Thoughts on re-entry heating

[AngryBaer]

I've seen a lot of comments about how important the feature is for many. While I can see that it looks cool and is immersive I haven't really understood why it's such a big deal at this stage.

To be on the same page here, there seem to be two components to re-entry heating that often get conflated:

1. The actual heating dynamic that can destroy parts
2. The fiery visual effect

We've now received some insight into how point 1. and heating in general is planned to be introduced and the visual effect appears to be work in progress. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it certainly doesn't warrant constant reminders about it.

I've never considered the heating as an "essential core feature", since it could be switched off, and the visual effect is purely cosmetic for a fairly small part of a mission. I'd be much more concerned if engines didn't produce thrust or exhaust plumes were missing. The essential part for me is atmosperic drag, which already exists and serves it's purpose during flight and de-orbiting. Why is this particular item such an emotionally charged topic? Is re-entry the favourite part of the mission? Was there really doubt that it wouldn't be included? 

[Snark]

Some content has been removed. Please try to stay on topic.

[AngryBaer]

To be clear, this isn't supposed to be flamebait. I'm genuinely curious why this particular topic is so persistent. I can't possibly be the only one who isn't bothered by it not existing yet, but I'm somewhat bothered by seeing comments about it getting repeated ad nauseam. It's one thing to be frustrated by functional issues that break your creations unexpectebly, and another to miss a bit of immersion in my opinion. It falls in the same category as cockpit interiors or foliage placement or some-such for me.

[RocketRockington]

47 minutes ago, AngryBaer said:

To be clear, this isn't supposed to be flamebait. I'm genuinely curious why this particular topic is so persistent. I can't possibly be the only one who isn't bothered by it not existing yet, but I'm somewhat bothered by seeing comments about it getting repeated ad nauseam. It's one thing to be frustrated by functional issues that break your creations unexpectebly, and another to miss a bit of immersion in my opinion. It falls in the same category as cockpit interiors or foliage placement or some-such for me.

To give you the non-flamey answer.  Yes, you can turn off reentry heating, but it's a challenge that should be present with any half-decent space sim. Among other features that you can turn off in KSP1 - fuel being used..  Craft breakage.  Gravity.  Does that mean that all of those should also be non-critical pieces of the game?  

Moreover a lot of the issue is that after 3 years of delays, an EA missing many features from even KSP1's early days was released, and one of those features was supposed to be back 'in a matter of weeks' - which might be a minor thing if other aspects of the game were in good shape, but because it's one of the rare cases of a dev actually saying some non-nebulous thing will be done in a non-nebulous time frame,  it's easy to point it out in the course of a discussion, because everything else people would reasonably imagine SHOULD have been done by now doesn't have any specific concrete mention (like say - having anything in the roadmap done, for instance), and therefore the apologists people will just shout 'It's EA!' endlessly as if that justifies the state of KSP2 after years of delays and hype and promises and the high price and terrible performance yadda yadda yadda.

So that's why it gets mentioned a lot more than perhaps just the feature in and of itself might seem requires.  

Edited July 25, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Periple]

I think it’s a “near core” feature. Dealing with it informs any craft design that needs to enter an atmosphere (other than Duna which is too tenuous) as well as hypersonic aircraft. Obviously less critical than basic aerodynamics or flight physics but arguably more important than, say, CommNet.

I also think it’s only optional in KSP1 because it was implemented late and would have broken a lot of craft, and SQUAD didn’t want to do that.

Also there’s expectation management — when the EA was released Nate said there would be a short period without it. Five months is stretching that definition. 

[AngryBaer]

6 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

To give you the non-flamey answer.

thanks, honestly appreciated.

6 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

but it's a challenge that should be present with any half-decent space sim

I agree, in the full game heating should be present as an engineering challenge. But I can also see why that is a longer term project essentially because of this:

12 minutes ago, Periple said:

I also think it’s only optional in KSP1 because it was implemented late and would have broken a lot of craft

I find the decision to implement heating globally a good one, not just for getting re-entry heating out first. I find it a reasonable explanation that it would take longer. That also doesn't really cover the visual effect, I've seen just as many complain that the immersion ist lost, which seems a little premature at this stage. Imagine the visual effect had been introduced. I can already see the flood of bug reports of players seeing the effect and thinking the heating should also occur. Remember, not everyon actually reads the release notes. Which brings us to:

15 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

and therefore the apologists people will just shout 'It's EA!'

