Search the Community

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.

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.

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.

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!

Nice, I didn't see any other obvious install issues. I don't really know much about the B9 error, but your log is way cleaner. Hopefully someone else can help pin down the specific error. Personally, I'm side-eyeing IFS just because I hear so many people talk about incompatibilities with it, but I don't have an experience with it myself.

First post on here in a while. Wish it was under better circumstances. To be clear: as of the writing of this post, KSP 2 HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY CANCELLED. Mostly, this is a response to a phenomena I've noticed a lot on this forum: people making statements to the effect of "They promised us they would finish the game, isn't this some kind of breach (possibly even legal)?" Some people are talking about lawsuits, others about refunds. The fact is, early access games are always a risk, both for the publisher as well as the customer, even when they are being developed by a major studio. KSP 2 in particular, is a relatively niche-interest game whose development was seeminly laden with difficult technical problems and other REAL CODING CHALLENGES which have the tendency to make development slower and more expensive than other reliable, mass-market games. Take Two may well decide that KSP 2 will either be unprofitable, or that the money will be better spent somewhere else. They may be right. Unfortunately, there is no known way to design an economic system that both 1) causes companies to waste money on consumers like us and 2) leads to the development of MRI machines, sufficient food to feed the population, etc. A lot of the initial anger back when the game was released was in this context. The anger boiled down to two main points: The game was way less developed than it ought to have been based on previews and pre-development communications. This could have many causes, among them: There were more engineering challenges than expected, or they were more difficult than anticipated Development was being mismanaged There was dishonesty involved Development was restarted due to some unknown reason, possibly some combination of the other bullets All of which indicate that the game's development was significantly more risky (less guaranteed) than what one might otherwise assume, which was/is upsetting to many fans of the game. Especially in light of (1), the asking price of $50 was extremely steep. Not only was the game not worth $50 at that moment, but the development of the game was full of risks and red flags that reduced the likelyhood of successful development even further below that which one would expect from an early access game, which should reduce the price. Since the release, which many viewed as already involving several broken promises, more 'promises' or 'goals' have gone unfulfilled, such as: Frequent communication Updates "on the timescales of weeks, not months" "Major content updates coming within months of each other" And other such conditions which would alleviate risk and speak to a solid development environment. Take-Two's "cost reduction plan" is not a monumental, rare, or unpredictable occurence. It is exactly the sort of thing we should expect companies to do: look to reallocate funds away from things that either lose money or don't make enough money, and towards things that do. We should have had, and should continue to have, the expectation that KSP 2 will be subject to such pressures, AND THAT EXPECTATION SHOULD BE BAKED INTO THE PRICE OF THE GAME. It's no surprise, then, that many of the same people who were fine with the price of the game and many other perceived sleights feel like they are owed some sort of recourse if the game fails. You are not owed anything- your "recourse" was had a year ago when you purchased the game for less than it would eventually cost if it made it to release- you got a bargain, which doubled as your consolation were the game to fail. If you are unsatisfied with your recourse, then perhaps we are in agreement that the game should have been, for instance, $30. All this being said, I hope for the sake of the community, the devs, who I do believe worked hard to make this game succeed and care about the game, and the broader world which stands to benefit from the existence of games like KSP 2, that the worst has not come to pass, and that the game will continue to be developed, and one day release successfully. I mainly wrote this post because it concerns what I believe to be a common flaw in the way people think/talk about "cOrPoRaTiOnS" which irritates me greatly, and I'm not a perfect person.

Which sounds nothing like what they did back to Star Theory. Remember, if it was that, we already know what it looks like. The fact they got offered re-hiring was communicated instantly, and so was that another studio was to continue the game's development. They also got a message warning of this with a lot of time, they were not gagged and were able to talk right then and there. It's a totally different news that we got now, they did not communicate anything similar. "We're firing people and closing projects." Read above. People really like to not look back it seems.

All good, it's your right. But... How long are you going to expect them to deign to explain something to you? A month? One year? a decade? a century? And if you expect someone to talk, it's because you don't understand the corporate fabric. Anyone who breaks the line is not going to be hired even in the competition. Marked for life.

i love this thread so much, it's a rare bastion of unfiltered love and compassion in an otherwise hostile subforum A huge thank you to Intercept Games and all its members. I hope you find work that's good for you, and, even though I bet you're not really allowed to talk about it, I hope whatever it is that happened isn't the downfall of the project you poured your hearts into. I appreciate you all!

