich so viel spielen wie die anderen? nö, es muss ja nicht zu jeder zeit ein Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen sein. Wie viele Geschehnisse/Geheimnisse von Früher kommen nach all der Zeit erst Heute ans Licht? boar, muss ich jetzt auf die anderen warten? nö, gib dein Zwischenstand ab und wenn dich die Anderen nicht jucken dann spiel weiter, vollkommen ok du Pionier Ich will Videos hochladen/mit dem ganzen Geld verdienen? Willkommen in der freien Welt, es hält dich niemand auf Ich will als Nation/Organisation XY spielen! Wer zuerst kommt ... aber rede mal mit dem Anderen, vielleicht könnt ihr als Partner/Rivalen/Allianz voranschreiten. Wir waren auch einmal Entzweit (BRD & DDR) Ich will mit zusätzlichen Mod´s spielen! gerne, beeinflusst die Anderen ja nicht (ausser evtl gehandelte Fahrzeuge) Ich will die Fahrzeuge der Anderen einbinden, wie? entweder ein Platzhalter (Sonde) nehmen oder die anderen nach ihren Craft´s fragen und in den orbit Cheaten (alt + F12) Ich peil garnichts aber will trotzdem mitmachen ... durchatmen, ganz ruhig. Ein Schritt nach dem anderen, Rom ist auch nicht an einem Tag gefallen (Wiki und Installguide) Ich kann nie im Leben mithalten! vollkommen ok, seit Beginn der Raumfahrt haben es nur 4 nationen sicher zum Mond geschafft, vielleicht ist ja Jemand an einer Kooperation interessiert? Ich bin aber viel besser als die anderen Nieten! gib dein Zwischenstand ab und go ahead und führe unseren Welt zu neuen Ufern. Für Glanz und Gloria! Ich hab das alles jetzt erst gesehen, bin Ich zu spät dran O.o?! nö. zb frühe deutsche Raumfahrt: V-2, 1942 (erstes Objekt über der Kármán Linie); erster deutscher Sattelit, Ende 1969 per US-Rakete ... Binden wir alle Fahrzeuge der Anderen ins Spielgeschehen ein? können, müssen Wir aber nicht. Wir können ja sagen Wir interessieren uns nicht für die anderen Nationen, Dir überlassen Hast du lack gesoffen? nur wenn welcher rümsteht so oder so werde ich das in der Zukunft, auch alleine wenns sein muss, einmal probieren hättet ihr Interesse? eure Meinung dazu? lasst es mich in den Kommentaren wissen

A digression about Factorio has been moved here. If you want to talk about that game, please take the discussion there.

Right. That's how business works. T2 will say nothing more until then, and there's no-one left at IG who is a position to talk: anyone still at their desk will be focused on tying up the loose ends and under a strict NDA. So - sad to say, but we have to twiddle our thumbs for at least another week.

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.

TBH I do not understand this kind of stuff. A lot of people here talk like "the community" is a magical thing. I have read a lot of stuff how "this community is not toxic" or something. This community is not a static thing and changes because of external influences. Like the development of KSP2. Honestly the amount of praise "the communitiy" is giving themselves over here is next level cringe. And feels totally out of touch with realitiy.

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)

The problem is that correlation between studio doing a good job with the resources they have and the revenue math is negligible. I mean, it's possible to very clearly and unambiguously be bad at things. If you took publisher money and went on a drinking spree and had absolutely nothing to show for it, yeah, sure. But drawing the correlation the other way, from failed projects to the quality of the team overall, is pretty much statistical noise. In practice, a lot more is determined by the conditions of the project and the IP. Did PD trust your project enough to give you a budget to hire the best people in the field? No? You're kind of boned. People the Intercept hired for physics were just out of academia and had very little game dev experience. They were good at physics, but very, very green in games. Networking engineers they had also never had to work with a game like KSP2. I don't think that's because Intercept just didn't know how to find talented people. They didn't have the budget to hire people who could hit the ground running on absolutely everything. Finally, the engine. The only reason it's a Unity game is because heavy reuse of the KSP assets and code was promised by Star Theory, like, seven years ago, and it's been sunk costs ever since. That limits people you can hire to a specific set of skills, because you make certain kinds of games on Unity, and they aren't KSP. It's a big part of why Intercept ended up having to hire modders. They knew how to work with Unity, how to make things for KSP, and they were probably within budget. Clearly PD wanted to make a game cheap. And the ambition they were sold on was not of a cheap game to make. Not a lot of it is on the studio that was created years after the decisions were made. Some of it is on the people who were at Star Theory from the start, but the majority of it has been PD decisions on how much they value the IP. And the game was still happening. It was a buggy mess, it was wildly off schedule, but we were seeing a game being built. Just not fast enough. Not selling enough EA copies. Not getting glowing enough reviews. Given the same constraints, I don't know if it was possible to do better. You can make a strong argument that people who ended up in charge of the Intercept should not have attempted to make KSP2 with these constraints. And, yeah, maybe? But to say they are a studio that deserved closing more than another studio because they decided to try is at a minimum a very cynical thing to claim. And I would argue unfair. And then there are so many factors on top of that. It's not just about money you've earned it's how much you're going to earn soon. Again, Tango Gameworks are a great example. Hi-Fi Rush went above and beyond. Critical success, glowing user reviews, and it recouped its development costs several times over. Studio gets shut down. At the same time, the studio working on Fallout 76, whose beta launch makes KSP2 EA look good and who are running a bill tens of times higher are allowed to keep going. Because they are maintaining a title that continues to make money, and Tango Gameworks would have to start working on another game that will maybe be as successful as Hi-Fi Rush four years from now. So a studio that performed great got shutdown, and a studio that's been making mediocre work, taking years to put 76 back on track and massively over budget is allowed to keep going. It ain't about the the studio's performance. It's about the resources, and IP, and a type of project, and what the higher management thinks it means in terms of revenue over the next couple of quarters tops. There are additional considerations and backroom talk that makes me think that some of the criticism towards Intercept leadership is deserved. But I would not have drawn this conclusion purely from how the development of KSP2 has been going. Knowing everything we've learned about the project over, eh, 2023 or so, they were always going to have to fight uphill. Some of it through more thorns than another studio, perhaps, but I have no reason to believe that any other studio working on the same budget would be able to make KSP2 good enough to not be cut at this point. And that's all that matters here. The rest is fluff and victim-blaming. [snip]