I think there should be some degree of nuance to this, it's a similarly tiring repetition but it's also not meaningless. EA titles change over time and there's a huge spectrum of what stage of the game is exposed to players. Personally I find late stage EA games really boring because there aren't a lot of changes. Watching the game evolve from a broken mess is appealing to me and I missed that phase of KSP1. 3 years of delays or months of waiting for patches also have little meaning to me, what is the alternative, really? There hasn't been a shortage of events that caused delays. I wonder what "justification" would be acceptable? No delays is an impossible request, where would you put the limit? 

5 minutes ago, Periple said:

Also there’s expectation management — when the EA was released Nate said there would be a short period without it.

17 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

and one of those features was supposed to be back 'in a matter of weeks'

I can absolutely see the point here, expectation management is difficult thought because you can't predict the future. I'm sure Nate regrets saying that. But the alternative is more vagueness, right? Or nothing. Is vagueness really a problem? I've asked this before and still haven't really gotten a satisfying answer yet: How would you handle this kind of communication? I think there has been sufficuent transparency about what is going on and any estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. 

[Periple]

IG clearly failed to manage expectations especially early on. They’ve improved a lot, as has the game.

Still the trouble is that once you screw something like that up, you will create a contingent of extremely unhappy fans, and some of them will make it a holy mission to make sure the world knows just how unhappy they are. A few won’t ever let go no matter how good the game gets or how much the studio improves its communication: the only thing that would satisfy them is the game getting canceled, the studio getting shut down, and the people working on it getting run out of the industry (or worse).

These people are extremely vocal even if there aren’t that many of them, which makes the sentiment look worse than it is.

I don’t think there’s much anyone can do about that, it’s just the nature of fandom, and one reason I think it’s fundamentally unhealthy. It’s one thing to really like something, but another thing entirely to wrap your identity around it and start thinking you own it.

[RocketRockington]

34 minutes ago, AngryBaer said:

I think there should be some degree of nuance to this, it's a similarly tiring repetition but it's also not meaningless. EA titles change over time and there's a huge spectrum of what stage of the game is exposed to players. Personally I find late stage EA games really boring because there aren't a lot of changes. Watching the game evolve from a broken mess is appealing to me and I missed that phase of KSP1. 3 years of delays or months of waiting for patches also have little meaning to me, what is the alternative, really? There hasn't been a shortage of events that caused delays. I wonder what "justification" would be acceptable? No delays is an impossible request, where would you put the limit? 

So I've played plenty of EA titles.  There's a lot of differences between what I'd call a 'good' EA title and what KSP2 is.

1. Delays are fine, but those delays have to be put in context of how expensive the title is, how unique, and how good the current state is.  Delays when the title is a shoddy mess and priced like AAA are much less forgiveable, especially after heaps of other delays. 
2. If an EA is 'finding its way' that's more forgivable than an EA that's trying to replicate features from a prior sequel, for which no true fan input is needed and no delicious surprises are forthcoming.
3. Above all else, EA development should be honest & transparent.  An EA title should have a level of humility.  It should be able developing the game that will eventually be sold to the masses, and asking for honesty/being honest with the EA adopters.  EA products that try to sell themselves heavily, especially in more and more disingenuous ways, are a terrible practice.  
4.  There should be improvement in practices, not just a perpetual acceptance of bad estimates - if you've predicted badly 50 times in the past, why should anyone trust you?  Gets to point #3.  Star Citizen is a joke because its relentlessly late and every time a dev tells you when something will happen, its been wrong.  KSP2 is no different.

All of the above is in service to the early adopter community not feeling lied/scammed/rugpulled/etc.  If after the star theory thing happened, the newly formed IG had said "Hey we need to fully restart the title, or we need 3 more years" or whatever - people would have been somewhat upset then, but not nearly as upset as people are now.  Instead we've been fed this constant line of 'everything is super great, we just need a little more time' when things are not super great.   So naturally some portion of the community has stopped 'trusting the devs' and takes everything they say as a bald faced attempt at deception in service of further flogging our favorite franchise for a few more bucks, and not giving us anything that will ever be worth the hype.

So ultimately, what many of us is a moral failure - just blatant business-as-legitimized theft, late-stage capitalism at its worst, vs what an EA was supposed to be with developers getting funding for their dream project that they're in the process of refining.

15 minutes ago, Periple said:

These people are extremely vocal even if there aren’t that many of them, which makes the sentiment look worse than it is.

