Search the Community

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 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.

The CMs certainly are not at fault. They only acted within the scope of their abilities at any given time. Thay must have been a pretty excrementsty burden to bear... wanting to talk about really cool stuff thay was almost ready .. just need to figure this out or that.. and not getting to talk about it at all. I feel like the CMs kinda got the crappiest deal of all. The industry has exploded since early 00's. A vote based system to enter EA is longer relevant. And I know nothing is perfect.. a large group of angry incels could still slam whatever feature and initiate unfair action. But with people behind the oversight, this would be obvious. This sentiment has been fermenting for a bit over a couple (one) other titles I wanted to be excited about but feel developers employed less than genuine approach to EA. It may shape up to be alright in the end.. the massive breach of trust doesn't occur in the community over singular incidents. It's not like we freaked out over price, or routine delays in communication, then postponed delays of communication, lack of technical dev blogs, incinere AMAs... it was a culmination effect. @chefsbrian obviously titles with awesome customer relations and positive review rating would not be one brought to question. im not asking anyone to adopt a unilateral set of qualifiers for EA. Merely adhere to the standard each puts forth on their own EA store page. Each one answers certain questions about what EA means to them & how they intend to approach various benchmarks for the guidelines. There isn't even a scope set forth in the guidleines with a set of minimum acceptance criteria.. beyond game must be playable & not provide blatantly inaccurate info. There is no minimum required engagement for the community feedback nor a set bar for how frequent we should get announcements of any kind. But the development staff sets that expectation when they fill out the little questionnaire & it enters into writing. That is the first step of a relationship where trust Is a factor. That trust is based on what we read on that page. (Very few read anything outside the Steam page)

I've been working on a CubeSat for the past 2 years, mostly software and testing, and we uploaded the final code onto it yesterday, it is flying to Texas for integration in a few hours, and will be launching into space on Cygnus NG-21 probably sometime in August, and ejected from the International Space Station probably in Fall or early Winter. (picture was very zoomed out, that's why it is a bit fuzzy, I zoomed in) This is CySat-1, a mission to prove the viability of measuring Earth's soil moisture levels using a software defined radiometer (and also to prove that an undergraduate led satellite program at our university is viable). There's many subsytems involved: Endurosat OBC, tells everything else what to do Endurosat UHF antenna and transceiver, how we talk to the satellite, has the worst documentation of any of the modules and took us a long time to figure out how to use. CubeSpace ADCS, has magneto-torquers, star trackers, Earth sensors, a magnetometer, GPS, and a reaction wheel to figure out where the satellite is and point it in the right direction. Endurosat EPS, manages power collection, the batteries, and power distribution throughout the satellite A breakout board with numerous electronic components soldered onto it for toggling power and converting voltages PumpkinSpace solar panels, we bought them (really expensive) after failing to build our own Analog Devices AD9361-Z7035 FPGA/SDR/SOM/whatever you want to call it. Power hungry computer that is only on sometimes, and runs our scientific program using GNU Radio and Python on an Analog Devices Linux Distro Analog Devices ADRV1CRR-BOB Carrier Board, holds the other Analog Devices board and distributes power and data to and from it Mini-Circuits Low Noise Amplifiers and Bandpass Filters to amplify the signals from the radiometer antenna A custom antenna for the radiometer And on the ground: An Ubuntu desktop computer running a GNU Radio flowgraph to talk to the satellite A software defined radio and antenna (we will get a bigger antenna in the next few months, the one we have is temporary) A Windows laptop running a python program (the ground station front end/GUI) to communicate with the Linux server I have been a programmer for CySat-1 for the past four semesters, programming lead for the past three semesters, and the only programmer for the last semester. My job has been to get these 7 computers made by 4 different manufacturers running 3.5 different operating systems in 2 separate programming languages talking with each other seamlessly. For the most part, we have succeeded, and the satellite has worked during short term ground testing. Unfortunately, we ran out of time for long term testing due to an issue with charging the batteries. This project has been one relentless string of failures and setbacks and frustrations, so long I'll probably make a video essay about it at some point. It felt like bashing my head up against a wall repeatedly only to find another wall on the other side, over and over and over again. I'm not very optimistic about our chances for successfully completing the mission, we have at least one possibly unresolved critical bug with no leads (and no time to fix), and given that we were discovering bugs literally up to and including the very last day, there's probably more we don't know about. But I learned a lot, enough that success is one of the possible outcomes. While it is supposed to do a lot more than beeping, I will be happy if it beeps. I'll be even happier if it will beep on command. Anything after that is purely bonus in my mind, especially given that half of university CubeSats don't even get a beep back, so I'm told. I'm proud of how much we managed to overcome, and that this thing finally got shipped off after years of delays, the satellite having been originally conceived sometime between 2002 and 2017 depending on what you take as the start date. That picture is an expression of equal parts "We finally finished it!" "Oh boy, what if I forgot something? What if it fails because I forgot to change a line of code, and I won't know for another six months!" and "What now? This has been my big thing for 2 years, where do I go from here?" In a really roundabout way, KSP is one of the reasons I found myself on this project. Part of that was just because it awakened my love for space, but another part of it was that the organization that manages CySat has a bunch of other project teams, one of which was a KSP simpit. I was on that project for one semester because a friend told me about it. When the KSP simpit project shut down, that same friend invited me to join CySat. It has certainly been an adventure that took me far outside my comfort zone. When I started, I didn't know a lick of C, and barely knew two licks of Python. I came in wanting to do structures/CAD stuff, as I felt that would be what I would suck the least at. But through a quirk of fate, got put on programming instead, something I did not at all feel confident doing. After a lot of pain and a lot of learning , the inter-computer links fell one by one, and we got it to a point where everything (discounting the single use stuff we weren't able to test) works in short term ground testing. While obviously we would have preferred to do more extensive testing, at this point, for a variety of reasons, we've just got to send it. About eleven years and about two weeks ago, I launched my first Kerbal into the sky, and now, a spacecraft I worked on is getting launched for real. Hopefully, when it gets up there, it shows up as a probe and not as debris!

