Show and Tell - Jool Flyby

[Stephensan]

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Making the planets pretty much undrivable. Yeah, great. Turn off the collisions though, and you're left only with visual obstacles that add nothing to gameplay.

ok? don't need turn it on, i even stated saying its showing the limits of what the game can do with tires... 

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Exactly, you said it. In alpha. You remember how KSP looked in alpha? With water being a hard surface and all? Moving on with the sentence..

no reason to talk about it then its a tv static statement.

9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

your bumps, that are by the way not made by the terrain itself because that still has rough edges and sudden changes in slope inclination, stop being rendered few hundred meters away from the camera.

can't you adjust the settings? just like the collisions. oh, you CAN, intresting.

10 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh this again, can't be bothered to respond to this, AGAIN. Next!

 

12 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Uhuh.

Spoiler

 

interesting that both nearly identical and flat as i was stating due to being in alpha we haven't seen the small details but that would be way to hard to read. oh wait you did read it but you still decided to try to put up a useless argument that 100% not needed if you read the entire post instead of reading it as if it was per page and then giving the answers as if you are just finding out what you just typed to make yourself seem smart.. You would have seen that i typed in-game, not in the game editor mode yes, no kidding there is stuff that is better looking in the editing mode, I'm talking a real ingame, not editor, ingame photo that is showing the game off.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh this again, can't be bothered to respond to this, AGAIN. Next!

yup cannot read the entire post, i don't care if it needs more time or not even come out this decade im putting what they said out of when the possible release is, its not fautual that it will happen on X date, im saying that if they want to keep the "lines" of what they stated, they only have X, amount.

23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oh yes you are, your whole post screams that.

thank god you are me and know exactly what i think about this game at all times.

23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

See above.

same thing, but read the entire post instead of whatever you want to make yourself seem justified to make yourself seem better.

 

24 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Yeah you do. All you and many other people very much like to compare KSP2 to modded KSP1, and I wonder, if it doesn't look like your beloved mods, are you even going to buy it? Because it looks like no.

KSP2 devs wouldn't, and shouldn't compare their game to mods, ever. That just creates more problems than solutions. You can, but stop demanding that the game looks better than other modded game.

By the way, what any of this has anything to do with Jool?

Get a room and make your own thread for complaints.

man, you literally cannot read what i typed, in my honest opinion i don't like parallax 2.0 at the end i like its there, just like i said 

1 hour ago, Stephensan said:

I don't perfer, and i don't like saying "this game gotta be at least X mod good" if that was the case i would wanted NAPP resource pack running at 4k 60fps a long time ago on minecraft, its not my thing, but within a degree of seeing what we have seen and what we have got, there is gaps missing i cannot wait to see filled.

its fun to see how the game has grown to a point that such mods exist for ksp, but i honestly don't like it, but oh, you are me, you know exactly who i am... 

good, thats a healthy statement, thank god im not saying the game should be that good in regard of visuals.

people already talking about the mod.

i got no complaints??

 

so far 3 people that think they know every ounce of the game and think they are the other person, amazing.

[Alexoff]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

But apparently for the sake of polarization and being controversial at all costs we all collectively have to pretend we don't have a memory.

You decided to get into the conversation without reading its beginning? Aziz began to claim that KSP2 would have a greater performance based on dreams. Since we have nothing but hundreds of pages of reasoning on the forum, the system requirements for the game were not published 3 years after the announcement.

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

Parallax just looks like Minecraft with a 4k texture pack slapped to it. The only things that does to me is highlighting the limits of KSP.

I can write the same about KSP2. We were not really told or shown any fundamentally game-changing systems, only vague wording and a 2019 trailer. Do the clouds over Jool change anything? Seriously, do we play KSP  because of the graphics? But we are shown precisely the graphics, which, frankly, are far from cyberpunk or elden ring, even parallax looks better.

[LezRowl]

Truely incredible.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Stephensan said:

for me the parallax mod, in terms of visual/gameplay enhancement is the end all of all mods..