There are a lot of us.  Read the reviews.  Go to reddit, a community of tens of thousands of daily actives , vs the hundred or so here.  See how few people are playing.  Just because the ksp forums are sanitized with draconian fevor, doesn't mean that the average sentiment here is the general sentiment.

The apologists don't help matters with disregarding statements like that, they just add to the flames.

Edited July 25, 2023 by RocketRockington

[AngryBaer]

4 minutes ago, Periple said:

IG clearly failed to manage expectations especially early on. They’ve improved a lot, as has the game.

Agreed. And it's an interesting lesson. So is changing the estimate for re-entry features (to stay on topic), whether that's functional or visual, more transparent communication or poor expectation management?

38 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

All of the above is in service to the early adopter community not feeling lied/scammed/rugpulled/etc.

I struggle with this because after reading the release notes and dev blogs and discord chats I haven't felt lied to or scammed. I feel like I know what to expect, for an arguably very high price for the product at time of release. As mentioned by others the dev's communication as well as the game itself have indeed improved. I can't entirely agree with the estimates always being wrong, I see a lot of "we changed our mind about this feature" or "this is more complicated that it looks", like in regards to re-entry. I'm not sure that's better but it's certainly something I expect in EA, it's also something I experience at work a lot myself so I empathise.

35 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

If after the star theory thing happened, the newly formed IG had said "Hey we need to fully restart the title, or we need 3 more years" or whatever - people would have been somewhat upset then, but not nearly as upset as people are now.

I can totally agree with this, but:

19 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

So naturally some portion of the community has stopped 'trusting the devs' and takes everything they say as a bald faced attempt at deception

Do you find this reasonable or in any way productive? I'm not sure about the "naturally" part here. It's not my "natural" reaction. I hear you, but I wonder how one can find a healthier way to vent that frustration, because it doesn't seem to help anyone feel better. The result is:

35 minutes ago, Periple said:

the trouble is that once you screw something like that up, you will create a contingent of extremely unhappy fans, and some of them will make it a holy mission to make sure the world knows just how unhappy they are.

This kind of blind rage makes you, well, blind to any improvements. I wonder how the community will react once re-entry is finally implemented. I'm just looking forward to it.

[Periple]

Just now, AngryBaer said:

Agreed. And it's an interesting lesson. So is changing the estimate for re-entry features (to stay on topic), whether that's functional or visual, more transparent communication or poor expectation management?

I think the original “short period” statement was poor expectations management, as is the fact that they never updated that estimate until now. Nertea’s update was great of course!

2 minutes ago, AngryBaer said:

This kind of blind rage makes you, well, blind to any improvements. I wonder how the community will react once re-entry is finally implemented. I'm just looking forward to it.

The most determined haters won’t ever give up or shut up, as they’ve made hating KSP2 a part of their identity. More reasonable people will come around as the game improves, many already are.

The next critical moment is launching 1.0, it will get a new marketing campaign, new reviews, and a big influx of new players. If that goes well, the haters will go into the margins and be regarded as cranks.

[RocketRockington]

26 minutes ago, Periple said:

The most determined haters won’t ever give up or shut up, as they’ve made hating KSP2 a part of their identity. More reasonable people will come around as the game improves, many already are.

Just as the more determined of the apologists have taken the contrarian view and will grant infinite patience and understanding now matter how absurd the contortions required to grant IG the benefit of the doubt are.  Potato potato.

33 minutes ago, AngryBaer said:

Do you find this reasonable or in any way productive? I'm not sure about the "naturally" part here. It's not my "natural" reaction. I hear you, but I wonder how one can find a healthier way to vent that frustration, because it doesn't seem to help anyone feel better. The result is

Is hanging out on a game forum, discussing an EA stage game where the devs are clearly on their own road and not at all paying attention to the community, a productive use of time for anyone, whatever their opinion is?  I personally find it cathartic to share my thoughts, but I'm not under the assumption that I'm changing anyone's mind or doing something productive with my time.  You asked a question of 'why' but you yourself seem fairly locked in on your own take too.

38 minutes ago, AngryBaer said:

I struggle with this because after reading the release notes and dev blogs and discord chats I haven't felt lied to or scammed.

These have gotten somewhat better, but my sense is that it's more 'we literally can't gild the turd more because the release is the release'  When they talk about long term plans - and when you look at the pre-release communications, especially over the years, it seemed like they BS'd as much as they possibly thought they could get away with.  Even Nate's more recent comms about how the delays are for better QA (next release - major showstopper got released and had to be hotfixed) and for feature work (no feature work is evident)  still rub me the wrong way.

