hansen

I find your stance very understandable. It just comes across shady and disrespectful if you promise an amazing product and sell it for full price, when people get it in their hands it is not even decent but rather horrible, and then you go quite with barely any info about how the product that was just sold using far fetched marketing promises will come together in the near future. NMS was an exception in the software world I'd say, many games are just dropped if failing at launch.

Yes, the game is fundamentally broken due to massive bugs and glitches of all flavours. The problem is not no your side, it is the game. You'd have much more fun with KSP 1 which runs quite well and offers more features when using mods.

I think you are missing the point I made in the OP. KSP 2 breaks my heart because I think there won't be what I would regard a true successor solving the major problems of KSP 1. Yet, because the same engine was used with the same limitations, instead of starting anew with a different foundation, the same, at least similar problems arise. I am well aware an engine switch or the building of a custom engine is extremely unlikely and would take a lot of time (as you say). The wasted opportunity is what makes me sad.

I was adressing the Unity engine being used for KSP 2, so it is the same engine and I remember it was announced somewhere around 2019 that Unity would be used again, and caused some scepticism among kerbonauts in my surrounding. In my oppinion, the better path would have been to either choose an engine better suited for the task (regarding physics calculations, precision, multithreading etc.) or develop a custom engine for KSP. They are already years in development, so I assume its unlikely there will be an engine switch. Just read this post here and it sums up my thinking, yet from a perspective with actual knowledge about programming: https://old.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11cofvd/outlook_from_a_developer_long btw, don't get me wrong, I would love to see KSP 2 succeed. Its just with the foundation they choose to use and the current state of the game that I highly doubt it will happen in the near or even far future.

I know what is planned and on the roadmap. Yet, I'd say that there has been no major change regarding the game engine used and it already shows the characteristic problems that could be seen in KSP 1. The technical foundation for a true KSP 2, in my view, seems to not be there. And regarding the past communication of the developer/publisher not sure how trustworthy the promises are, to be honest.

KSP 1 is by far my favourite game. It actually motivated me to truly understand orbital physics, benefitted my understanding of the solar system, raised my interest for astronomy and the history of spaceflight, and helped me to better understand spaceflight, atmospheric flight and mechanics in general. In fact, because of KSP 1 I travelled to quite a number of sights connected to the history of spaceflight, visited museums connected to the topic, read countless books and articles (taking away precious time from my actual profession in the social sciences, but promoting my interest in what is called science and technology studies), and raising my interest in paragliding. Put short, KSP1 had an amazing educative impact on my life and I am thankful I had the opportunity to witness its development since about 0.16 (I just checked, my first post here was 2014, wow, time flies). What KSP 1 was lacking was to go beyond the rather basic physics-gameplay, which already allowed extensive creativity in designing crafts and vehicles. Yet, in KSP 1 there was never a real purpose to do anything (although this is maybe an interesting comment on real-life spaceflight ;D). You can land on planetary bodies or put stuff in orbit, but there is almost nothing to explore, there is no purpose in bringing stuff and kerbals there. And in addition, building more complex crafts and objects made the engine ache, it has quite strict limits when coming to the part count, physics calculations etc.. A true successor for KSP 1 would, in my view, offer more particulary regarding - actual things to explore and learn when visiting moons, planets and asteroids - allowing construction of complex crafts, vehicles and buildings (ideally with tens or hundreds of thousands of parts) I was hoping KSP 2 would offer that and would introduce the most important foundation for extending KSP 1, a new game engine. Yet, we got a KSP 2 that to me looks like a visual mod that does not introduce any new gameplay opportunities. To the contrary, currently it allows even less gameplay possibilities than the original and reproduces bugs that are well known to probably all ambitious KSP 1 players. For me this means that a true successor is further away than ever as there seems to have been no development on the foundation of the game (at least none, that lead to a true improvement of the issues of KSP 1) and there probably won't be any true successor for many years to come after this, so far, lost opportunity.

KSP is a great game and was rewarded with very pleasing reviews the last days. Although I have the impression, the release of 1.0 was rushed somehow and they should have released another beta before, I think the main reasons of disappointment some people express are an inevitable consequence of every early access game. In the beginning there will be a lot of (visible) progress when core-gameplay-mechanics are added. And a lot of hope, because the final product is still in the sphere of imagination of its (future) consumers. Basically, this is similar to the hype when expectations are raised. This gets rather obvious with "hype trains" and such, pushing expectations to unreachable heights by the consumers themselves (supported by developers as well as a marketing tool). The further the game is in development and the more time early access players already spent in the game, less and less innovations are being experienced by these players. So as 1.0 definitely honed the game mechanics successfully (blinding out aerodynamics) there are not enough new game elements and mechanics to please experienced ksp players. To be honest, I was looking forward to 1.0 a lot, but realized, that I have seen probably everything the game can offer (at least in stock, I played every version since 0.18, I think I have understood orbit mechanics and rocket physics which is great). But that is not a problem of the game, like every game it get olds after while. It is the inevitable pity of early access: to have already seen the whole potential of a game when it is released letting seem every small improvement a negligible addition. The worst consequence of this is, in my opinion, when people start blaming the developers for not working hard enough or not thinking deep enough about development decisisions, confusing felt disappointment with a problem of the game itself. It think this is something one should keep in mind when taking a look at the rather negative atmosphere in the forum and on reddit the past days.

