Air Bugs

[PDCWolf]

30 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

To be clear, I'm only defending the general concept, not how it has been implemented, which clearly still needs a lot of work.  I would also  say what you said above doesn't really apply to the structural behavior of rockets either, because the elastic modulus  of the elements you use as an example is so high relative to the forces acting upon them that they will behave like perfectly rigid bodies. A rocket is not like a stack of solid blocks. It is more like a stack of thin-walled beer cans with heavy weights suspended inside them, held together by a few tack welds. Each of the cans is both elastically deformable to some small degree and prone to buckling completely if the forces get too large. But modeling that accurately is pretty much out of the question, so they are instead making the parts themselves perfectly rigid and trying to represent their real-world properties with spring-like attachment points, which I gather from the posts above is what Unity gives them.  However, why they ever thought they could get acceptable behavior from making it just one such attachment point per joint is a mystery to me, especially if they are trying to model shear forces. For a stack of cylindrical objects it should be at least three per joint, and those should have both a very high elastic modulus and a very high damping coefficient so that they act much more like shock absorbers than plain springs. However unless Unity doesn't actually support multiple attachment points and/or dialing those parameters up and down for same, it is kind of weird that they didn't spend more time tuning this critical element before dropping the game.

A rocket is a stack of pieces engineered to work with each other in a fundamental, structural way, in a single order, in a single position, with many attachment points. Rockets don't wobble like wet spaghetti, they flex and vibrate along engineered areas on their structure. By this point you must've realized literally none of this applies to KSP1 or 2.

In KSP1 the first workaround was to disable same-vessel collisions, thus rockets could wobble a lot more, but without disassembling or exploding spontaneously, that's when they made struts fully rigid. It was then realized that wobble was both still causing problems and a hindrance on gameplay, and struts being super rigid caused more phantom forces than before, and the solution then was to implement "autostrut". Autostrut magically adds "joints" between parts for extra stiffness and inter-part strength. We now sit at a sort of middle ground where autostrut either makes things too perfect (for those that like a bit of wobble), or causes ships to just outright disassemble without any hint of flex/wobble, thus, we've almost gone full circle. Further on, we're still limited when autostrutting moving parts, when trying to make use of same-vessel collisions for mechanisms, and such.

Wobble adds magnitudes of problems more than whatever it might be worth having as a "feature" or comedic relief.

 

[RocketRockington]

2 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

We have shown footage and screenshots of as-yet unfinished features for years. That is a part of the goal setting and communication process. Have I sometimes thought we were closer to the finish line than we really were? That's a matter of public record.

Well it's great to get a direct reply.   But...

Your words are reasonable taken in isolation, but comparing where you're at to what you've delivered - it's clear that its a consistent pattern of upselling everything.  Think back - has there every been a SINGLE thing that you projected to the community that would be done in X time and it was actually done in less than X time?  Or was literally everything you talk about delivered late and/or in worse quality than you initially spoke of it in (not counting things that were shipping in a week or two).   

You say you're communicating 'goals' and you're not responsible for velocity (yet you keep giving us dates).    So basically you're agreeing that you are someone who's job isn't to communicate with us accurately, because you will set the highest goal you can and don't really know when it'll be finished.  I don't see how that's different from me saying you upsell things.  

Also - I dunno if you've worked for a manager before that perpetually set unrealistically high goals and then left it up to the team to try and meet them - but it's not a great situation.  Is the 'high morale' you spoke of a few weeks more of a goal as well? 