It shows the full potential of what ksp has grown into over the 11 years and with sufficient hardware you are able to enjoy the "small details" even if it is showing the literal limit of what the game engine can do, things such as FPS, Collisions, Tires etc, it all shows in a small package, of the entire limit of ksp before we head off to ksp 2, people (like myself) have only really seen, and heard about what it would look like in ksp 2, we have seen the Mun far away and it looks like a masterpiece that took 1000's of man hours to produce, but then we get a post of the mun in alpha still that looks like still stock based ksp with very limited amount of ground scattering when we compare it to just scatter 2.0 which just as it stands it blows ksp 2 out of the water..

We haven't seen all the small details that on the ground for scattering for ksp 2 yet, we have only really seen the physical ground rework, the large scatter items rework, but not the small fine details that in the example of mun again, parallax 2.0 has almost nailed in realism of small rocks, bumps everywhere as "far as the eye can see", but cannot get that "soft dusty" look that real life has on our own moon, its still "flat" and undetailed even by the standards of stock ksp, its still flat as of now as what we have seen in ksp 1. We haven't seen PBR yet for the ground as we are still in "alpha" when in terms of "early 2023" can be as late as March 31st, which is 180 days left, unless they change how much more time they need which i really don't mind, if it needs more time give it more time

 

im not saying the visuals are bad, or that they are doing bad, im stating that in terms of how it looks, ksp 1, and ksp 2 look almost identical "on the ground".. when we look at the Kerbal Space Program 2 - Show and Tell Highlights #2 on the youtube channel, you see at a "close" distance it looks amazing within a degree of even graphical mods, but the standards of what we have seen in game from photos even if it is called "alpha" they are missing quite a bit of the finer details that hopefully will be shown soon:tm:...

 

I don't perfer, and i don't like saying "this game gotta be at least X mod good" if that was the case i would wanted NAPP resource pack running at 4k 60fps a long time ago on minecraft, its not my thing, but within a degree of seeing what we have seen and what we have got, there is gaps missing i cannot wait to see filled.

And yet the terrain below it is the same flat and smooth terrain of KSP (obviously being it just a mod).

 

KSP2 terrain is on another level altogether, on a geological scale. Cliffs, canyons, peaks, rugged terrain. A bigger variability in the terrain types you can find on a single celestial body.

You can add all the scattered object you want to KSP1, but at the end of the day you still are left with the same flat and smooth planets below them.

Just like when you add a high resolution texture pack to Minecraft, the effect is the same.

 

You can arbitrary decide to disregard when they show assets in the assets editor all you want because "they're not actual gameplay footage" but you have to understand that your arbitrary decision doesn't automagically nullifies the fact that we were shown those assets and the tech behind the planets is on another level compared to KSP1.

 

27 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

You decided to get into the conversation without reading its beginning?

I read the discussion and all I see it's you using, again,old flawed arguments to keep up the "controversial at all cost" character you're playing.

If you can't understand the difference between the people working on this game and the people that wrote the first updates of KSP1 you shouldn't talk about the technical part of the game at all.

Even just on a mere "let's see what previous experience this devs have."

[Alexoff]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

I read the discussion and all I see it's you using, again,old flawed arguments to keep up the "controversial at all cost" character you're playing.

If you can't understand the difference between the people working on this game and the people that wrote the first updates of KSP1 you shouldn't talk about the technical part of the game at all.

Even just on a mere "let's see what previous experience this devs have."

I have a feeling that you are playing a free lawyer for developers and you are telling all over the forum that if someone sees something bad, then he is bad and does not believe well. I'm talking about facts, in response you refer to experience and feelings, turning to personalities. Most recently, you said that the graphics in KSP2 cannot be compared with cyberpunk and any other game, but here we are again given nothing but graphics, what to compare?

[Pthigrivi]

On the ‘flat terrain’ front keep in mind this is the Mun, one of the first bodies new players encounter, and there really should be large expanses of easily landable space with relatively few large colideable boulders. I think the boulders themselves look great, and we’ve seen that many of the later-game bodies look much more rugged. My only critique is it wouldn’t prevent you from adding smaller scale debris that adds texture without making landings and rover travel difficult. 
 

