Search the Community

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!

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

I like history and how humans tend to repeat the same mistakes and not notice when things start to look bad. I could give other examples, such as the scam that ended up blowing up and leaving millions without homes or jobs in 2008, but it is more convincing to talk about WWII, from which money is still made. Captain America and Wonder Woman are my certificate.

They're the kind of people we've always looked for, the kind who drop money and don't talk or question.

hey don't talk about him in the past, he'll still be a great modder and the guy that made KSP2's atmospherics look amazing in like a month.

Scott Manley was steering away from KSP yes but I do feel if the game was good or got good he would’ve made some videos because 1. It’s still fun 2. It would’ve made money. 3. He likes teaching space and it would’ve helped with that. I’m sure he would’ve done new tutorials, probably one career play through, and the occasional video demonstrating something he’d like to talk about in real space. Having got none of those, I think his views are clear. ShadowZone may have presented a very optimistic possibility, but he made a clear line between the facts and the theories, and presented multiple possibilities. I really do think he made a good video on the situation.

Who’s angry? I’m not. did I label you for having an opinion other than my own? You did that with me but I’m not bothered. i am however bothered when you don’t like your medicine. anyway so this doesn’t get me banned maybe we call It a day and agree to disagree or whatever is appropriate around here to end a heated talk.

It's pretty hard to manage expectations after a huge hype campaign followed by... hummm... a somewhat less than expected initial release. There's a lot of promises (as well tons of plain statements taken as promises) made in the last years that are probably going to be broken, and without a viable release to use as a trade-off (ok, A is not going to happen, but look! B & C were implemented instead!), at least in my book, the less technical details (or any details that can be used by technicians to infer the state of the game) you publish, less work you will have on managing a new loot of fallen short expectations. It's kinda of a catch-22 situation: you talk about, you get screwed. You don't talk about, you get screwed. Finding the less bitter spot in which you get less screwed is the trick. (don't look at me for answers - I'm on the "talk too much" spectrum)

Well, its worth a shot at least, with the most recent news I have been thinking of actual realistic ways microtransactions could be implemented without directly harming the game with some suggested prices to go along with it.. Also aswell even if they say "no microtransactions" it seems that they need if it if there is rumors that the game is going to be cut, or we will lose developers... As of right now we don't know the situation for ksp 2 and the team.. "unethical" or not if stuff is "cheap" some people will find a use of some things useful while others don't if there was a unethical way to monetize it instead of just being free QOL the game might be better for income.. (problem is t2 launched the game in EA when it was a YEAR away from being anything useful, pretty much destroying the reputation of the game).. Custom Kerbal Creator / Custom Director Kerbal - 5-10$ USD This is a highly requested feature for ksp 2, being able to create customer kerbals, i think if the feature was free it would allow a certain amount of cosmetics but the paid would allow all cosmetics in ksp 2. Custom Director Kerbal, could be a pfp a kerbal that is "the director (which is you btw)" that would be able to interact more "kerbal friendly" compared to just the characters talking to the "screen", this could also be used as PfP for saves or in multiplayer settings you could use your custom director to be the pfp instead of either a custom photo or your steam pfp. This could be a little high, but i think the amount of work that is required to get it running and then making sure it works on multiplayer/ (if) there is more cosmetics it would allow "People to create kerbals of there own imagine" Custom Flag Implementation - 3-5$ USD Quite a few people request this to be a main in-game FEATURE, there is a mod that does this however the mod misbehaves a lot and does the stock flag instead of the custom one, They can be extremely high detailed flags I think they could make it a microtransaction that is cheap enough that almost anyone could buy it but it would not affect the users if they didn't have it, A Few CC's and a lot users could want such a thing in game. I think this shouldn't controlled in the sense of company censoring what photos are and are not allowed. In multiplayer it should be the owner of the server or local server that should be able to "remove" the offending flags and have an outright option to ban users from uploading and using Custom Flags.. Users can have as many as they want and can be limited on multiplayer if the owner so chooses. This will also include adding "parts" to add large flags that wrap around crafts in many sizes, or just straight huge flags that could be lit up by lights, and stock ksp 2 flags can use this for free. Hex Color Editor - 3-5$ USD Cheap easy mod that adds Hex color fine control to the game (Unethical) in my mind and should be free, however using Spicats Suggestion if all UI updates was approved i don't see why this couldn't be a paid feature its cheap at relative cost and would make users VERY happy, while also not breaking the bank, Supporter Pack #1 - 15-25$ USD This would include a "Music Bouns" of 1 additional song for each situation, planet, and ambient noise, The music is one of the key notes that i have found and have seen many others saying its "very good" for the game. This would include a "Banner Around PfP" or Color Change or A Speical Title.. saying that you purchased the supporter pack.. Would include a special flag(s). Be able to put custom crafts in the menu screen(s) We do not know if multiplayer would even have pfp or titles however, i think it would be a cool thing to add. yes this is pretty much try convince to keep intercept games with ALL of there developers with a job, is absolutely silly to think that we will sit down with people getting fired, and only getting corporate talk. These could be microtransactions that keep small amount of income coming to the game to show people might be interested besides the absolute devestion of trust when the game got forced to be released. (perhaps don't launch a game a year to early and then try to can the developers when we are getting remotely close to an actual game cause of your mistakes cause you are down a few million dollars..)