Edited June 10, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Meecrob]

3 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

[W]e also are learning to measure twice and cut once

So the game up to now was "measured once?" This explains so very much.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

<snip>

Can I just say, straight up, that the fact you engage with such energy people who constantly crap on your product, your team, and you rather than people who are even moderately enthusiastic about this game is seriously disappointing. It's a big reason why I see very little value in these forums and moreso than even the state of the game is a huge reason why I'm just not excited about the development anymore.  [snip]  Not even sure why I'm bothering, I shouldn't have even logged backed in to say I'm looking forward to the next update. Because I'm kind of not at this point.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[Spicat]

17 hours ago, regex said:

Can I just say, straight up, that the fact you engage with such energy people who constantly crap on your product, your team, and you rather than people who are even moderately enthusiastic about this game is seriously disappointing. It's a big reason why I see very little value in these forums and moreso than even the state of the game is a huge reason why I'm just not excited about the development anymore. [snip]  Not even sure why I'm bothering, I shouldn't have even logged backed in to say I'm looking forward to the next update. Because I'm kind of not at this point.

To me, it's the opposite, I think it's a pretty good thing that he tries to answer to people even to the most "angry" ones (while it's in vain for these people it can help other people reading it).

It's weird to me you find it disappointing, when they don't answer it's bad, and when they do it's also bad. I mean, he takes time to engage with the community (even on the weekend apparently). I can't see how the only fact of answering can be seen as a bad thing.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Starhawk
Quoted post redacted by moderator

[Alexoff]

21 minutes ago, regex said:

Can I just say, straight up, that the fact you engage with such energy people who constantly crap on your product, your team, and you rather than people who are even moderately enthusiastic about this game is seriously disappointing.

The answer was to specific criticism of the game on the facts, this is fundamentally different from senseless abuse.

[Mitokandria]

I'm looking forward to June 20. Thank you so much for this new format of updates. I find it all super fascinating to see how things are going with bugsfixes and their causes so I can squirrel it away as a nugget of wisdom for later.

I think tuning out for a few weeks or a month and then coming back to read through the updates has given me some peace with the progress. Thanks for working so hard devteam and community managers!

[IronGremlin]

58 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

The answer was to specific criticism of the game on the facts, this is fundamentally different from senseless abuse.

No, no it was not.


 

 

5 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

6 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

You have to remember that virtually everything Nate has said or written except very close to an actual release has turned out to be a huge upsell.  He's marketting when he speaks to us.

 

This is clearly not commentary on the state of the game. This is commentary on Nate Simpson's conduct, specifically.
 

And yes, I would qualify berating the Creative Director of a video game for being excited about the game he's spent the last 5 years on as abuse - 

We get it, people aren't happy. I am also not happy.

We don't need to re-litigate launch for the next 5 years of KSP2 development.

You people have said this crap already I have said this crap already, and Nate has obviously heard it.

If you have new critiques, by all means, make them, but this horse is dead and we all need to stop beating it.

[asmi]

1 hour ago, Spicat said:

It's weird to me you find it disappointing, when they don't answer it's bad, and when they do it's also bad. I mean, he takes time to engage with the community (even on the weekend apparently). I can't see how the only fact of answering can be seen as a bad thing.

You should read again what he said. He is not disappointed that Nate responds to complainers, but that he didn't respond to non-complainers.

[Spicat]

6 minutes ago, asmi said:

You should read again what he said. He is not disappointed that Nate responds to complainers, but that he didn't respond to non-complainers.

Nate also responded to people liking the game, I don't think Acid_Burn9 is someone "who constantly crap on the product".

Edited June 10, 2023 by Spicat

[RocketRockington]

I'm not trying to abuse any developers.  That seems like an extreme position.  I'm not saying Nate is a terrible person - just saying his job seems to revolve more about marketting to us.  He virtually confirms that, when he's saying his job is about setting goals that may (or often may not) be met than caring about the schedule/velocity.  Especially pre-transparency initiative.

What I am doing is pointing out that before this new push for transparency, there was a lot of upselling/hyping going on.  And ehh - there's still some going on now, but it's better at least.

To whit, 6 weeks ago, we're told that the patch is delayed 2-3 weeks, for efficiency purposes.  Because, while the 'velocity is good' more will get done if they slow down patches.  This was 2 weeks after Patch 2, where people expected another patch in 2 weeks.  So Nate was basically saying 'everything is going great, but we're just going to get EVEN more done if we move the patch cadence to 6-7 weeks.

