Search the Community

The Wikipedia articles on the Uranprojekt are quite enlightening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_nuclear_program_during_World_War_II&diffonly=true Even more interesting are the Transkription of the talk of impridoned German scientists envolved in the Uranprojekt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Epsilon They show that ( imho luckily) they did have quite some failure in estamting the needed amount of Uran, needed devices etc. But in the end if sonething don't work you mess around until you find sonething that works.

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.

They. Did. Not. They moderated people who were yelling and screaming and frothing at the mouth. You've always been able to talk bad about the game and the developers. The problem comes when anybody disagrees with you and you freak out.

Saying something so condescending and negative about someone, so confidently and with such little information is absolute bananas to me. Just because some YouTube influencers did some "research" and forum members have obsessively scrutinized every pointless scrap of info doesn't mean we have any clue who's to blame. We don't know what the day to day operations were like. We don't know who was pushing for what, or who was expressing doubts. We don't know what was said at meetings. Nobody who was there can apparently talk at the moment. To publicly condemn a man and call for harm to his career based on so little, and while hiding behind a pseudonym, should be embarrassing.

You know, i didn't even think about FAR affecting seaplanes in that way. As for the rest, yeah i left prior to KSP2's "Launch" and then came back to talk mad **** when it went EA lol (Then left again because bored). But that's good to know. Thanks Marr! I need to do some testing now.

