Search the Community

The first rule of cheating is to not talk about cheating. Which means everyone in this thread is breaking the first rule, and therefore cheating.

Y6 D185-232 - Draco Return and Nuclear Reprocessing Module Well, here we are almost halfway through year 6, and things are moving along nicely. We're just about finished with this year's crew rotation, and Draco has arrived at the edge of Kerbin's SOI. Our first Duna mission has gone splendidly, but it is readily apparent from the crew communications that after more than two years in space they are ready to get home. Unfortunately, they aren't there yet. Their current flight path takes them on a close flyby of the Mun, and then they will burn into an elliptical orbit around Kerbin. Then they'll plot a course to rendezvous back with Minmus Station. The crew will leave Draco there and ferry back to Kerbin Station aboard a transport, and then be carried back to Kerbin via spaceplane. So, they still have a way to go before they're feeling grass between their toes again. A couple of days later Draco passes by The Mun, which slightly alters its course. The good news is that Orbital Dynamics calculated this encounter into Draco's trajectory all the way back at their mid-course correction last year, so they're all set, no burn necessary. OD wanted to use this encounter to capture Draco with a gravity assist, but we decided against that. We're not hurting for fuel at this point, Draco is still at almost 35% fuel load, if you can believe it. So we thought that a controlled burn for capture was a much more reliable choice. A couple hours later and Draco is approaching periapsis. All systems are go, the crew is strapped in on the command deck, and they are ready to burn. Over on the night side of Kerbin, Draco burns to capture into Kerbin orbit. Welcome back, Draco! So now Draco is in a highly elliptical orbit around Kerbin. However, OD has just come back with some bad news. They're in a really bad orbit for getting to Minmus. Essentially they're going to have to cruise out to apoapsis, then fall back for a day before they even get to their burn. Then their transfer orbit to Minmus will take fourteen more days after that. Sorry, folks. While we're waiting for Draco to arrive at Minmus Station, let's get them a ride. The orbital transport Capricorn is dispatched from Kerbin Station and burns for Minmus, unkerballed. It will arrive there well before Draco. ---------- About a week later now, and Draco has arrived at its burn for Minmus. And then, the next day, Capricorn arrives at Minmus Station. So now we just have to wait for Draco to whip around Kerbin again and make its way to Minmus. Stay strong, folks. You can do another two weeks in a spin hab on your heads. ---------- So now it is day 213 and Draco has finally arrived at Minmus. She coasts in and burns into a 200-kilometer orbit. A couple of hours and a couple of burns later, she arrives at Minmus Station. Chief Engineer Kirkpatrick shuts Draco's reactor down, and then Captain Kreuger takes the conn and guides her in to dock. Finally, after over two years, the crew of the first Duna mission get to see other faces and talk to other people! But they do have some work to do. They finish securing Draco and rigging the ship to take power from Minmus Station, ensuring that the reactor will be safe. Then they begin transferring their personal gear and the incredibly-valuable Duna samples to the orbital transport Orion (yes, we rotate the orbital transports, so Capricorn will be staying here while Orion carries the crew home). Once these duties are completed, the crews share a celebratory dinner together. Then the Duna crew boards Orion, closes the hatches, and undocks from the station. Then they wave a final farewell to Draco, and burn for Kerbin. While the crew is on their week-long trip back to Kerbin, we can discuss our next major project. Draco's reactor is currently just above 50% of its reactor core life remaining. It could conceivably make another trip to Duna with its current nuclear fuel load, but that would be unwise, since the reactor is its sole source of electrical and propulsive power. While we could just fly a new propulsion module to Minmus, this would get very expensive, very fast. However, we have a solution: The nuclear fuel reprocessing module! This module is a marvel of engineering. It has been a collaborative project between CKAI, Kerbal Atomics, and Kerman Systems Group robotics division for almost two years. The idea is that nuclear propulsion modules can be removed from their respective crafts and docked to the reprocessing module hub. Then the four waldo arms are used by operators to remotely remove the modular fuel elements in the propulsion module reactors. Obviously we require the use of these waldos to remove and insert the fuel elements from the reactors. It's not like uranium is some kind