asheft

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About asheft

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. A couple of follow up comments to this. I never said it wasn't a success. I also never said that they predicted the doom of KSP, or that they were completely right. All I said is that they thought that KSP 1.0 would have a lot more bugs and be in a lot more unfinished state than it ought to be. And, I think they were somewhat right (meaning, more than Squad originally thought). And the primary point of that post was to express that Squad has been giving us contradictory statements and reusing arguments for/against certain things for the last several months. I don't think that can be disputed. I think you make several good points, and I think that other people have made good points as well. No one person is clearly right, the truth likely lies somewhere in between. And I don't expect Squad to turn around their business plan completely because of a couple of forum posts. I just think that the community has had some validity to it's skepticism the last several months, and I don't think it should be ignored completely. The primary points of my original post (not the OP) were to point out the frame of reference for the statements Squad has made regarding the ports, and to try to point out some communication shortcomings with the community. And yes, I think that given what I pointed out some concrete evidence would go a lot more to easing some of the community concerns than what they have said.
  2. Um... a couple of comments here. The primary arguments for why the ports will be successful seem to be: 1. Squad knows what's happening and we don't. 2. Squad has their standards of quality and won't let Flying Tiger release unless they have a release that is up to their standards (side note: I agree that it's kind of silly to blindly trust a pretty much unknown company to port a game to three platforms which they haven't worked with ever/in a long time, plus based on what I've read here even their games for the platforms that they are familiar with aren't exactly ones to brag about). 3. Squad thinks they're doing a good job. 4. The marketing people at Squad know much more than a huge community of people who want to see success of the game, and who also have many many different perspectives and ideas that might not occur to the relatively small Squad. 5. "Trust us. We know what we're doing" (this should really be #1, it's been their go-to argument for the last two or three announcements/releases). Looking back on 0.90 and 1.0 with the advantage of hindsight, what do we see? First 0.90. We see a huge amount of skepticism from the community who cite many many reasons why it is going to beta too early and will be a buggy mess upon release. Squad reassures the community that they will make the final release (when it is released, after several beta releases) up to their standards, the people at Squad think that it will be a success, and we should trust them. 0.90 is released, there's some bugs, but whatever, beta is for bug-fixing so hopefully there will be a couple of beta releases to- oh, wait, they just announced 1.0. Within the span of about 4 months the entire beta plan went out the window, for the vague reason of "it's ready". The community is extremely skeptical, and again, they cite many many reasons why it's a bad idea. Squad basically shoots down everything with "We think it's ready, we think that it is progressing well, it'll be up to our standards, trust us. Oh and we'll also fix a ton of bugs even though we're also introducing massive new systems and features with not one beta to test them all out, but yeah, they'll all work fine and it will be mostly bug free." It's been a while since that announcement so my memory might be a little off, but my recollection is that they really didn't listen to what was being said (a lot of it was good advice!). 1.0 comes... and as far as I can tell the general consensus is that it was a good release, several bugs were fixed, and the new features are nice, but there were a lot of somewhat obvious bugs that could have been very easily caught and fixed by a 0.99 release (and instead were via 4 post release patches) and don't belong in a finished game. So, as far as the community can tell, this is the quality standard of Squad. This could clearly be very wrong, but that's the baseline that we all have to work with. And in the end, I think that the community was at least somewhat right, and at minimum a lot more right than Squad thought. So yeah, I think that the community has a right to be skeptical, and I think that Squad should provide some kind of concrete evidence of the potential for a successful release rather than the vague "trust us" that they have been using for the last 6+ months. And I think that at least the consideration of some of the ideas on this forum would be beneficial. Personally, I care none about the console releases, but like others I would hate to see Squad's name soured by sub-standard releases for the consoles, and furthermore, I'm a little irritated to see the same arguments being used again and again.
  3. Personally I'd say try to keep it as close to the original as possible, and if that isn't possible/practical for some or all of it then I'd go with option 3 (storyline). Great story so far BTW. Looking forward to whatever comes next.