The situation could have been similar, though probably less hurtful on head count - that was while the game was in prealpha stages, so there was not much talk anyway, so nobody noticed anything out of normal schedule.

I am going to start my comment with a question for the CMs and then I will go into my further suggestions My question to the CM comes from the conversations that @Nerdy_Mike was having in the discord, he was talking about the roadmap and how development will follow it and all milestones will be fulfilled. This is obviously great news long term as we will get all that was promised on that front. I also remember many instances where CMs have talked about the ideas of polls and wanting to them but not knowing how to go about doing them correctly. I think some polls that will work are ones about which things should come first, meaning that the "losing" side of the poll will still know they will get the content they voted for. Anyways, my question is would KSP2 ever consider making a poll for if Recourses should come before Interstellar? I ask this because there has been a good amount of people talk about their concerns about not having resources when colonies drop and then having to wait until after interstellar for this feature. @Dakota and @Nerdy_Mike, I would love an answer to this question so I know whether to keep voicing my concerns about this subject or if I should use my time more wisely on commenting on other aspects of the game. I understand that there are reasons that would make these decisions out of your control or if this just plain is impossible with the current development process. I would love clarification on this. Alrighty, now that that is out of the way, I'll give my ideas towards communications: (Note) I think the major thing that is frustrating the community is that we just don't know what is going at all, this both goes for colonies and the next patch. I understand there are powers that be that keep you from giving information about colonies very often, so I'm going to focus on communications patch-to-patch 1. I think a good idea could be a "next patch bugs squashed counter" (the name needs some work ) somewhere on the forums that updates each week. You wouldn't even need to put in a bunch of details about the bugs, just a range based on the current "dev-version" of the game that is being focused on to give an idea of progress in development to the community. You could put a disclaimer that the number can fluctuate upwards and downwards because of different "dev-versions" of the game being considered the focused version, or because some changes broke something and now you are fixing those things while keeping what the original change fixed (this is what I imagine is happening right now and why its taken a while longer for this patch). Anyways I think this would be good because then the community would have a constant feeling of progress as the weeks go on. 2. I think more engagement in the individual forums would be nice, not just when we ask but kinda closer to how the interactions on discord are. It would be nice to see everyday at least one thought given on a thread somewhere about something. It wouldn't always have to be serious stuff either, right now I am realizing a lot of the community gets a bit upset at the "joking" and more "fun-oriented" posts being made right now but that is more because they don't have much communications and want quality/qualitative posts when they happen. After getting over the hump, and when seeing CM posts are much more common, then the forums will feel more like a conversation with CMs than complaints to them constantly. Really just like once a day would be enough, even if half are joke/fun posts. 3. I think that suggestions or things that CMs cant talk about should not be met with radio silence, but instead with a "heard*" or a "there is no information we are able to give right now*". This would give us more communication and make it feel like we aren't just talking into the void hoping that something sticks. (the * would be to indicate that these communications are not a direct "this will be in the game" or a "this will not be in the game"). Anyways these are my thoughts on improvements to the current communications (as far as patch to patch goes). All of these suggestions/criticisms come from a place of respect and excitement for what is to come next both in the game and in the community.

So, if you are all interested in a lot of the back end systems in KSP (scaled space vs local space, PQS, floating origin, floating velocity reference frame, quaternion3d and vector3d doubles,. etc...) I would like to point you to Harv and Mu's Unite talk that took place 10 years ago on Sep 20th of 2013. KSP 1 was not, easy. It took years. KSP 2, would have also taken years, and Juno New Origins has taken years, so has every other major space flight game with any level of simulation. Turns out that not on is "space hard" but making space... is also hard.

I am not sure about that. The game still has so many bugs that it is pretty much unplayable. At least for me. There was a lot of talk about how "Science" was a good update. I tried it and after all the bugs I stopped playing again. It did improve the game. But the game was still bad. I know others have a different oppionions. But for me the game in the current state is still not playable and the Science update did not fix any of the main issues I did have with it.

