Search the Community

It sorta does. But I'm not fully familiar with JNSQ. It modifies Kerbin right? Although I'm trying to remove most hardcoded bits, the names of the planets are still important to other bits of the script, not to even talk about all the fine-tuning that's required for each different planet size (booster and ship fuel and thrust, launch trajectory, etc). If you run it on RSS now (without Realism Overhaul) you'll get a not very reliable launch sequence and the approach and landing is not always successful either. The crew version of the ship I can't even get working properly due to patch ordering problems which never install the IVAs in my copied parts for whatever reason.

KSP 2 Version: 0.1.0.0.20892 I noticed when recreating a satellite I used in KSP 1 that the Fuel for the Fuel Cell Array I was using ran out very fast. When digging into it I found that KSP Fuel Cell and Fuel Cell Array use more fuel than KSP 1 version. I'm not sure if this is intended or not, but I wanted to point it out. To simplify the calculations I'll talk in terms of Methalox as the ratio is different between the two versions. KSP 1 Fuel Cell Array uses .000225 Methalox per second ( .045 units * .005 t/unit) which is .0135 Methalox per minute. KSP 2 uses .03 Methalox per minute, more than 2x the amount per minute. If the intent is for these to match the Fuel Cell Array should be changed to use of .0027 Methane per minute and .0108 Oxidizer per minute and Fuel Cell changed to .0135 Methane per hour and .054 Oxidizer per hour. Again, not sure if this is a bug or not, but it was a significant difference between KSP 1 and 2 and not easy to notice, so I wanted to point it out. Thank you and good luck in further development of the game.

Your definition of "objectively" is… somewhat subjective, I think. Companies don't make games. Companies make products, some of them are games. People willing to see a game to thrive need to keep that in perspective. There's nothing wrong with KSP2, the "game". We are facing some serious problems on KSP2 the "product". The code base wasn't mature enough for launching, it was not ready to be considered a product yet. We can speculate about the reasons the codebase wasn't gold yet at the launch, but only the guys directly involved on development can really talk about and they won't - but the real reason KSP2 is facing so much backslash now is directly (and probably solely) due the the premature launch of a perfectly fine but still immature codebase as it was a near finished product. It's important, IMHO, to address the problem correctly because the price on not doing it will be the wrong people getting screwed by problems beyound their control - what, frankly, it's not only unfair but also perpetuates the problem creating a vicious cycle where everybody (including us) will be caught into a race to the bottom.

Ummm, First, would be nice if you spelled my name correctly. Second, neither Shadowzone nor myself were at the ESA event. So your comment: "Does an ESA trip really buy that much of someone's integrity?" is totally irrelevant. Third, other than a small Patreon account which doesn't get me that much, I have no financial interest in the game. Fourth, as stated above, many of these issues were publicly visible in the videos for a week before. I've stated my background and experience many times. Would you be so kind as to tell us what sort of background you have in software development, game development, or if not those, whatever it is you do? You are running your mouth (figuratively) off, and it really seems that you are just trying to make as much noise as possible. I was given a trip 3 years ago to PAXWest for the initial event back then. As reported it was a very unfinished product, although they did show us some cool stuff. We were told they had been working on it for a couple of years (you can go back and watch the original video from Star Theory where they talk about that). [snip] Regarding patches, my understanding is that they are using 2 week sprints (a method of managing software development, look up Agile if you want more info). So I wouldn't expect a patch before Friday, and wouldn't be surprised to not see it until the week after.

It is hard, I would not object that. But it is what should have been done. I mean, there are many people who do not know to do that, but many software engineers could at least do basic unit tests. Gamedevs usually cannot. And there is why: game companies **do not bother** with thorough testing, so gamedevs would not bother with it as well - why create additional workload? This might not have happened if game players were considerate towards bugs, but yea that would be hard ask. By the way, there is a reason I put integration test to the last. It is the weakest test and used just to see if components are working together reasonably. I do not know why you talk extensively about that part.

