Search the Community

First off, I would like to say that For Science! has made the game massively more playable, fun, and performant. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of IG when some of the player base (myself included) went from not just critical, but skeptical that we would even see the promised features. The science update proved that skepticism wrong, and I want to sincerely thank the IG team for their persistence. I say this because while part of this post may sound negative, it’s coming from someone who’s genuinely a fan of the game, wants the game to succeed, and appreciates the massive step forward this last update was. All that said, after playing it long enough where I feel I can give a solid opinion, I must say For Science! still hasn’t reached the tipping point of being fun to play for fun’s sake yet. As a tester, and an EA player seeing the game grow, yes. But KSP1 remains more fun at this point. I really would like to share my feedback on the game, but it’s hard to do with the specifics of future features still largely unknown. For instance, how much are resources going to affect the early, mid, and late game restrictions of exploration mode, if at all? There’s a lot of feedback I can give here, but without details on the roadmap beyond just the highest level concepts, most of that feedback is meaningless. KSP1 had a lot of janky complexity. I loved it dearly but career mode was hodgepodged together for sure. KSP2 (seemingly so far) didn’t so much streamline the complexity as outright remove it. It’s rather simple to get to anywhere in the system without unlocking any tech nodes as there’s no restrictions on size, part count, or funds/resources. (I personally prefer no funds and the limiting factor to be resources, as I believe to be the plan.) How I feel those restrictions could be added in an engaging game play loop is something I’d love to talk about, but currently it’s unclear if any such limitations are even being considered. The new and zombie bugs did also sadly affect my gameplay, both with the resurgence of the orbital decay and the loss of orbital lines. Those I see have been clearly communicated to the devs and it is clear they are a priority. I would personally, at this point in development with a “game” now in the sandbox game, rather they focus on bugs for a bit. My larger point with this thought though is that bugs can be clearly communicated, and then addressed. Larger framework decisions and feedback much less so without knowing exactly the plan for interstellar, colonies, and isru. The devs have clearly asked for feedback, and I’m happy to provide it. I just feel it’s hard to give good, actionable or even considerable feedback with so many unknowns for the player community. Had KSP2 launched in this state into EA I feel there would’ve been much less criticism. The game, while buggy and feature lacking, has clear potential, details of quality in the surfaces of the planet, audio design and other areas. Most EA games are very clear about the development process, and I fully understand why they went so quiet with the harsh criticism they were receiving. They knew the only way to win back trust was to deliver, and while there’s still a ways to go for me personally they delivered a great update that won my trust. Now that we have that trust, I feel like it is the time to open up more about the specifics, and then recieve, consider, and implement as they see best fit player feedback. This would include the plans changing slightly as the game progresses and in response to the feedback, and trusting the community to be understanding of that. Again, I don’t want to be too negative. My pessimistic outlook was solidly proven wrong, I’m excited and passionate about KSP and am way happier now having my pessimism be proven wrong and having a fun KSP2. I just please ask that now that trust has been rebuilt some thought is put into how much of the specifics of the coming features can be shared with the community so we can give quality feedback.

when i was digging through the files i went into squadexpansion and i found out that Breaking Ground wasn't always called that it was originally called Serenity and i thought it would be a cool thing to talk about tell me if you knew this or you didn't feel free to ask me a theory about it