Nate just released a upcoming update on Steam on 04/25: Hello! It’s been a while! I know that many of you have been wondering about the status of KSP2, so I thought I’d give you an update on how things are going. We have an incremental update on the way! The v0.2.2.0 update will address a number of common user experience issues, some of which have been causing frustration for quite a while. In many cases, a thing that was reported as a single bug (Delta-V calculations being incorrect, or trajectory lines being broken) were actually half a dozen or more closely related bugs. We identified a series of issues that we believed were negatively impacting moment-to-moment gameplay and the first-time user experience, and we dug deep into those bug clusters to make meaningful improvements. Some of those issues include: Parachutes don’t deploy reliably (doubly true when fairings are in the mix) Fairings don’t protect their contents from heating Trajectory lines in the map view sometimes disappear (often related to erroneous designation of craft as “landed” when in flight) Landed vehicles fall through terrain during time warp Maneuver nodes refuse to allow the player to plan beyond the calculated Delta-V allowance, which in many cases is an incorrect value We’ve submitted changes to address a number of these issues – in the case of the last one, we’ll just be letting you plan beyond your current dV allowance while we continue to improve our Delta-V accuracy over the longer term (there’s a very challenging set of problems to solve in the pursuit of accurate Delta-V projections for every possible vehicle that a player can make, so this is something we’ll likely be refining for quite a while). For this update, we’ve also prioritized a new kind of issue: in some cases, the first-time user experience is undermined by a failure of the UI to clearly communicate how to progress between phases of gameplay – put simply, we sometimes put new players in a position where they don’t know what they’re supposed to do next. We’ve received a huge quantity of very helpful user feedback in this area since the For Science! Update. For example, since most of us are seasoned KSP veterans, it never occurred to us that we hadn’t fully communicated that “revert to VAB” is a very different thing from “return to VAB.” We received a rash of bug reports from people who were confused about having lost progress after completing their missions and reverting to VAB. Yikes! Similarly, the lack of a clear call to action when a vehicle can be recovered frequently left new players staring at a landed vehicle and not knowing there were more steps to follow. We’ve made some UI changes to address issues like this, and we think the flow has improved as a result. Another usability issue that even catches me out on occasion -- trying to do illegal actions (for example, parachute deployment) while in time warp states other than 1x. In fact, we believe quite a few bug reports we’ve gotten about actions being broken have actually been the result of people attempting to do things under time warp that weren’t allowed. This is an area of ongoing work for us – not only do we need to do a better job of communicating to the player when they’re warping, but we also need to make clear what actions are and are not allowed under both physics and on-rails time warp. We’ve made some small UI changes to increase the player’s awareness of their time warp state, and we’re looking forward to seeing if those changes feel good to you. I know we talk a lot about the value of Early Access, but this is a great example of how your reporting helps us target our efforts. We still haven’t nailed down the exact date for this update, but we’ll notify you here once we’re on final approach. Most of our team continues to be pointed squarely at the Colonies update. We’re making a lot of progress this month on colony founding, the colony assembly experience, and colony gameplay mechanics. There are lots of interesting problems to solve here – some are super obvious (colony parts exist at a wide range of scales, and the Base Assembly Editor – the colony version of a VAB - needs to feel equally good when you’re connecting a small truss or a giant hab module). Other issues – for example, how vehicles interact with colonies on both the systems and physics levels – come with a lot of edge cases that need to be satisfied. We remain very excited about the ways colony gameplay will move KSP2 into completely new territory, and we’re definitely eager to see what our legendarily creative players do with these new systems. In parallel with our colony work, we’re continuing to find significant opportunities to improve performance and stability. We just made a change to PQS decals that got us huge memory usage improvements – mostly VRAM (this one is still being tested, so it won’t go into the v0.2.2.0 update – but I was just so excited about the improvement that I had to share): And of course, while all this work is going on, Ghassen Lahmar (aka Blackrack) continues to make big strides with clouds. Here’s a peek at some of the improvements he’s working on today (yep, that’s multiple layers)! And because the VFX team can’t ever stop making things better, they’ve begun an overhaul of exhaust plumes to bring them more in line with reality (which thankfully is also quite beautiful): Thanks as always for sticking with us as we work through each challenge – we couldn’t be more grateful to have your support as we move toward the Colonies era!