[moeggz]

54 minutes ago, Periple said:

The next critical moment is launching 1.0, it will get a new marketing campaign, new reviews, and a big influx of new players. If that goes well, the haters will go into the margins and be regarded as cranks.

@Periple

I say this wanting genuine discussion and coming from a place where I am respecting your views, even where they differ from mine. 

As a player with a negative view of the game currently I want to say a few things. 

If I can fly a 500+ part ship to my interstellar colony and set up a resource route and then fly by my friend in multiplayer I will change my review to positive. My self identity isn’t tied to “KSP2 is bad” anymore than I think yours is to the opposite.

And if steam had refunded me I’d be out of these forums happy to forget about it until it either died or became good and I rebought it. As I’m still invested $50 I and others are vocal because we want it to be good. Trust me I would rather have the KSP2 as advertised than be “right” about KSP2 being a failure and losing funding before 1.0. I will happily say “I was wrong” if it means I get what was advertised. For one, I didn’t waste $50. And for another, the advertised KSP2 game sounds like a lot of fun that I would like to play.

I keep sharing the negative feedback to do 2 primary things. 
 

1. Try and steer development to the advertised features of KSP2. To get interstellar massive ships wobble has to go. So I will point out the badness of wobble hoping to help nudge by feedback development onto that path. 
 

2. To keep others from spending money on the game in the state it is in. I like KSP a lot. Not so much that I will downplay the problems to others. My “not recommended” review will stay in steam until it is a game I would honestly recommend. Most of the positive review on steam are “it’s not good yet but…” I find those type of reviews dishonest. People on the fence of buying this game should see a variety of realistic views expressed by people who have time in the game. I wish to share mine.

And a last comment, I don’t consider those with positive views of KSP2 in its current state to be shills or to be dishonest in their opinion, however little it makes sense to me.

I would appreciate it if those of us with a negative view weren’t referred to as haters. Critics is fine. I love KSP I don’t hate it. And this is the only online community where the positive view outnumbers the negative one. On steam, YouTube, Twitter, reddit everywhere I read comments (in my counting) most are critical of this game at the moment. I do not believe that pretending we are dishonest in our opinion or that our opinion is a minute minority is productive. Rather, I think listening to the complaints can inform the developers what areas are of most concern and would have the most “bang for their buck” in turning effort into positive sentiment. And hopefully eventually a good game.

[Periple]

1 minute ago, moeggz said:

And if steam had refunded me I’d be out of these forums happy to forget about it until it either died or became good and I rebought it.

Have you contacted IG about this? I was once extremely disappointed in a game I had helped kickstart, and the publisher gave me a full refund after I contacted them and explained why, even though I was well past the refund limit. 

4 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I would appreciate it if those of us with a negative view weren’t referred to as haters.

Not everybody with negative views is a hater! A thumbs-down on Steam certainly doesn’t make you one.

In my opinion you only fall under that category if you’re pretty relentless about it: repeating the same criticisms over and over, attacking developers personally, never or rarely giving credit where credit is due, getting confrontational with people who disagree with you, and so on.

I’ve put a lot of people on ignore here for these reasons — whenever I peek, there’s almost never anything there that I haven’t already seen several times before, and I know that if I engage with them they’ll just try to pick a fight, and I have better things to do with my time. I also take people off ignore if they show signs of cooling down!

[moeggz]

@Periple

I appreciate that! I’m not trying to pick fights but have genuine conversations that can help move KSP2 forward (even if I’m doubtful.)

I’m glad most on this forum can have constructive conversation without bickering and sarcasm. 
 

edit: also no I have not contacted IG. May be worth a shot.

Edited July 25, 2023 by moeggz

[Periple]

Being pessimistic doesn’t make you a hater either. There’s something to be said for pessimism — you’ll never be disappointed

The thing I take issue with is relentless negativity, getting personally invested into the game failing. I understand the psychology — hate gives you meaning, and we all need meaning — but I do think it’s unhealthy for the individual and the community. For one thing, there’s no upside — if you’re right, all to get as payoff is to crow over a wasteland, and if you’re wrong, you will have made it impossible for yourself to enjoy it (and will be looking foolish).