YEAR 3, DAY #̷̛̛̝̮͕̙͍͈͇͎̫̝̈́̆̍̅̂́͆̑̏̓̊́̉̊̾̾̂͌͘̚̕͜͠͠%̶̛̝̺̩̱͓͍͌̑͆́̽́̐̊͋̋̆̓̏̐̀̀́̈́͂̋͌͐̅̕͘@̷̢̧̤̯͍͉͚͖̱̟̣̩̝͓͕͓͖̹̤͚̠͕́͛̋̇́̀́̉́̽̿̽̉͐̑̎͗̍̈́̋̾͂̕͝͝ͅͅͅ#̵̡̺͂̃̔̈͝͝ - THE SECRET SPACE PROGRAM In the middle of the Desert, crews have been working tirelessly to make a spacecraft capable of lifting our crew up to the Mun. We need to see what's going on there. A mysterious bunch of lights has just been sitting still. The crew have been carefully selected (since they're our only crew). The goal of the mission is to plant a flag on the mysterious object, collect samples, and then bring them back to Kerbin. I will not talk for the rest of the mission, given the nature of what happened. I'll just use the verbal logs. CREW VERBAL LOG [REDACTED] KERMAN: [REDACTED], skies are empty. You are clear for liftoff. JOEMON KERMAN: Roger that. JOEMON KERMAN: Woah! Alright, mission control. Starting roll procedure. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy, roll program. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Alright [REDACTED], you're go for stage separation. ANFIELD KERMAN: Copy that, go for stage sep. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Alright, [REDACTED], you're in a stable parking orbit. In T- 20 minutes, you'll be go for TMI. TIM C. KERMAN: Copy that, [REDACTED]. Readying engine. JOEMON KERMAN: Alright, mission control, TMI burn successful. See you at the Mun [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy that, [REDACTED]. See you at the Mun. *** [REDACTED] KERMAN: Good morning, [REDACTED]! How'd your trip go? JOEMON KERMAN: We are good. mission control. Waiting for the go for landing. ... [REDACTED] KERMAN: Your go, [REDACTED]. *** ANFIELD KERMAN: Alright, mission control. We are well on are way to intercept the object. [REDACTED] KERMAN: Copy. 9km altitude, in counting. TIM C. KERMAN: 45m from the surface. Continuing engine puffs... Contact! TIM C. KERMAN: I don't see anything, did we come here for nothing? JOEMON KERMAN: Look up, Tim. TIM C. KERMAN: Oh. I see it now! ANFIELD KERMAN: Okay, so are we not going to talk about WHAT THE HELL IT IS? [REDACTED] KERMAN: A- alright, [REDACTED]. You're g-go for EVA. ANFIELD KERMAN: Breakin' up a little there, mission control. TIM C. KERMAN: Alright, mission control. I'm on top of the structure... preparing the flag. TIM C. KERMAN: Alright, mission --ntrol. I'm ----bing ---- do--. [REDACTED] KERMAN: [REDACTED]? [REDACTED], we're losing contact. TRANSMISSION ENDED 1 minute later, [REDACTED] started transmitting to mission control again. Pictures from the lander show the crew are gone. Just entirely gone, with no trace. What happened? Many thoughts fly through mission control's heads. Everyone at once looks at each other, an realizes: this is no structure. What they're looking at is a full on portal. We need to dig deeper...

I had to pay already for the privilege of play-testing and emit feedback, why would I also perform the job of a paid position on top of that? I can design you a science mechanic, come back to it with a presentation, multiple docs, spreadsheets about balance, and whatever you ask, but we've gotta talk money first. If you want stuff for free, there's plenty on the thread.

I really have to ask this question every time I see one of these, "This is stupid, get rid of it!" /Feedback/ posts.. How would you do it? Seriously, how would you design it? What do you want? Describe the form of gameplay you want. Describe your design, step for step, let's have it. Also, if you're going to talk about science in KSP2 from a point of "realism" , you do realize that we launch probes in to space that just sit in space and follow commands sent to them to just take pictures and gather data from sensors yeah? Ya know, like SOHO, JWST, MRO, LRO, Artemis, MAVEN, Trace Gas Orbiter, etc....

Flight 1001 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-119-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill The KJ-119 is the first jet airliner built by Kerbal Spaceless Program to use more than 1 engine. In this case, it's a Wheesley and a Juno. ----------- Jeb: Good morning all Kerbs, welcome aboard to Trans Kerbin Airlines! We will be taking off shortly. Bill: Wow, they even put a second engine on this one! Talk about safety first! The Wheesley spooled up and spat to life. The Juno? Not so much. Bill: Jeb, I think the Juno failed. Hopefully we'll make it to the Island Airfield. Jeb: SIlly old Gene making us fly test planes with passengers on board. Bill: Wait a minute... you left the PA on! The passengers immediately began screaming. Jeb: Calm on guys, we've almost landed. After the landing, the passengers made their way of the plane and the other unsuspecting group of passengers entered the plane. Luckily the flight went relatively smoothly. As the passengers left, they made sure to leave their positive reviews. "They didn't even have seat cushions!" - Bingus Kerman "Where are the in-flight snacks, and why am I able to open the plane's windows?" - Doofus Kerman "This flight pulled more G's than I ever did in the Kerbin War!" - Rofel Kerman The KJ-119-1 was immediately sent to the SPH for repairs for the Juno. Hopefully this ends well.