I am going to ask that you stop acting like the majority of this commentary is somehow without merit. When the points you attempt to make are so eloquently rebutted, you shift the goal post to "its just game" I do not think that "its just an X,Y,Z" is as acceptable excuse for the very last point that @PCDWolf made. It is not about patience. The majority of the rebuttal addressed that very issue and the last year we have been actively attempting to gain insight on the direction this game plans to take. They have been tight lipped because the community was promised for years that this game would have a certain goal. KSP PLUS. It was immediately apparent that a different direction was chosen and we clamored for something of substance regarding this. The stuff that does come out is pure PR content and nothing of merit with regard to game direction. The only thing worth a dang at all on the future of this game was completely compiled by @The Space Peacock... with much of it dated. How much of these old conversations and ideas are going to stay? You are not understanding how long it took for took to get them to even consider certain important things seriously... Like Wobble Font UI TimeWarp Constraints Things that are not "official' bugs are often ignored when we question specifics or insight in decisions. Official Bugs (Up Until Recently) has been difficult to navigate with key word searches not always resulting in success. This compounds with many redundant postings and ignored issues NO ONE can say that this game was playtesting in an organic manner. EA is not for Alpha State drops.. not traditionally. This leaves us guessing as to why and what.. with the track record our imaginations see "the best prediction for the future is the past" WE want this game to succeed. But we also want that success to be within some realm of what we enjoyed about the first game... People would talk about other things than how crappy "radio silence is" if we were given something to talk about.

True. But it doesn't hurt to talk hypothetically and brainstorm solutions. Fact is we know the studio is shut down. We know a number of KSP2 devs have been laid off. And we haven't ruled out that it might be ALL of them. We don't know if the roadmap is on the table. And if it's not I think a class action lawsuit is something worth discussing if for any other reason than to help strengthen consumer protection. It's rare that a AAA company cancels a game in EA. And if you believe it's wrong for a company to essentially break its word just because a few lines on a corporate website says that's ok then we need to fight that policy in court. If the game is cancelled or the roadmap is no longer on the table, we shouldn't waste this opportunity to strengthen consumer protections.

You must have missed the part where I literally said: I'm not trying to be difficult, but you seem to not read all of what I post. I was pretty clear that I'm not a lawyer, that I didn't talk to one, and that whoever takes this up needs to. Please make sure you read what I write instead of making assumptions to drum up drama.

After doing some research this morning, a class action lawsuit against Take Two is viable. While both the EULA and the Terms of Service both indicate that you must use a mediator or 3rd party arbitrator to sort out differences before going to court, there is legal precedence in multiple states that allow for this clause in the Terms to be thrown out, with action moving through the legal system without mediation. The big issue here becomes what state to file a lawsuit in. You have 3 choices: The state the company is headquartered in (New York); The state the game was developed in (Washington); The state you purchased and play the game in (for me, Nevada, as an example) Because we are talking about a potential class-action lawsuit here, the state in which an individual purchased and/or plays the game is nearly irrelevant. And considering that a lot of gaming (in a general sense) happens over the internet, no one state where a person plays a game has jurisdiction. So that option is out. Filing in the state the game was developed is a viable option, provided you can prove that the majority of the work was done in that state. Again, the internet and remote work - especially during and because of the COVID-19 pandemic - make this difficult to ascertain without getting cooperation from the company/developer you want to sue. So this option is probably not the best one. This leaves filing in the state that the parent company is headquartered in. This is the best option for class-action lawsuits as you are trying to gather as many people as possible together who have a common interest and/or complaint about the product they received. New York General Business Law section 350 allows for the protection of consumers against false, misleading, or misrepresentative advertising in products that are sold to the general public. While it doesn't specifically call out digital media, it is considered to be included in this section. Furthermore, New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 901-909 deal with class-action lawsuits, providing the framework for how and when consumers can get together and file a class-action. I would like to point out that all of my research stems from a host of Google searches, as well as getting clarification on things from ChatGPT. Yes, I talked to the bot this morning because that is the easiest way to get definitions and information these days. How accurate that is remains to be seen, so take everything I stated above with several grains of salt. But if you really want to go this route - and I'm going to be frank and say that I doubt this would lead to anything substantial in the long run - what I've stated above is probably the best information you'll get from a non-lawyer. So talk to a legal professional before going anywhere else on this.