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.

I think my main concern that causes me to question definitions of harm is people being overbearing. I think people (above the age of consent/legality or whatever) should be allowed to make their own decisions, but given a good education of the pluses and minuses of the possible choices at hand. Unfortunately I feel people (at least my age, early 20s) don’t really get taught the skills necessary to properly weigh pros and cons and end up going more with their emotions. It’s hard to find the balance between a warning and an order. I am terribly sorry but I must now correct myself. I was using the wrong term. Some families in Nepal practice polyandry, not polygamy, although polygamy can be found in Nepal too, it is not what I studied about. The way it works is one wife usually marries an entire family’s brothers. The husbands are not drawn from different families. Tension is mainly around personal issues. It’s been several months since the anthropology class and I don’t seem to have taken notes on the subject, but I recall that having two males helps raise lots of farm hands and keep the population stable. I’ve found the TED Talk I watched during my studies. I don’t know if it’s okay to post it, so just Google “Are five husbands better than one TED Talk” and you can find it if you’re interested.

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.

At this point, not surprised, just disappointed. I knew this was a mess on launch but I gave them my $50 anyway because I wanted to support it. But clearly someone high up said to shove this out to early access way too early and unstable and feature incomplete to inject cash into someone's pocket. It should have been at least as feature complete as KSP1 before launch, if not have 1 of the new flagship features or 2, like multiplayer or colonies, or physicalized asteroid belts, you know, the trailer bait. I hope the project lives on in some productive fashion, either in another studio or made open source. From the offset though for my part the problem seemed to be Unity and how it was implemented. KSP2 never made significant stability changes to how KSP1 worked, large craft would still bring supercomputers to a crawl etc. and it didn't help that the game implementation was, hey, stack 30 of this same part together and let it all wobble every tick. There didn't seem to be much tricks used under the hood to make the game stable, because it can't decide if it's a space crash simulator or a space program game. So lo and behold, let's calculate all these trusses every tick, let's not lightweight these parts/payloads hidden behind a faring at launch, and watch framerate go poo and watch things spontaneously wiggle themselves into a billion pieces, let's make it practically impossible to maintain fixed orbits for all your relay sats because of floating point error, etc. - those kinda issues bug me more than a lack of multiplayer and colonies, the base game should be running and operating a lot smoother, and a lot more like a refined game that knows what it wants to be. Extremely Weird. It leaves the community to run wild with our thoughts and no direction, and the silence is deafening. If there was short term hopefulness for the direction of the game you'd anticipate an official word from someone at the studio other than the boilerplate 'talk when we can lol' that we have. It leads to deductive inferences, like either nobody at the studio can talk competently about the future of the project, or because they are part of the layoff, they don't want to, like the community manager appears to have effectively said 'no, I'm not polishing this turd for the higher ups anymore, I'm mentally checked out, have to figure out how I'm going to eat this July.' And that would be completely understandable, despite frustrating as a supporter? backer? gamer? customer? victim? mark? In this debacle. And the corpo statement just reads as 'no no no this wasn't a rugpull, please don't delist our game and issue millions of dollars of refunds, new infrastructure update in 2 weeks! Make Kerbal Great Again!' For all we know it boils down to putting the game in maintenance mode and keeping it propped up like Bernie from Weekend at Bernies.

