Search the Community

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

Matt Lowne said, during his conversation with Harvester on the Tube, that he'd reached out to Nate and got a response saying 'I look forward to talking when I can' or something along those lines. Reading between the lines there, he can't talk right now due to some mitigating factor, no doubt a non-disclosure agreement but it sounded like he'll be able to talk sometime in the not too distant future. If there's anyone who has the full details, it's Nate.

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

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

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

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

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

There probably is some limitation on how much they could talk about. I recall a feature video, can't remember which one, where Nate mentioned an interstellar(?) engine. He described it as pure white light. Nothing more. Some engines (for metallic hydrogen) were featured, while others were hidden. Why? Probably they have some sort of information they need to hide. Can't tell without seeing the NDA. However, these last two months... well, they speak for themselves.

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

Just because it was cleared to talk about certain aspects of Rask and Rusk does not mean all of Rask and Rusk are immune to NDA. [snip]

And they had talked about Rask & Rust, meaning it wasn't covered under NDA. We don't know if the "solution to the Rask & Rusk problem" was covered under an NDA either so I don't see the point in this NDA talk. Signing a paper that allows higher ups to scam people is a moral failure, I don't care what spin anyone puts on it.

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

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

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

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

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

You guys are just as mixed up in all of this as us, so of course it's no slight toward the mods, bug hunters, et cetera. More towards Take Two Interactive, the problem is it will go unanswered. There's few things worse than purgatory, for better or for worse it's time for someone to talk about it. I suppose once the WARN deadline passes, the end of this month, the likes of Nate, Nertea, et cetera are free to actually talk about it. It's a shame because if there's one thing I could and would never accuse Nate of being, and that's not absolutely enthusiastic about 'the work'. The dude seems like he genuinely loves the concept, the Kerbal way, to the extent that he kinda angered the community a bit with their decision to have wobbly rockets. But yeah!

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

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

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

Ever since the news dropped, things here in the forum have been rather depressing. Negative, questioning what is happening, attacks on other forum members. Things have taken a turn for the worse, and it makes me sad. We were hungry for KSP2, and in spite of its problems, we played it. Fired it up, dealt with bugs, went on missions. Some people are still playing it, and are still creating oddities. @ShadowZone released a video recently where he flung the four OG Kerbals into the farthest recesses of space. spacetime development might be dead, some people are still playing and getting enjoyment. With that said, I'd like to try something new here. I'd like to have a thread where people talk about things in the game that made them feel happy or good about it. Was it some mission you flew? Or perhaps a discoverable you, um, discovered? Something the game has that you didn't realize before that made you think " all righty then!"? I will start. I've got more than 1000 hours in KSP1, but I had never flown to Jool before. I've been to all the other planets, and landed on all of them. Notice I said landed; I still have not gotten back off Eve. But in KSP2, thanks to For Science!, I flew to and landed on Pol, Bop, and Tylo. I was able to return from both Pol and Bop, while leaving a rover on Tylo. Landing that rover on Tylo was the single biggest achievement in my KSP playing time. I'd like to ask that anyone who responds here to please only talk about things in KSP2 that you either never did in KSP1, or that made you feel good about the game. Nothing negative! We have a ton of those threads already; I do not want this thread to get locked because it dives into what is wrong or that TT is evil. Positivity only!

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

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

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

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