There was another Starship debate over on a Discord server today, as seems to happen every couple days like clockwork, and I came away from it with somewhat of a new perspective on the Starship program. Many of the criticisms of Starship ultimately come down to the idea that it is too ambitious, that SpaceX has bitten off more than they can chew here. Well, that and taking off the cuff remarks by Elon (for example 1m per flight, 1000 passengers in p2p) as gospel and using them to show why the program is obviously stupid and the whole thing is a scam. But the first one is more interesting and what I thought about a lot today. Ignore HLS for a second, I'll talk about that later. I think a lot of people would have liked to see SpaceX originally take (or pivot to) a more conservative approach to a next generation launch vehicle as a stepping stone to a fully and rapidly reusable launch vehicle rather than skipping straight to something with Starship levels of ambition. Like, for example, a fully reusable but not rapidly reusable vehicle, or a very large partially reusable vehicle. But why? The obvious answer is that it allows them to create something that blows Falcon out of the water for considerably less effort than Starship would take. ...But why? They have the market completely cornered. Nobody can compete with Falcon, even discounting Starlink. Everyone except possibly Blue Origin and Relativity is stuck trying to create a rocket marginally competitive with what Falcon 9 was a few years ago. Serious competition is at least 10 years away. SpaceX doesn't need to do a thing to completely dominate the space industry for the foreseeable future. They can sit on their hands, maybe make Falcon block 6 if Relativity is looking threatening enough in a few years time. Basically do what ULA did. What could they do with a Falconlike SHLV that they could not do with Falcon? Large stations if anyone was interested, maybe small scale medium-high cost Moon missions, being the de facto Artemis launch vehicle. But not much that is commercially viable. Not many people are going to pay 120 million for 100 tons to orbit. There would be a market, but as we are seeing with Falcon Heavy, not a huge market. SpaceX does not want to launch a handful people to the Moon for tens of billions of dollars. They don't want to sit on their hands and accumulate wealth. They do not want to keep making minor improvements to Falcon 9 forever. Whether or not you agree with this goal, SpaceX wants to create a self sustaining city on Mars, or at least, create some of the prerequisite technologies required for that to happen. It is not a financial goal. It is an emotional goal. SpaceX is fundamentally an emotionally motivated company, and while finances can't be ignored, they are a means to an end. If money was the primary goal, Elon would have created sensible businesses with the PayPal money. instead, SpaceX was created out of spite for the Russians and frustration with the state of the industry. Since then, they have plastered windows on things with no business having windows on them (Cargo Dragon, I4 dome, doubling down on Starship having a huge window), dragged the space industry, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, with many of the major advancements financed on their own dime, made Dragon 2, their spacesuits, the crew access arm, the launch tower, and much more look stylish and cool (depends on taste), arguably at the expense of a small amount of functionality, and strapped a meme payload to what was at the time the most capable operational rocket in the world. I rewatched the IAC 2016 talk today, and while almost all of the details have changed, the core architecture has remained the same. That talk laid it out clear, this core architecture was designed with Mars in mind. In order to create a self sustaining city on Mars under reasonable economic conditions, a rapidly and fully reusable vehicle must be mass produced, and it must use propellants practical to produce on Mars, and orbital refilling must be utilized. While an incremental approach to developing such a system does have some merits, if there is a proper time to dive in headfirst into the onslaught of engineering challenges associated with such a ridiculously lofty goal, it is while they are a decade ahead of everyone else. In order to succeed, everything known about rocket building needs to be challenged. Anything short of a high performance mass producible rapidly and fully reusable rocket is not an acceptable stopping point, and SpaceX has made that clear with how often they threw out things that weren't working. They tested every assumption about rocket development made to date, knowing full well most of them would be reinforced, but a few would give way to unexplored potential. They threw out carbon fiber after investing a ton of money into the hardware to produce 9 and 12 meter tanks. They threw out the Florida starship site (for now at least). They made a water tower fly, and then threw out the next six prototypes for not being good enough. They built or partially built 26 starships and 3 boosters before getting something that might get to orbit, each of which had major changes from the previous, and then threw B4/S20 out practically on the eve of flight. They tried a new launch pad, and when that didn't work, they threw it out and tried something else. They tried a new form of staging, and when that didn't work, they threw it out and tried hot staging. They tried hydrolox Raptor, and it didn't work, they threw it out. Large scale ITS Raptor, thrown out. Raptor 1, 1.5, etcetera, thrown out. Raptor 2, on its way out because Raptor 3. There's even been talk of a different engine altogether. They have produced hundreds of Raptors by now and they haven't even gotten to orbit, that's more than the total production of most other rocket engines. ITS re entry configuration, thrown out. Two strakes, thrown out. Tripod with two flaps and a rudder, thrown out. Body flaps, modified numerous times. Initial tiles, thrown out. Bare metal, thrown out. Transpiration cooling, thrown out. Back to tiles because that might actually be the best option, several iterations, throwing them out until they are good enough. Can't land on the launch mount? Can't crane a ship from a landing pad to the launch pad fast enough to colonize Mars? Throw it out, try landing directly in the crane. They are pushing the envelope in all directions trying to find anything that will get them closer to their goal and they can and will throw out any design, no matter how firmly entrenched, if it falls short of their goals. They have created the largest satellite constellation ever (okay, if you're gonna be that guy, project West Ford was indeed way bigger) just to finance the rate at which they throw stuff away. Even that satellite constellation is designed to be thrown away and replaced every five years. This whole time, also pioneering the early stages of mass production necessary to make the city on Mars a reality. But this city can't be built alone. A rocket such as what Starship aims to be is a prerequisite for a Mars colony, but not sufficient on its own. So every so often, SpaceX will put Starship out there to get people thinking about what such a revolutionary rocket could do in fields it isn't even optimized for. A Moon base, gigantic space stations, crewed missions to the moons of Jupiter, probes ejected from Earth at insane speeds with refueled expendable upper stages, and even point to point. Some of these are more realistic than others. If enough people start thinking about what this could do, some of them will start trying to make it a reality, and some of them might just end up producing Mars hardware in a few decades time. Then, SpaceX decided to go "Hey, NASA, Starship can also be used as a Moon lander!" And in a move that was unexpected to most external observers, and may have even been unexpected internally, NASA, strapped for cash and with the only other status quo choices being "expensive consortium led by a company with no orbital experience" and "oopsie daisy, negative mass moment", saw a chance for an incredibly radical future, and went "Okay. You have four years. Show us what you can do." Of course, this is where it all went a little sideways. You can fiddle around with your revolutionary side project all you want when your only limiting factor is how long it takes other space companies to catch up with you. There are no customers to complain when it takes twice as long as planned, or keeps blowing up over and over and over again. While HLS has been great for emphasizing Starship's legitimacy and getting even more people thinking about it, now SpaceX can't just keep throwing stuff out ad nauseum, it actually has to deliver results in a reasonable timeframe. Granted, some of this is the government's fault, selecting a lander in 2021 and expecting a landing in 2024 was never a realistic goal no matter who is doing the design. But now, a program with the single constraint of "Get lots of stuff to Mars, toss away everything that can't do that" has to be made to support the most important human spaceflight mission in decades in relatively short order. It must be safe and with a relatively frozen design, and the tankers must be produced and rapidly launched with not much more tweaking. I don't know yet whether the added cash and legitimacy is outbalanced by the conflicting requirements. These conflicting requirements seem to be where a lot of the conflict is coming from. Since HLS, Starship is both a vehicle that needs to be chaotic in the near term in order to be revolutionary in the long term, and stable in the near term in order to get us back to the Moon. I don't know if they will make it to Mars, much less build a city, but if anyone can do it in the next hundred years, it is probably going to be them, and they are not going to stop trying to reach that goal until they go bankrupt or the CEO dies and doesn't get replaced with a like minded person. That was a lot more than I intended to write. TLDR: SpaceX is emotionally/ideologically motivated. Their ultimate goal is to colonize Mars. If their goal is to make money and remain competitive, they already have that, no reason for something Starship level. Something in between Falcon and Starship also does not make sense if their goal is merely to remain competitive. Starship makes sense viewed through the Mars lens, its other applications are byproducts. I suspect long term an optimized Lunar architecture will look a lot different. SpaceX will not design themselves into something that cannot be evolved into a rocket capable of creating a city on Mars. This means a lot of throwing out stuff that doesn't work, pushing boundaries, and lots of failures. Starship won the HLS contract, which is not a contract you want to have rapid iteration, boundary pushing, and frequent failures on. The two conflicting aspirations for what Starship is supposed to be are causing some amount of conflict and debate. In the time it took me to write that, the news that the ship firing today was a single engine maneuvering burn test arrived. This is completely unrelated to the above wall of text, but given how small LEO maneuvers will be (I'd guess this is simulating a de-orbit burn), that static fire might have actually been full mission duration.