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

I watched 2012 for the first time. I found it to be a pretty entertaining movie, which asks some interesting questions about morality when comes to saving the world, albeit perhaps not so original ones. It was refreshing to watch in 2024 when all the movies seem to be about relatively normal life, while the end of the world talk comes from IRL stuff (barring superhero movies which require a perennial doomsday to defeat). I can’t decide between the oligarch calling an Antonov aircraft Russian or the Chinese Mi-26s airlifting giraffes and other animals as the most funny part. Interesting to note, while the Chinese do not possess Mi-26s, they do operate a number of Sikorsky S-70s, which are partially depicted by way of Blackhawks with PLA insignia also used by the Chinese in the film. Given the neutrino “mutation” nonsense in the beginning, I was thoroughly surprised that the arks ended up being ships instead of spaceships. Considering the shipbuilding giant it is today I’d say the premise of building a massive ark for 100,000 people isn’t too far fetched, although doing it in the Himalayas and in total secrecy might be. I also found it funny that Japan, Russia, and China got stuck on the same boat together. I’m a Japanese person who has an interest in the Russian (well, Soviet) and Chinese militaries. I have seen a loosely similar concept explored in Japan Sinks: 2020, in which many Japanese refugees end up in Russia, Japan Sinks: 2023, in which a good portion of the Japanese population is evacuated to China, and I myself considered exploring the concept with the idea to conduct an amateur study of what kind of resources would be needed to relocate the entire population of Japan to new-built cities in the Russian Far East in the event of either a fantasy Japan sinks scenario or a climate disaster which renders Japanese summers unlivable. The latter is an idea I did not pursue. I also considered looking at the cost of moving the entire country into balloons on Venus, but I didn’t look at it either. My Mars city calculations over in the S&S section have now dissuaded me from taking a look at any such situation in a capitalist context. But I digress. As far as apocalyptic stories or movies go, I like this one in that it has a relatively happy ending. I feel that “man just tears itself apart” type stories are too rooted in Hobbes’ view of man’s “true” nature without civilization, which was never meant to be an actual sociological or anthropological take on humanity and was simply a philosophical argument. The truth is that we are very kind animals. It’s wrong to think that every man and woman would become a murderer the moment the kings and their courts were toppled; I think this idea focuses too much on the way law is used to restrain people and not enough on how morals do too. Yes, we can be violent. But if we were not primarily an altruistic species, I don’t think we would have gotten this far at all. “Men” (I use men in the sense of man vs. savage) created civilization, not the other way around. IMO, of course. Oh, and by the way, I now really feel like Moonfall was just an attempt to emulate what 2012 did but in an over the top way. I think 2012 works because the social phenomena of belief in that doomsday was popular. The idea of the Moon being an alien ark and it crashing in to Earth? At best a few dark web conspiracy lunatics know about it, at worst Roland just made it up himself and hoped people would be interested.

Does anyone know if Kerbal space program one enhanced edition for the PlayStation or other consoles is still getting support or updates? I just picked it up for the PlayStation and really enjoy the game but unfortunately things I see on YouTube videos I am incapable of doing. I was just wondering if we're going to get the same updates at some point. Forums from other locations people talk about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any support for the game and sometimes the last post is as far back as 2022. So I was just wondering I really enjoy the game but I'm wondering if I spent my money in vain due to the fact that I'm not kidding any more support for the game.

I think the thing people are going after with talk of a class-action would be the promises the company made regardless of the product being in EA. All the hype, all the talk about how they'll finish and everything is good. All the tidbits about velocity being good, and timelines are being met. I think this is where people are aiming. And that's a damned hard thing to prove outside of court, let alone inside of one. While there are laws that protect consumers from outright fraud, it's gonna be pretty hard for anyone to prove the company - TT, PD, IG, or some other entity in the umbrella - was intentional in deceiving the community. But, if they want to pursue it...I say good luck, and I hope they have enough cash to see it through.