2 weeks ago - 6 weeks after patch 2 was released, when we were supposed to maybe get the next patch - or at least comms that it'll be there - instead we get 'more transparency' but also a clear delay of the patch into June.

I applaud the extra transparency, but also at that point, of the 10 major issues they've identified that are affecting players, only 2 fixes being tested (eg, actually possibly fixed) and  possibly being fixed (which turned out to need another fix) 

So if you extrapolate backward - So despite this 'efficiency' post - it's pretty clear that instead, the delay was to get any of the major bugs to the 'being tested' stage.   But - you know, Nate won't say something like that.  And I don't expect him to - but also noone should expect him to tell us anything that seems remotely negative.  Hence my 'Nate upsells' comment - because when you don't post the negative as well as the positive - and you usually overestimate the postive - what else do you call it?

Edited June 11, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Heretic391]

It's probably too early to ask, I'm wondering if the update will affect space stations i.e spontaneously expload.  

[Strawberry]

I dont think this has been pointed out yet but I do appreciate the additional comments clarifying and things like that on this thread, its always nice to see yall actively engage here. If yall don't make it oh well, but here's to hoping you guys can get the 20th date. 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

17 hours ago, regex said:

Can I just say, straight up, that the fact you engage with such energy people who constantly crap on your product, your team, and you rather than people who are even moderately enthusiastic about this game is seriously disappointing. It's a big reason why I see very little value in these forums and moreso than even the state of the game is a huge reason why I'm just not excited about the development anymore. [snip]  Not even sure why I'm bothering, I shouldn't have even logged backed in to say I'm looking forward to the next update. Because I'm kind of not at this point.

Nate is taking the high road with this.  And the funny thing is that they don’t seem to realize what he’s doing.

It’s not as ideal as a bit of forum hygiene would have been, but it is fun to watch.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Starhawk
Quoted post redacted by moderator

[DadJokeCinema]

On 6/9/2023 at 3:04 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Hello, fellow Kerbonauts.

The Intercept Games office is buzzing with activity as we submit our last check-ins for the upcoming v0.1.3.0 update and QA puts all the changes through their paces. We’re currently aiming for a June 20 update, but as usual I’ll hedge a bit by pointing out that QA always makes the final determination about whether the final build is release-ready. As we near that date, we should have more confidence about release timing, as well as more details about exactly what fixes and changes will be present in the update. As always, we’ll share detailed patch notes before the update goes live.

Bug Status
We have seen movement on most of the items in our top 10 list this week! It’s very exciting:

1. Vehicles in stable coasting orbits sometimes experience orbit instability/decay
   • Status: fix in progress
     We’ve figured out what’s going on here: when an orbiting vehicle is not under on-rails time warp, the effects of minor joint fluctuations within the vehicle rigidbody cause tiny but cumulatively significant changes to the vehicle’s velocity. The outcome of this is that orbital parameters can change due to all of this subtle wiggling. A system is now being crafted to prevent orbital velocity changes when a vehicle is not under thrust. This change will likely not make it into v0.1.3.0 update, but we know what’s wrong and the steps to fixing it are well understood.
      
2. Trajectories change when vehicles cross SOI boundaries
   • Status: fix in progress
     Engineers believe they understand the cause of this issue and are working on a comprehensive solution (at time of writing, there is a rumor that we've fixed this, but this news is so hot off the presses that I won't update the status quite yet. If it is in fact fixed, it will make its way into the 0.1.3.0 update)
     
     
3. Certain inline parts cause aerodynamic drag numbers to spike
   • Status: fix being tested
     Next week, Chris Adderley will be posting a dev blog entry describing the aero occlusion saga. It’s a doozy. The fix is in and being tested by QA. We believe it is solid for v0.1.3.0.
     
     
4. Returning to craft from VAB causes craft to go underground (possibly related to Kerbals and landed vehicles dropping through terrain while being approached)
   • Status: multiple fixes being tested
     This was actually two unrelated bugs, but happily we have submitted fixes for both of them and they’re both looking good for v0.1.3.0.
      