Yes and the M-21/D-21 incident did lead to the cancellation of these concepts. But there was a group of aerodynamicsts and Physicists who pointed out that the B-70 and the A-12/SR-70 are aerodynamically VERY different aircraft. Also the X-15 would be mounted 3x higher off the wing than the M-21/D-21 combo with Vertical fins instead of inward canted fins (which is what the D-21 actually struck first.) And lastly, The D-21 had a rudimentary Autopilot that couldn't compensate for anything (exactly how many D-21 pods were recovered.... 1!) So on the scale of tolerances; we are talking about is almost an order of a magnitude greater than the very tightly fit M-21/D-21. All that being said. Yes I agree this was risky. (Note the D-21 wingtips are almost the same width as the rudders!) Re the B-52/X-15 issue. It couldn't at all have to do with the fact they had to cut a huge NOTCH out of the B-52s wing and the eddy and vortice generated were striking the rudder directly on the X-15. B-52 was not an ideal launch platform for something the Size of the X-15. If the B-36 would have been able to fly Faster/Higher it Might have been ok. There was even talk about re-tasking one of the two YB-60s (B-36 with 8 J57s and swept wings) to carry the X-15 in the bomb bay like the B-36 did with its FICON aircraft (Which dropped away, flew their mission and then RETURNED and landed in the B-36 Bomb bay! (In theory) Note the B-60 would not actually do well because the wing was so thick (it was just a B-36 wing with a new center section that gave it a 35 degree sweep) that the B-60 could barely fly once it actually flew and it's handling was... in a word... atrocious. Look how thick the wing is! It is still the worlds largest (in size) all jet bomber aircraft in the world. The Bomb-bay, when equipped with cutouts for the wings, could hold an X-15 similar to how Maestro carried the X-1 and X-2s. I actually know one of the Engineers who flew on Maestro for some of those fascinating X-plane flights. BTW Said engineer was scheduled to fly on the X-1-3 flight under the B-50 mother-ship (I don't remember that one's name now) At the end of the flight (they did not drop the X-1) they were de-fuling the X-1 when the plane exploded. The F-84 there is roughly 4/5ths the size fuselage to fuselage of an X-15. In the Case of the FICON the tail goes into the bomb-bay.

Do not use post it notes to talk on the web.