30:37 ... I have messaged Nate Simpson cre creative director of ksp2 30:45 and I said look I know you're obviously going to be under some massive corporate NDA so you can't really talk but can you 30:51 tell me anything and all he was able to say was I'm very much looking forward to talking when I can thanks for 30:57 understanding ...

Worth listening to, interestingly Matt reached out to Nate to ask if he could say anything and he more or less just said what the others have been saying; "Can't talk now, maybe later".

When assign blame you have to look at those in key roles.. that why certain individuals have a tendency to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden for failure. Nate was the face of this product, for better or worse. I believe he genuinely thought this game would succeed bc the community would be impressed with his awesome vision, so much so that we would be willing to excuse ... certain deficiencies for extended periods of time. When everyone wanted something substantive be the foundation of all those "oooo... purdy!" It kind of fell apart a little. I understand the need for visual aide and demonstrative presentations, but you must find balance. When you hear people say things that are not accurate... they absolutely are going to get some blame for their misinformed position. If they say innacurate things without any clarification to those inconsistencies.. it seems willful. Regardless if that's the case.. the perception starts to shift to one of being intentionally misled. "Fully Funded" - massive lay off "Playable at Launch" "Actual Play Footage" These are what started to turn me off of Nate. Enthusiasm without Substance. I try not to watch any videos with him in it because of this bias. Regardless of what's really going on.. I can see some deceptive marketing material as anything but disingenuous now & view him a smarmy Narcissist. I can't help it.. I wanna be a better person with less judgement in my heart. But loading a bunch of visual content on a liquid poor foundation of code while the community that built the franchise was highly intelligent professional and gifted youths.. I had a step dad who was shaddy as he'll. He was a handyman that took jobs and never completed them.. boy he could talk a great game. I dispised his behavior growing up.. ans seem to now see him when I look at Nate. Sorry can't help it... Community Managers however were not to blame. A thankless job that was impossible to do, bc the proper tools (info) was not provided or allowed to be released.

Yes, Nate also said that this parallel workflow was speeding up subsequent releases versus the cadence of bugfixes... and that didn't happen, with 2 proposed bugfix releases before colonies having failed to even show up let alone have a date for the first one 4 months down the road. That's what I mean with "don't exist": They weren't there, even if under "muh parallel development" they were supposed to start working on stuff as soon as FS! left the dock. Once again, all they could show from colonies was static assets on editor scenes., same kind of hot air they were showing before release saying they had a full game. Allegedly, and that being considered only as a way to have some compassion to their work. Even if this is something they've actively denied and the people working on whatever was scrapped was... themselves still under the same leadership. Sure you could talk licenses, but it's useless if we don't know how much really was lost, that's a magnitude order more conjecture than whether KSP2 is currently dead. This + things like using the same middleware, and hitting the same walls as the prequel with the fuel flow calculations were heavily worrying.

KSP 1.12.x Kerbal Atomics [1.3.3] Last Updated January 22, 2022 This part pack is designed to provide some new nuclear thermal rockets for your spaceship-building pleasure. There are eight new engines, one in the 3.75m size class, four in the 2.5m size class, two in the 1.25m size class and one in the 0.625m size class. They are fuelled with LiquidHydrogen, and in some cases can use Oxidizer to boost their thrust at the cost of specific impulse. Liquid Hydrogen is less dense than liquid fuel, so for the same Delta-V, you will need more tank volume. To store your liquid hydrogen fuels, I've provided ModuleManager/B9PartSwitch configs that allow you to change the contents of stock tanks between LF/O, LH2/O, LF, O and LH2. These should work with most mod tanks, but no promises. However, Liquid Hydrogen is very temperamental and without the proper storage it will slowly evaporate ("boil off"). Therefore, I provide special cryogenic tanks bundled with the mod, that use a small amount of Electric Charge to stop the evaporation. This mod is designed to synergize well with Cryogenic Engines, and with the various Near Future Technologies mods I make. It is also fully integrated into the Community Tech Tree. Full Screenshot Gallery Frequently Asked Questions Q: RealFuels support? A: Talk to RealFuels people, not my issue. Q: Oxidizer isn't LOX, it's something else! A: You are completely free to do whatever you like and change it Q: How do I stop the engines from using LH2 and use LF instead? A: Install the NTRsUseLF patch in the Extras folder. Q: Why can't I refuel the Emancipator? A: It's a cheaty engine. It has a disadvantage. If you want to refuel it, you need to download NF Electrical and install the high complexity reactor integration patch. Licensing All code and cfgs are distributed under the MIT License All art assets (textures, models, animations) are distributed under an All Rights Reserved License. All bundled mods are distributed under their own licenses. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source If you appreciate this project, please consider contributing to my caffeine addiction! I really appreciate it, and also helps justify this time sink to my wife , which results directly in more models.