5. Decoupling and/or undocking events result in various issues including loss of control, incorrect controllability of decoupled subassemblies, loss of camera focus, and other issues
   • Status: may have many causes, but some fixes in progress
     This bug describes a nebulous family of bugs that have one thing in common: decoupling sometimes causes weird things to happen, and sometimes those weird things result in loss of control or other flight-killing outcomes. Our engineers have submitted six separate changes that address an array of decoupling-related issues, and they’re all being tested right now. These will be broken down in detail when we release patch notes for v0.1.3.0, but it’s a good bet that some edge case issues will still persist after the update. This is an area where public information submitted to the Bug Reports subforum can help shine a light on player stories that may be difficult for us to replicate internally.
     
     
6. Save files get bigger over time (TravelLog experiencing "landed" status spam)
   • Status: fix being tested
     We are cautiously optimistic that a fix has eliminated the runaway filesize issue. It is being tested for inclusion in v0.1.3.0.
     
     
7. Opening part manager causes major frame lag
   • Status: experiments ongoing
     We’ve been working on this issue from different angles for quite a while, with varying results. Currently, engineer Patrick DeVarney is working on a method of invoking entries within the part manager on an as-needed basis, rather than always loading all part attributes simultaneously on PAM deployment. This fix will not make it into v0.1.3.0, but if the experiment bears fruit in the future it will have a significant impact on PAM deployment lag. 
      
8. Major post-liftoff frame rate lag immediately above launchpad (associated with engine exhaust lighting)
   • Status: fix being tested
     As we said last week, the short-term remedy for this issue was to turn off shadow casting for point lights associated with engine exhaust. We’ll likely revisit this once we’ve got other performance-impacting issues sorted out.
     
     
9. Root parts placed below decouplers cause issues with stage separation
   • Status: fix being tested
     This is actually related to bug 5, and relates to engine plates being the root part. It has been fixed and is in QA review.
      
10. Vehicle joints unusually wobbly, some part connections unusually weak
    • Status: under investigation, some fixes in progress
      We are testing a fix for one of the most irksome manifestations of this issue, and I’ll elaborate below...

Wings be poppin'

One of the trending bugs on the Bug Reports subforum relates to wings spontaneously popping off of vehicles. This phenomenon is exacerbated by wings in KSP2 being large, unitary parts with a single connection point - a situation that was less problematic in KSP1, where wing stresses were spread out across a large number of parts and joints. You may have been aware that for some inline stack nodes, we automatically apply a trio of additional joints to increase the rigidity of the connection. Engineer Jamie Leighton has implemented a new system that applies a similar multi-joint reinforcement to wing roots, and does so in a way that is physically correct. Now, the surface attach node of a wing element is augmented by additional joints that are placed linearly along the wing’s root, and the distance between those joints is controlled by the length of the wing’s root. Check it out:

Magenta circles show the positions of wing root joint reinforcements

This fix is being tested and is slated for release in the v0.1.3.0 update.

There are lots of other bugs going down this week as we’ve entered the cherry-picking process going into the final stretch on v0.1.3.0. It's important to keep in mind that while we've been focusing on sharing our progress on top community issues in these dev updates, a lot of work has been done to solve a lot of lesser-known issues as well. We’ve fixed the issue with not being able to rename vehicles in the tracking station, for example. We also think we’ve knocked out an inertia tensor bug that was causing radial decouplers to eject with inconsistent force directions and magnitudes (and messing up our Korolev Crosses).

While we’ve knocked out quite a few big bugs over the past couple of months, there’s still plenty of work to do. We’re hoping that this upcoming update makes a big dent in some of the most frustrating issues you’ve been encountering, but we don’t intend to let up at all in our pursuit of the remaining bugs and performance issues standing in the way of a stable, reliably performant gameplay experience. Our bug-hunting momentum is good and morale is high.

