Search the Community

People do not like to admit culpability in a situation like this & Nate is ever the spin master. Anything taken from Nate will always be "We did an amazing Job. Things were out of our hands" or something similiar. Where I personally do not think that the responsibility lies with the individual developer. Even if it did, No one will come out and say "we did a bad job" .. "it's our fault" The game WAS pushed out in a rather poor state and could support the Parent say this outcome and was preparing for it.. but I'm just saying.. Nates literal job is to talk a good game.. and he's good at it.

Out of curiosity, especially since you clearly have, likely, the most (and most relevant) experience in game physics programming out of everyone who frequents this forum: if this were your project and you were in the position were you got to make the decisions, what game/physics engine would you use (for sake of relevance, say, both if it was started now and for if it was started in the 2017-2020 range, like ksp2 was)? Since all we can really do now is talk about what ifs, and I (and others, I think) always value your insight, it would be quite interesting/educational to read. Also, If you want to go into what your overall approach would be if you were engineering and/or game lead, too, please be my guest (it would be quite interesting, I imagine). I know, though, that you've given aspects of that already (though putting it all together would still be of value), and it would easily be mass wall of text that you may or may not feel like like writing, so do what you feel like. (for a given value of force). But, if you genuinely WANT to, please do.

I have seen Satire of this very situation on television. It is a trope I feel has been displayed enough to have been immortalized. Random individual conveys some sentiment with simple arithmetic to emphasize a general feeling of disappointment. Then a figure emerges from the back of the room. Crowd parts & a shadowy out of focus frame slowly center on the individual. Long well oiled mustaschio twirled idly between for finger and thumb... " weeeellll... seems we have a misunderstanding. Let me educate the poor farmers" proceede with circular talk to convince *farmers* some unrelated point in somehow relevant to their disappointment.

This discussion reminds me too much on my time in World of Warcraft. I spent almost all my teens on that game. Was it part of my life? Clearly. Did it teach me something? Certainly something about progress, motivation and goals. But is something lost because I don't play the most recent patches since many years now? I didn't play as much KSP as some of you guys - shameful 2~ years to be accurate - but a big take away from my gaming experience is that the biggest slice of any game teaching or telling you something is always achieved in the first steps. Most things happening afterwards are reiterated over and over again until the player is mastering his skills to meet some kind of end goal proofing you're a specialist. There is only one problem: Some games have no end goal. KSP is just such a game. The deepening of some skills might be fun and such but there is nothing obvious you lose. If you can talk about life altering things you probably have learned it already. You have taken it and nobody can steal it from you anymore because it's in your mind now. The only thing you really lose - and that's very precious for many people - is your passion. I understand that. Passion never really falls from the sky at any time. It's like a rare moment in life where you make the right decision and hit the point and now you ride a wave for a longer period of time. But at the point where you only feel pain or think your life depends onto it you should try to rethink whether you still ride this wave or not. Maybe you're on the surfboard, thinking you have a safe stand these days but in fact the sea is just dry and your board standing still on the sand. Maybe -and I certainly don't want to judge - you just don't want to see it like it is. If you play this game for so long it makes sense to me. Nothing holds up to eternity. It didn't do it for me at least. I see it like this: If I hadn't stopped WoW, I would never have played KSP. Maybe there is the next best thing around the corner waiting to be found. You just don't know it yet. Endless missed opportunities because you play KSP for so long. Oddly, no one is talking about that.

Well... I just learned something about medieval history. Probably can't teach it at my school, even though I do talk about some of the crazy shtuff the Normans got up to back then.

Yes. Big part of that is the handling of non-owned vessels in multiplayer, to make the physics of N-parts aircraft manageable in a game that allows you to shoot off every single part individually. The solution they found "sacrifices" wobble (lol) amongst other stuff, to make offloaded vessels a single integrated part, but keeps the capacity to calculate hits and damage to individual parts. It's very probably an iteration of the KSP1 proto-vessel method. Mind you all vessels are still able to grab fuel/battery from their containers correctly. Like really, at this point you're just throwing vitriol around with zero knowledge of what you talk about. You hate HarvesteR and KSP1? fine. But don't try to pass your hate as anything more but your personal views.

Im pretty convinced at this point they'll leave that roadmap on the steam page after firing everyone until there's a lawsuit more threatening than the sucker-sales of people who don't know its abandonware--which is never. I will never buy a product from PD or T2 ever again and I'll warn off everyone I talk to about games. These are trash people.