of liquid that you can pump around in tanks or something. LOL. These expended fuel elements are fed into the reprocessor, which then deconstructs them into their component materials. The reprocessor recovers unused enriched uranium and recycles the recovered materials into new nuclear fuel elements, which can then be reinserted into the propulsion reactors. Any high-level waste is accumulated for later disposal. This module is incredibly complex, and breathtakingly expensive. So I am only going to say this once. If any of you screw around and break this thing, THERE WILL BE NO FOOSBALL FOR A MONTH. Do I make myself clear? In any case, before we can send the reprocessing module up to Minmus Station, we need to do some prep work. We will need to increase the crew compliment on Minmus Station from six to twelve to handle the increased work load. And we will need to increase the amount of power and cooling available on the station to support the module itself. Thankfully we already have quite a bit of living space on Minmus Station, but we will need to increase the amount of spin habitat space. For the power and cooling, we will be sending up a new truss with additional solar panels, batteries, and radiators. Robby is doing the heavy lifting for us today, and after an uneventful climb to orbit, we find it rendezvousing with Kerbin Station. Once they're docked, the crew of Kerbin Station gets to work. They guide Orbital Tug 4 over to pick up the spin hab module, and then bring it down to dock with the new expansion truss. Then, once the station comes around to the departure point, they undock Orbital Tug 6 and Mission Control instructs it to burn for Minmus. Then they undock Robby and it flies back to Kerbin. Now we're going to wait a week or so for Orion to come back with the Duna crew. ---------- So, here we are a week later. Orion is a couple of hours out from Kerbin. Tug 4 is about a day out from Minmus. So we're going to launch the additional crew for Minmus Station, and then the Duna crew can ride that spaceplane down. Save us a trip. ArToo is making this run with The Pod in her bay. While they're making their way around to Kerbin Station, Orion burns in to its parking orbit around Kerbin. And then, a couple of hours later, they arrive at Kerbin Station. The crews all exchange more greetings and congratulations. Then they set about moving gear once again, transferring all of the Duna samples into the Pod for the trip down to Kerbin. Then Kerbin Station reaches the departure point for Minmus and Orion departs once again. And then Kerbin Station reaches the departure point for the spaceplace. They close the hatches and undock ArToo. Then the Duna crew finally burns for home. ArToo cruises through reentry. And then sails in to a dramatic nighttime landing at KSC. Finally, after almost three years in space, the crew of the first Duna mission have made it home! Ticker-tape parades and Kongressional addresses next week. Tonight they get a hot meal and a real bed. Congratulations to all of them! The next day, we're prepping the reprocessing module for launch. Gort is doing the honors this time, and it launches the next evening. Am I the only one who gets nervous seeing millions of funds worth of hardware hurtling through the air at Mach 4? Nobody else? Really? Just thought I'd ask. Anyway, while Gort is going through its maneuvers to reach Kerbin Station, Tug 6 arrives at Minmus. It's got half a day before it arrives at the station yet. Meanwhile, Gort arrives at Kerbin Station and docks. The crew gets busy deploying the reprocessing module and docking Tug 5 to it. While Kerbin Station is coming around to its departure point, Tug 6 arrives at Minmus Station. The crew guides it in to dock the expansion truss. Then once that is in place, then bring the tug around and dock the new spin hab outboard of the old one, mounting them in a counter-rotating pair. Then, once the tug is out of the way, the crew deploys the radiators, solar panels, and spin hab. Then they start getting all of the new systems tested and settled before the new crew shows up. Minmus Station is starting to rival Kerbin Station in size and function. Back at Kerbin Station, the crew undocks Tug 5 and Mission Control orders it to burn for Minmus. As Tug 5 brings the reprocessing module out to Minmus, Orion arrives at Minmus with the new crew. A couple of hours later, they arrive at the station. They've got a week or so to get settled until their job shows up. ---------- Eight days later, Tug 5 arrives at Minmus. After the usual maneuvers, it arrives at Minmus Station, and the crew brings it in to dock. Once the tug is clear and the hatches are opened, the new crew gets inside and starts familiarizing themselves. Their first task is to limber the waldos and set them in their resting positions. So far, so good. Next we'll see how they do with a real refueling....