Bug Reports Subforum

I mentioned last week that Dakota Callahan and the Community Team were continuing to add new functionality to the Bug Reports Subforum. You can now upvote issues that you have encountered, add additional information to existing bugs (especially handy to the devs when a bug is caused by a weird or complex edge case - for example, it’s already been instrumental in helping us to track down a VAB "not enough resources" issue), and see the list sorted by prevalence. This will give our team an up-to-date view of the community’s most requested fixes. After the v0.1.3.0 update goes out, our hope is that both we and the community can get a faster and clearer picture of community priorities via this subforum. Check it out and let us know what you think!

Weekly Challenge

Last week’s challenge produced some very clever Gilly landers dockers, and some very original low-gravity rovers.

How about this space dualie by Socraticrat?

Or this incredible lander by ChaddingtonDuck:

In addition to celebrating all the challenge-inspired community creations over the past week, we also posted a Player Highlight calling out Coriolis, one of our most prolific vehicle builders. We’ve been enjoying their creations for a long time, and we can’t wait to see what they come up with next!

Another Coriolis masterpiece

This week, we’re challenging you to make bases! Sure, you can land in a cool spot. But can you land other stuff near the same spot to make an off-planet village? We’ll have colonies one day, but that’s no reason not to do some early scouting for the best camping spots! Here are your goals:

• Primary goal: land a habitat that can hold at least 20 kerbals on the surface of the Mun or Minmus. It should have solar panels and at least one antenna
• Secondary goal: Near your initial habitat, land a pressurized rover that can hold at least 6 Kerbals, and land an observation tower that is as tall as possible (for scanning the horizon for interesting rocks from the comfort of a sofa or beanbag chair)
• Jeb-level goal: Use the same transport vehicle design (booster, transfer stages, sky crane, etc.) to deliver each of the above base elements
• Val-level goal: Build this base on a body outside Kerbin's sphere of influence.
• Tim C-level goal: Build this base within 1km of a unique point of interest (e.g. the mohole, Dres canyon, Vall crevasse, etc.)

Good luck, space campers!

P.S.: The title of this post is not my fault. Please blame our Art Director, Kristina Ness. 

Hey Nate, will the additional support joints on procedural wings be in the craft file JSON or is it something that happens on the game side only?

[The Aziz]

12 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Because, while the 'velocity is good' more will get done if they slow down patches.  [...] So Nate was basically saying 'everything is going great, but we're just going to get EVEN more done if we move the patch cadence to 6-7 weeks.

Correct.

12 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

So despite this 'efficiency' post - it's pretty clear that instead, the delay was to get any of the major bugs to the 'being tested' stage.

Also correct. I don't know how any of this is "despite" or "while" in the context. Efficiency or velocity does not equal frequency or quantity(of updates per time period).

Instead of postponing the fixes, they're postponing the update so the fix can be properly investigated and tested without pausing for other stuff - like, for example, sending the prerelease builds back and forth between the devs and QA because a patch must happen every 3 weeks. With a little more time on their hands they can focus better on the deep rooted causes, rather than stressing about pushing anything because of short deadline.

I'm still all for the hotfixes if there's a glaring but easy to fix issue, don't get me wrong, but most of them aren't.

[snip]

Edited June 11, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[James Kerman]

Some content has been removed. Please avoid personal attacks when giving your opinions.

[Gargamel]

Please, do not make make posts purely to start an argument and troll the rest of the community.    If you see a post that is obviously trolling, do not respond.    Use the report button.     A number of posts have been removed.  

[WelshSteW]

 

I'm really looking forward to this update. I expect it to mark the change from me dipping into the game every now and then, to actually playing it 'properly'. Science mode was my preferred choice in KSP1, so having it in KSP2 is something I'm really excited about.

 

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

On 6/10/2023 at 12:26 PM, Alexoff said:

And in what place is the physical calculation of KSP2 better and more accurate than in KSP1? Both games use almost the same engine, in KSP2 it is slightly newer. Is it fantasy to justify the developers or is it based on some kind of facts?

It's a new game.