I have played and adored nearly all of Chris's mods and they are absolutely brilliant. I don't always agree with him though when it comes to gameplay. I think efficiency and simplicity are really important but I'll return again and again to the chess vs checkers example. What makes good gameplay is not absolute simplicity, but maximizing the ratio between input rule complexity and total output creative gamespace. Sometimes a very large investment in dev work results in a very small increase in creative gameplay. Sometimes a modest investment in dev work results in a HUGE increase in creative gameplay. Every smart developer is playing these odds. I happen to think there were some decisions in KSP1 like instant scanning on polar orbit and not incorporating biome maps that were huge missed opportunities, and across the board when you talk to folks who used SCANsat the verdict is pretty unanimous that the mod did it better. Thats because it hit that sweet spot leveraging a bit more complexity in design to capture a much more robust gameplay experience. I think avoiding LoS, real-time mapping, time-based mechanics, and life support are similar kinds of missed opportunities where a modest investment in development time could leverage a much more dynamic set of design, planning, and navigation puzzles for the game.

I support this and agree with @Pthigrivi. That being said.. I feel like the devs read and listen to player opinions, but they don't confirm it. Slowly I see that gameplay decisions are made, the items on the wishlists are getting added and some things seem to be well thought out. We're all starting to have an idea about what this game wants to be. But the dev - player interaction is minimal at best. Good thing we have the CMs to talk to. Anyway, when you as a player feel like life is not fair.. remember that @Nertea's Discord handle is Destroyer of Fun. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Flight ????: KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 1 TKA Flight Inspector The KJ-099 is the first passenger plane the KSP developed. With a passenger capacity of 4 kerbals, the KJ-099 is perfect for use for flight inspections (establishing a new flight route). The first test flight is to send an inspector about 20 km out above the ocean and fly back safely. Morty gives a little pep talk: Bill: Whatever, starting up the Wheesley... Jeb: Fly safe? That's not something we're good at! Flight Inspector: What'd you say? Jeb: Nothing... With a bit of struggling due to the bad landing gear placement, the KJ-099 somewhat flopped into the air. Luckily it seemed to like flying, so that should be okay. Flight Inspector: Why does my metal seat have no cushion? Bill: Uh... it's for cooling purposes since we don't have an air-con vent back there... Flight Inspector: I hate my job... Jeb: All kerbals please fasten your seatbelts. This landing may not be pretty. Jeb: Try to flare it a bit... Jeb: Nailed it! With the success of the first flight, the KJ-099 is immediately sent to the SPH for improvements, notably the bad wheel placement. A few days later... Flight 1000 (KSC - Island Airfield): KJ-099-1 Crew: Jeb and Bill Passenger: 3 TKA Flight Inspectors Bill: Can't believe they woke us up at 2 for this. Flight Inspector 1: Well get on with it, can you? Jeb: I think they're complaining about the legroom again. How are they so awake? Bill: I suppose it's the jet-lag. Now that the jet has arrived at the Island Airfield, the Inspectors get off to negotiate flight deals. And before long, the KJ-099 is off again. The wheel placement improvements certainly helped with takeoff. Jeb: "Friendly reminder that you are not allowed to have food fights in the cockpit" Gene knows us so well... Bill: So how'd you enjoy the landing? Flight Inspector: At least it was better than Kyanair... Now with a place to fly planes to, the KSP begins building a larger plane...

Welp, I don't have KSP 2 at the moment (current hardware can't run it and I really can't afford it). But skimming here tells me the KSP 2 gamesave system is confusing some really good KSP players. Whether it's UI or something internal or both, it's not quite right. And it really isn't explained to the player, when its complexity indicates it should be explained. That's not making KSP 2 look good to me. Talk about barely being alpha grade, but KSP 2 has been released (even if Early Access), but a save/restore system is a core game mechanic that shouldn't be in this state at this time.