Video is bull... come on... 3 to 5 years in the making, 47 people working on in the team. Delay after delay for a full release date with high quality output. Bam.. EA... game far far far from finished, billions of bugs. Seriously.. what the hell happened in these years? Did they go on vacation 2 out of 3 years? There's no way you can talk this right.

I had no problem connecting things to the nodes of other Duna style modules, but I was using things other than flex-o-tubes. I avoid those because of kraken. I've previously built fancy rovers to carry modules for me -- check out Mark Thrimm's SSTO Space Program for some inspiration on the tools to manipulate base components. Note that many of the Duna and Tundra components are not able to be manipulated in stock EVA construction. I've tried modifying save files to add the ability but the modules obstinately refuse to be picked up. The cargo frame that Mark Thrimm uses in his main base construction vehicle has been quite useful for putting base pieces where I need them. Also avoid using the PAL lifter components from USI Konstruction, they're useful if you intended to launch that component into orbit using a trebuchet though. Use KAS winches instead. You can even skip the fancy complicated base building vehicle and put the winches on the base and just tow pieces into position and glue everything together using the Konstruction docking ports. There was an addon out there somewhere that allowed welding craft together using stock docking ports. Also remember to use save games prolifically because of kraken attacks. I've ended just building base components in one piece and dropping them from orbit: Note the four vertically mounted 2.5m tanks in the "middle". Each of those has a Wolfhound engine underneath, and under that 3.75m Tundra module is a 3.75m SAS module. These engines and the SAS were adjusted to be under the centre of mass of the whole structure and landing was pretty easy. Note the application of struts between all the extremities to stop things wobbling. This experiment is working better than my previous iterations which were more "traditional" landers: Note the PDU sitting to the side, because that module refused to be moved by anything. Ground tether wasn't turned on, the legs weren't deployed, there were no extra pieces attached to it, but I couldn't move it. The original plan was to replace the nuclear reactor on top of the right-hand rocket by moving it up to the top of the right rear pillar (you can see the missing nose cone) and then up on top of the Konfabricator module. As you can see the PDU is still on the ground Other learnings from this experience: You can never have enough power. A 1.25m nuclear reactor is simply not enough to power a single Assembly Plant -- mine was boosted by four Ranger smelter modules, and it was hitting about 300% capacity with a 3-star Engineer operating it. With two large radiator panels you can see on the PDU to the right, they are glowing red all the time as that PDU is providing power to this assembly plant and another attempt offscreen to the right. The ship on the left is a Refinery and consumes most of the output of the PDU stuck on top and even with four radiator panels they will be glowing red all the time. You can never have enough heat sinks. Shortly after this attempt I added large 2 large Thermal Management Systems (the triple-wide deployables) to the left-hand lander and that wasn't enough to handle the heat from the PDU. You need to have enough spare capacity in storage containers to handle one day of production. This means if you're using Planetary Logistics each container needs to be about two to three times larger than you expect. Thus the large round containers attached to the side of the right hand rocket. Also you can have too many containers, witness the rocket on the left with all those stow-packs close to the ground. If you have multiple containers it just makes things slower. You can have too many logistics modules. If you have multiple vessels in one physics space, ensure that only one of them has planetary logistics turned on. Otherwise you end up with one ship pushing stuff into planetary logistics, and a second one pulling stuff out to fill that ship that just put stuff in. Not only does this cause extra load but it wastes resources because there's a "tax" on pulling stuff out of Planetary Logistics. I was producing 100-odd Material Kits per day but losing 3 Material Kits per second to out-of-control logistics hubs. Anyway sorry about the surprise TED talk.