I finally managed to build two spaceplanes for heavy payloads. The first one is a drone capable of delivering an orange tank into a 100km orbit. The second plane can safely bring 36 kerbals into a 100km orbit.

Beyond the technical capabilities making it possible to travel through space the ideas about the outcome of manned interplanetary missions seem too far fetched for me. Well, I am a social anthropologist and historian interested in science and technology studies. Please forgive me identifying the discourse on space exploration with religious practices. Shooting humans in the sky and sacrifice them for intellectual and scientific outcomes that nobody can pinpoint reminds me of belief and not scientific rationality (if this even exists). Even if there might be insights about certain illnesses, the question why you are not simulating these conditions in a lab accompanied by similar ethical dilemmas persists. How I said, KSP shows exactly this. Land on a planet and what do you do then? How should a satisfying way of life can be possible in space? How do even well trained and psychical strong humans deal with tiny habitats surrounded by deadly conditions? What happens if they go crazy? "Interstellar" did adress this social aspect of manned space exploration way deeper than ksp probably ever will. a good read btw.: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-holy-cosmos-the-new-religion-of-space-exploration/255136/

Well, it is exactly this technological and engineering focus that ksp teaches to its players. But why should someone decide to go to Mars, what is the purpose of such an endeavour? Spend the rest of your life in tiny habitable modules surrounded by a hostile environment? To travel a few steps in the solar system is one thing. To make something reasonable out of it is the problem. So far I don't see any realisic ideas about colonization that go beyond "lets bring a bunch of people to the surface of a another celestial body and see what happens". Terraforming and such are way beyond technological capabilities and even if it were possible this would need too much time to make a impact (and significance for present societies).

As moonfrog and caelib I think manned space exploration has no future. I mean KSP visualizes this very well: travelling over years to finally land on barren rocks to do what? Human space exploration was a propaganda tool in the first place so far. We are stuck on this planet, at least we are able look a little farther beyond

KSP only provides a limited view on space exploration by focussing engineering and orbital physics. It kind of visualizes the technological processes lacking any deeper explanation of the reasons for space exploration. In this sense I would say ksp nurtures the technological fetish rooted in the space race and an interested for rocket engineering (in both civil and military contexts as can be seen in the forum). But it does not give any deeper insights about the scientific engagement in space nor about the exploration of space with other tools than spacecrafts.

The forthcoming release of KSP 1.0 made me think (again) about the changes that happenend in the gaming culture, community and industry. Isn't it interesting how the widespread access to the internet made the development of such a lively gaming culture and even identity possible? Players and consumers were now able to express their opppinions about games and gained an influence on game development. With the realization of secure economic transaction the industry was able to fragment and litte studios could finance specific ideas through crowdfunding. To raise funds small companies propose to realize a certain game concept to motivate interested players to pay in advance. To broaden the potential investor base companies even extend the concept or offer the players to take part in design decisions. The state of "the game is in the making" seems to exalt the fantasies of the investing players because in principle "everything is possible". In my opinion this effect is similar to "the hype" but somehow different because the players now imagine to be able to influence the product according to their wishes (they are not simply waiting for a product as consumers). A look in the forums of crowdfunded games like KSP, star citizen or elite dangerous reveals an explosion of content that is mostly players making countless suggestions, players worrying about development decisions and criticizing or applauding certain aspects when actually implemented into the game. There is a strong tension between the promised "we make the game that you want if you invest a certain amount of money" vs. thousands of thrilled players with different views on how the game has to be when released (an illusion of the individualzation of game development?). Does this dynamic lead inevitably to dissatisfaction?

I am surprised and did not expect the announcement of 1.0. As many others in this thread I think the game needs still needs finetuning, especially regarding the overall performance. Can someone explain to me the benefit calling it a finished game 1.0 with the next release?

I don't see the point of this discussion. Seriously, let squad make the game how they want it to be. With such a strong modding-community there is no reason to force certain design decisions. If the athmosperic model does not suit your play style replace it with a mod.

Yes, basically every process happens over time, but I don't think they meant to gather data over 64 hours when a lot of interesting stuff will happen during the next months. As far as I follow the media coverage the extension of the lifespan is one primary objective. Aligning the solar panels, reorienting the probe, get out of the crater: thats not only about working experiments but guaranteeing the electric resources to keep the probe running for longer than battery capacity would allow.

It boils down to the definition of success or failure. Thanks for the correction, its a comet, not an asteroid, why didn't ksp teach me about the difference? I see where you are going and it is a success that the probe has landed an can take samples from the surface. On the other hand its mentioned in the wiki-article that the probe is also meant to gather data over time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_%28spacecraft%29#Philae_lander) which is what I remember to be one big goal of the mission. I know that rosetta is doing its observations anyway but why all the fuss about the "rescue" of philae from its probably early lack of functionality?