Also, this is all subjective so I think we can be kind to each other. There’s going to be a lot of new people coming to the board in the coming months and I hope this place stays as charming and welcoming as it can be. We might just all need to have some patience. 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Minmus Taster]

Honestly comparing an unfinished game to a laggy mod is just a stupid thing to do, I'm really starting to get sick of people looking at development footage and saying that it doesn't look as good as Parallax, at least the vast majority of us will probably be able to actually RUN ksp 2.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

I have a feeling that you are playing a free lawyer for developers and you are telling all over the forum that if someone sees something bad

It's not "Seeing something bad" it's always the 2 or 3 people playing the usual character that everything always sucks and crapping all over the place.

With the same 2 or 3 flawed argument over and over again, like a broken disk.

 

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

I'm talking about facts, in response you refer to experience and feelings, turning to personalities.

Nope, you're filling blanks with the possible worst thing you can come up with, "They didn't show X so it's undeniable that X will suck, there's no other possible explanation"

 

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

I'm talking about facts, in response you refer to experience and feelings, turning to personalities.

I'm not.

KSP2 has a dedicated composer and a team of artists where KSP1 has royalty free music and an art style that makes the part roster look like they stole the assets from 2 dozen different games.

KSP2 has an experienced dev team where KSP1 foundations were made by amateurs at their first game.

KSP1 has a ton of well documented and known bugs and inefficiencies that have nothing to do with the engine or the single threaded physics, and people with way more expertise than me tried to explain this over and over again in the past three years, only to be ignored.

 

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Most recently, you said that the graphics in KSP2 cannot be compared with cyberpunk and any other game, but here we are again given nothing but graphics, what to compare?

I've talked about comparisons with other games multiple times, please point out which one exactly so we can have a laugh about how hard you're (absolutely not on purpose) misinterpreting what I wrote.

Please tell me it's not the one in which I said that the game is not going to suck if it doesn't have FS 2020 weather and Sea Of Thieves water.

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

it's always the 2 or 3 people playing the usual character that everything always sucks and crapping all over the place

No, there are always 2-3 people who, like forum inquisitors, constantly say that you can’t think badly, because they don’t show the best, but show what they want and generally know your place.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Nope, you're filling blanks with the possible worst thing you can come up with, "They didn't show X so it's undeniable that X will suck, there's no other possible explanation"

No, you generally have one argument - everything is fine.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

KSP2 has an experienced dev team where KSP1 foundations were made by amateurs at their first game.

As I wrote - a link to experience and hope

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

KSP1 has a ton of well documented and known bugs and inefficiencies that have nothing to do with the engine or the single threaded physics, and people with way more expertise than me tried to explain this over and over again in the past three years, only to be ignored.

What is it for? That the publisher doesn't pay attention to the bug tracker? Or do you know that there will be no such bugs in KSP2? Any other insights to share?

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

I've talked about comparisons with other games multiple times, please point out which one exactly so we can have a laugh about how hard you're (absolutely not on purpose) misinterpreting what I wrote.

Please tell me it's not the one in which I said that the game is not going to suck if it doesn't have FS 2020 weather and Sea Of Thieves water.

The game can't suck, because it's made by professionals, not some amateurs like those who created KSP1.

 

Here, for example, you said that since we have nothing to do on Kerbin, there is nothing to pay attention to its  appearance. But even with your logic - we are now being shown clouds over Jool, to which we most likely will never fly, our kerbals will die there. The main thing is what happens in the hangar, space flights. Why aren't they showing us this? Six months before the release, the game should already be undergoing final testing, showing the clouds over Jool and building a small rocket in the hangar for the developer will take equally little time, so why did we decide to show such an unimportant thing? Why wasted the developer's time on this?

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

Honestly comparing an unfinished game to a laggy mod is just a stupid thing to do, I'm really starting to get sick of people looking at development footage and saying that it doesn't look as good as Parallax, at least the vast majority of us will probably be able to actually RUN ksp 2.

Not to mention that KSP 2 is on a whole different level to Parallax anyway.