Exactly. The KSP2 Kraken is still recognizably The Kraken™, and it's a meaner Kraken at that. So that leaves us with two possibilities: The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is the KSP1 physics sim. The code was largely transplanted from the old game to the new game. If that's the case, why has it regressed so severely? The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is Unity itself, i.e. the physics sim has been reimplemented from scratch. If that's the case, why is the Kraken back? If the answer to that question is "limitations of Unity," then what was the point of reimplementing the physics sim? KSP1 physics sim had the benefit of 12 years of iteration. It was battle tested. Why throw that away just to recreate all the same issues, many of which the old one had already conquered? If the answer to that question is "well the rest of KSP2 is too different from KSP1 to simply port the physics engine," then why set the expectation that the physics simulation would be improved over the first one? That's my real question here. If they thought the KSP2 physics engine was going to be a better foundation, what went wrong? Can it still be salvaged? On the other hand, if they knew it was going to be worse on launch, why talk about it at all?

Could we possibly get back on track here and talk abut it the actual fixes Nate mentioned? Or perhaps ask Nate our questions again considering they have now gotten lost in pages of arguing? I'll start (partly because the question is buried, partly because I may have tagged the wrong person). @Nate Simpson One thing I don't see mentioned is the broken SAS controls. Ships spinning uncontrollably during flight, and/or SAS not being properly held when performing maneuvers. Has this been discussed by the team?

What is this EA build? I believe it is just the absolute bare minimum most basic functions of the game with no purpose beyond giving us an idea of what the game is and finding the most basic bugs in the game. I believe that much of the upcoming features in the roadmap are already developed to a similar level of performance and polish (which isn't much but the basic features are there). When will this game be released? My absolute amateur opinion is that the game will complete the roadmap in about 2 years, I think the phase 1 we are in will last several months as we find bugs, receive patches, find more bugs etc until the base game is in a playable and performant state. When Science is added I am assuming the patching process will take less time as I believe the science system will be less complex comparatively to phase 1. I think the colonies update will put us in a similar situation as we are now. I think colonies will have an assortment of hilarious or frustrating bugs depending on your patience and sense of humor. I cant wait to see peoples colonies they've meticulously build get stomped like a sand castle by the kraken. The Interstellar update I believe will go smooth as I don't think it will add many new systems, just new planets/star systems and engines which should all be dependent on systems in the game right now being fixed. The exploration update adding resources and logistics systems I bet will be buggy as again, like the colonies update, it will be introducing new mechanics to the game. Supply routes will disappear and scouted patches dense in minerals will have nothing in them. The mechanics to retrieve resources will be be exploited to the utmost and a lot of balancing will occur. Finally, the multiplayer update I think will be a hilarious crapshoot as connection issues become great concern and people phase in and out of others realities possibly destroying plenty of thing (it will be a great time and meme content will be heavy) What happened since this Alpha Build from 2019? Besides graphical changes and maybe better performance (new hardware would probably also run the old build better)? Possibly a lot, maybe even a near total rewrite of the game. Anything here from me would be purely speculation. Will the target systems specs drop dramatically - what is the plan? I think very likely. There seems to me a lot of inefficient processes going on and as those get worked out hardware requirements for the same performance should lower in kind. Some people on this forum I've talked to that work say they work in the industry have mentioned obvious graphical inefficiencies that can definitely be made more performant in time and the current state is predictable assuming its development stage. I think KSP 2 can either go the route of similar fidelity with greater performance, greater fidelity with a slight performance improvement, or somewhere in the middle (but I believe we are seeing the worst state the game will be in right now) What type of MP is planned for this game? They've already announced in the Matt Lowne interview that there will be 4 agencies players can play from and each agency can have up to 4 players working cooperatively. As far as time sync goes, anybodys guess still though many will argue for their preferred system no talk of the matter has been official. Why was the game released as EA and not as a pre-order with alpha/beta Access? no clue, semantics? Is the funding of this game secured? Do the sales of the EA Version in any form impact the future of funding? I doubt T2 will abandon a project they've sunk 10s of millions in so far very easily, I think we'll make it to 1.0 and sales after will tell us how much more we will get. I think if the game hits numbers like KSP 2 but faster after release we will see plenty of free updates and DLC made available in the coming years post 1.0 release. If sales don't show though I can see the game being left behind. (I don't work in the industry though so...) Why was the starting price for this EA game set so high - what are the chances of it going down to a more reasonable level before release? I think if they brought the price down too far a lot of people would just buy the game and ignore it only to play it closer to 1.0 at a steep discount hurting long term revenue. Also, I don't think IG necessarily wanted the game to get flooded with new players yet either as they probably want less total bug reports and ones of higher quality which would be more easily found amongst the more hardcore player base that would get this game at such a price tag knowing they will keep playing it no matter how it looks at the start. I think our community is uniquely capable of assisting the devs as a lot of people who play this game are engineers or engineering minded.. For instance, how many games have successful mods that introduce coding as a mechanic to play the game (kOS)? I think people like that will be of the greatest assistance to the devs as a whole and even the current community manager said our community is less likely to threaten murdering devs and instead write a short angry essay about a bug they encountered and how to specifically reproduce it with speculations as to what may be causing it (the entire forum right now).