This was my worry, that we'd see a repeat of for science, dropping a milestone every december-ish. Mathed out a similar prediction earlier, in another thread, actually. On the specific topic of communication, I do think its just as much of a substance issue as it is a cadence issue. We've spent the last year and change being told there's plenty of work going on it the background, things are progressing great, our internal builds are so much fun - And then the community asks to see it, and we get crickets. And while I totally understand a reluctance to show off anything you're not dead certain you can deliver, it doesn't add up to a lot of people, because the trend of it actually happening hasn't been there, even before the game released at all. Lemme break it down here. The game is announced, the community goes wild. we're shown a bunch of cool stuff. Crickets, corporate drama, some date shuffling, and we don't really see much of anything. For the most part the community understands this, as we're being told that we're getting a full release of KSP2. Nearing the dates, it becomes an early access, and most of the stuff we've been talking about for the years between announcement and now is pushed out to roadmap. The community is disappointed but understanding, and takes the reassurances that what is launching will be absolutely solid as solace. The community then gets the first release of the game, and its pretty bad. We're told it'll be fixed up right quick, and the launch window features will be coming shortly. Then its not fixed up quick, and the launch window features are pushed out almost ten months. When asked to explain this both along the way and afterwards, we're more or less told that its because of parallel development in various features that'll speed up the content cadence. But we're given at most some extremely surface glances of this parallel content, and its extremely difficult to actually identify any signs of meaningful progress. The community requests more information and expresses discontent with what is being provided so far, and is promised some level of improved and expanded communication, but with no commitment to any specifics. At the same time, existing communication avenues dry up, providing even less insight into the active progress of development. This triggers another round of communication concern and inquiry, to which the community is told that all the work time has been put into planning out the next levels of work, and therefore communications can't be prepared just yet. This is followed up by information that suggest the patch cycle is stagnating, not accelerating in its timelines. Those last two parts is where it starts to fall apart, because its a bit of a leap for someone to accept that "We have multiple parallel development streams making content" and "We have nothing to talk about because we're planning what we will be doing next" are both true at the same time. If you've had a year of parallel development streams, it doesn't make sense to the average person that you have nothing to show for it across all the streams - While corporate communications is reluctant to talk about anything meaningful that might end up not getting added, the people who already paid just want to understand what the development team is doing and where it might be going, even if they hear that a thing is later cut for non-viability. But if you can move past that and accept that first combination condition, then the patch cycle appearing to be on the same timeline as the last one doesn't add up, suggesting that at a minimum, the parallel development chains aren't going to yield any meaningful increases in patch rates. Effectively, and likely with no malice, the community now has years of being overpromised and underdelivered to, and the scope of those overpromised and underdelivered situations have been coming in smaller and smaller - First it was the entire thing, then parts of the thing, then update cadences, now patch cadences, now communication cadences - Every step feels like its been backwards to many. And I do want to be clear that it is "Many" and not "All" - I don't speak for the whole community, but discontent doesn't have to, not on its own. This isn't an element of the community being told "You won't get this" and then being mad, this is that element being told "We'll do better" and then not getting anything better, over and over and over - Even if the rest is fine, that group is entirely in their rights to be angry about it at this point, because they're feeling lied to. And I think it shows in the cancellation of the KERB and its reception - People for the most part agreed it wasn't working and were ok with it going, the discontent was that it was the only remaining reliable communication path, and that's the thing we keep asking for. Most of us salty folks don't care if we get communications every week, two weeks, month, or even three months - Within reason, we don't want the game to reach that 2028 date in my quoted post . But what we do want to know is that if you come out and say "First of every month, meaningful update", that I can swing in on May 1st and see something that's actually of substance to the game. Not a filler dev article though, I guarantee you that we'd prefer 2 paragraphs and a screenshot of one singular colony feature sliver or a long piece that ends with "None of that worked so we went to the drawing board" over 10 paragraphs and math diagrams about how clouds in gas giants work IRL but why Jool doesn't do it the same way. That might be cool, but its completely irrelevant to the roadmap we want to hear about. The last thing I want to hear is "We'll provide updates on our plans to provide updates two weeks from now" and then come back in two weeks to hear "So we've discussed the initial plans to create a cadence for communications that'll provide details, but we're pushing out that information a few more weeks, check back later". KSP2 is in a bit of a do or die scenario - Not the game as a whole but its communications. You need to decide publicly and vocally, whether you will actually provide more meaningful information and details on a meaningful schedule, or will you prefer to work quiet and just roll in whenever you feel your ready. Trying to play the middle ground of "we'd love to we're totally working on it and doing it" without delivering is just making the whole thing look worse and throwing a lot of doubt on it. You're setting yourself up No Mans Sky style, nodding along to nice sounding things that people ask about without the seeming ability to deliver. You can look at is as "Look how much damage a single comment about development streams has done to expectations" as a reason to clam up, or you can look at it as a reason to speak more to explain what context was missing from that comment as to the actual development streams. But you need to make a decision. And that's the end of my rant from a community perspective. From a personal perspective, I find it disappointing and frustrating that a fully funded and well staffed studio full of professionals are struggling to meet the standards that indie early access games set in the early 2010's, before anyone even knew how to do any of this. There was this indie game called Kerbal Space Program managed to make frequent and meaningful communication updates to its users, while also having frequent and meaningful content patches and enhancements. These updates were relatively small, simple, not particularly heavily edited, and even included stuff that ultimately didn't come to pass that still informed the community as to what the focus at the moment was, and where things might be going. I am getting more and more of the feeling that our "Communications" are being treated as investor statements and press statements rather than being intended for us.