Just now, Alexoff said:

No, there are always 2-3 people who, like forum inquisitors, constantly say that you can’t think badly

Except that's not what they're saying at all, but go on.

[t_v]

27 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Here, for example, you said that since we have nothing to do on Kerbin, there is nothing to pay attention to its  appearance. But even with your logic - we are now being shown clouds over Jool, to which we most likely will never fly, our kerbals will die there. The main thing is what happens in the hangar, space flights. Why aren't they showing us this? Six months before the release, the game should already be undergoing final testing, showing the clouds over Jool and building a small rocket in the hangar for the developer will take equally little time, so why did we decide to show such an unimportant thing? Why wasted the developer's time on this?

If only they had shown us footage of a craft being assembled in the hangar... If only they had a dedicated series where they announced info about the game... If only it was easily accessible, on a forum perhaps?

 

I think the issue is that when you see something, you comment on the things that aren't there. You ask "why aren't they showing us X?" as if the reason couldn't possibly be that they don't need to. What the phrase "Why aren't they showing us this?" sounds like is that you are implying that there is a major problem underneath it, and people are saying that we can't jump to conclusions based on a lack of evidence.

There could definitely be a major problem, but there could also definitely be no problem at all, and people "saying everything is fine" is just because so far, lots of people have been jumping to negative conclusions, and you'll notice that when people jump to conclusions that the game is doing exceedingly well (usually with lots of demanding features impossibly optimized) the same people that counteract negative conclusions counteract those ones. This isn't a discussion between negative and positive people, it is a discussion between jumping to conclusions and recognizing that we don't know enough to make them. 

Edit: And lastly, if you want to comment "Why aren't they showing us X?" Then please bring up things that have actually not been shown. I've seen people bring up that they haven't shown us atmospheric or space flight, when they could just as easily bring up staging or something that has actually never been shown in-game. 

Edited October 2, 2022 by t_v

[jimmymcgoochie]

Not that this is in any way related to the footage of Jool that this topic is all about, but…

I haven’t used Parallax 2.0 yet and can’t see that changing any time soon. Does it look really nice? Yes, very much so. Will my PC be able to run it and still have a usable frame rate? Possibly, though I don’t use stock scatters for a similar reason. Will I get tired of constantly clattering into a bajillion rocks and other random detritus when trying to do even basic things like land on the surface or drive a rover around, and eventually disable the mod? Almost certainly.

If you want to keep taking about how “KSP2 is just modded KSP” then make a new thread for it instead of derailing this one.

[t_v]

9 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

Will I get tired of constantly clattering into a bajillion rocks and other random detritus when trying to do even basic things like land on the surface or drive a rover around, and eventually disable the mod? Almost certainly.

Just an FYI to clear confusion, Parallax does not have collision on by default. You can enable that option if you want, but it is an experimental optional feature. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Alexoff said:

No, you generally have one argument - everything is fine.

I spend as much time tempering expectations of people expecting an MMO that unites FS2020, Sea of Thieves and Starfield as I spent arguing with the "everything always sucks" crowd.

No info means no info. It doesn't mean everything is a disaster as it doesn't mean that this game is going to be the 2023 GOTY.

 

I'm strongly in the "We should stop filling the blanks with our imagination and then pretending it's real" side of things.

 

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

As I wrote - a link to experience and hope

Saying that probably the car mechanic fixing my car now is going to do a better job than the baker hobbyist that messed it up in the fist place is not an unreasonable expectation.

KSP2 has a composer where KSP1 had royalty free music, it has a dedicated 2D animator implementing Kurzgesagt-like tutorials where KSP1 had YouTubers, and that pattern can be continued for every single position in the studio. 

 

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

What is it for? That the publisher doesn't pay attention to the bug tracker? Or do you know that there will be no such bugs in KSP2?

That the engine and the single threaded physics are not the big deal you make them out to be.

I don't know how bugged or not the game is going to be, or how efficient the code they write will be, but that for sure is going to be a way more relevant matter for the performance of the final game than a couple of old buzzwords people like to throw around when they don't know what to complain about.