Nobody thought about another possible cause: there simply isn't a better way to develop some features and the only option is to work and improve what you have. Don't talk how mods fixed things because mods were a "solution" slapped on top and fixed in place with a flex tape. So the final question, currently an open one, is to what point things can be fixed if they can't be replaced because there's no alternative?

Interesting reading. In my own lore, the origin of the Kerbals is the KSC. Kerbals are a kind of drones helping it to acheive its own goal. I should write about it. Or talk to a therapist :p

It’s even more true when you talk about your own! I’d love to talk more about what we do but I won’t because somebody would latch onto every little thing, blow it out of proportion, and start a hate campaign. Even if I didn’t say anything bad! I don’t want to do that to my colleagues and I don’t want to deal with it myself!

Two South-American deities of names unknown to profanes, had incarnated in human bodies in Brasil, and became cultural heroes known as Falanghe Brothers. They were sacrifying little green gnomes by tying them to small toy rockets and bringing them up to the skies. But the rockets were small, the rockets with envoys weren't reaching the skies, were falling back. The Brothers were sad for that, then one of them, known as Felipe, decided to travel to the North, to the place where the ancient and more powerful gods had built pyramids, and try to call for their assistance and summon their power. He reached the greatest Aztec sanctuary and learned the mysterious magic of Unity of the worlds. He was drawing pictures and writing letters, and the miracles were happening. The painted creatures were moving, the painted rockets were flying, it was like a small hand-made world similar to the real one. He came to the place named Squad where people were making pictures, musics, and other arts, and exchanging them for food, and suggested to implement a whole small world. This would allow them to negotiate more food, and at the same time would allow to send the rockets with envoys much higher, and maybe even reach the sky, the Sun, and talk to those who live there. The idea of sending somebody to Quetzalcoatl by putting him on a stock of fuel and igniting it, was basically known and clear to them, and the profit was also looking promising, so the great work immediately began. So, they made a dream world, which exists and not exists at once. To populate the world and send somebody as envoys, they created gnomes of some kind, with big heads of human size, popped eyes, and small bodies and limbs, silly but fearless and absolutely obedient, doing exactly what the master says. (Don't ask about their origin, the jungle magic has many secrets. But obviously, they have human eyes, teeth, tongue, hair, and head size. So, they are obviously not plants or mushrooms.) To rule them, they created a mysterious Kraken, who is a hound of heaven for them. Also, some say that Kraken also spawns the Kerbal eggs into the sea, where they born and crawl out to the land. They built a sanctuary known as KSC, the Kerbal Sacred Castle or so. Most part of it is undestructable and gets self-repaired even when crashed. Now 5 million of people are sending the Kerbal envoys up to the skies, some of them even reach their Sun, and all of that gives a hope that the plan will be fulfilled. After seeing that the plan works and doesn't need his assistance to live, Felipe also known as The Harvester, leaved it to make birds from balsa. Later, the people tried to move the doing to the North, to the place known today as Seattle. Will it succeed or no, we'll see in its time.

I get what you are saying, but its simply a poor business decision to decide that communicating to part of their base is "too old school." I mean, this is like "sorry, we don't want to talk to you unless you use Intel processors...we don't have time for AMD users. Also, please buy our game, AMD users!"