By remaking it instead of just copying the old one will give the engineers more opportunity to expand on the code later. Expanding on KSP1's code to enhance the vanilla experience is not necessarily that easy, and it undermines the purpose of making a sequel.

It's simpler to create your own content rather than relying on someone else's groundwork.

[shinya]

10 minutes ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

On 6/10/2023 at 12:26 PM, Alexoff said:

And in what place is the physical calculation of KSP2 better and more accurate than in KSP1? Both games use almost the same engine, in KSP2 it is slightly newer. Is it fantasy to justify the developers or is it based on some kind of facts?

It's a new game.

By remaking it instead of just copying the old one will give the engineers more opportunity to expand on the code later. Expanding on KSP1's code to enhance the vanilla experience is not necessarily that easy, and it undermines the purpose of making a sequel.

It's simpler to create your own content rather than relying on someone else's groundwork.

that's not him proofs though, what you say is wishful thinking (a fallacy) unless you have some proof.

I do hope that the physics engine is brand new as KSP's was showing it's limitations but seeing the wobbly rockets and the patched conics it seems like an improvement, not a complete rework. Similar to the terrain system apparently, until we get the new one.

 

12 minutes ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

It's a new game.

By remaking it instead of just copying the old one will give the engineers more opportunity to expand on the code later. Expanding on KSP1's code to enhance the vanilla experience is not necessarily that easy, and it undermines the purpose of making a sequel.

Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim share a lot of code even though they are different game, just by the fact that they share the same engine.

 

13 minutes ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

It's simpler to create your own content rather than relying on someone else's groundwork.

This is downright wrong. Just by knowing the mistakes made before and how they were made eases drastically the work.

[kanabeach83]

On 6/10/2023 at 5:00 AM, Kerbart said:

Cela a été discuté à maintes reprises. Bien que nous ne le sachions pas avec certitude jusqu'à ce que quelqu'un à l'intérieur d'IG renverse les haricots (peu probable), cela ressemble à ce qui s'est passé :

• Le jeu a connu un enfer de conception en ce qui concerne les décisions sur son apparence (pas l'apparence physique mais la mécanique du jeu)
• Plus tard que prévu, un Grand Design ambitieux a été envisagé et les travaux ont commencé.
• Sugar Daddy T2 en a eu assez des délais manqués et des dates de sortie reportées (tout en payant les factures de loyer, d'électricité et de salaires chaque mois) et a fixé une date de publication ferme.
• Intercept a examiné leur conception noble, s'est rendu compte qu'il n'y avait aucun moyen de publier cela à temps et s'est empressé de concevoir et de créer une version qu'ils pourraient publier

Intercept ne nous tient pas pour des idiots, ils ont été confrontés à un délai impossible et ont fait du mieux qu'ils pouvaient. Ce sont les écoliers qui travaillent sur un ambitieux projet scientifique de fin d'année à qui on a dit " en fait, il faut que ça soit prêt la semaine prochaine " .

Take Two n'est pas non plus le contre-empire maléfique du haricot, ils ont été confrontés à une équipe de développement qui recherchait la perfection et ne cessait de retarder la publication. Lorsqu'ils sont confrontés à des dépenses courantes, vous ne pouvez pas leur reprocher de dire " nous allons fixer une date précise maintenant " forçant une sorte de produit à sortir.

Il est clair que des erreurs ont été commises. Nous ne sommes pas satisfaits du jeu, et les développeurs non plus.

"Mais ils disent qu'ils sont fiers du jeu et qu'ils l'aiment."

Ok, posez-vous la question : voulez-vous que KSP2 reste dans son état actuel ? Parce qu'à la seconde où la presse du jeu publie des articles avec des titres comme INTERCEPT GAMES ADMIT KSP2 LIBÉRATION EST UN ÉCHEC TOTAL, je peux vous assurer que Take Two va débrancher et nous sommes coincés avec ce que nous avons maintenant.