Musk has always been a manipulating idiot who's failed upwards getting a bigger pile of cash. He's never been actually good, just good at corporate manipulation and control and selling himself as doing things he never did. He's always bought into corporations and manipulated his way to control--sometimes failing and getting fired. Along the way, Musk gathered a cult following who just think he's the best thing since sliced bread. He may have slowly grown to believe his own propaganda, maybe. Careful examination of Musk has always shown this. However, when he played silly buggers with Twitter and got caught in a deal to buy it--which the Twitter Board held him to--Musk got forced to buy Twitter. And now has demonstrated no matter how bad Twitter was before Musk, it was a paradise compared to how it is now. Showing how bad his decisions are about an actual tech company has really shown to more that Musk isn't a genius but an idiot. But I think it's likely his long pile of promises for Tesla will be what sinks him. It will eventually become like Enron but even bigger. How long this will take to play out and how is unknown. But despite Musk convincing first his tame Tesla Board of Directors and then the Shareholders, there's no true justification for him being paid US $45 billion for what he has done. That's a massive share of the profit for every vehicle that Tesla has sold. When its latest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a horrible design--demanded by Musk--and a complete failure. They and other sane investors likely voted against Musk's bonus. But he apparently convinced enough of the Shareholders to get that past. There was a "fear" that Musk would quit as CEO if he didn't get his massive bonus. There's some crazy talk about Musk being vital for the success of Tesla. HOW?!? He's the one destroying it. And the value of Tesla Stock went up after the vote was announced. Stock Market Investors can be quite stupid in the short run. However, when real sales and finance figures come out and it's more and rising failure, things will get rebalanced. When this will catch up to Musk, not sure. But I think it will eventually.

We don't really need to make up any announcements. The official KSP X feed said it best: We are continuing to support, and we will talk when we can. That's about the best you are ever going to get.

Granted. The bottle opener can not only talk, but can automatically identify and open bottles. Unfortunately it thinks you're a bottle and "opens" you (i.e. removes your head). I wish for nothing in particular.

Has been a while since I commented on my own post but I hope that people continue to talk on this post.

They get cancelled quickly because of corporate greed. I wish for one of those lost 2003 bottle openers that talk

Not necessarily. Do you know the Enigma encoder machine from Germany used during WWII? Someone coded it in VB6, creating the machine application where you pressed buttons. At the same time, he released the source code. Various applications could be developed by reusing the code already written on the rotors and pegboard. An interesting application is that you typed the message, pressed a button, it was encoded with the Enigma and it was passed to Morse effortlessly. And vice versa. That is why I do not think we have to start from scratch, but we have to access what has already been written and talk to those who participated. Documentation is very important, whether written or transmitted verbally.

Vanamonde-stradamus @Dakota and @Nerdy_Mike are also under NDA's, which are probably stricter than what the mods here have signed. And I really do believe that if any of them knew anything AND that if they could talk, they would have already. Very well said, especially the part about other hobbies. I've long put off trying to learn how to play lead guitar, and I have the time to do so. I mean, I had the time when I was playing KSP1, KSP2, Juno, NHL 20, Madden 18...you get the point.

There's a very strong selection bias in these. Worth looking into, but without a metastudy, all you really have is that climate has changed in places that had wind turbines and solar panels built. It also changed in most places where it hasn't. We're kind of going through a major climate shift. That's the reason we're looking into alternative energy sources, remember? And there is absolutely nothing establishing a connection between the change and the infrastructure. You'd have to study hundreds of sites with and without infrastructure change to even pick up the connection when the averages have shifted so much over just a few years. And yeah, the bias in the Russian article is obvious. Yeah, huge "citation needed," on this one. Windmills can certainly cause the moisture to fall out as a rain. Any obstruction to the air does. Forests, famously. Except, it's deforestation that leads to desertification and not the other way around. The law of conservation of matter, that this paragraph refers to, precisely tells you that if the windmill made the air drier, that moisture ended up somewhere. It ended up as fog and clouds behind the windmill, resulting in rainfall on the terrain. That might have been rainfall that didn't happen somewhere else, but it certainly hasn't resulted in less moisture reaching the ground on the net. If anything, the dryer air will promote more evaporation over the bodies of water, resulting in even more rainfall. Again, see forests and differences in rainfall over plains vs mountainous/hilly terrain. Rapid temperature increases we're seeing due to the CO2 emissions, in contrast, have been linked to a lot of areas getting drier weather. Also to some absolute monsoons in other areas, whether or not they installed wind farms. And you want the real kicker? Take a look at CO2 concentrations over Europe, and compare them to the maps shown in the article. Heck, some of these are precisely mapping to the coal emissions from the Germany's increase in coal burn after the nuclear power plants were shut down. The author's just another pseudo-intellectual unwittingly picking up the lines from European coal industry. Unsurprising, really, given which news sources that industry backs in Europe, and the political climate in Russia. It's shockingly easy to lie to people with no media literacy using charts. And yes, the author does talk about nuclear energy. And so do the German coal firms. In the key of, "Oh, yes, it would have been better to keep the NPPs running, but who knew? Now we have no choice but to mine more coal." Germany screwed up big time. But pinning the climate impact caused by resulting coal emissions increase on wind farms is not going to make things better. Rightly so.