Yeah, it's not so much about how much money the studio can make, but about how much money it can be making in the nearest future. If a studio made a ton of money in the past, but has just released a game and will release the next one in 3-4 years, they'll still get the axe. The problem is that over the past few years, borrowing money was basically free for large businesses. If you weren't borrowing to open up a studio and spin up another project, you were leaving money on the table. Over the past year and a half or so, the fed rates climbed to a fairly high level. Suddenly, all these studios aren't free anymore - you're paying significant interest against the money you've borrowed, and anything that's not generating revenue right now basically becomes a significant drain. Consequently studios get cut left and right despite the publishers taking in a lot of money from sales. The only real conclusion we can make about the IG situation is that nobody expected them to release a polished, revenue-generating game within a year or so. And we sort of knew that from the state of Early Access. There's a game there, but it's not ready for the main marketing push, and won't be ready soon enough to offset the ongoing development costs if you have to pay interest on it. It's hard to say what exactly this means for the future of KSP2 without looking at the overall cash flow of T2, and hey, look at that, earnings call is coming up in a few days. They'll probably talk about IG and R7, but even if not, based on what they have in flight, what's bringing in money, and how much is going to the studios they currently have operating, we'll be able to get an idea of how much money T2 has to spend on smaller projects. Two likely possibilities is that either a) they've cut enough to have a small stream to afford a smaller 3rd party studio to take on KSP2 or b) they are waiting for some upcoming releases to bring in more cash. At the latest, we're looking GTA VI release, as that will inject a lot of capital to spend on other projects. That would mean development resuming in 2025-2026, though, with v1.0 coming in in 2026-2028? But unless the game just straight up gets canceled, which right now it doesn't sound like it will be, that's the worst case scenario. A lot of things can speed it up, and there might be a smaller studio PD is already talking to in regards to KSP2. We should have some idea soon. There is a grim possibility that KSP2 is already effectively canceled, and T2 just didn't want to make the announcement before the earnings call. In that case, we'll also know about it soon. I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but I'd be remiss not to acknowledge it.