thank you all. I think I finaly understand it.. to a user level. Its funny how KSP has been a better math teacher than my math teacher. I always just assumed I was dumb when it comes to math. But when people take the time to sit down and answer my questions. I get along in the end x) This quote reminds me of when my father talk about how he prefere win95 xl to the new one - he says it makes some errors that 95 xl didnt.. I always just shrug - I dont ever think I asked xl to do anything advanced enough to figure out x) But man.. people bantering about calculators is why I love this forum.

They deleted the post where I gave my opinion on where the development was going and suspended me for a week with a warning not to talk about it anymore. Now I don't care, this is dead, and the people who moderated already have their checks and are emptying the desks.

-=R&D_UPDATE=- CommNet - Satelites and the Molniya Orbit I figured a good way to continue with this blog - would be to alternate between a R&D post and a Mission Execution Post. Where all the theorycrafting on "how to solve the challenge", will be poured into a post first, and then I follow that up with a Mission Execution Post. I have a feeling that a lot of good discussion can come from making a theory and testing if it worked... at least it will give people a chance to say how wrong I am in my calculations and theories - and stop me before I do something really silly Or better yet.. give people something amusing to read. Any way - Without further ado - here is next challenges Before we talk about the 2nd challenge I am going to ignore it for a little while, and focus on the 3rd challenge first = 3 CommNet Satelites in Orbit around Duna - To me that screams for a Molniya or Tundra orbit. - Something I've been wanting to try out for a while now. If you dont know what a Molniya or Tundra orbit is - See spoiler section bellow: There are 2 reasons why I am thinking about a Molniya Orbit: A Geostationary orbit will not have Line of Sight to the poles of the planet - and It would make sense for future settlements to be near the poles were there is water ice. So a Tundra and Molniya orbit is necessary for such an settlement to be able to communicate with KSC. (Roleplaying) Since the orbit is highly elliptical, it will be more likely that none of the satelites are hidden behind Duna - which should be able to have reliable coms with KSC with fewer satelites and that there are no signal loss to KSC. (except when Kerbol is in the way) Now how do I propose to make a Molniya constellation around Duna you ask? My plan is this: Get 3 long range satelites to Duna and space them 120­° from each other around the planet, 0° inclination. Get them to burn to a 60° inclination to Duna while maintaining ~120° separation. (hopefully the burn will be quick.) Have them raise their Apoapsis to 6700km. (half a sidereal day - see vehicle design section to see how the AP is calculated) Now to complete this task - the Molniya satelites needs a carrier with an antenna strong enough to get signal from Kerbin. If you guessed that this will be the satelite from challenge 2 you are correct. My crazy idea is to make a Satelite Carrier - deploy it to Duna and put it in an orbit where I can space out the 3 Molniya Satelites in a 100km orbit - Then perform the 3 steps to deploy them at their correct molniya orbit (Pe: 100km Ap: 6700km) . After this the satelite carrier will deploy the 6 small cube satelites evenly on the 100km orbit - which will provide signal around the equator. Once that is done - we will see how much Δv it has left on the Satelite Carrier and find a good plan for that. If this sounds like it's going to be difficult... I agree... This will be a test of my patience and precision. Resonant Orbit Planning: Now I thought I would have to sit and actually use my brain to calculate the correct orbit periods etc for launching the satelites to get their space even across the orbit - however I was gifted this great tool that does it for you. Use this to plan the spacing of satelites. When I plot in 6 satelites orbiting at 100km I get these ranges: The smart thing about planning around 6 satelites LOS is that it resonates with the 3 Molniya satelites - which will be deployed on every second orbit instead of every orbit. If you - the reader - sees that I have made some terrible error.. please enlighten me Now the parameters of the mission has been planned. Now it is all about designing the vehicles. <<<<<<<<<<Designing the Vehicles>>>>>>>>>> The CommNet Satelites: Left: Cube Satelite - Right: Molniya Satelite. Molniya Satelite: 1064 Δv Cube Satelite: unknown (25kg of Monopropellant and 2 RCS thrusters. - more than enough Δv) Now