KSP Interstellar Extended (KSPIE) is a plugin for Kerbal Space Program, designed to encourage bootstrapping toward ever more advanced levels of technology as well as utilizing In-Situ resources to expand the reach of Kerbal civilization. KSP Interstellar Extended aims to continue in @Fractal_UK original KSP Interstellar vision in providing a realistic road to the stars. Players will first gain access to contemporary technologies that have not been widely applied to real space programs such as nuclear reactors, electrical generators and thermal rockets. By continuing down the CTT tech tree and performing more research, these parts can be upgraded and later surpassed by novel new technologies such as fusion and even antimatter power. We attempt to portray both the tremendous power of these technologies as well as their drawbacks, including the tremendous difficulty of obtaining resources like antimatter and the difficulties associated with storing it safely. The goal is to reward players who develop advanced infrastructure on other planets with new, novel and powerful technologies capable of helping Kerbals explore planets in new and exciting ways. The principal goal of KSP Interstellar is to expand Kerbal Space Program with interesting technologies and to provide a logical and compelling technological progression beginning with technologies that could have been available in the 1970s/1980s, then technologies that could be available within the next few years, progressing to technologies that may not be available for many decades, all the way out to speculative technologies that are physically reasonably but may or may not ever be realizable in practice. This is the KSPI-E release thread where we announce any releases of KSPI Extended If you want to chat about KSP Interstellar you can do it at our new Guilded Server (old: KSP Interstellar Discord Server ) For technical questions or Mod support, please ask them in the KPIE Support thread For talk about new development and features request you have to be in the KSPI-E develpment thread Latest Version 1.29.5 for Kerbal Space Program 1.8.1 - 1.12.2 Download older version from Here source: GitHub If you appreciate what I create, please consider donating me a beer you can donate me with PayPal or support me by Patreon Download & Installation Instructions step 1: remove any existing KSPI installation (GameData\WarpPlugin folder) step 2: download KSPI-E and put the GameData in your KSP Folder (allow overwrite) License Info KSPI-E code and configfiles:are distributed under KSP INTERSTELLAR LICENSE Molten Salt Reactor model from USI Core by RoverDude licensed under CC 4.0 BY-SA-NC Tokamak model from Deep Space Exploration Vessels by Angel-125 licensed under CC BY-NC SA Solid Coie NTR, Nuclear Ramjet, Nuclear Lightbulb and Nuclear Candle models and textures from Atomic Age by Porkjet all licensed under CC BY-NC SA Super Capacitator Model from Near Future Electric Mod by Nertea licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA Surface Wrapper Radiators from Heat Control by Nertea licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA Microchannel radiators from Heat Control by Nertea licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA Inline RCS stack by TiktaalikDreaming for Inline licensed under MIT Nuclear Ramjet Model by Lack licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA retractable RCS by BahamutoD licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA Wrapper Tanks from Kerbal Hacks by enceos license under Creative Commons 4.0 Inline Thermal Dish Relay Receiver by @steedcrugeon licenced under CC-BY-NC-SA at JX2Antenna Plasma Wakefield Particle Accelerator Ring by Sin Phi CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 at Sin Phi Heavy Industries If you think I missed something, please notify me Credits @Fractalfor developing the original KSP Interstellar @Eleusis La Arwall for most of the new Reactors, new Power Dish transmitters and Beam generators @zzzfor most of the original models/texturing @Boris-Barborisfor porting KSPI to 0.90 and fixsing many bugs @Northstar1989for providing theoretical basis for many of the new features in KSP Interstellar Extended @SpaceMouse for Magnetic Nozzle, MHD generator and EM drive engine @EvilGeorgefor programming Solar Wind collector and ISRU processing and several other ISRU processes @Cyne Daedalus Fusion Engine Model and Texture @Arivald Ha'gel for helping to fix several issues @MrNukealizer for his help in C# development work on KSPI @Snjo for making the code FSFuelSwitch public available Olympic1 for his help with the integration of KSPI with CTT KaiserSnow for providing Icons for Integration with Filter Extension InsanePlumber for converting part textures to DDS format A2K For helping get KSPI-E on CKAN Bishop149 for Helpi improve the Wiki and OP ABZB for Helping to find many bugs and developing Mk2 EXtension Mod SmallFatFetus for giving permission to use is Vasimr model michaelhester07 for creating Particle Accelerator NathanKell for creating ModuleRCSFX. Trolllception for helping new players understand the tables on the OP and MM scripts Nli2work for creating the Magneto Inertial Fusion Engine @Nansuchaofor helping to create documentation and guides for KSPI-E @th0th for providing Icons for the tech node @Tonas1997 for proving new technode nodes Recommended AddonMods Recommended Planet Packs/Star System/ Galaxy mods: Recommend Tech Tree: Recommended Tool mods: Suggested Challenges: Documentation & Tutotials KSPI is one of the most sophisticated mods for KSP. To help you get started, you can make use of the following resources: KERBAL INTERSTELLAR EXTENDED GUIDE KSPI-E for Dummies KSPI-E Guide by Nansuchao KSPI-E Technical Guide KSPI-E Wiki KSPI-E Youtube Videos: 9 part Russian Tutorial by @ThirdOfSeven 3 part EnglishTurorial by @Aaron Also: Support KSPI-E add support for the following mods