They've actively, literally, contradicted this by saying work was continued between the restructuring. Plus it's literally the same upper management minus Paul Furio who got fired early on, so it's either them practicing corporate diplomacy (with themselves?) or development really wasn't interrupted. Hope one day we get a proper post mortem and a case for devs and publishers to look at and learn from. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They work super slowly > they can't show progress because there's none > there's nothing solid to talk about (and they don't want to talk about plans either because they know they'll be held up to their words, the horror). > they need to space posts more > those posts are still empty because (start cycle again here). Basic bug-reporting feedback right there that you should be telling the authors of reports. In github you get your issues properly tagged if they can't be reproduced, or are believed to be hardware related, or whatever. Reports being archived without saying a single word is a big no no, no matter what single excuse you could write for doing it. Even a "not important" provides at least some closure and safety that the thing was at least read. Not only is the faith in QA testing for this project under the ground, but the bug tracker that had to be fought for "happens" to be ignored and users are made to wait ~1 month to see if top voted issues are even being looked at. Because even those barely have developer interaction, only to be met with "can't reproduce lol". The whole bug reporting-to-feedback process (let alone a "hot" fix that's cold by 2 months at the minimum) is laughably bad and should be set as an example to every dev running a bug tracker on how exactly to not do things. Great way of putting it into words. We're 1+ years into the project and these very basic doubts still linger. Even if they work at the pace of a DMV, they should have a vision they want to pursue and a reason for wanting to repeat all the same mistakes KSP1 made. For all the hate KSP1 received in these forums once 2 dropped, from some people, they're really doing a very basic rerun with a fresh coat of paint and a bigger price tag. Doesn't matter, there's still a missing part to close the loop. It's the same issue the old "mail us the bug" reporting system had. You have no idea what they're doing, if they're doing anything at all, with your report. On which everybody complained about readability and what we got in return was "replace font 2 hard" and some color changes on the navball which is still a mess. Great feedback loop, at least that issue had some closure and we know we need mods to fix that. So you get another black hole place where you don't even know where your feedback goes. The K.E.R.B. is so vital and wanted because it's what's missing to close the loop: feedback on feedback. It's the only time we get to hear about what devs are actually working on, without marketeer language, without hypebeasting, and so on.

Well... I have been trucking on in the game with the challenges + extra steps I put upon myself. But I must admit that a driving factor for me last year was the encouragement from the forum. As of now its actually not the state of the game that kills lust to play.. its the despair of the community. I think its even worse on the official discord.. I feel the KSP2 general chat only talks about substitute games for KSP2.. and when ever I post something I did in game.. no one seems to care. I know that this can come off as very self centered.. or like: If it come across as that - it is not my point... my point is, that when ever the game got tough it was the encouragement, suggestions and feedback from the community that got me going.. And none of my other acquaintances care enough about space travel to understand it when I talk about what I am doing in the game. So what I am really saying is.. I miss the community. I have decided that once Im dont with my current mission report - ill stop playing KSP until further notice.