And of course the relentless, repetitive negativity poisons the discourse and drives away people who might have something interesting to say — not least the developers. I don’t engage with the fans of the games we make precisely for that reason: we get a lot of love too but the way the mind works is that the hate sticks and eats away at you, even if there are many more people who love what you do than there are haters. 

If I was a dev on KSP2 at this time there is no way at all they could convince me to do that! The negativity would make me feel like garbage and I really don’t need that. There are people like Dakota for that, it’s their job and they have the right temperament and skills for it.

[moeggz]

@Periple

Agree on basically all points.

I foresee the canceling of KSP2 as most likely now, but it’s not at all what I want. 

I have been overtly critical of the publishing decisions behind this game, but have multiple times taken the time to make sure it was known I was not directing it at the developers or any individual (for instance, being negative on Nertea’s post but I made sure to say it wasn’t about Nertea and that his post and work were appreciated)

The physiological quirk of hoping for a bad thing then being disappointed when the bad thing doesn’t happen is something I try to actively steer away from. I’ll wear my dunce hat and transport my colony to Laythe very happily if that is the future that can be reached. 

And absolutely the community managers are a necessary middle man and appreciated.

I just fear the more people act like everything is fine the more likely a critical-mass reaching number of gripes comes (as either they were unknown or how much they affected the players was unknown [see ongoing debate on wobble]) that push enough people away from this game that it is never finished. So I wish to share the gripes so that they are known and hopefully corrected.

[AngryBaer]

3 minutes ago, moeggz said:

Try and steer development to the advertised features of KSP2

I believe you have a very reasonable position and participation is the whole point of EA, isn't it? Generally speaking. I have some concerns here though:

1. "As advertised" might be a fairly rigid a concept. If you consider it to mean "lives up to the hype" that can be very subjective and range from missing features to UI colors that don't quite work for you personally. EA should stay flexible, with community input the features could shift significantly from what was advertised before. You can't undo the promotions but you may well end up with a better product.
2. This sort of "community service" can quickly devolve into what I call "yelling at the waiter to get the food quicker". I don't think considering everyone lazy and in desperate need of harsh ciriticism by default is applicable here. Continued comments along the line of "Where is re-entry???" doesn't ever contribute anyhing in my opinion. They know. This is where I really struggle to empathise, beyond the need for venting frustration occasionally. 

Helping potential players stay very informed about what they are planning on buying is another matter. I'm very much on board with that.

[Periple]

3 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I foresee the canceling of KSP2 as most likely now, but it’s not at all what I want. 

I don’t. KSP is a flagship franchise for PD and it’s going to take a lot for them to write it off. Both PD and IG survived the recent layoffs at T2 with relatively little damage. The game is showing tangible progress and is headed in the right direction. 

That doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to succeed or to be completed, but I don’t see any of the usual signs of imminent cancellation there. And I have seen some very cool projects canceled!

8 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I just fear the more people act like everything is fine the more likely a critical-mass reaching number of gripes comes (as either they were unknown or how much they affected the players was unknown [see ongoing debate on wobble]) that push enough people away from this game that it is never finished. So I wish to share the gripes so that they are known and hopefully corrected.

But that’s the thing, they’re not acting like everything is fine. They’ve revamped their communications strategy, they shifted focus from developing new features to fixing bugs, and they’ve materially improved their processes — being able to hotfix without screwing everything else up isn’t all that simple. The game isn’t treading water, it’s progressing. Not as fast as it ideally would, but nevertheless. They know a lot of fans aren’t happy and that they need to do a lot better to turn this around!

[moeggz]

@AngryBaer

1. On that I only mean the broadest strokes. Colonies, resources, interstellar (and multiplayer tho tbh that one I’m not as excited for.) The steps and exact vision will be different and no I am not expecting feature parity with CGI trailers with hundreds of ships. Absolutely some take this point too far like you say.

2. This is a good point. I couldn’t imagine yelling at a waiter regardless of the quality of service. And this is why I try and and make sure the object of my frustration is clearly communicated. I’m angrily criticizing whatever suit decided to charge $50 for this and launch in the state it’s in. To me they were either wholly incompetent, or willfully deceitful launching those trailers knowing what’s going on behind the scenes. Either way those type of publishing decisions is what I want the gaming community at large to stop putting up with. 
 

People who complained about the developers going on vacation were rude. 