for the communication satelites the Molniya Satelites are the ones that will be most demanding. They will have to burn from a 0° inclination to a 60° inclination - then raise its apoapsis to match ½ a sidereal day... Now.. How to calculate this number was lost on me. Even though I could find the equation online multiple places I could not get google to calculate it propper. So I asked for help on the forum, and help was received. Thanks to @K^2 and others for helping me wrap my head around this. To aid others (and myself in the future) I have decided to save the process here: How to find the AP: To find the AP for your desired Molniya Orbit you need to first find the Semi major axis of your orbital period - you do that with this equation: If you punch that into google so it looks like this: You should get this number: 3,719.831km - which is the Semi Major Axis for a ½ a Duna Sidereal Rotation Period. Now this number is the distance between Apoapsis and Periapsis - you may think "but that is an oddly big number" - at least that is what I was thinking. But that was because I "forgot" that there is a planet in between, and that the distance we are shown is taken from the "sea level" of the planet/body. We there for have to subtract the planets diameter. (or radius*2) Now - I have decided that I want a PE of 100km above Dunas Surface - So to find the AP you have to use this formula: This should give you a distance of 6,699.662km - which I have rounded up to 6700 km - With 1064 Δv I hope we have enough Δv to finish both maneuvers. (it seems like it should be enough?) This formula is "plug and play" so to speech - you can go to the wiki and lift the numbers, pick your PE and find the AP for any body you want. If you want to know more read here: The Cube Satelite: If we look at the Resonant Orbit Calculator numbers: See spoiler section bellow: we can see it only requires 40.4 Δv to lower the AP to 100km - I therefore decided that it would be more cost effective to just give the small satelite 25kg of monopropellant and 2x RCS thrusters to decrease the AP. This makes the satelite much lighter than if it had actual engines - and I can carry much less fuel - thus making the satelites much lighter. The Satelite Carrier: Satelite Carrier with 6 cube satelites and 3 molniya satelites. Carrier: 2091Δv The carrier will have 2091 Δv which should be ample since it's going to be launched from LKO: 80km and the Δv map shows it only requires 1690 - 1700 to transit to Duna Low Orbit. See spoiler section below for reference: Now - one does not need to look at this monstrosity of a satelite twice to see it wont fit in the small cargo bay for the SDG... So My "promise" to make everything fit within the small cargo bay only lasted until the next challenge... *Teehee*because - of course this was the only excuse I had for a glider re-redesign - It wouldn't be me without it. The SDGv2: Left: SDGv2 - Right - SDGv1. When I first flew the SDG on Challenge 1 - there were 1 obvious thing that struck me. It does not need the docking array. The vehicle is not meant to dock with K.G.01, like the Multi Fuel Gliders are. So I can do away with that and get more cargo space already - without changing the center of mass and drag a lot.. - how ever.. the satelite is still too long... But I figured I could add a bit of Tube in the end where the vertical stabilizers are and sort of have the satelite twist itself out of the glider... That being said.. I can easily see things go "wrong" though here... namely: A theoretical comparison of me getting the satelite out of the cargo bay. Nothing has ever gone wrong from banging sensitive electronics out of the box... *cough cough* - Luckily Kerbal tech is sturdy tech... Here are the two cargo spaces clearly visible - The SDGv1 still loaded with the probe that was send for the Duna Fly By of Challenge 1. and here a side by side comparison. Luckily the weight savings of ditching the docking port means that even though the Satelite Carrier is pretty heavy at 8.06t - double the payload of its cusin, the Multi Fuel Glider - it only increases weight by 2.22t. Something I am confident that the 1st stage will not have any issues getting into orbit. Weight distribution across platforms: Multi Fuel Glider:.............................................................25.34t SDGv1:................................................................................22.28t SDGv2:................................................................................27.56t <<<<<<<<<<CONCLUSION>>>>>>>>>> The plan has been made, Math has been calculated and vehicles designed accordingly. Stay tuned in to see if the plan survives first contact with reality. See you in the next one.