Is there anything in particular you're hoping to achieve by being a troll that actually comes out and says "Hey guys! I'm a troll!" I mean, It defeats the whole purpose... And if we read the bit you quoted... "someone you believe is a troll" vs "someone who is a troll" Couple of things wrong with what you said here. First, you are the one that keeps shifting the goal posts and burden of proof. I've asked you pointedly and directly what proof you have to show that the game cannot be fixed, and you have yet to answer the question. In this latest example, you try to dodge the question by stating that neither I nor Lisias have proof that it can be fixed...and then state that Lisias has provided some explanation that you believe is hear-say. Secondly, I'd like to challenge you to go find where I stated that the game can be fixed. In fact, I'll even point out something I said in this thread as a direct response to you: So you either read what I wrote here and completely ignored it, or you glossed over my post and failed to see it. Either way, you are wrong when you say that I am saying it is fixable, primarily because I never said that. Go ahead and look through my posts in this thread; I've got all day. This assumes I'm not reading your posts, but rather just spamming the thread. Neither of which is true, because I am in fact reading your posts, and I'm responding to them directly. Copy/Paste only works when you aren't interested in actually talking. The big issue here is that you haven't even defined what you mean by "not fixable". I could make the assumption that you are talking about modding the game and not the actual code...but that doesn't seem right. Mods may make it appear that the game is fixed, but no, the underlying code is the problem as that still has issues for anyone who hasn't used the same mods someone else has. So let's assume, then, that you are talking about the underlying game code itself and attack this conversation from there. Are you a programmer? Have you had the chance to actually look at the underlying code and analyze it to the point where you can say with 100% certainty that it cannot be altered so as to make the game "fixed"? Have you had in-depth conversations with the actual developers on this topic, and if so, can you share those insights with us? My final guess here is that you don't even know what you mean when you talk about the game being "fixed", nor do you have an idea of what state the game would need to be in to be considered as "fixed". I think you simply have had bad experiences with bugs and just assume the game isn't fixable. Not that you've tried, of course; why else would you continue to not answer the question, other than to protect your own narrow viewpoint? I'll retract my claim as soon as you show me a build of the game that loads in a few seconds, can handle thousands of parts without turning into a slideshow, and doesn't implode if a Kerbal ragdolls in just the right way.

Couple of things wrong with what you said here. First, you are the one that keeps shifting the goal posts and burden of proof. I've asked you pointedly and directly what proof you have to show that the game cannot be fixed, and you have yet to answer the question. In this latest example, you try to dodge the question by stating that neither I nor Lisias have proof that it can be fixed...and then state that Lisias has provided some explanation that you believe is hear-say. Secondly, I'd like to challenge you to go find where I stated that the game can be fixed. In fact, I'll even point out something I said in this thread as a direct response to you: So you either read what I wrote here and completely ignored it, or you glossed over my post and failed to see it. Either way, you are wrong when you say that I am saying it is fixable, primarily because I never said that. Go ahead and look through my posts in this thread; I've got all day. This assumes I'm not reading your posts, but rather just spamming the thread. Neither of which is true, because I am in fact reading your posts, and I'm responding to them directly. Copy/Paste only works when you aren't interested in actually talking. The big issue here is that you haven't even defined what you mean by "not fixable". I could make the assumption that you are talking about modding the game and not the actual code...but that doesn't seem right. Mods may make it appear that the game is fixed, but no, the underlying code is the problem as that still has issues for anyone who hasn't used the same mods someone else has. So let's assume, then, that you are talking about the underlying game code itself and attack this conversation from there. Are you a programmer? Have you had the chance to actually look at the underlying code and analyze it to the point where you can say with 100% certainty that it cannot be altered so as to make the game "fixed"? Have you had in-depth conversations with the actual developers on this topic, and if so, can you share those insights with us? My final guess here is that you don't even know what you mean when you talk about the game being "fixed", nor do you have an idea of what state the game would need to be in to be considered as "fixed". I think you simply have had bad experiences with bugs and just assume the game isn't fixable. Not that you've tried, of course; why else would you continue to not answer the question, other than to protect your own narrow viewpoint?