  4. I think I've seen this before also. I haven't played in a while though, and am not at my KSP computer right now to check so I can't be sure.
  5. My thoughts exactly. I was hoping they would at least address the issue in some way... I guess KasperVld did say he was listening to the discussions, but I personally thought that the impression he gave was that he was merely observing them, and not really passing on the arguments to Squad to consider. I really hope that they have a good reason for this...
  6. The thing is, Maxmaps said in his AMA a while back (I think) that we had no reason to be concerned about them ending development due to a lack of funds. And he made a similar statement recently after the 1.0 announcement. I guess it's a possibility, but I don't see why they would be so unwilling to share that. I would definitely be a lot less negative of their decision, and I'm guessing most of the rest of the community would too, like you said.
  7. I was just looking back at the original Beta than Ever blog post from October, and I saw this: In fact, it's exactly the same as asking that! The reason I was looking at the post was to remind myself of what their plan was three months ago. It seems so strange that in that blog post they were sounding like there were going to be several beta releases and they had a long way to go. Three months later, it's no beta releases and they are so close that 1.0 is only one update away. I am just wondering what could have caused that shift in attitude... It's very odd.
  8. I chose x64 and optimization (and yes, I realize that much of this is dependent on Unity) because all of those other things can/are added with mods. The limiting factor on number of mods is often the 32-bit RAM limit.
  9. When .90 was in development, people hated the original idea of Kerbal XP. Squad listened and made changes. When they showed the original barn photos, the community didn't like them, so Squad held back the barn tier until they could be redone with a higher quality. So there is a point in voting and debating.
  10. I don't use the installer, so I can't answer that but as for the other ones... Yes, the x64 build of KSP is unstable. However, the x86 (32 bit) build (the one that isn't marked as x64 this build is unstable or something like that) works fine on an x64 computer. All it means is that KSP is still limited to using 4gb of RAM. So I'd download x86 if I were you. You are probably on version 0.22. The versioning didn't get reset, but it jumped from .25 to .90 to signify KSP entering beta. Add on installation is still the same. I hope this helps!
  11. I really hope that Squad is reading this thread and listening. This is spot on. I think that recently, they have been forgetting why people like KSP (and full disclosure, I wasn't around here until .23, but I like KSP for the same reasons that everyone else does) and acting like "fun" and more realism are mutually exclusive. They aren't. I think that most of the community would like having the game be very realistic, more so than it is now. I'm not saying include RSS or RO in the game, but players shouldn't have to install mods to get basic realism features like life support, proper aerodynamics, or reentry heat damage (for example, there are obviously many more). Yes, they would make the game harder, but not in any way different than having a proper physics simulation in space does. And I agree, this added difficulty would make the game more rewarding. If people don't like some new realism feature (and there will definitely be people who won't like more realism, that's kind of unavoidable), mods can take it back out. I think that it is better having the base game realistic (to a degree) and then letting people mod it into either something similar to what it is now, or into a total hardcore RSS and RO game (or some middle ground that is more middle ground-ish than what ideally we would have with the base game). Oh, and on the topic of the thead, yes, if when the aerodynamics model is done (why did they not bring in ferram4??? It would have made their jobs easier and given people an aerodynamics model that was either already accepted by the community, or an aerodynamics model that was made by someone who's skill is not doubted by the community. Win-win-win. More time to spend on other features, better aerodynamics, happier community) it is backwards compatible with old designs, great. But don't let that influence the quality of the model. Don't make a design decision based on whether it will break old designs or not.
  12. I agree. I don't know why they aren't at least bringing in ferram4 as a consultant given that he has already produced two community liked aero overhauls...
  13. They have all been added to GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg.
  14. Same here. The logo (Wenkel Corporation or RealChute) shows up fine in the list of contracts, but plain white at the top once the contract is actually selected.
  15. I just did two of those and I had plenty of headroom with life support. As long as you don't do to many orbits before rendezvous, life support shouldn't be an issue. Edit: Apparently life support calculations don't start until within physics range.