Kerbalism and Bureaucracy talk to each other. Kerbalism collects the science and hands the processing over to Bureaucracy. Re refunding parts etc. Bureaucracy will just ignore anything that isn't the contract system giving funds. Also minor point (to everyone): I'm sure y'all figured this out already considering how little I've been here but support for KSP1 mods has been withdrawn. Mods may or may not be ported to KSP2 in the future depending on how development of that game goes. If anyone has any burning bugs they want fixed before I retire from KSP1 modding entirely please call them out. (I plan to be back for KSP2, but see the open letter for my current position). Thank you for your support over the last 7 years, you're all stars.

I think your wrong. When there is a lot of negativity its important to reassure people by keeping up communication and it always helps if people feel a more personal connection by showing that issues are seen etc. and that problems arent ignored - even when there is a lot of work done behind the scenes - it wont help if people dont know about it. But is it really reach? You miss 99% of all people not using discord and searching with google - and you get lots of people that will simply join your channel because tehy have discord running anyways besides 50 other channels and will do some casual talking mostly. How do people even discuss anything in any meaningful way in a channel where hundreds of people constnatly casually write things? If at all i would use Discord as a casual community chat. I just recently joined their discord - and what did i see - it looks like a chat window with people randomly saying stuff - sometimes 1 or 2 people respond at most and thats it. Sometimes there is casual talk about something else - its more like a random casual chat with lots of people. I sometimes use Discord aswell - but only for small groupds of friends to play games and communicate etc. - it doesnt seem like a good solution for much more.

