MechBFP
-
Posts
2,230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by MechBFP
-
-
3 hours ago, The Aziz said:
Friday most likely, like everything.
I would say Friday at around 5PM their local time based on past experience.
-
39 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
And when they fix the VAB camera controls.
When they fix the camera
-
2 minutes ago, rnt_hank said:
I can make guesses too, but from the recent track record they wouldn't be as optimistic as yours.
This is about hearing it from the *team*, not a random player. No offense.Your questions are silly because they are perpetually unanswerable. They answer the question, and 1 minute goes by and "are you still working on x? Tell us!".
-
12 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:
@Nerdy_Mike indicated otherwise in the thread wondering/worrying about the layoff news...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks, I hadn't found that thread yet.
-
3 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Yeah. A net loss of ~$200 million in cancelled projects and severance packages. An approximate 5% reduction in the overall workforce. But a reduction in overall operating costs by ~$165 million annually.
What really gets me about the article is that they are touting GTA VI as being the next big game, and it's expected to be the top-selling game of the decade. I know that Rockstar and Private Division are two entirely separate subsidiaries of TT...but one has to wonder how much management is shifting overall corporate focus to GTA, and how much that shift is impacting other titles such as KSP. I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just curious, is all.
Like you said, given the apparently slower than normal progress lately and absolutely radio silence from IG, what else can we assume?
-
1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:
ow throw on top of all of this that there are layoffs coming to TT, IG, and PD.
More? Or are you talking about the ones reported in March 2023?
-
25 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
And at what point should we start to expect some kind of speed then? Remember that this game was beyond delayed multiple times for YEARS. And now, in the span of 14 months - and in the face of being told "we are working on it!" - we have seen a handful of patches, grid-fins, and 1 content update. If they were going any slower, they'd be moving in reverse. How much leeway are we expected to give them after the endless promises of "it's almost ready" and "you are gonna love when we release [insert update here]"?
I agree that quality should be provided over quantity. I also agree that you can't just go fast-fast-fast because people want you to. But at some point they need to move with haste.
For all intents and purposes in my mind the game has only been getting properly developed for 2 years. So take that how you will regarding timelines.
-
I am waiting for a time when the game is more or less feature complete from a single player perspective and is of an equal or higher level of polish than KSP1. Then I can actually sit down and enjoy it without getting irritated by it.
-
26 minutes ago, Lisias said:
It's kinda of a catch-22 situation: you talk about, you get screwed. You don't talk about, you get screwed. Finding the less bitter spot in which you get less screwed is the trick.
That sums it up in a nut shell. If they had just come clean about the delayed state of the game back in 2022/2023 (even if they couldn't say why it happened) most of this issue with managing expectations wouldn't be a problem for people except for the handful of critics that you can normally expect anyway no matter what you do. I can really only assume some stupid and/or malicious overlord had better ideas how to run things and the team is unfortunately along for the ride.
-
9 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Ah, but I DO have a developer background. I'm the point person for automating file loads through SSIS/Alteryx into SQL Server/Snowflake for a pretty darned large team in a pretty darned large organization. I'm fluent in several programming languages, understand the waterfall/agile methodologies, and am quite capable at scripting (in terms of the job I do, not necessarily overall for any type of coding project). So I speak from the heart when I say that I feel that this project, KSP2, is not being handled the best way from a technical standpoint. Although I'm sure the internal team uses Kanban or Rally or JIRA or whatever other board software to track projects, bugs, etc., I'm not sure why things are staying on it longer than one or two sprints. Something is amiss, and regardless of background, anyone can see that.
And I recall telling you I adjusted my graphics settings in KSP2 to lower a bunch of stuff to try and get better performance. In fact, a list of some (if not all) of the applicable graphics settings from KSP2:
- V-Sync: Off
- Resolution: 2560x1440
- Anti-Aliasing: Off
- Anisotropic Filtering: Off
- PC Quality Preset: Low
- Environment Prop: On
- Environment Prop Density: Low
- Environment Prop Draw Distance: Medium
- Ground Shading Quality: High
- Texture Quality: Medium
- Water Quality: Low
- Shadow Details: Low
- Shadow Quality: Low
- Cloud Quality: Low
See anything there that I haven't already been advised to tune? I've got pretty much everything at low or off, with a couple of exceptions. And before you ask, no, I do not have any graphic mods installed. I don't use them in KSP1, and I don't use them in KSP2. So please stop accusing me that I'm not listening when I clearly have been. I am not seeing performance improvements. I am also not the only one; I've spoken with people on Reddit, Discord, Facebook, and here on the forums that have the same issue. If you see something there that I haven't tuned or haven't been told to tune, please spit it out and I'll give it a go.
Try turning VSYNC on in the game options. I get large boost in FPS for some strange reason that makes no sense to me. However in my case I have a GSYNC compatible monitor and am using GSYNC, so not sure if that is related or not. If you are running a normal 60HZ monitor and you can’t maintain an FPS above 60 however then VSYNC will just chop it down to 30 anyway so that won’t help.
EDIT: Also worth a shot is force VSYNC off in your graphics control panel but still turn it on in the game options. Even though it shouldn’t do anything I think there is a bug related to it being turned off in game.
-
8 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
If anything, they've optimized the code for high-end cards and decreased performance for anything mid-range or worse.
Only if you are running on high graphics. If you have a minimum spec card then run the game on minimum settings and you will see the improvement. Even those running ancient GTX cards have seen massive improvements.