After playing modded KSP with RP-1 and watching For all Kerbalkind i thought there should be more RP-1 related videos. So i came up with an idea a KSP RP-1 project that is based on For all Kerbalkind Each player takes part as their own organization/nation together or against each other Trading vehicles/kOS for money/honor/science, other services, to help noob advantage: functioning vehicles of others (grab and go), help and experience of others, own difficulty if necessary Pro advantage: "sale" of vehicles, kOS scripts and information, play with/against each other (BD Armory? ), own difficulty if necessary My thoughts so far: How is this supposed to work as “multiplayer”? Everyone plays their game with the others or "in the dark" and at a certain interval the players share their intermediate results What kind of interval? an in-game period that we discuss together (e.g. 1 year) What kind of intermediate results ? At least rough information about what you send into orbit and above, as an overview/information for the others would be nice (or to sow envy and resentment ) What do I need to participate? RP-1 Express, at least 1 intermediate results per interval, joy of playing How should trading work? Send craft files to others via file sharing (discord? or at least you know email?) How should I get/lose money/honor/science from others? alt + F12, you know? That should be a fair play with/against each other? Like many things, it's just based on believing in others. E.g. that your boss pays you or that your partner really doesn't cheat Do I have to upload videos? Nope, it's ok if you're just a part of the project Do I have to share my vehicles/kOS? Nope, if someone wants to include your vehicles in their game (e.g. what's going on in orbit) they can also use placeholders (e.g. a probe) Do I have to play as much as the others? Nope, it doesn't have to be a head-to-head race at all times. How many events/secrets from the past are only coming to light today after all this time? Darn it, do I have to wait for the others now? Nope, hand in your intermediate result and if you don't care about the others then carry on playing, totally ok you pioneer But I want to upload a lot of videos/make money with all of this? Welcome to the free world, no one is stopping you I want to play as nation/organization XYZ! Whoever comes first... but talk to the other player, maybe you can move forward as a partner/rival/alliance. we were divided once too (BRD & DDR) I want to play with additional mods! gladly, it doesn't influence the others (except possibly traded vehicles) I want to integrate other people's vehicles, how? Either take a placeholder (probe) or ask the others about their crafts and cheat into orbit (Alt + F12) I don't understand anything but I still want to participate ... breathe deeply, very calmly. one step at a time, Rome didn't fall in a day (Wiki and Installguide) I'll never be able to keep up with the others! totally ok, since space travel began only 4 nations have made it safely to the moon, maybe someone is interested in cooperating? But I'm much better than those suckers! hand in your intermediate result and go ahead and lead our world to new shores, for Shine and Glory! I've only just seen all of this, am I too late O.o?! Nope, e.g. early German space travel: V-2, 1942 (first object to cross the Kármán line); first German satellite, at the end of 1969 by a US rocket ... Do we include all of each other's vehicles in the game? we can, but we don't have to. Yes, we can say we are not interested in other nations, it's up to you Did you drink paint? only if there is one standing around Either way, I'll give it a try in the future, even on my own if I have to would you be interested? your opinion on this? let me know in the comments ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Nachdem Ich RP-1 gespielt und For all Kerbalkind gesehen hatte, dachte Ich es sollte mehr RP-1 bezogene Videos geben. Also hab Ich mir da was überlegt Ein KSP RP-1 Projekt das an For all Kerbalkind angelehnt ist jeder Mitspieler nimmt als eigene Organisation/Nation teil zusammen oder gegeneinander Handel von Fahrzeugen/kOS gegen Geld/Ehre/Wissenschafft , andere Dienstleistungen , zur Hilfe noob-Vorteil: funktionierende Fahrzeuge der anderen (übernehmen/orientieren und go), Hilfe und Erfahrung der anderen , bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit pro-Vorteil: "Verkauf" von Fahrzeugen, kOS-Scripten und infos , mit- / gegeneinander spielen (BD Armory? ), bei Bedarf eigene Schwierigkeit Meine Gedanken dazu bis jetzt: Wie soll das als "Multiplayer" funktionieren? jeder spielt mit den anderen oder "im dunkeln" sein Spiel und in einem bestimmten Intervall teilen sich die Mitspieler über ihren Spielstand aus Was für ein Intervall? eine ingame-Zeitspanne die wir gemeinsam beraten (zb 1 Jahr) Was für ein Zwischenstand? zumindest grobe Angaben was man in den Orbit und drüber schickt, als Übersicht/Info für die anderen wäre doch ganz nett (oder um Neid und Missgunst zu säen ) Was brauch ich zum mitmachen? RP-1 Express, zumindest 1 Zwischenstand pro Intervall, Spass an der Sache Wie soll der Handel funktionieren? Craft-Files an die anderen per File-sharing schicken (Discord? oder kennst doch zumindest eMail?) Wie soll ich Geld/Ehre/Science, bekommen/verlieren? alt + F12, kennste? Und das soll ein faires Mit-/Gegeneinander werden? Beruht wie vieles nur auf dem Glauben an die Anderen. zb dass dich dein Cheff auch bezahlt oder dein Partner wirklich nicht fremdgeht Muss ich Videos hochladen? nö, reicht doch auch so wenn Du teil des Projekts bist Muss ich meine Fahrzeuge/kOS teilen? nö, wenn jemand deine Fahrzeuge in sein Spiel einbinden will (bsp was im Orbit los ist) kann man ja auch Platzhalter (zb Sonde) nehmen Muss ich so viel spielen wie die anderen? nö, es muss ja nicht zu jeder zeit ein Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen sein. Wie viele Geschehnisse/Geheimnisse von Früher kommen nach all der Zeit erst Heute ans Licht? boar, muss ich jetzt auf die anderen warten? nö, gib dein Zwischenstand ab und wenn dich die Anderen nicht jucken dann spiel weiter, vollkommen ok du Pionier Ich will Videos hochladen/mit dem ganzen Geld verdienen? Willkommen in der freien Welt, es hält dich niemand auf Ich will als Nation/Organisation XY spielen! Wer zuerst kommt ... aber rede mal mit dem Anderen, vielleicht könnt ihr als Partner/Rivalen/Allianz voranschreiten. Wir waren auch einmal Entzweit (BRD & DDR) Ich will mit zusätzlichen Mod´s spielen! gerne, beeinflusst die Anderen ja nicht (ausser evtl gehandelte Fahrzeuge) Ich will die Fahrzeuge der Anderen einbinden, wie? entweder ein Platzhalter (Sonde) nehmen oder die anderen nach ihren Craft´s fragen und in den orbit Cheaten (alt + F12) Ich peil garnichts aber will trotzdem mitmachen ... durchatmen, ganz ruhig. Ein Schritt nach dem anderen, Rom ist auch nicht an einem Tag gefallen (Wiki und Installguide) Ich kann nie im Leben mithalten! vollkommen ok, seit Beginn der Raumfahrt haben es nur 4 nationen sicher zum Mond geschafft, vielleicht ist ja Jemand an einer Kooperation interessiert? Ich bin aber viel besser als die anderen Nieten! gib dein Zwischenstand ab und go ahead und führe unseren Welt zu neuen Ufern. Für Glanz und Gloria! Ich hab das alles jetzt erst gesehen, bin Ich zu spät dran O.o?! nö. zb frühe deutsche Raumfahrt: V-2, 1942 (erstes Objekt über der Kármán Linie); erster deutscher Sattelit, Ende 1969 per US-Rakete ... Binden wir alle Fahrzeuge der Anderen ins Spielgeschehen ein? können, müssen Wir aber nicht. Wir können ja sagen Wir interessieren uns nicht für die anderen Nationen, Dir überlassen Hast du lack gesoffen? nur wenn welcher rümsteht so oder so werde ich das in der Zukunft, auch alleine wenns sein muss, einmal probieren hättet ihr Interesse? eure Meinung dazu? lasst es mich in den Kommentaren wissen