With talk of class action, I'm going after a joke

Assuming he really didn't know what was coming when he wrote this forum post a week ago, it's a good bet Nate is feeling like a broken man right now. His vision of KSP 2 is in tatters and the studio that he helped build is no more. He's almost certainly sick to his stomach about his soon-to-be unemployed staff, many of whom he likely recruited himself on the promise of his vision for the game. Many of them will have left high paying jobs in software, aerospace and other game dev companies to join Intercept. His reputation is in pieces and his future in game development is very uncertain. Even if he somehow falls upwards into Private Division into some sort of executive job, it will likely be some sort of token 'Product evangelist' role for the remnants of the Kerbal IP, probably more out of embarrassment on PD's part and to deflect from their own poor judgement on KSP2's development. Even if he was authorized to make a statement by Take2 legal, I very much doubt he would have the stomach to say anything. He likely just wants to crawl into a hole somewhere. I would love for the whole story of what happened in KSP2's development to come out, it is surely a fascinating tale. Even with NDA's, I'm confident people will talk. The game dev world of Seattle is small. People gossip, especially people with an axe to grind and who devoted years of their professional lives to a project that was so badly mismanaged and eventually canned by Take2. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest in the next few weeks if we start to see anonymous posts on this forum or Reddit from disgruntled former devs to justify their roles in what happened. Paul Furio, the ex-Technical Director already seems eager to explain his side of things on LinkedIn and Reddit. Non-disclosure agreements be damned, these people have their professional reputations to salvage and will be desperate to tell their side of the story.

Check Intercept discord #announcments Still at work. Can't talk about it.

Announcement dropped.. Dev Team still hard at work "Talk More when we Can" Not in a position to upload to imgur.. check intercept discord or X

Request denied, speculation is fun Granted, anyone attacking someone else for their opinion, belief or perception of the situation has lost the plot. Debate and discussion is fine, but some folks get way too heated and too fixated on being "right" or the ironclad belief that the evidence that convinced them of something MUST be able to convince everyone else of the same, and anyone who doesn't accept it is being [Malicious/Copium/Hateful] and must be attacked. Its really good to talk about this, a lot, it brings attention to the matter, shares information and conclusions, and lets people get an understanding of things. But we're not enemies here, two corpse in one grave and all that