As far as “where is re-entry comments” my view is quite simple. They know they messed up there yet they don’t acknowledge it. I mess up constantly. I apologize to my wife, my coworkers even my son who’s too young to talk. An acknowledgment and an apology shows mutual respect. My irritation with this situation is 90% the lack of acknowledgment or an apology. It seems more similar to people who gaslight and manipulate out of taking responsibility and lines up more with the “ksp2 is an intentional scam” narrative than I believe is true or would like. 

A post about thermal systems was the perfect time for a “we are sorry we missed our goal on the timing of this feature but here is how we are working hard to make it awesome.” That line would make me not bring it up anymore. Not getting that line to me is disrespectful, but I agree with the point and will do my best to keep my voicing of this frustration limited and pointed at the right people. It’s just easy to get more frustrated the longer the problem is ignored.

8 minutes ago, Periple said:

The game isn’t treading water, it’s progressing. Not as fast as it ideally would, but nevertheless.

I agree that the investment was large enough they will try to recoup that by funding development for a long time. My fear is that it’s already been a long time and the pace of progress has not given reason for confidence.

On communication style, absolutely there has been improvement. They are still not as open as most EA titles I have played during development. Most are able to say “sorry” for not hitting a stated development milestone on time or, if they know they are still building a system in the game from the ground up, do not promise it to come out “a short while after launch.” But I don’t want to be a negative Nancy, I agree progress is being made just sharing why I feel there is still some criticism here.

[Periple]

7 minutes ago, moeggz said:

Most are able to say “sorry” for not hitting a stated development milestone on time or, if they know they are still building a system in the game from the ground up, do not promise it to come out “a short while after launch.”

I agree that they ought to have given an update on re-entry hearing earlier.

Why the delay though? I think they had something that’s “almost working” but then hit a blocker and decided they had to do it over. The state the game was in at v0.1.0, it won’t have been easy to tell what’s a superficial easy to address issue and what’s more fundamental. 

Also — there’s often a big disconnect between what you think you said and how it’s perceived. While I agree that Nate should not have said “in a short while,” in his mind that won’t have been a promise about a milestone with a date. It’s easy to forget that an impatient community will take it as exactly that, and then fail to manage expectations when it becomes clear that actually it’s a bit of a longer while.

Also there were so many fires going they had to decide which ones to put out first

[RocketRockington]

 

46 minutes ago, Periple said:

The thing I take issue with is relentless negativity, getting personally invested into the game failing. I understand the psychology — hate gives you meaning, and we all need meaning — but I do think it’s unhealthy for the individual and the community. For one thing, there’s no upside — if you’re right, all to get as payoff is to crow over a wasteland, and if you’re wrong, you will have made it impossible for yourself to enjoy it (and will be looking foolish).

Or you get to go back to the product that's genuinely good, feeling vindicated that corporate nonsense failed again and getting to appreciate the existing product that's great - and hope that if/when someone tries to do a more genuine sequel, that mistakes of KSP2 aren't made again.   That's what I'm hoping for, because unlike @moeggz's hopes, I believe that 3.5 years of pretending that everything is fine and wonderful, no mea-culpa or true change in heart is ever going to be forthcoming - because the same people are in charge.    It would have been a perfect time to discuss what went wrong with re-entry - why someone would have said 'its coming shortly' and been so dramatically wrong about such a near-term and theoretically well-understood feature.   

But that's never been IG's behaviour, nor Star Theory before them.  They're bunkering down, still singing kumbaya, hoping to ride out the negativity from their repeated failures to deliver on the hype they worked so hard to generate, and the broader community is just getting angrier about it.  If you look at reddit, the largest community and one that isn't being sanitized by IG/PD staff, the early views on KSP2 were very split - early on, it was a flamewar yes, but from both sides.  Now the war is mostly over.  You routinely see Dakota's comments getting downvoted, the posts that excuse IG the same, etc. 

This bunkering might pay off they were in the process of delivering at a rate that seemed like it would be enough to pull themselves out of the nose dive they're currently in - but that would require overdelivering for a bit to show that the course was corrected, not making baby steps toward being a more capable EA developer.  They aren't delivering content nor fixes at anything like the rate that a capable EA developer is, though, and any progress toward that currently feels like going from an F to a D-.  Progress of a sort, but enough to start generating sales needed to make up for their burn rate?  Not from my perspective.

 

6 minutes ago, Periple said:

Why the delay though? I think they had something that’s “almost working” but then hit a blocker and decided they had to do it over. The state the game was in at v0.1.0, it won’t have been easy to tell what’s a superficial easy to address issue and what’s more fundamental. 