I played stock KSP1 and KSP2 for about an hour and a half each to understand where these titles stand with relation to one another. Unfortunately I was in a bit of a rush to get everything done, so I didn't get any screenshots of KSP2. Let's get the system information and performance out of the way. My playtest consisted of two parts: a small plane and a Mün rocket. The Plane My intent for the plane was to try out the aerodynamics and inspect the terrain. Design of the plane was reasonably straightforward. The procedural wings are on par with KSP1's B9 Procedural Wings, without needing a weird hotkey to access the wing parameters. However, I did have an issue selecting certain wing parts after they had been placed. I speculate that this is related to the collider not being regenerated with the new wing shape. Luckily, I was able to tune a different wing part to suit my needs. It seems that the thickness of a wing part has a notable effect in its lift characteristics. Without changing the other parameters, I increased the thickness of the foreplanes, and the pitch authority increased markedly. I flew it to the mountains west of the KSC and was favorably impressed by the terrain quality. Where KSP1 has a jagged Perlin noise ridge with terrain polygons a hundred meters across, KSP2 has a pretty well detailed hillside. They seem a bit further away now, or at any rate don't loom on the horizon like they used to. It's a bit of a shame losing the landmark, but the quality is much better. Terrain scatter was distributed a bit oddly, with trees in weird clumps and massive open spaces between them, but I don't really expect too much from a low priority feature like ground scatter right now. Suffice it to say, I look forward to exploring this terrain by rover in the future. SAS was a persistent issue in my play. It feels massively overtuned and has a difficult time converging. The twitchiness makes it consume a lot of RCS fuel (during the Mün rocket component of the playtest) and I spent most of my time with the plane flying with it off. Unfortunately I crashed the plane during the KSP2 test, while trying to land it on the mountains. Rather than flying back east and over the KSC, I reverted to launch for the flight across to the island. Still, the trip was long enough to really appreciate what has been done with physics timewarp. Apart from exacerbating the twitchiness of SAS, there was no apparent loss of sim quality. The wings stayed on with maneuver and the plane stayed on target (with SAS off). I flew over to the island runway. They really did it dirty, I think. Gone are the ruins. Now there are two small tent-like buildings and a… water tower? I think it would have been more suitable to preserve some of the history of KSP with the structures there. Or maybe one level of memorial objects is enough? Still, it seems a step backwards compared to the KSC's massive leap forwards, in terms of story. There's not even decaying pavement, it's just a dirt strip. And here I will talk about a bug I encountered, not in KSP2 but in KSP1. The island was flayed open, a torn-up chunk of terrain hovering over the runway. I think it's only fair to acknowledge that KSP1 is not perfect either. Anyways, I "landed" the plane on the island runway and concluded the test. The Mün Rocket My intent for the Mün rocket was to examine the rocket launch experience, rendezvous and docking, landing, rovers in reduced gravity, and the terrain of the Mün's poles. I wasn't able to achieve all of these goals in the time I allotted myself, running out of time by the Mün intercept. The design of the rocket exposed a few more issues with the editor. First, I wasn't able to build a fairing to my requirements, because it refused to allow me to add segments except under circumstances I didn't understand. Then, while designing a bellylander with a cargo bay, the center of thrust indicator failed to appear. Finally, parts seem to be "sticky" and really do not want to be placed into "scratch space" as single-part assemblies if they have ever touched another part. As for editor ergonomics: I don't particularly like the way mirror symmetry is on the same "cycle" as the other symmetry modes. I'd much prefer to be able to toggle it. Additionally, I'm not sure how to grab the entire assembly from an arbitrary part. In KSP1, this is done by shift-clicking a part. The reroot tool ("anchor") is sticky and I have to select the transform tool to get rid of it. Regardless, I was able to build a rover, a lander, a transfer stage, and a lifter. The lifter served very well (once I put some fins on the back), though the per-stage dV tracker did not function and I had to use the global dV tracker. Orbit was straightforward enough. I fought the SAS most of the way up, but with RCS and thrust vectoring it went fine. Rendezvous as well: a textbook high-energy intercept. Turns out you can pin intercept data, but it closes as soon as you open the maneuver node. Docking was a bit more exciting than it needed to be, what with the SAS misbehavior, but I encountered no new issues. During the transmünar injection burn, my transfer stage ran dry and I discovered while burning with my lander that burning under warp did not work. Fuel went down but my velocity did not increase. I'm not sure if this was also to blame for my transfer stage running dry, or if I simply failed to calculate the requirements correctly. Finally, I set up a low Mün periapsis, and a maneuver to capture into orbit. I pressed the autowarp button and… immediately crashed into the Mün at high timewarp. Perhaps the SOI transition knocked something off? Either way the auto timewarp needs to be more conservative. I suspect it would have overshot my node even if the collision had not occurred. Conclusion That was 98 minutes of playtime, so I concluded the test. In KSP1, I completed all objectives, including landing on the Mün and driving/jetpacking to its south pole, in 107 minutes. I probably could have managed more in KSP2, but I'd like to keep some margin open for refund if I choose to use it. I encountered nothing truly gamebreaking, no crashes, and no major krakens. My rocket design was conservative, but even so there was no excessive floppiness. Performance was… well, it was bad, but from what I hear there are Big Issues, and those are always easier to deal with than a myriad of small issues. I found that my personal limit to performance is somewhere around 10–12 FPS. If I get that, I can consider it playable. Below that, it is not playable. So I'll be stuck with upscaled 1080p until performance improves. Again, not breaking, but not good either. I mentioned that I might want to refund the game. I want to keep this option open. Based on my test, I do not think that Intercept cannot make KSP2 into something great. However, I am not yet ready to invest my trust in this team and this project. If Intercept proves themselves to me, then I will put forward my trust and fully commit to KSP2. They can do this in one simple way: Release a patch, within my refund period (i.e. on or before March 14), which addresses at least one glaring performance issue and provides a genuine attempt at transparency into the development process. I understand that not every indie or "indie" developer is on the same level as Wube, but I do not think it is out of line to expect this much from Intercept.

Yeah i wont buy it - not even in a normal sale. It s not only important to me what a game costs but how a company interacts with its customers. You can talk about that all you want but i dont care and neither does the industry. The price of a game is not based on what you wrote at all - have you never wondered why 99% of games cost almost the same ammount of money - especially AAA - no matter the difference in development costs? In reality its pretty simple - games cost as much as Experience has demonstrated that people are willing to pay - tahts it. At most the costs set the lower limit. And yes i only dont care if a game got more expensive because development had issues - like in this case change of developer etc. - to me its simple - ammount content + overall quality = price im willing to pay -> that will be compared with the price of other games and if it seems to high then i wont buy it. Also 160k a year per person? In general what is the point of making up numbers on the fly to come to a conclusion?