I hate being asked "How's school?" for small talk, no ones going to use the info, I don't remember half the info, and the answer is always "It's fine"

I know I've been in a particularly bone picking mood lately but I saw a Thunderf00t meme and long story short I watched his IFT-4 stream and wow. I knew he had some bad takes, but I assumed he was a couple steps above a conspiracy theorist. It is more like 1-1.5 steps above. Hopefully this will be the last sort of this post I'll be making for a while. I cannot stress this enough, do NOT take your space news or opinions from this channel. I saw someone posting his stuff earlier but as a summary so you know better: Opens stating that this is launch will blow up a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money Says they are burning 2 billion a year and will be bankrupt soon (Starlink revenue alone is over 4 billion a year from just normal users) Says the only technical challenge to solve with reusability is relighting engines and that the real problems are economic So many times he decries something impossible because they haven't reached a certain milestone yet. Decries SpaceX for delays, when delays in space are normal, Starship program isn't even abnormally delayed compared to other ambitious programs (SLS, Dragon, Starliner, JWST). Constant comparisons to different development programs, still in "must work first try" mode "SpaceX has not revolutionized spaceflight" although this does depend on your definition of revolutionize. "Everything SpaceX sells is at a loss" Holds promotional videos up to the standards of a full flight simulation Says the darkness in the engine trail isn't right (To my knowledge has been seen before) "Green flash, bad engine ignition" either camera artefact or the metal in the hot stage ring burning Confused by shutdown venting of engines Mistakes the jettison of the hot stage ring for reaction control thrusters (???) "Clearly the booster is not gonna make it, it is in an uncontrolled descent with not enough oxygen left to light up the engines" with no indication of control loss after a lecture of how inaccurate the fuel gauge can be in zero g "As a general rule I don't like gases escaping from my rocket" "Gases aren't supposed to be leaking out of a rocket" plenty of valid reasons for that, emptying main tanks for landing, RCS, engine purge "We're not gonna see inside the starship because it is a completely empty vessel" Yeah, and? Suggests use of AI for writing postgraduate theses (admittedly only for fluff/introductions) "The bright white flashing is the engines burning" Statements during re-entry: "We've lost attitude control" "And there goes the control" "It's gonna go pop in a second" "It's over" "Send in the clowns" "The feed will go blank in a second" "We've lost aerodynamic control" "It's gone" Thinks it is day during the landing "This is falling way too slow" during landing, insinuating that it is just a piece of debris, that's about how fast it fell on previous tests, actually faster because it is still decelerating Does not realize the ship conducted a landing burn, thinks it hit the ocean Thinks the illumination from the landing burn is the ship on fire Calls the cheering employees morons "This flight has shown that Starship is a complete non starter" "Starship has cost 15 billion in government funding" is only true if it actually cost that much and you assume every single government contract went directly to Starship dev, that's like saying my college education cost $15,000 in government funding because I drove buses for the city and used my wages to pay for school. In fairness, he does have some valid points: Validly debunks lack of orbital refueling on the published Dear Moon flight path (in defense was the possibly the optimistically massed carbon fiber version of Starship, possibly with an expended booster) Valid points about Cybertruck, Roadster V2, supersonic electric jet, hyperloop, and Tesla's business practices City on Mars is something to be skeptical of Launch pads should probably not be as close together as they are in the promotional video Does take it all back (talk about the booster failing) when the booster lands successfully There has been a tide change with respect to public opinion of Elon Gets physics of re-entry correct "The top stage doesn't work and it can't get anything to orbit" is a correct, if lacking context, statement (no payload door) "You can't do rapid iteration with billion dollar vessels" is a valid statement, but if the 30+ vehicles they have made actually did cost a billion they would be bankrupt. "meters per second is the appropriate unit for this" The one thing he said I wholeheartedly agree with. This man is living in another reality.

I already had plans to upgrade my graphics card. KSP2 did not add much to that because I knew the media event PCs were absolute beasts and even then they struggled. What did push me over the edge was the AMD+Starfield promo. I went for a 6750XT Qick Ultra. I was very happy about my purchase, as I got it for an amazing price before the economy hit a huge snag in my country. However... turns out the devs followed another bad practice: None of them had AMD gear to test the game on, and KSP2 was working really bad if it even worked on exactly the 6700 and 6800 series GPUs. Talk about stuff piling up.

Oh don't talk that way about yourself! I'm in exactly identical situation, my KSP modding experience is basically just a couple MM patches and reading the forum, learning it all as I make stuff.

When I was at AMZN, there was one manager that a coworker and I used to talk about. My coworker once said of him, without one shred of irony, "that guy would stab his own mother in the back for $5." I completely agreed. Capitalism has been good to me, but man, it sets up some really toxic people to be in roles with power that they should never be able to wield.