What makes an RCS thruster good is closely correlated to what makes a rocket engine good, but the engineering requirements of simplicity, storability, fast start from cold and repeatability change that. Low specific impulse can be forgiven if the rest of the hardware is simple and lightweight. Cold-gas is used, even though it's not that powerful or efficient, because it fulfils all those requirements. If we talk about solid propellant, monopropellant, bipropellant, arcjets and resistojets, we'll be here all day. Instead, if you want to dive deep into about 5,000 different substances used on one satellite or another: On the selection of propellants for cold/warm gas propulsion systems

I'm somewhat in agreement here - The commitment not being met sucks. But I think its because they chose a really, really bad metric to try and report on. Very few games use their bug log as their major development communications for a reason. Most games do some regularly scheduled feature blog, or developer touchpoint or design talk. But Intercept is extremely reluctant to talk about that due to prior delivery promises slipping, and the longer they go without talking about them, the worse the potential response gets. After all, if they come talking now about the absolute barebone basic design principles of science, people will assume that they're only now just nailing them down. And god forbid if they're playtesting and find out something they designed isn't fun and needs rework (this is a common occurance) and the community gets it in their heads that they're incompetent at gameplay design. I've mentioned before how the relationship has gotten adversarial. Every communication is carefully crafted, curated, and reviewed because they're frankly afraid of making it worse by saying something wrong, and a lot of us are seeking blood in the water - we're mad, some of us probably excessively so, and we're looking for justifications for that anger. We're well past the point that we could get a post from a science guy talking about this cool part he's messing with, because next week it'll be scrapped cuz it wasn't fun to design missions around, and the community will riot. They chose bug fixes to report on because nobody can get mad at a bugfix, and then I'm guessing the delivery keeps slipping because they're holding out for every last possible little fix - it may be seen as preferable to delay an update so that the update has at least one changed status, over posting an update early that just shows nothing moving 'cross the board.

I'm pretty sure it's not weird to talk about the very next step of the roadmap. Especially when the devs have claimed the time between major updates will shorten.

The title is pretty self-explanatory. On the anniversary of a milestone of aviation and spaceflight history, post about it here. It can't just be events you think are significant; the name of the game is "This Day In..." The event in question has to share the same month and day as the current date. e.g. if it took place on December 17, 1903, you'll just have to wait until December 17, (whatever year it is now) to post about it. Replies discussing events already posted DON'T have date limits; just the events themselves. In other words, you're free to talk about any events mentioned on here as far long or as late as you wish. Links to sources are highly encouraged. Even if you first learned about it from the Air Force Museum calendar, we would all benefit from some corroboration. It can be as significant as a first test flight or a shuttle crash to something not-so-well known - such as the Army Air Corps delivering mail for the first time or the first successful V2 rocket launch. The choice of event is yours, but the "Anniversary Posting" rule still stands. Have fun, and I can't wait to read what you all come up with. I'll start us off. October 14th, 1947 - U.S. Air Force Captain Charles "Chuck" Yeager becomes the first man to break the sound barrier using the X-1 rocket plane. Source: https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/breaking-sound-barrier-75th

When you attach an XS engine to an S fuel tank and then add and S decoupler under it, the fairing becomes a cone. It would make more sense to size the fairing to the S fuel tank so the shape of the rocket is consistent and decouplers become regular interstages. At the moment, you have to add an extra payload fairing underneath the decoupler to acheive the same effect. I can think of no advantge to having the decoupler size to the engine you are attaching it to and not the surrounding fuel tank sizes. Maybe even an option in the parts menu to choose a fairing size. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Haven’t seen anyone talk about this. Kerbal ragdolling was half the fun of Kerbal 1.

I mean out of the other roadmap items: Multiplayer was always gonna be last because having to QA both singleplayer and multiplayer with each major update would be a huge increased weight on dev time/resources. Interstellar ready engines have been stated to require resource gathering if you want to build them in career mode Resource gathering has been stated to no longer be ISRU and require Colonies and trade routes So... unless anything new has come up, the OG roadmap was already arranged in the order of "the order things need to be developed in" anyway. Probably not a bad idea to assume it'll still be more or less in that order. Although given the talk of the imminent upgrade to using HDRP, I could see that getting a major release update number.