We just have a static KSC and a category in the list of places. It's not even 0.1% of what is needed to talk about a colony system. We have elements of several sizes, but no resource management. We have no way of detecting areas that contain them. In fact, all the components that would allow them to be found are missing. We also do not see a list of resources needed for the components currently available. I do not see how one we conclude that the system of colonies or resources is programmed.

So this is kind of the main crux, I think. I've been on projects that get re-started because pre-production dragged on and even started production that got scrapped due to scheduling. You'd have all the same leadership with the access to all the existing assets, but with a completely new scope and schedule, and it's shocking how little ends up re-usable. Yeah, you grab some assets, but these are pre-alpha assets. They still need all the same polish to make them useful in full production that you would otherwise. And a lot of stuff has to be just scrapped. I don't think the work generated by the team while they were Star Theory saved them a lot of time. And the other aspect I want to be clear about - I don't think Star Theory failed. I mean, I don't think they failed as developers. Obviously, I'm filling in a lot of blanks, obviously, it's all subject to interpretation, and yes, this is likely the one that's most charitable to the developers, and you're welcome to think my judgement on this is clouded. But for the sake of presenting my argument in as complete of a timeline as possible, here's what I see. Squad was acquired by Take Two in the spring of 2017. Presumably, very soon after that, Take Two, via Private Division, contracts Star Theory games to make KSP2. Given an aggressive development schedule, since we know the initial plan was a late 2019 to early 2020 release, the original vision for KSP2 was a much narrower scope than the current plans for the KSP2. Best guess, a second star system, a colony management system, a visual update, and a new UI. Along with some fixes and improvements you get from updating the Unity version, this should be a big enough change to make it KSP2, but it's just past the threshold of being a couple of DLCs. In the process of making ST's version of KSP2, an idea is pitched to make something bigger. Multiplayer, more star systems, overhauls of many key systems. PD is not convinced, at least not fully, until in 2019 a trailer is shown, and it's a much greater hit than anyone anticipated. PD sees an opportunity to make KSP2 a much bigger commercial success than just an update to a niche game enjoyed by a dedicated fanbase, and starts negotiations with Star Theory about expanding the scope. The initial signaling must have happened early enough for Nate to talk about the possibility of these features in some post-E3 interviews, although, still very vaguely. Late in 2019, negotiations between Star Theory and Private Division break down. We don't know the details and whether the disagreement has been about the timeline or the costs. A lot of fingers have been pointed at the Star Theory's former financial leadership who are not involved with Intercept. Either way, Private Division scraps the contract with Star Theory, spins up Intercept, and a lot of creative and engineering talent jump ship. Intercept starts working on a new vision for KSP2 with significantly broader scope and on a longer timeline. This is roughly what I suggested as the likely timeline for the formation of Intercept back in the spring of 2020, when we were starting to get first news of "additional delays" and some early snippets of the development progress from the Intercept. Since then, everything else has been aligning with this hypothesis very well. We have seen the delays eventually pushed out to what looks like a reasonable time to work on the game, we did see people being hired into the missing positions for a larger game scope, including specialists in multiplayer and physics, who were missing from Star Theory's original composition. And in general, while the creative leadership mostly migrated over, it comes off as them being dissatisfied with scope permitted under the Star Theory and starting completely new production under Intercept under a much more liberal scope and budget for the game. This is still a mid-studio's effort on a mid-sized game, but it's an experienced team working on a large project on an appropriate schedule. We can try to find an alternative explanation, but nothing else aligns with what we're seeing. If we were really seeing results of six years of work of one mismanaged team on something that got delayed by years, we'd be seeing a completely different monster in place of this early access. This early access is a good alpha build. Anyone who works in games that understands Unity and a bit of what goes into an open world and simulation games, will tell you that there is nothing wrong with KSP2 in it's current state for an alpha build. This is a game in alpha. We should not be treating it as anything else. And I can't imagine a mismanaged team making something like this at an alpha stage.