This is a serious topic, and unfortunately, KSP2 fails on all fronts here. And I can only talk about problems with interface, but I'm sure there's plenty more things that can be improved. Plus, if anything, the 0.1.4 made it worse. Look at this Let's start from the top left. The "hamburger menu". Known to exist in most mobile apps, but absent from most desktop applications, except some browsers. Alright, it's a good idea to have a button AND a hotkey (Esc), just like staging does, but does it have to be an actual icon of a hamburger? Probably a snacks joke, haha. Okay, it's there but... it only works one way. There's no button to go back from the menu. Not very intuitive, is it? Meanwhile, a button with similar function (opening a menu of options) in App bar looks entirely different. Next stop is on the right, the GFORCE window. Or is it a Gforce window? Maybe it's crew portait window? And if it is, why does it show empty seats? Where's that cyber Kerbal dummy that devs have shown us ages ago? Anyway, what matters is that the name has a hard time explaining what it is, because the GFORCE only applies to that thin strip on the left. And I think another issue are the window names. Not only they're 8 pixels tall (at 1080p screen), very inconsistent in letter shape - look at any two same letters close to each other, they are not identical because the whole thing is badly compressed, but also inconsistent in letter size and style - for example, the resources window has the title made of 7 pixels, but also the separator isn't a dot, but a hyphen. And the whole theme makes it look like it's some placeholder codename, not an actual thing. Why is it ORBITAL.INFO, and not Orbital Info? Why is it TIME.WARP and not Time Warp? There's no reason to have it like that in a product that's not a prototype available only for the dev team. Font choices. On that one screenshot I counted 12 (Twelve) different styles, including changes in font size. That is the opposite of unified interface, feels more like a bunch of different bits made by 5 different people, glued together to make a UI. We've got window names in two (at least) sizes, orbital parameters (also at least two sized AND styles), the navball there you can find another 3, timewarp window with 2 more, the resource window with another new size, and staging with at least two more. Iconography. There isn't much here but there are two identical radiotelescope icons that do different things. One shows radio connection, the other is Tracking Station. That can be confusing. Also, all planets in the top left list have the same icon of Kerbin. I know it's an icon for "planet" but it's the same for moons. The Navball. Oh the navball. I should explain that I am slightly visually impaired. Wearing glasses, short sighted, astigmatism, recently fighting (without effects) focus/contrast issues in my right eye. And there's no other way of saying this, the new dark mode of the navball looks like crap and is unreadable for me without leaning in and squinting. The tiny, very densely packed numbers blend with the background, the center bird blends with the background lines, the SAS icons can be barely seen against what's behind them. You could say to increase the size of the UI - but I don't think I should. I'm not that blind because, in KSP1, with roughly the same size of the ball, I had no problems reading the numbers. Here though, it's a complete blur. Honestly, the most readable thing in this whole screenshot, is the FPS readout.

Ah yes, the bad publisher strawman, specially useless when we talk about a product that got a free pass to delay for 4 years and turn from a complete release into barely working early access. For Science! was a minor patch confirmed.

I would love to see a Kerbol Origins or OPM port, or Parallax. I'm not sure how likely or feasible it is, but it would be really nice to see those mods ported over to KSP2. Despite KSP2's bugs, the game has improved a lot and can be seen as a similar title to KSP1. Honestly the amount of creativity generated over the course of KSP1's lifespan is staggering, and it shouldn't just be abandoned. Anyone interested in a OPM/Kerbol Origins/etc. revival? Maybe like a "modloader" that you install into KSP2 with mods that you can enable and disable? I don't know KSP2 modding, so maybe i'm not the right person to talk about this, but it still would be cool.

Let me rephrase this whole upnate into a single sentence: "We're working on showstopping bugs, PQS optimizations, prettier clouds, and also prettier engine exhaust plumes". Now go back to this thread, check what people wanted, and see if this post is that. Spoilers: it is not. If you want to know why traffic is slow, why the auxiliary bridge supposed to alleviate traffic has not seen construction progress in months, why the paint on the road hasn't been fixed and it's still illegible, why your boss insists on not telling you when you'll be getting your next free day... the guy rolling down his window to talk about "look how nice the clouds are" doesn't help.

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.