A digression about Factorio has been moved here. If you want to talk about that game, please take the discussion there.

Right. That's how business works. T2 will say nothing more until then, and there's no-one left at IG who is a position to talk: anyone still at their desk will be focused on tying up the loose ends and under a strict NDA. So - sad to say, but we have to twiddle our thumbs for at least another week.

I'm going to say something contentious. Now that manned flights are growing closer, we have to address a fact that isn't being spoken: space travel is dangerous. The Artemis program, or something connected to it, may have the first death in space in over a decade. Maybe not in the first launch, not in the second, hopefully never. But for all the talk about commercialisation, this is space exploration and it is not safe. This isn't pronouncing doom. As Chris Hadfield says in his TED talk on fear versus danger, NASA has considered risk, reduced it where possible. He also said that the Space Shuttle was a complex flying machine and the chances of a catastrophic event was, when he flew, 1 in 38. He still went. SLS and Orion is less complex, we have far better robotics than Apollo ever did, and an honest-to-Oberth partially-reusable 'space truck' in Falcon 9. However... we cannot fully design out the chance of death, nor pretend that we are not putting people in harm's way. SpaceX makes it look easy. SpaceX also has "Stay Paranoid" emblazoned on the desks of Mission Control. Even the Apollo 9-like mission proposed in tandem with SpaceX could result in deaths. What brought this on? A blog post by Wayne Hale on the laser-focus on monetary cost as the be-all, end-all of space exploration: https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/blood-and-money/ If in the future something does go wrong, I have a polite request for the few people reading this: don't go mad. Do not argue yourself into the hole that all exploration should be done robotically. That you knew this would happen and humans should never have left the ground, never mind Earth. Do not let your fear control you. If you see someone else who likes space falling into the same trap, I request - because I can't make you do a damn thing - that you pull them out. Wayne Hale thinks the risk is worth the reward, that it is brave to take on this risk, and so do I.