I totally agree, had another post above that Moonship was oversize for the initial landings. Now I would use another Moonship with an orbital module for the orbital moon station, it would be an fuel depot and even an rescue ship. But the BO lander is probably more practical but might likely more expensive / slower, SpaceX is testing Starship. Yes New Glen is less ambitions but its not SS more like falcon heavy as I understand. So you use your 18 wheel truck to buy an burger as its cheaper / faster than other options like taxi or meal delivery services. You obviously want SS for the base, they should also be pretty easy to turn into base modules. Then the talk ISRU and hydrolox become more relevant again.

Somebody had already ninja'd me on Reddit. But what about her box with husband's things. A pair of very small boots, and something like "He was fond of caring of this, could talk about them for hours" (at least in translation). Was her husband a leprechaun?

Well, truth be told I may be taking a little shortcut. We're getting close to whatever the end is, and frankly it's just more efficient if the main people who need to talk next can do it in the same room. Especially when getting visual effects right can mean an hour of flying people around in jetpacks, dealing with helmet bugs, and trying to orient bridge sets sunny-side up for better lighting etc., for just a couple of panels. If there's any concern about continuity etc., well I did hang a lampshade with the thread title. I was considering having Evil Bob throw even more snark than his "abusing crew transfers" comment by pointing out that the "turbolifts" are just part-clipped lander cans, and why couldn't he just transfer into a docked landing craft? Well if he could do that, why did the boarding parties have to burn through bulkheads etc. to get aboard? I'm certainly not going to explain it! This is why the author's crew compartment is as well-stocked with lampshades as KSP craft are with flags and EVA propellant. Who's to say? A couple of thoughts from a similarly mirrored situation: (1) It is far easier for civilized [kerbs] to behave like barbarians than it is for barbarians to behave like civilized [kerbs], BUT, (2) ruthlessly evil or not, it is possible to be a "[kerb] of integrity" in more than one universe.

The $20M is for just the launch, not the payloads. Several years ago, a SpaceX engineer giving a talk at a conference said their marginal internal cost was ~$25M a launch (I posted the vid here at the time, but it was pulled down—possibly because he talked about those numbers). This was long before they were flying 20 times+, and before they recovered fairings much if at all. So $20M seems pretty reasonable as a current ballpark.

This is something I and others said multiple times throughout EA. I think a lot of anger at the communication/CMs was misplaced disappointment with the development speed. If the game was fun and developing quickly they could’ve talked as much or as little as they wanted. You don’t really need to have a big dev interview once a month if there’s a content update once a month to show what the devs have been up to. A KERB update post is easily replaced by weekly patches with detailed patch notes. Then they can talk a lot, nearly not at all, be sassy like the Wendy’s Twitter, be very proper or whatever other style they want and it wouldn’t really matter. The frustration always stemmed from this being the slowest progressing EA game I think any of us have ever played. With the devs not active (for the most part) interacting with the community that frustration was expressed to the CMs, and eventually it became (unfairly) frustration at the CMs.

Did you really put the "Terrain Implementation" along the Pros of this game ? Damn, it looks so aged, so outdated, so clunky, so weird, inhomogeneous, unaesthetic, etc. Especially with the harsh lightning which got quite improved by the last Blackrack efforts, but I find the terrain to be so 2015, technically speaking, and very not beautiful as an art decision (which is more personal opinion). The only way to get it "OK-Ish" is to compare it to Stock KSP1. But doing so, well, I won't elaborate further, it is nonsense to me as it's just the literal bare minimum. Terrain is very precisely what I was expected the most, because it would mean a LOT for this game, even gameplay wise, with proper collision, scenery, landscape to discover, etc etc, I've already repeated that so many time and now there no point to get to it again. Really, terrain and scenery is the key for a proper KSP2... Everything else fade out compared to what it can bring to the table. Look at the trailer again if you want to talk about it, I don't find much people sharing my opinion so I would gladly elaborate again, finally, if there is some people who want to debate that subject.

So I have a question. The financial call for TT happens on the 16th. People here talk as if it is a public call people can listen in on. Is that the case? If so, how do we listen in, and at what time? My assumption is that we can't, but that the call is made public shortly after it happens. If someone can confirm this, I would greatly appreciate it!