I love Civilian Population Combined with Free IVA. You can talk Civilians (Tourists) Through your habitat / station area.. out an airlock & EVA. Definitely adds an entire new element to game play. I enjoy it for the novelty sake. Other I have seen use curated mod lists to have full sensor info displayed onto IVA. Some even alloy camera overlay onto certain screens. KSP has so many different mods that even something like IVA can cater to several different playstyles!

The issue with what happened to me here over the past couple weeks is that it wasn’t an opinionated matter we argued over, it was- 1. The definition of something 2. History of something The first time, the guy had a weird definition of something that sounded like something else, so I looked up the dictionary definition to see if I was right. It didn’t match up and I pointed that out. Then he continually changed his own definition until he accused me of not discussing in good faith. Second time, I made stupid statements about something in history. I honestly did not know I was wrong. In fact, other people in the discussion later politely pointed out the flaws in my statements and I accepted I was incorrect and retracted my statement. But before then, this guy- the same guy as with the definition talk- simply says I’m “making walls of words” and again speaks of me “lacking good faith.” This isn’t public policy or favorite foods we’re talking about. If we can’t correct each other when we’re wrong and accept that we’ve been wrong when it comes to facts, how are we supposed to learn anything? Isn’t that what the internet is supposed to be about? For All Mankind had a clip of Tim Berners-Lee praising the then potential value of the internet in the 80s and he spoke of a “more informed electorate.” Obviously politics is politics and it can get nasty in its own right, but what about technical discussions? Discussions about the humanities? I think I’m getting back to my point I made in my long post about climate change. Everyone has armies of rhetoric and data on their side to defend their arguments, and criticism and differing data is “politicized” or has an ulterior motive. If I or others can’t or don’t want to correct or be corrected on facts when we’re wrong, what’s the point of even being here? Just hop in, see if we fit in the echo chamber, hop out if we don’t and then post tweets and occasional witty jokes from time to time? Isn’t a forum all about discussion? I’ve never expected people to change their opinions when I’m criticizing them. But if there’s a fact they’re talking about that’s incorrect, I have a hard time sitting by and letting them be wrong. I wouldn’t want someone on this forum to let me continually make inaccurate statements, and when I did that in the history discussion, I’m glad I was corrected. Considering most of the people who regularly post in the main section of the forum I visit- the Science & Spaceflight section- are also the same people who have espoused the climate change denial arguments I listed in my climate change post in this thread, perhaps I just need to recognize the people there are not who I thought they were when I joined this forum and read about the better forum movement and rules intended to make it a more positive place. The Lounge is cool though, so I’d still visit here. But I can get space news on Twitter and don’t really have any more technical questions to ask people over there, so if it’s just a place to report the news and make jokes from time to time- discussion, while legal, will lead to arguments if anything beyond supportive comments are made, even if someone is incorrect about something- what am I even doing there? I’m also now thinking about how I don’t even really follow much spaceflight news beyond what’s going on in China. I might as well just head over to Sino Defence Forum (where I’m much more conscious of what kind of people they are and how it’s important not to start arguments).

Respectfully, The post did talk about them working on each of these problems: And even more he talked about fixing one of the main annoyances that come with the problem. While this doesn't necessarily fix the Delta-V calculator, It shows that they are committed to fixing the issue and making sure that the game stays fun while they work on it: I don't mean to disregard your concerns but I think if we are asking for more quality communication we should keep a positive attitude when they deliver, especially when it's specifically acknowledging what we have been saying for a while. I'm not saying anyone HAS TO be happy with where we are but I think a positive outlook is always better especially if one main complaint was asking for them to talk about what they are working on before it's here.

I love hearing more about development! It's great to see that the development team is taking the community's bugs into consideration. I also love getting to see at least somewhat technical talk on how yall establish what needs to be worked on and how they are being worked on. I appreciate the idea of unlocking the maneuver planner from Delta-V, I think that is a great call! I do want to say that I hope it stays this way even after the Delta-V calculator is "fixed", I would suggest just adding a warning statement that says "Plan exceeds Delta-V" but still lets the user try. Great work everybody and I appreciate hearing more about the development process!

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! Nate

THAT Where are the technical dev blogs. Where are the REAL AMA where questions about limitation & strategy are discussed. Where are the reddit AMAs & in depth talks about the "Wheel". So nothing regarding planned content? Start publishing the dev diaries from "For Science" Us those notes with a few water cooler questions / emails to generate an in depth dev blog on decisions behind tech tree groupings. The lack of substance is what sucks and lends me to the thought.. many decisions like tech tree ended up being ad hoc or arbitrarily assigned. When you see people talk about the negative aspects of the UI you see specifics.. Maneuver Tool, Camera Eccentricities, GUI elements blocked / hidden beyond other objects, poor click-through priority assignment, inability to maneuver in another SOI When people express a foundness for the new UI.. it's often "I like it" or "it's better than KSP1" The graphics are better. A new coat of paint.. but I dislike the UI intensely. Font Part Manager Staging Window Interaction Maneuver Tool Camera Controls Ship Save (Filters or Options for Structure) Could you please express the parts of the UI that you enjoy more? I like the stock app tray I like tracking station Aside I don't much like the UI