And I do recall telling you this before, so not sure why you keep bringing this up when the cause of your issue here is the direct result of your own choice in refusing to run on appropriate settings for your hardware.Maybe when the game hits 1.0 they can optimize things better for low end cards even when running on high settings, but that is certainly not a priority now.
-
There is definitely some rabble rousing going on here. It’s a single thread, and stuff like that happens as people are only human and ain’t psychic or omnipotent.
-
1 minute ago, herbal space program said:
They each have their own specialties, so they can't really all work on these problems at the same time, but your point about the small things is very well-taken. The current behavior of the UI in map mode is a perfect example of that. How hard could it possibly be for them to fix the way that various informational pop-up windows always obscure the info you really want to see in such a manner that you can't close them or rotate the view to get them out of the way? How does a simple but incredibly annoying bug like that survive even a few hours of play testing? It's hard not to get the idea sometimes that they actually hate us and are deliberately taunting us with things like this.
This is exactly why I have told them multiple times in the past why they need to sit down and just play the game, organically, like any other player. No amount of silo'ed test cases will make this kind of thing apparent to the testers who clearly have no prior KSP experience.
They do appear to be actually doing this now, so hopefully in time it will bear fruit.
-
8 minutes ago, Meecrob said:
Why do people think the burden of proof is on the poster who went and did reserach on the topic
Because that is how burden of proof works champ. The person making the claim has to prove it. No one here has proved that the issue isn’t fixed, all I have seen is some vague hand waving of “what about this theoretical situation that no one knows anything about?”
-
1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:
They didn't. Just because current small part-count rockets don't wobble as much, doesn't mean the underlying issue is not present. You're just not seeing its effect yet. I'm curious how OAB designs and overall space stations will behave, once they arrive...
No, it is definitely fixed.
-
18 minutes ago, whatsEJstandfor said:
What do you believe is the benefit of continuing to be vague and coy?
The million dollar question right there.
-
The first 5 to 10 kilometers of Eve really are a tricky thing. What is most efficient at sea level rapidly changes over what is really a handful of seconds as you gain altitude. I find it is more efficient to be less efficient at sea level in order to simply get through the thickest part of the atmosphere as quickly as possible. Any losses at those lower altitudes are quickly made up with increased efficiency of the following stages thanks to the increased ISP.
For all my sea level Eve launchers I have always used darts+vector for the initial launch, and then drop the darts+tanks soon after launch since as your pointed out their benefit compared to the other engines quickly diminishes.
-
2 hours ago, The Aziz said:
The game is so early access that literally everything in the celestial body infotab is wrong.
How they managed that is beyond me.
Lowest bidder contractor
-
It is hard to put into words what exactly I am feeling regarding their communication to date, but the terms “consistency”, “accuracy”, “reliability”, “lip-service”, “honesty”, “quality”, and “intentions” would all play into a rather lengthy post if I was going to get into it over the years. I think the main point is that their overall communication has been all over the map that it is pretty difficult to take anything they say at face value anymore and that won’t change without them maintaining a base level of consistency.
-
3 hours ago, cocoscacao said:
Personally (with big, fat, bold emphasis on the word), I'd say wait for colonies, and decide then. There are some quirks (aside from bugs) that I'm kind of used to have. And you have to circumvent a lot of little annoyances that are not game-breaking, but they kill the pace for me atm.
Hopefully those will get addressed by v0.2 so I can moan about other things
That is generally my take as well. As a veteran player it is simply not enough yet for the asking price for me.
-
54 minutes ago, Presto200 said:
My Speculation is that they will make the KSP only have access to methalox and methane then they'll make you go to other celestial bodies to find the resources to make other fuel types
Yup that is my guess as well with the exception being sandbox mode.
-
2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:
You took what I said out of context. An increase in dV does not equal an increase in efficiency when burning said fuel. Longer burns with more fuel do not necessarily equate to more efficient burns.
We would need a graph of single burns done at different attitudes between the two ships when capturing into an orbit to see if/when there is a trade off between the two.
I highly doubt that burning at a higher orbit (which reduces the Oberth effect but improves the maneuver efficiency) with the higher ISP engines would be worse in the majority of that graph. I suspect that you would almost always be better off in the vast majority of that graph in fact.
-
2 hours ago, Presto200 said:
I also realized I haven't used the Tuba or Trumpet engines pretty much since the first week or two they were released, I hope the devs see this and make a couple tweaks. Their goal should be to make no engine "obsolete" and to make sure each one has a purpose and a time where the player would want to use it. They are cool to see animation wise but I wish I felt the need to use them more.
I think their usage will be much more applicable once resources are in the game, as presumably nukes will be more difficult to obtain resources for.
-
5 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
I'm actually less impressed with the hydrogen engine than I am with the DSMs. I only have the small H2 engine unlocked, but it is terrible.
I'm trying to build a craft to drop a rover on Tylo right now, and I'm just lacking in dV and TWR. Need to rethink what I'm doing, primarily because all of these engines aren't very good.
As long as you are using them for deep space purposes only (I assume you aren’t trying to land with them, but you did bring up their impact tolerance…) then they will be better than all other methalox engines for that same purpose. But it sounds like you aren’t using them for their intended role.
What happened to increased communication?
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
That is fair, although they still have consider that pushing out all the roadmap content is not a great idea if the players ultimately don't want to engage with it because the game becomes too irritating/frustrating to bother with. They absolutely still need to address some of the main pain points in stride with the roadmap.