I think there's more than one thing that's going on. Modern approach is to use velocity constraints with Baumgarte stabilization for drifts. Baumgarte does work a bit like a spring coefficient, but the velocity constraint already has damping built in. So with a sensible choice of coefficients, any perturbations should naturally decay, rather than lead to more oscillation for any single joint. Unfortunately, systems of joints can still misbehave. The worst case is usually a light object sandwiched between two heavy objects. Unfortunately, I just described every single stage separator and decoupler, which immediately becomes a problem in KSP if you don't add additional joints to stabilize it (such as multi-joint connectors, autostruts, etc.) A very good read on the topic is Erin Catto's GDC presentation from 2009, Modeling and Solving Constraints. Every modern physics engine I've seen goes back to this talk. At a minimum, Havok and Chaos do, as well as Crystal's and Blizzard's internal engine implementations because Erin Catto worked there and was instrumental in making sure these engines worked. Now, not every engine uses impulse exchange as their iteration method, but all iterative solvers are going to behave similarly. I think Erin really likes impulse exchange mostly due to its logical simplicity compared to pure linear algebra methods. Crucially, the PhysX version that ships with Unity predates the industry's switch to this as the main method. So their constraints handling might be a little different, and I haven't looked at the code for that specifically. Though, it might be interesting to try and dig up the source for a relevant PhysX engine and to make sure. In general, even the older physics engines had to solve the same fundamental problem of enforcing constraints. And even if you start with position constraint (rather than velocity constraint) and work your way from there, you are still building a damped harmonic oscillator, but your coefficients might be less "magical" and require more careful tuning. So we're still dealing with what's ultimately a damped harmonic oscillator for each individual joint, but what can still fall into some sort of a bad feedback loop between multiple joints. And we know that mass ratios are a problem for the PhysX joints as well, so whatever the solver is iterating over, it's not that far different. So that's one part of it. Even with a good solver, there are bad configurations that you need to learn to avoid, and for something like KSP that means either merging some rigid bodies together (e.g., if you made decoupler and whatever it's permanently attached to into a single rigid body) or doing what KSP1 does and adding additional joints in a way that avoids the unstable configurations. The second part is, I think, what muddled the situation for KSP2. And here we're back to logical connection vs actual joints. I have seen a number of times when a ship spawns in (either at the launch site or from a save) with some parts detached. And it's one thing to just watch some part of your ship drift away, and another is if it's some internal part with collisions that ends up doing a ragdoll-spaz inside the ship. I don't know how many of the KSP2 physics explosions are due to bad joint configurations and how many are due to a part getting loose and spazzing out. I've definitely seen both, but I wouldn't be able to identify each particular case. And I think that might have been why Intercept kept having these issues creep back up, because there are several different bugs they're trying to fix that can be reported as one bug: rapid disassembly without any obvious cause. All of this is kind of self-inflicted, but I do sympathize. Again, it's a hard problem, and unless you happened to have worked on these exact problems before, it takes time to catch up on all the terminology and required reading.

This. The code would be dead simple (relative to "rocket sim"). Further, if you remove game physics for anything not in the physics bubble and, keep track of orbital parameters and not coordinates, then you don't even need to know where anything is until it needs to be displayed. You could have any number of bodies in elliptical orbits and give them 0 computational effort until you needed to display them. Perfect for high timewarp, and orbits cannot decay, or for that matter wander due to cumulative FP rounding error. As you say, SOI-crossing orbits are a matter of setting a timer (which they should be getting right anyway to support Alarm Clock in the base game.). For high timewarp, I'd certainly start development with treating the boosting ship as a rigid body. Modeling joints under boost at high timewarp seems like a "nice to have" at best. Until you mentioned the Risk twins, it didn't occur to me why you were discussing 3-body sim. Wow, talk about starting with an overly ambitious dream. Man, talk about stuff to defer until after everything else is working! That was the tail end of the roadmap, and it seems like they started with it. Upthread you mentioned the problems in KSP2 with save data and live data diverging. Is there some common problem with saving/restoring full physics data for the public engines? I've seen small indie teams using both Unity and Unreal just treat that as an unsolvable problem and just not save physics state despite being physics-heavy sims. I'm curious whether that's actually difficult with stock physics engines, or it's a case of buying some game save tool off the store without understanding it, so they're stuck with the positional-only information it came with.