 

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

That the publisher doesn't pay attention to the bug tracker

A small side note on this one, I'd say that the publisher acknowledging that the decade old code base is beyond fixable and started working on a sequel ASAP.

It's worth noting that said publisher was only involved in the whole project after KSP had what can be considered a very long life for a single player game.

 

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Oh yes, the thread in which people were comparing on foot gameplay in KSP to Bethesda games. It's even more of an unreasonable expectation than FS2020 weather simulation.

 

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

The main thing is what happens in the hangar, space flights. Why aren't they showing us this?

I've seen the VAB interface for KSP2 multiple times, in pics, clips and quite a few explanations of the new features its going to have, of all things that they didn't show you had to choose the only one we know almost everything about.

Unless you're trying to nitpick and say that technically the VAB isn't the hangar. But I'd say that the bit on the procedural wings is either the hangar or a hint to his absence which wouldn't surprise me, there's no reason to have 2 buildings that do the exact same thing.

 

I totally expect other delays, I totally expect bugs, I don't believe we're going to get FS meets SOT and space Skyrim but I'm not convinced we're going to get anything close to the mess KSP1 is.

I'm just tired of the angry mentality forcing a negative view on every possible thing without even putting the effort to make an argument worth reading.

 

If you want a better argument I can lend you one of my worries, I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea going again for wobbly joints between parts. I get that they're iconic in KSP1 and that they are working on ways to make the whole thing more efficient and less heavy on the performance but I wish they discarded it and went for a completely different damage/stress model. It's not exactly in-topic with the thread but it's not like it was a concern to begin with, right? "Unity sucks" doesn't sound that much in-topic either.

[Ryaja]

On 10/1/2022 at 3:21 AM, CEO of China said:

so lets asume tha a kerbal is 0,75mx0,3mx0,3m that is about 0.0675 m3
jool is about 6000000meters in radius so that is 904 607 999 999 999 900 000 m3
so we divide that
then we get 1.34016e+22 and that means 13401600000000000000000

so that is 13 sextillion 401 quintillion 600 quadrillion kerbals

now you know how much kerbals fit in jool

But jool being as big as it is what if I take just a Kerbal not a rectangular prism shaped like one, and find the best packing pattern, then how many fit in jool?!?!?

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

... or a hint to his absence which wouldn't surprise me, there's no reason to have 2 buildings that do the exact same thing.

I feel like it was hinted that the VAB and SPH are one building now, but I don't know if thats confirmed or if Im misremembering. 

[Rutabaga22]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

I feel like it was hinted that the VAB and SPH are one building now, but I don't know if thats confirmed or if Im misremembering. 

I feel that the VAB and SPH shouldn't be the same building. The SPH had different controls designed for horizontal building, whole the VAB was for vertical.

[Pthigrivi]

2 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I feel that the VAB and SPH shouldn't be the same building. The SPH had different controls designed for horizontal building, whole the VAB was for vertical.

It was something like instead of going through multiple load screens and loading different files you could work on multiple assemblies at once and toggle the working axis. This is a very vague memory so if anyone can remember the source or wants to call me crazy please do. 

[poopslayer78]

34 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I feel like it was hinted that the VAB and SPH are one building now, but I don't know if thats confirmed or if Im misremembering. 

You're remembering correctly, there was a show and tell video which showcased a sample Duna colony with what appeared to be a combined VAB + SPH.  There is a door and runway for horizontal takeoff as well as a launch pad on top for rockets.  There are other videos which showcase the same building being used for vertical take off.

@ShadowZone also noticed that the VAB and SPH may be combined in this video.

This is still the realm of speculation, I don't believe the KSP2 team has explicitly confirmed the VAB and SPH are combined.  That said, the imagery from 2020 strongly suggests they might be and I personally  agree that the VAB + SPH are pretty much redundant in KSP1.  It's also possible that the plan in 2020 was to have a combined building but that plan may have changed as the requirements for the game evolved.  Also keep in mind that VAB != launch pad and SPH != runway.  There is recent footage from the KSP2 Artemis recreation clearly showing the KSC equipped with both launchpads and runways.  Also: this combined building is for terrestrial colonies, the KSC may be different.