Hi, You may know me as an insane person that plays ksp 2, but imma cut the chase. Been playing KSP 2 For Science update, and I got a few actual bones to pick with how the missions work and behave.. Settings I play on. TLDR, Hard. but revert and quicksaving due to skill issues/bugs (many) I been playing ksp 2 new update for a while, and let me say, there is a huge hard wall/brick that comes with this update in gathering science, I play rather simply, each object I created in this save has a purpose to further progress my game. It usually does a main mission, or a side mission, if not completing a few while doing both on the same craft... So, lets get to it. i have done a few missions about 12 hours~ or so in this update ( I have about two hours I forgot to stream ) but it was just simply building and testing a craft. yup amazing, playing about 10 hours, with zero views, its a fashion statement at this point with how little traction I have. during this time progression was fine if not perfect pace for 50%, this was until I saw, and seen the big four Duna Monument Wheelin and Dealin LIL CHONKER Keostationary Orbit let me just quote my discord post(s) For me there is a huge (quite a few) gaps in how research is earned, and how main mission's skill slope is way to aggressive. as of now, I'm quite stumped as behaving as a general player trying to follow the loose primary/story missions, there were 3 steps to complete missions of getting a lot of research to progress For me, each main mission required a vehicle, so did land on X object, "weird signal" created a probe/sat, and then landing a craft near the objective, while this craft needed to also (optional) land at each biome and get science/etc. Now, with the stop of nonsense rambling There should at least 2 or 4 more missions before landing on duna for me this is too aggressive (no idea if it's like this for other missions I haven't progressed that far) Put a satellite into a high duna orbit Put a satellite around dunas moon Do a prob X parts and land safely create a Craft to go to the monument Duna, in the way mission control is set up, is the FIRST post kerbin sphere of influence, it has a Moon, Atmosphere... Why in the name of Bob Kermin do we need to be thrown directly into the duna's monument when other things should be taught / more research to be given out. As of right now with 1 secondary mission that is a little to silly Lil Chonker, 1 mission simply not working, Wheelin, And Dealing, the only option to further progress is to do keostationary orbit, or do off "story" missions.. there is way to large of a gap in what is needed to be learned when going from minmus to duna. Second talk Doing a lot of sidequests of gathering ground science, flying science etc, there is simply just not enough Science points to be given out without finding the secret POI's as also stated in my discord post.. these missions might feel fine with normal research speeds and you have loads of of SP to get into deeper into the second tech tree without not completing the first tech tree, but for me, its hard. There needs to be a way to have like camera satellites, to find POI's on certain planets something like the surface scanner, but in a few tiers, with the weakest only finding the largest/most noticeable and the strongest just finding everything as a part both slowly in days(months) in game depending on range, geostation orbit/ polar orbit/ etc I really didn't want to do this post cause I'm not feeling well and I'm going sound like a complete mad man when I have what I want to say in my head, but out loud its just me spouting nonsense/broken english. personally, I that even doing premium+ missions that i need to be very picky on what i need to further progress the game, if the game had what i said above being able to get the few extra 100's of SP needed for a competent build should need to happen let alone teaching players that after getting to X planet they might have moons, or a atmosphere etc... i really hope the rest of the main story isn't like this, i don't know what I'm going to do honestly but the aggressiveness slope is to high from minmus to duna. please understand I'm really trying to say something that my brain isn't able to process due to being sick, and well, not able to do it in the first place without like 9 English to english translators.. also if anyone is able to translate this right now into something that is more, like readable I will edit this post make it better, but there is at least some points I'm trying to give out.

Also I don't recall NASA having to string together a road of relays between Earth and the Kuiper Belt in order to talk to the Voyagers (or any other distant probes), and probes that have to land on the far side of objects tend to be smart enough to do this autonomously. Point being, I think probes being 10x more reliant on communications than any real probe is silly, and I would much rather Commnet just be a mod or set to off by default.