Yeah, but in my opinion this is also PR-blabla. I mean they get so much media attention which is not common for ESA (as it isn't for any other space agency today...). They want to keep up the good faith, the emotions etc. For me its pretty impressive that they did indeed land on the asteroid, in a kerbal-way at least. The probe will hopefully gather some data. But if I remember correctly the plan was to stay connected to the probe while the asteroid gets closer to the sun and emits particles from the core that can be gathered and analyzed. So after 10 years of waiting a mission that was planned to last for months risks to be over after 2 days, well, I wouldn't call that a success but tragic. Honestly, there is a lot of hazardous stuff going on in space and a probe withstanding all those influences for 10 years is probably not an easy thing to build. But I don't really get how they could fail technically like this.

I see your point and do not want to offend you in any regard. The game you are making is awesome. I am looking forward to the ongoing expansion and finetuning of the kerbal universe.

From my perspective it boils down to efficiency in an economic nature. One of the central aspect then becomes how to get the most ressources out of the least possible amount of spending. This gets obvious when people debate about most cost-effective ways to gather science and funds, doing as many contracts as possible in one flight, grind as many biomes as possible in one mission etc. This principle, historically rooted in business simulation games and action role playing games, is one fundamental principle of many games today and always risks to cause a loss of creative, experimental and refreshing interaction with virtual worlds. Instead many games that are based heavily on this mechanic are famous for repetitive actions done by players because certain interactions are more profitable for gathering in-game-ressources (wether money, experience, skills or something similar) In consequence, aspects of exploration and creativity take a backseat. Thats why I don't think it makes sense to incorporate the economic game mode in KSP because this game became popular as a physical sandbox and space exploration simulator encouraging people to experiment and try different approaches. At least for me and the people I know who play KSP its these aspects that make ksp fun, to just build stuff, let it fly and look what happens. Or build stuff that doesn't even fly but is funny in its regard, like a techno club on the mun. Take a look at the most-viewed youtube videos. Things like this are only possibile without restrictions and punishment and streamlining the things ingame along economic/scientific/reputational productivity. Luckily there is sandbox-mode, but how I said, I think squad should not waste time and effort in expanding career mode.

To be honest, I don't like the career-idea. I played many of those build-up-your-business-from-scratch games and also buzz aldrins race into space, now I am really tired of this concept. Most of the games today incorporate this kind of level up and gain cash by restricting game mechanics and in return motivating players to unlock those "hidden" aspects of the game. for some players the leveling up gets the core mechanic itself which leads to a blending of playing and working (call it grinding). as a social scientist i am observing this development with sorrow. for me this breaks down to a incorporation of neoliberalist and capitalist ideology into videogames: what are people and kids taught with that? this is even further enhanced by capitalzing these concepts through microtransactions? (I am sure this won't happen with KSP). I don't want to go deeper into that. Squad made its decision about the career mode. But I'd love to see a stronger focus on the sandbox part of the game: adding more possibilities to do things and explore stuff. Teach people and kids about real-world space exploration and scientific research. Map planets, take actual samples of soil and life forms and analyse them, measure radiation levels etc.; make the measuring of and interaction with the environment a core game mechanic that goes beyond the planting of flags and reading of text boxes without relevant information. I think this would improve the game a lot by giving a real sense of exploration and putting an educational aspect in the foreground.

My newest SSTO Cargomaster S2. Its already the 4th generation of the concept and works pretty well in the stock game and in FAR.

I also think it would be better to concentrate on what made ksp so popular: the core gameplay which is building flying, driving and rotating stuff in all forms and sizes; and also the aspect of teaching orbital physics in a very entertaining way. the career mode works against both these attractive elements in my opinion by restricting building choices and discouraging from an experimental approach to craft design and actual maneuvering: if failure has bad consequences you actually keep people from exploring new approaches. but it is mirroring the most popular game mechanics: many games today have to be about artificial restriction of game mechanics to motivate players to keep on playing and unlock new stuff. i don't like that which is why i am happy about the sandbox mode of ksp. my impression is that squad should leave this capitalistic career mode behind or at least redesign it fundamentally so that gathering science at least has a pedagogic element. or if you want it to be realistic at least put some real historical background into it. this could be used for a critical evaluation of the connection of space programs, military research and the cold war.

Sorry, I am to lazy to upload the logfiles. It seems to be a memory related issue. Its working on my computer again by reducing the texture size to half res.

I've got the same problem. The game also crashes when switching buildings or pressing the launch button. Furthermore, the program is running noticeably slow. With 0.24 I had no problems at all. Win 7 32-Bit, 4 GB Ram, GPU: AMD Radeon 3850, CPU: AMD Turion X2 (mobile). I tried to lower resolution and turn down the graphics quality but the problem is still there.