Sounds like management wants to keep the product page up and just not have to talk about it again. It got full funding for as long as it was going to. It just isn't worth it anymore compared to other places to put money. So unless the cost of carrying financing drops to nearly zero again, I'd say they've put their money where their mouth is by firing the developers. They just want it to stay on the books to pad the portfolio for investors.

THE SECRET SPACE PROGRAM - YEAR 4, DAY !̶̨̛̤̰͈̥̫̯͎̻̘͕̭͎̣̠̠̯̩̦̫̣̦̤̼̯̿̏̈͛̐̉̈́̀̈̾̓̈́̊̃̈́̒̚̚̕͠*̶̬̺̜͎̳̠̦̗͕̝̠̖̭̝̟̝̠̻̭͉͛̂̈́́͒̽́̀̈́͌̑̂͝ͅ@̸̢̧̢̨̻̟̱̖̤̠͉̠̪̮̭̝̯͚̝̠̺̗̤̪̠̔͋͐́̔̈̒͋͂̾̍͂̋̔̎͒̎͘ͅ^̴̨̧̧̛͕̦̱̜̩̗͎̲̰͔̤͎̪͔̪̭̬̤̈́̾͆̾̑̃̔͠$̶̢̛̭͉̳̭̤̹͔̝͔͌͐͗̿̈́̽́̔͐̑̿͊́̓̍͆̈́͗́̐̄͜͝͠͠͠͝͝͝@̶̦͇̮̠͍̬͙̻͕̞̭̠̅̾̀̍͜ MISSION OBJECTIVE: Send crew to the Secret Space Station CREW: [NO DATA AVAILABLE] It's ya boy [REDACTED] back with another update at Kerbin's most secret of space programs. The Dessert Launch Center (DLC) has had some extreme overhauls recently, including the construction of a much more streamlined VAB. Instead of rocket parts being built is separate buildings and then assembled on the launchpad, it can all be built and assembled right there, and then rolled out. Also, the launch control center is no longer a small tower, but now a full fledged center for launch control. And new barracks have been constructed, which I must say are pretty snazzy, especially for a crumby government facility. Now, onto the important part. This mission will be sending a new crew to Triple-S (as most of us on base call the space station), where they will continue to monitor the Mun and signals coming from it. A recent burst of energy has been detected from the surface, higher than anything we've seen. Almost like something has just come through the portal. Rumors have also spread that they'll be working on an unmanned lander mission that will investigate the structure further, but truthfully we have no idea. Sure, shipments have arrived at base, but these could just be for any old satellite launch too. I don't have clearance to enter the VAB, and those who do are ordered not to talk about what's happening inside. Hmm... The new crew who I still don't know the names of make their way to orbit. "Proceeding with orbital insertion burn." - Unknown Commander "Burning for Triple-S." - Unknown Pilot Now we sit and listen. For any little sound movement or smell coming from the Mun. We finally have eyes up there again, and I will do as much as I can to tel you what those eyes see. What secrets do you continue to hide?

It was said that they will talk as soon as they can, but bureaucracy can be quite a torture at times. If they don't talk within 48 hours I begin to believe we will hear something end of June at best. The team has a heart. I believe in them. Something will be said. They just can't talk now and they feel the pain too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've got my ticket for the long way 'round Two bottle whiskey for the way And I sure would like some sweet company And I'm leaving tomorrow. What'd you say? When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my hair You're gonna ban me everywhere, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone I've got my ticket for the long way 'round The one with the prettiest of views It's got mountains, it's got rivers It's got sights to give you shivers But it sure would be prettier with you When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my hair You're gonna ban me everywhere, oh You're sure gonna ban me when I'm gone When I'm gone, when I'm gone You're gonna ban me when I'm gone You're gonna ban me by my walk You're gonna ban me by my talk, oh You're gonna ban me when I'm gone

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

Vitriol doesn't make this argument any more sound, not that it had any substance to it to begin with. We can talk about which game you like all day, but if you wanna talk objective stuff like the technical side, there's no place for opinions there. KSP2 is a broken, unplayable, badly designed mess, left incomplete and wincing painfully on the ground after being unable to gather interest, sales, or any sort of trust in whatever might come out of it long term. This is not to say that KSP1 is perfect, far from it, but hey, one is still being played by thousands, with a myriad more playing hyper modded saves, making vessels in the thousands of parts, adding planets to it, clouds, obscene levels of detail, gigabytes worth of parts, mission packs, entire mechanics, and it refuses to break under all of that except for some very specific cases.

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

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

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

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