Yeah, that is a fair take. I hate to indulge in the inevitable drama that results from this kind of ambiguous silly analogy, honestly, but regardless of what he meant, it still feels to me like that's what we're expected to do: Deal with what we have now, because sometime maybe eventually in the future things will be better. And I acknowledge the irony of saying this in the wake of a video where they specifically talk about short term solutions, but... I mean, why would we need to talk about short term solutions? I don't feel the damage they could cause would be outweighed by the sentiment of neglect that I feel has grown, at least in my own experience

Just my 5 cent, but showing that tool with a bit of explaining text and a few pictures would likely be much more informative than this talk was, which just repeated points that were made in the past. And it would be a more convincing demonstration that there is progress and not just talk - the issue with these talks is that people (rightfully or not, different discussion) feel that past communication hasn't bee reliable.

(Not directly related to KSP2, but rather, the community's reaction to it.) I haven't been active on the forum recently, and I wanted to talk about some cool stuff I was doing in the (absolutely amazing) Planet Jam 2 pack for KSP1. I browse a little in the KSP2 forums just to see what's going on, and I'm gonna be real: thinly veiled tension or outright hostility seems to be the norm in the KSP2 subforums, and this has on occasion leaked over to the KSP1 or offtopic subforums too. Look, I get it, I really do, KSP2 simply is very much not what it was announced to be all the way back in 2019. There's a ton of missing features on the early access alpha launch, which notably arrived 3 years after it was originally scheduled to release. Most computers can't manage 30fps right now. I myself, since the launch of KSP2, have been completely unable to even go to the Mun and back without some mission ending bug destroying the craft, squiggling my orbits, disintegrating my kerbals, or so many other tiny and silly things that somehow break a mission (for example, just last week, after planting a flag on the Mun, I simply was not allowed to board back into the craft). All of my recent forum topics are me complaining about KSP2 bugs. I too was a bit disappointed after paying $50 and not getting a stable experience that was reliably enjoyable. I too was real annoyed at the several missing parts and features that you can just find in stock KSP1. I do not play KSP2 regularly. However. I feel like a schism is being driven in the KSP community about the state of KSP2 due to the incomplete state of the game. Tensions are rising specifically because some users feel cheated or scammed out of their $50 which they could've used for better things. This tension wasn't there before KSP2 (obviously), and as a forum user who hasn't done a whole lot here since KSP2's release, the contrast between the lovely, unified, and supportive community of old KSP1 (i say "old" relatively, I joined in like 2019), and the tense, warring community of modern day KSP2. This community doesn't feel the same anymore. A lot of people blame the developers, which I think is definitely a little out of place. The developers have gone through some serious hardships (Take Two pulling the contract from Star Theory and causing internal stresses, as well as severe stresses from COVID, both happening at nearly the same time), and are still working hard. There's evidence in the game files and code that long-term future features, such as interstellar travel or colonies, are definitely being actively worked on. The developers have seemed like genuinely nice people over the forums and over live interviews and stuff like that, and they admit the shortcomings of the game and are actively trying to improve the state of things, so I don't think they're being superficial with their interactions with the community. (To me, their interactions seem more like they're going "ah heck, this early access release isn't going great." than "I'm going to maliciously convince every player to like the game even though it isn't good.") Ultimately, the choice to release KSP2 in early access in this kind of state, with these kinds of specs, with those kinds of missing features, was inevitably going to be controversial. I don't think this is the fault of the developers themselves though. I think it's the fault of the conditions in which the game was developed, and the circumstances and difficult situations the developers have gone through. But if it's the fault of anyone, I'd probably blame the publishers, who choose things like release dates, pricing, announcements, and advertisement, and I don't think the individual developers had too much say in it (especially with how far the game was already delayed). Another major contributing factor to this schism I feel has been lack of communication between the developers and the community before, during, and directly following launch, which I feel has mostly or entirely improved since then. This lack of communication did a lot of damage, convincing a lot of people that the developers were just trying to get a quick 50 bucks and a rise out of the KSP community. I genuinely do feel like things can be better now if we calmed down a bit about the state of KSP2 and listened to eachother and to the developers. Nate Simpson and his crew of dedicated and talented game developers genuinely seem like they're trying to interact