Gotta agree to disagree then, that was a painful read. Whilst you're free to like what you like, I fail to agree on any of the things you like, and some other things are plainly not a matter of personal opinion, like not being able to read the fonts on the UI, or loading times, or "potential" and so on. For loading times, on a new and clean game, the loading speed difference between KSP1 and 2 is minimal. Sure, the initial load is faster, but at the end of the day, a game made 10 years ago loads a whole *checks notes* 15 seconds slower from startup to flight. And that's with KSP2 still being in its incomplete infancy. Potential does not define a foundation. Foundation is a word reserved for how well the codebase and the game systems are put together. If "what I believe this game can be" was a metric, then every game in development has infinite potential and thus the strongest foundation. That's just not how it works. In reality KSP2 has the same engine as the prequel, the same middleware for some features, but a much heavier save system, and also a much heavier inactive-vessel simulation. KSP2 will be thwarted by that in the future. It also still builds and saves vessels as a tree, it still calculates fuel flow mostly the same way (something something "inspiration" from the code of the previous game), it still handles the atmosphere like the previous game, but thanks to that passive simulation and bad saving system, vessels popping into range still kill your game, orbits change randomly, and the game grinds to a halt with vessels and partcounts much faster than the prequel, to the point systems (like heating) have to be "streamlined", and part-counts have to be hammered down with new, revolutionary "all in one" science modules, station modules, and in the future colony modules too... or having the logistics layer be abstracted to numbers instead of seeing your vessels come and go. Right now, saves are just a couple vessels for 99% of players, let alone making any vessel in the hundreds of parts for maybe the last couple missions, and most people play serially too (fully complete one mission before launching the next). So really, KSP2s limits haven't yet applied to most people and thus it's no wonder they really think the game is better off. When colonies and interstellar arrive, along with more resources to keep track of... it's gonna be a mess, yet devs refuse to address it and have let the bug report sit unattended, and only mentioned the problem once in the K.E.R.B. and that's... the opposite of potential. So yeah, you might slowly start to realize why people who talk highly of the foundation, potential, and what not don't seem completely grounded in reality to me, and why the lack of proper technical talk in devblogs is worrying. I don't care at all for how they failed to replicate eclipses, or how they had to tesselate a line to draw a circle, I care to know why we're still stuck on something as primitive as tree based vessels, and how they plan to deal with high part counts, or even something as basic as what their target is.

Well the societies where people work together for the betterment of all rather than themselves alone have been dead for four centuries so it would make sense you’ve never seen them. If there’s a certain way we’re “built” psychologically it’s because there was a builder, and it occurred based on how we’re educated in youth. Advances in human history have been built on people thinking beyond what they were taught or what they had seen. No one told Columbus to go sail west, and no one told any settler to move somewhere else. The way they were raised told them to stay put as their fathers and forefathers had, but they ignored what they knew and made a decision of their own. If we can’t grow beyond the behaviors and systems that were set up and indoctrinated a few centuries ago I don’t think we’re going to last long at all, whether on Earth or on Mars. I never said all companies exist to make money. But money would be required to build a Mars colony, thus I assumed SpaceX is the type of company that needs to make it. And there are things they already have to pay for. Support infrastructure, paying their workers, maintaining and refurbishing rockets. Contracts in LEO and on the Moon. What will be left over for Mars? The colony, that is. I don’t know why you’d see what I write as a complaint. He can try, but if he fails, we shouldn’t give up. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying he shouldn’t, I’m saying we can’t limit ourselves to simply hoping a billionaire will do it all for us. When I say “we” I mean humanity. Not specifically you or I. I’m skeptical industry will ever be moved to space. It makes no economic sense either, because it’s easier to build factories on Earth. The cost of shipping something across the land or sea is much lower than shipping stuff to and from space. If governments signed off on regulations banning industry on Earth, then they’d do it. But corporations don’t really do massive “save the Earth/environment” type stuff unless they’re forced to. Otherwise they largely prefer the little things that look good for PR but don’t incur too much cost. The issue with automation is that it would leave people with nowhere to go. Eventually robots would be building robots, writing code, and repairing robots, and those robots would replace all jobs except government and management. There would be no need for humans. How are people supposed to pay for Starlink if they have no job? And then companies wouldn’t be making money and it would all collapse. There’s talk of UBI and what not, but at that point people would more or less be receiving necessities for free, obviating the money. Corporations would have the power to do things simply based on whether they have the resources to produce enough robots to do it, gained by cooperation with another corporation, which also just needs to produce enough robots to harvest the resources. If people are getting necessities for free and don’t have any way to work, because robots are doing everything, corporations wouldn’t really be making money off people by selling goods and services, they’d just be providing it with no return. A Mars colony suddenly becomes feasible not “economically” but simply on whether people want to do it or not. At which point it seems you’ve brought us to my point: How can we think beyond our existing economics in support of space colonization? It goes back to my original post when this thread was revived: thinking about profitability and affordability (both in terms of money) as a means of making space colonization feasible is silly.