[The Aziz]

People like videos, I like pictures, there's no need to load anything in another window/tab or waiting until youtuber describes things... Anyway.

Top left, vertical/horizontal button. One could say this implies existence of sph, but by the looks of it (the footage with procedural wings) it's the same building, the background doesn't change. What could more likely happen, is the construction orientation change (along with perhaps better controls fitting horizontal/vertical construction) and I guess where it sends the craft for launch, runway or the launchpad. Of course you could probably choose, but by default something made in horizontal mode would go to a runway.

But we can't do that anywhere near Jool, again, so...

Edited October 3, 2022 by The Aziz

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I feel that the VAB and SPH shouldn't be the same building. The SPH had different controls designed for horizontal building, whole the VAB was for vertical.

Combining them doesn't remove this functionality. It just removes the loading screen and/or having to move to an entirely different workspace.

[Pthigrivi]

Real question: has anyone seen evidence of auroras at any point?

[Laxez]

9 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Real question: has anyone seen evidence of auroras at any point?

This is a good point, at the moment no auroras have been seen, but I think it is due to the fact that a planet has never been shown in the period in which auroras usually occur, and there is also to consider that the auroras do not always happen, it depends a lot on solar activity.

Beside that, I hope to see the auroras, I've never even seen them in reality.

[Laxez]

On 10/3/2022 at 2:12 AM, poopslayer78 said:

You're remembering correctly, there was a show and tell video which showcased a sample Duna colony with what appeared to be a combined VAB + SPH.  There is a door and runway for horizontal takeoff as well as a launch pad on top for rockets.  There are other videos which showcase the same building being used for vertical take off.

@ShadowZone also noticed that the VAB and SPH may be combined in this video.

This is still the realm of speculation, I don't believe the KSP2 team has explicitly confirmed the VAB and SPH are combined.  That said, the imagery from 2020 strongly suggests they might be and I personally  agree that the VAB + SPH are pretty much redundant in KSP1.  It's also possible that the plan in 2020 was to have a combined building but that plan may have changed as the requirements for the game evolved.  Also keep in mind that VAB != launch pad and SPH != runway.  There is recent footage from the KSP2 Artemis recreation clearly showing the KSC equipped with both launchpads and runways.  Also: this combined building is for terrestrial colonies, the KSC may be different.

It is also possible that there are "tiles" to be used as a spawn point for rockets and planes, in some videos there are rockets that start directly above the colony's VAB, and in other videos it starts from a nearby platform, I remember a video (see below) where you see a plane departing from a rocket launch pad built next to a colony's VAB.

Maybe that "target-shaped tiles" is just a spawn point, or you can use the VAB itself as a spawn point (perhaps at the beginning of the colony when there are no materials to build roads), without considering that they could be docking points for supply lines.

[Bosun]

On 9/30/2022 at 9:35 PM, Spaceman.Spiff said:

I think it’s also tough to compare because the modding scene keeps making quantum leaps of its own. 
If KSP2 came out at it’s original date, everyone’s minds would have been absolutely boggled by the volumetric clouds and awesome terrain, but when you compare to things which are (or nearly are) in the original game in the form of mods, I get that it doesn’t hit the same “wow” factor. 
Perhaps we’ve just been too spoiled by blackrack and Gameslinx 

This is one of the dangers with a long development cycle.    
You can get stuck in loops playing catch up to new technology so the game is relevant when it drops. 
You can finally release the game on an outdated engine that caps it's potential relative to it's contemporary peers.
You can have modders beat you to the punch, releasing your game as a series of mods to it's predecessor 
You can have any number of things happen that will ultimately lead the final release to be less spectacular than you promised investors.  

The studio, in this case, has shot an interstellar ship across the development void - and while we know when it might arrive, no one's done a trip this long before, and if any calculation was off, even a little, they'll miss their goal of when and what the game is to be, by a large gulf.    

However, if they pull it off, and there's no evidence we have to be certain they're on course to intercept their goals, it will be a feat of engineering and design that is legandary.