Donc, nous sommes coincés avec IG qui travaille dur pour améliorer les choses, étant obligés d'être optimistes et plus rapides dans leur communication, car ils n'ont pas vraiment le choix de faire autre chose. Le Mea Culpa de la semaine dernière et l'accent mis sur la correction des bogues dans la communication sont les meilleurs que nous puissions obtenir, et le fait qu'ils aient cédé à cela indique à quel point la communauté est prise au sérieux - et non considérée comme une bande d'idiots comme vous le dites. .

je suis désolé, mais tout ça, vous auriez dut le dire au moment de la sortie du jeu. c'est très hypocrite de se justifier après avoir vendu des dizaines de milliers de licence à 50e. avec ces informations post vente, vous pensez vraiment qu'ont auraient acheté le jeu ? bien sur que non, et c'est bien pour cela que vous nous l'avez caché.

j'entends et comprends votre pseudo "frustration", mais sincèrement, vous venez de casser une confiance que beaucoup d'entre nous vous avez confié. 

parce que soyez honnête : vendre du rêve pendant des mois en glorifiant les colonies, les voyages interstellaires, le multijoueur et pleins d'autre chose pour au final nous livrer un bac à sable sans fluidité, sans contenu ni saveur, ça s'appelle tout simplement un vole et une trahison, surtout pour des joueurs qui vous suivent depuis des années. vous n'avez eu aucune pitié sur votre communication post sortie : vendre du rêve et mentir. 

nous ne sommes pas cons, après cette immense déception, comment voulez vous que la plupart d'entre nous puisse garder de l'optimisme ??? voila maintenant 3 mois que ce bac a bug est sortie, et il reste toujours injouable ! c'est tout simplement ridicule, RIEN ne fonctionne correctement, absolument rien ! chaque minute de gameplay comporte une déception:

-les FPS sont tout simplement INEXISTANT ! comment expliquer que votre "jeu" si on peu l'appeller ainsi n'utilise que 30 % de ma 3080 ??? c'est absurde, tout simplement

-le VAB est rempli de bug, la conception est un enfer.

- le décollage est un supplice pour les yeux

- le gestionnaire de pièces est juste un calvaire. son temps d'ouverture est tellement frustrant que c'est pratiquement la raison principal du Alt+ f4 en pleine partie

- la modification de l'orbite sans raison est à s'arracher les cheveux. quand on passe des heures a modifier son vaisseau, à le mettre en orbite malgré les bug et les fps très, très très très très très bas , la déception est immense le lendemain lorsque quand je relance ma sauvegarde ( si elle fonctionne, bug n° 75847) on s'apercoit que le vaisseau se désorbite seul, la première chose qui nouys passe par la tête, c'est "il se sont bien foutu de nos gueule ces voleurs"

- la science inexistante: ça  je sais même pas comment vous avez eu le courage, après tout ces désastres de publier le jeu sans même un soupçon de science ou d'objectif ( ne me parlez même pas de vos "challenge" pourris qui consiste à slalomer avec des bugs tout au long du gameplay pour arriver à quelque chose d'agréable, c'est à dire jamais)

 

Non vraiment, j'ai beau avoir toute les peines du monde à me espérer que ce jeu sera un jour jouable, ma conclusion final reste la même: vous avez raté le jeu, sa sortie, sa communication et ce n'est pas un post par semaine qui va renouer la confiance entre vous et nous, joueurs.

vous avez pris notre confiance et vous avez littéralement chier dessus. maintenant que l'argent est entreposé, vous avez le beau rôle.

nous joueurs, nous passons pour des cons.

malgré tout cela, j'ai streamé votre bac à bug sur ma chaîne Twitch et le résultat et sans appel: je n'est jamais subit autant de moquerie et d'insulte alors que je stream depuis 12 ans.

j'ai perdu la moitié de mes followers car j'ai essayé pendant des semaines de streamer ksp2, d'en faire la promotion  de relativiser, et d'apporter un peu d'espoir concernant le futur de ce jeu

je n'ai récolte que des moquerie, des insultes en me traitant de pigeons.

maintenant, soyez sincère au moins une fois : combien de temps (même très approximativement) ? combien de temps avant de livrer le jeu jouable et complet ?? 3 ans ? 4 ans ? 

ne prenez pas les gens pour des cons, vous savez très bien que c'est à peu près le temps qu'il vous faudra, et pour en finir une bonne fois pour toute, je trouve cela mensonger et malhonnête. 