Humm.. let's see. These are the threads were you can find help for each one of the mentioned add'ons (or CKAN): The Cryo Tanks is here: https://github.com/post-kerbin-mining-corporation/CryoTanks/releases But drop a message to Nertea nevertheless - I don't think that downgrading Cryo Tanks will give you any (new) problems, but don't hurt to talk to Nertea about.

In general, yes, I played and did not notice any bugs. This is of course a mod and it added bugs, but apparently to someone else. And what about KSP2 with interplanetary flights? Maneuvers fixed? Can you see the flight path? Added transfer window calculation? Maybe you can look at the TWR of individual stages? Or will you again talk about early versions of KSP1 without mods? We're talking about today's game, not every ugly duckling grows into a swan. Many people were waiting for B4B, but for some reason, after playing this game, they went to the old L4D2, which came out when many of them did not even go to school.

This new log have essentially the same exceptions from the last one I checked. No news, everything appears to be the same. There's no other option but to talk to FAR maintainers - I don't know this thing, I don't have the slightest idea about how to fix it. About the CryoGenic Engines, I checked the dependencies. It needs Cryo Tanks 1.6.3 - but the latest release is the 1.6.5. I'm guessing you need to downgrade it to 1.6.3 to fix your issue? It's a wild guess, it's safer to talk to Nertea about it. You may want to reach CKAN guys too and see if they didn't forgot to set something on the NetKAN file. CKAN is giving me some headaches since some time already, by the way.

Tim Kerman started to come to. A familiar voice ran through his head, yelling out his name. Suddenly, he jumped up. He opened his (non-psychotic) eyes in a hospital ward. He was quite confused, though. Last thing he knew, he was on the Mun researching the mysterious Stargate. Next thing he knew, he was here. A doctor ran in surprised he had woken up. "How are you alive? You were asleep for a month! Some hiker found you badly injured on a mountain side!" the doctor yelled out. "Well, first thing I know I'm on the Mun, the ne-" Tim was cut off by the doctor. "The Mun? How would you be standing on the Mun's surface? It's extremely far away from any where!" "What? But I remember! The gray dust, my lander, and my crew mates! I was wearing a space suit, maybe you have that? "Well, you were wearing something. But it wasn't a space suit. Nobody's even been to space yet! You fell off the side of a mountain." "I was on the Mun, Dr... Arlep Kerman!" Arlep walked out of the room to talk to another doctor. "He's clearly delusional. He thinks he was on the Mun. He was wearing a pressure suit when we found him. Maybe he's a pilot who's gone mad?" Arlep said. "Well, how can we diagnose him if we don't who he is? I'll go in and ask him" the other doctor said. She walked in to the room, and proceeded to ask Tim as many questions as she could to figure out who he really was, and what he was doing. He told her his name, and continuously said that he was on a top secret mun mission, that the public didn't know about. He mentioned who his crew mates were, Joemon Kerman and Anfield Kerman. But they didn't exist on any records. Not even Tim did. The doctor walked out of the room, confused about the story Tim was telling. However, he wasn't any harm to himself or anybody else. And all of his injuries had healed. So the hiker who found him was called over and picked Tim up. Tim was given his pressure suit, as it was the piece of clothing he owned (the hospital wouldn't let him keep his gown). A Kerbal named Virsen Kerman was the one who founded Tim. He was muttering gibberish about the Mun and something called Stargate. She couldn't know exactly what had happened to him, but he was badly injured. As if he fell out of the sky. "Hi Tim," Virsen said. "I imagine we'll be roommates from now on! I'm sure you'll enjoy my place even if it is a pretty crumby apartment. Tim just looked confused. "Well, come on! get in the car!" And off Tim went, off on his strange new adventure.