most of the diagnoses ive had have been of questionable quality. getting an actual psychiatrist to sign off on what you have so you can actually get services is the hard part (they will hand out meds on the spot though, treating symptoms only). you can wait six months for one appointment, and thats not enough time to get an idea for whats going on. how to fit 40 years of failure and trauma into a 30 minute session. and that's even if you are willing to talk about it with a complete stranger. still not comfortable talking about certain things with my therapist who i have been seeing for a couple years now. the word of a therapist also carries very little weight with the bureaucrats.

LEO and later the moon works better, shorter travel time and an luxury hotel both paces would be viable down the line. Multi year trips then you can not talk normally on the phone has issues if you need to be connected. Yes some people will pay for it but it would not bankroll the operation like orbital and moon hotels. You then attach the research to the hotels as its cheaper anyway, And you get to run on water on a pool on the moon.

I wanted to make an amendment to this post, specifically after watching Matt Lowne's most recent KSP2 video: Matt Lowne struggling with rover wheel physics bugs: 35:30 - 43:40 I don't usually build or drive rovers in the game so I guess I was blind sighted to what that experience is like in the current game. seeing him drive a rover and all the bugs from that is very disheartening and I hope these things get fixed soon, hopefully in the next patch. Anyways, if we want to talk about that more we should make our own forum thread for that, in terms of this thread I'd like to make an amendment that small rocks are fine to not have collision, but medium to large rocks definitely should. I'm going to use some screenshots from his video to be more specific: Small (no need for collision because then driving would be no fun): Medium (I'd appreciate collision so that you don't just drive in a straight line all the time, also assuming wheel bugs are fixed by then): Large(obviously collision should be turned on for these): Hopefully these amendments to my original post is well recieved, I really do think this is an important thing to add a bit more immersion in the game. P.S. somebody with more experience driving rovers in the game should make a thread about that

sorry i have been a bit busy and haven't finished this yet and i should probably vent about this in the talk about negative things thread. I'll get to it!

Could this provide us a better clue for the release timeline of Colonies / 0.3? We have confirmation of at least a 0.2.2 release. Let's be optimistic and say that update comes in about 2 weeks (May 2nd, 2024). Using Scarecrow's average of 49 days between releases, we could anticipate the next update around June 20th. If that next update was 0.3 (again, being optimistic), then the timeline of milestones would look like this: 0.1 to 0.2 - 9 months, 26 days 0.2 to 0.3 (speculated) - 6 months, 2 days This timeline would match the hopes shared by Nate that the Colonies update would come quicker than For Science! and leaves quite a bit of breathing room. Even if there was a 0.2.3 update that dropped in June instead of 0.3 these timelines would still allow for an August release to follow (which still would meet the proposed timeline goals). Of course, this talk feels quite arbitrary given that each update and milestone is unique, but it helps put things in perspective. Do I want to wait until the end of summer for colonies? Not at all. However, the rate of development seems to show that we are indeed in the thick of it for now and the upcoming months.

@ColdJ i frankly do not care if you cant accept or wont accept King Richard the Lionheart. Its a historically accurate title. And you want to talk glass houses? Ill toss that stone. You started it. Remember this from 22 March: “Rovers rove.“ All of your “examples” are wild accusations and false save 1. Plumbers Plumb. A DIRECT response to your action on Rovers rove. The rest are legitimate sentences. Circling back to King Richard the Lionheart allow me to quote: Per rule 5: Names and proper nouns are added in one post. For example, if you wish to add the name "Robin Hood" you add "Robin Hood" in one post.“ As you see King Richard the Lionheart fits per the rule. Now that we have derailed this far enough I relay the currently active sentence so this game may return to being played. ——RESTORATION TO ACTIVE SENTENCE—— King Richard the Lionheart reigned ———RESTORATION COMPLETE——— 124504172024 new page 124604172024 130804172024 131304172024

Sorry but glass houses. I have put up with premature cut offs on more than just these, and constant manipulations to get the sentence to something you want to talk about. It is one WORD at a time. Even if @Kimera Industries allowed "Maid Marian", "King Richard the Lionheart" is pushing it too far. I would have accepted "King Richard" but 4 words is a no from me. I kept away for awhile to let someone else play it out with you, but nobody did. So I tried to start fresh and you as with other word games we have played decided that you can overrule whenever you want. If you are willing to play fairly and randomly then I will play, but I am not up for being railroaded again.