Quote

 

I'm sorry, but you should have said all that when the game was released. It's very hypocritical to justify yourself after having sold tens of thousands of licenses at 50th. with this post-sale information, do you really think that people would have bought the game? of course not, and that's why you hid it from us.

I hear and understand your nickname "frustration", but sincerely, you have just broken a trust that many of us have entrusted to you. 

because be honest: selling dreams for months by glorifying colonies , interstellar travel , multiplayer and many other things to ultimately deliver us a sandbox without fluidity, without content or flavor, that's called everything simply a theft and a betrayal, especially for players who have been following you for years. you had no mercy on your post-release communication: selling dreams and lying. 

we are not idiots, after this huge disappointment, how do you expect most of us to be able to remain optimistic??? It's now been 3 months since this bug tray came out, and it's still unplayable! it's just ridiculous, NOTHING works properly, absolutely nothing! every minute of gameplay has a disappointment:

- FPS are simply NON-EXISTING! how to explain that your "game" if we can call it that only uses 30% of my 3080 ??? it's just absurd

-the VAB is full of bugs, the design is hell.

- take-off is a torment for the eyes

- the parts manager is just an ordeal. its opening time is so frustrating that it's practically the main reason for the Alt+ f4 in the middle of the game

- changing the orbit for no reason is hair - raising . when you spend hours modifying your ship, putting it into orbit despite the bugs and the very, very very very very very low fps, the disappointment is immense the next day when when I restart my save game (if it works, bug no. 75847) we realize that the ship is de-orbiting on its own, the first thing that goes through our minds is "these thieves really got the hell out of us"

- the non-existent science: that I don't even know how you had the courage, after all these disasters to publish the game without even a hint of science or objective (don't even talk to me about your rotten "challenge" which consists in slalom with bugs throughout the gameplay to arrive at something pleasant, i.e. never)

 

No really, although I have all the trouble in the world hoping that this game will one day be playable, my final conclusion remains the same: you missed the game, its release, its communication and this is not a post per week which will restore trust between you and us, players.

you took our trust [snip]. now that the money is in storage, you have the good part.

we players, we pass for idiots.

despite all this, I streamed your bug tray on my Twitch channel and the result is clear: I've never suffered so much mockery and insult when I've been streaming for 12 years.

I lost half of my followers because I tried for weeks to stream ksp2, to promote it, to put it into perspective, and to bring some hope for the future of this game

I only harvest mockery, insults by calling me pigeons.

now, be sincere at least once: how long (even very approximately)? how long before delivering the playable and complete game?? 3 years ? 4 years ? 

don't take people for idiots, you know very well that's about the time you'll need, and to end it once and for all, I find it misleading and dishonest.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Vanamonde
Please post in English when not using the International subforums.

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, Sylvi Fisthaug said:

It's a new game.

By remaking it instead of just copying the old one will give the engineers more opportunity to expand on the code later. Expanding on KSP1's code to enhance the vanilla experience is not necessarily that easy, and it undermines the purpose of making a sequel.

Where is the new code better than the old one? Any details other than the vague improbable possibilities in the distant future?

[Stephensan]

1 hour ago, kanabeach83 said:

- FPS are simply NON-EXISTING! how to explain that your "game" if we can call it that only uses 30% of my 3080 ??? it's just absurd

Biggest issue, it isn't a game as of right now, its a working concept with the fps...

The "alpha" and "beta" photos doesn't state anywhere near where the real state of the game was.. and what is hindering the future of the game right now is the playability, of fps and then the bugs.

[000PainKiller000]

I wonder when will we have wings with fuel stored inside them.

Edited June 12, 2023 by 000PainKiller000