with the community and make sure everyone's in the loop on all the stuff happening behind the scenes, and everyone involved seems genuinely passionate about their job, their project, the community, and the future. When I bought this game, my ideas was, "if I buy this game now, not only will I save $10 in a few years, but also, I'll get to watch the game grow alongside me." My goal was to watch the development of the game, interact with it hands on as it grew, provide feedback when I can, and sit there and witness it become the game we've all been hoping for. I don't know what everyone else was expecting when they bought KSP2. I do know some people went in with the expectations it was a full, polished, addictive game the trailer promised which they could sink thousands of hours into. I don't mean to be blunt, but we all bought into a public early access alpha build. We shouldn't've expected something completely up to triple-A standards. While the communication issues I mentioned perhaps hindered our understanding of just how rough this game was going to be, I still feel like "early access" should be enough of an indicator as to how patient and tolerant we'd have to be. I know a lot of people have expressed concerns relating to the future of the project, and don't anticipate the game fully reaching its promises. I, however, would like to note that Take Two, despite all their interesting and peculiar business strategies relating to KSP2, have indicated they're in this for the long run, and Nate's also indicated this project isn't dying any time soon, and has expressed confidence in the team's ability to (eventually) meet what they promised so many years ago. I don't anticipate this project's death. I don't expect it to be done any time soon, so I understand waiting a long time probably won't be super fun, but honestly, we kinda need to figure out this whole patience thing really quick. I don't think the KSP community as a whole is doing too great specifically because of this controversy. I'm gonna be honest with y'all. A lot of comments on developers' updates have been short-tempered, cold, and all in all just kinda awful to the developers. This obviously doesn't include whatever's had to be removed by the moderators. I've read things on the KSP subreddit (which is currently down for some reason?) actively vilifying the developers (often specifically Nate since he's the face of the team), which I see to just be completely unfair. Some people are going to the point of accusing anyone who doesn't blame the developers for stealing $50 from you as a shill, which is truly an accusation of all time. (I swear to whatever you want me to swear to that, instead of being paid to say "KSP2 is kinda cool guys", I actually had to pay to say those words.) I've seen YouTube videos accusing KSP2 of being a permanent failure and a disgrace because of its rickety launch, and I find that really quite awful. I'm having fun with multiple aspects of KSP2, despite all its obvious yet temporary issues. I like spaceplanes now mostly because of KSP2's procedural wings. I write this in the hopes that, maybe, just maybe, this post impacts the community slightly in such a way that helps us cool down and engage in civil discussion instead of arguing and bantering endlessly until we all get tired of hanging out here in this cool forum. I genuinely think the outlook for the forum's community as a whole, at least in present times (and maybe moreso a few months ago), is worse than the outlook for KSP2. At this point, the only thing we can do about KSP2 as a fanbase is to wait, listen, provide meaningful and constructive feedback for the developers to listen to, and be nice enough for the community to still be fun to hang out in once KSP2's all done. I'm probably overstating the threat to the forum community as a whole, and I don't think many people will fully leave the forums due to KSP2 controversy, but it sure isn't fun to sit through, and it would be a way more pleasant forum experience if we all just stuck together, waited patiently, and made sure to keep things civil and calm for the time being. We can panic if huge and bad news on the game's forecast comes. (this took me an hour to write! i should go to bed) TL;DR: Lads, lasses, everyone in between, can we for the love of heck cool down a little about the state of KSP2, and just wait a little?

everything else is hidden sorry cause i actually talked in all of those, a lot.. a lot a lot, if I wasn't commentary about what I was doing and why, Im insane.. its "prob not talk unless someone asks"... speaking out aloud on every other one ,a lot, with the only person was my mom.. yes my mom watched, the last one, and me checking if the stream was working. i felt its just not worth keeping them up cause i sound insane.. hope that helps :3

why do you assume that's not what they're going to do? They've been investigating this for a while, so there's definitely a good chance that they've come up with some short and long term solutions that they want to address. Also, wobbliness is what's been the community's biggest issue so far, the fact that they're talking about it makes it communication. The community broadcasted it's concerns about this, and they heard it, and will address it. that's the 2-way you're talking about. or do you want them to hold your hand and bring you on the talk so you can express the same things everyone else has over and over again? let's see tomorrow after the talk if they've discussed possible solutions or not.