I feel a number of people do not fully take advantage of the current upvoting system for the Bug Reports. Maybe they lack the technical expertise, comfort level required to post detailed reports, trouble finding archived report.. etc. I appreciate it when others post a bug I have had issues with but may have (temporarily) forgotten. Sometimes I intent to upvote a series of bugs but get distracted by work & the intention moves some where into the Aether. If there are bugs you want upvoted.. link them. Post a Reason why you thinknit deserves significant attention. But please.. let's avoid cross talk or debates. (If this is Stupid or Present Elsewhere Please Remove)

Accurate, but not polished? Clarification please? Also, it would be helpful to know what they can and cannot talk about.

I suspect it isn't that simple. However, that could be one of the topics for "increased communication". Talk about development on a current pain point, without spoiling the colonies, or other new stuff in general... Instead of we can't wait to share what we've been working on

Hope to hear from CMs in the morning, maybe y'all can talk a little about the improvements to communication that y'all have come up with to deal with keeping the community up to date @Nerdy_Mike @Dakota

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.

So, I've got a few questions as it relates to communication and development. Can you share with us where you are at with updating your internal calendar as it relates to when we can expect the next KERB? I know you just got back and all, but we are jonesing for info here. As far as the KERB goes, are there any plans to be more verbose in the status of the bugs being worked on? For example, "Researching" doesn't tell us what you are doing with a bug, especially when some bugs have been around and in this status for months. What is being researched, and what about it is so complicated? Same thing for "Need Additional Information". What info do you need? Something from the community? The original reporter? Who and what? It has now been 3 months since the last patch, and there has been zero talk about the next one. Nor has there been any talk about colonies other than to show the same station orbiting Jool a few times. Can you give us any information on where the team is at with the next patch, or with colonies, or when 0.3 might drop? And why the complete silence on all of this? It is early access, but we put our faith in you guys and we haven't had that faith rewarded much (if at all). Can we talk about procedural parts again? We have been told that procedural tanks are too complex, but Juno has them. And ill have to look again to make sure, but I think HarvesteR's latest project Kit Hack has them. What is so complex about them as it relates to KSP2? Finally, we need to discuss maneuver nodes and dV calculation. Has the development team shared anything with you that you can share with us as to how these are being worked on, and what potential solutions we may see? Both of these are critical to the game.

The MIT article is interesting - they talk about how... difficult... it is to get funding/be taken seriously when trying to explore that theory, then point out that it's not so loopy after all. The concrete, if true, would be poured with a jello like consistency that for *reasons* cures in a way that avoids shrinkage common to other concretes. It's an interesting theory. Back to moving logs with mechanical advantage - this one is interesting. The use of the bipod is totally different. With the rope at the top of the bipod and the fulcrum forward of the log, they just pull it up and over. Side note - I got the funding to try this with my students. So later next week I'll report back on how it went. Using 2x4x10s, making some beams from 2x6x12s and a few other things. Should be fun!

Yup. It seems like from going through the colony mega thread it won’t approach in a meaningful way a culmination of career and science until the exploration update, after colonies and after interstellar. I like science points. And I like the expansion and better quality of the hand crafted missions in KSP2 over test x part in y situation of KSP1. But it’s not career mode at all until there is a gameplay reason to build efficient rockets. They say rockets won’t be “free” but only really talk about resources in regards to fuel and late tech tree parts. If there’s never a reason to use a SRB over a liquid fuel stack with an engine this game may not be for me. So until they communicate clearly about what resources will be needed for, and how the player will be credited them (ie please have some incentive to not timewarp for maximum resources) the best I can do is *hope* that “rockets won’t be free” includes some player incentives to build cheap and efficient. Thats three major updates down the road. For Science! was a big step forward but didn’t nudge me at all to play more after trying it for a few hours, or to update my negative review to a positive one. The CMs hyped that they have some good communication in the pipeline, so here I check the forums at lunch for a week or so to see if it’s worth me staying around. No news or bad news and I’ll be away from the forums and Reddit for months again.