Also — there’s often a big disconnect between what you think you said and how it’s perceived. While I agree that Nate should not have said “in a short while,” in his mind that won’t have been a promise about a milestone with a date. It’s easy to forget that an impatient community will take it as exactly that, and then fail to manage expectations when it becomes clear that actually it’s a bit of a longer while.

Ah the age old 'they had to start over again' thing.  Delayed 3 years? They started over.  Whole road map delayed more?  They started over again.  Sure.  Maybe.  But having to start over again over and over - especially when you thought you were close to done - is not the sign of a good game developer, especially once you already put your product in front of the community and started charging money for it.   And of course, no mention of why or when they started over - it's always 'velocity is good, morale is great, no problems here, its the community's fault for expecting words to mean what they sound like'.

[moeggz]

7 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

any progress toward that currently feels like going from an F to a D-.  Progress of a sort, but enough to start generating sales needed to make up for their burn rate?  Not from my perspective.

I feel like my comments may sometimes seem contradictory but there’s two things I’m communicating. 1 what I hope for and 2 what I think will happen. On 1 I hope grand things. Amazing beautiful things and a KSP2 that has made everyone happy. On 2 I believe this statement 100%. I just really hope I’m wrong. The sub reddit was the most helpful and positive place on reddit for a long time. And it’s getting back there, by only discussing KSP1. The rare ksp2 post is used just to mock the game and vent frustration. The community at large is quickly losing interest and patience and I fear it may be too little too late.

[RocketRockington]

7 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I feel like my comments may sometimes seem contradictory but there’s two things I’m communicating. 1 what I hope for and 2 what I think will happen. On 1 I hope grand things. Amazing beautiful things and a KSP2 that has made everyone happy. On 2 I believe this statement 100%. I just really hope I’m wrong. The sub reddit was the most helpful and positive place on reddit for a long time. And it’s getting back there, by only discussing KSP1. The rare ksp2 post is used just to mock the game and vent frustration. The community at large is quickly losing interest and patience and I fear it may be too little too late.

Yeah - tbh not all the KSP2 posts are mocked either - people doing craft shares or videos are just fine, whether they're sharing bugs or genuine accomplishments.  Mostly its the 'why is everyone so mean to KSP2' posts that get mocked.  And of course, the chorus of 'no, no, not for years, no, heck no, only if you are a masochist, no' when people ask 'Should I buy KSP2'.    

Oh well, off topic here.  But to be more on topic - I do wonder what happened to re-entry heating.  my personal guess is that it wasn't actually close to done at all near EA release, the design was just half-baked so it looked like it might be close to done, but then when Nertea took a look and realized what was there, he had to go redesign it.

[Periple]

45 minutes ago, moeggz said:

And it’s getting back there, by only discussing KSP1. The rare ksp2 post is used just to mock the game and vent frustration. The community at large is quickly losing interest and patience and I fear it may be too little too late.

I think it would be a good thing for the community to lose interest in KSP2 for a while. They will 100% certainly check in again when it hits 1.0. At that point the game will stand or fall on its own merits.

[PicoSpace]

16 hours ago, AngryBaer said:

I've seen a lot of comments about how important the feature is for many. While I can see that it looks cool and is immersive I haven't really understood why it's such a big deal at this stage.

To be on the same page here, there seem to be two components to re-entry heating that often get conflated:

1. The actual heating dynamic that can destroy parts
2. The fiery visual effect

We've now received some insight into how point 1. and heating in general is planned to be introduced and the visual effect appears to be work in progress. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it certainly doesn't warrant constant reminders about it.

I've never considered the heating as an "essential core feature", since it could be switched off, and the visual effect is purely cosmetic for a fairly small part of a mission. I'd be much more concerned if engines didn't produce thrust or exhaust plumes were missing. The essential part for me is atmosperic drag, which already exists and serves it's purpose during flight and de-orbiting. Why is this particular item such an emotionally charged topic? Is re-entry the favourite part of the mission? Was there really doubt that it wouldn't be included? 

Re-entry heat will become a bigger deal when you start needing to return materials to the KSC or Colonies on Worlds with Atmospheres or send out science collection missions to the same. As it will limit what craft you drop from orbit, right now you could drop the whole ISS (with enough struts) and it would make it to the ground.

 

So it makes sense if science gathering is implemented so is reheating because that makes science collection more of a challenge.