PDCWolf
-
Posts
1,599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PDCWolf
-
-
3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
You hate it because there's not a navball blocking you from seeing the aircraft?
No, I hate it because it goes against everything you learn on the cockpit of an aircraft. You center your view to see the instruments and have all the information at a glance, you look around to see outside and assess your situation. Really, just check pretty much any cockpit. Even in fighters they invented the hud and later on JCHMD so you can keep the information right in your face where it needs to be.
-
2 minutes ago, Spicat said:
Because you have a limited screen view, very much different from your eyes which can see a lot more than what's on a screen (and that's why ultrawide are popular).
The navball at the center do clutter the view, especially when you're trying to land on ksp, in real life you don't have a third person camera so that's why you won't see it.
I see no reason to place it at the center, you generally don't have such a narrow view that placing it at the center has to be necessary.
In KSP1: Middle mouse click, drag down. There you go, and you get to keep the navball where it should be. In KSP2 the problem is they made the navball at least twice as big as it needs to be when you include all the elements randomly thrown with huge spaces and unnecessary tapes around it.
Having it at the center means the picture of the craft is closer on your peripheral vision as well. Good luck handling that on bigger resolutions.
-
11 minutes ago, Spicat said:
Real life UI and game UI are not the same thing though.
And you can't convince me that navball at the center was a good choice in ksp1, it was just blocking your view, they made a good decision by moving it to the side. Maybe if your screen is an ultrawide I can understand you complaining and that's why them giving the option to move it would be a good thing (which they said they will), but saying that it's bad is just nostalgia over ksp1 (or bad faith).
I'm not playing MSFS, but all I'm seeing from the UI is not something blocking your view at the center of the screen:
(Obviously not talking about the cockpit view because we don't have that yet)
Nothing I hate more than the external camera UI in MSFS. The whole UX of MSFS is really bad, yet it still replicates some of the lessons I mentioned: All the *tapes have useful information in them other than just a moving tape.
You can also see that this UI lacks the artificial horizon, which is the object that should take the center (in place of the navball, which is almost a complete analogue).
"Real life UI" on things like airliners and fighters is made to be as functional as possible whilst not cluttering the view. Game UIs don't follow that because... reasons.
-
Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes
OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Ryzen 5 3600 | GPU: XFX Radeon RX 6750 XT Ultra | RAM: 32 GBIssue:
Mashing the pause screen during quickload of an in-flight scene pauses the loading process.Steps to Replicate:
- Create or procure a quicksave of a vessel in flight (so far testing shows it works on any save in flight).
- Load the save (works from main menu or hitting F9 whilst doing something else).
- Mash the timewarp down key (comma) during the loading process.
- The loading process will pause at "Applying legacy module data to vessel parts".
- You can press timewarp up to resume the loading process, continues as normal.
What testing I have done:
Two different quicksaves created during flight. This is can be reliably replicated both when the saves are loaded from the main menu and also when pressing F9 to reload the quicksave.Additional Information:
- Originally discovered trying to pause a bad situation before the scene was fully loaded.
- The scene starts playing before the loading process is shown as complete, and control is given to the player for input about halfway during the loading process.
- The sound of stopping the game correctly plays during the loading screen.
- The loading will continue until the message "Applying legacy module data to vessel parts" and then pause.
- Can be resumed without apparent issues. The pausing itself also seems to cause no issues.
Included Attachments:
-
28 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
Those are not issues I've seen people discuss, let alone experienced myself.
Spoiler
-
5 minutes ago, Periple said:
Now you're just being silly!
That's an edge case causing a CTD. It would be nice if you could dock with two ports at the same time but it's hardly surprising that something like that doesn't figure on the QA checklist.
Edge case? damn does reality change. Oh wait, reality didn't change and multiport docking was the common way to build big ships in KSP1 if you didn't want to launch them all assembled [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. It was pretty common in KSP1 before autostrut, plus this was reported month 1 (and not even by me).
I will concede that people have almost no interest in making big ships, as it's either launching them through the slog or having them wobble like wet spaghetti.
Just now, Bej Kerman said:dare I say way smoother than KSP 1 when it comes to low thrust gameplay particularly.
Ah yes, specially with the SAS wobbling your craft all over and the phantom forces from reaction wheels being huge.
This is no fun if people will outright disguise reality just to have a point.
-
47 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
Console players have waited literally years for a single update they were promised for KSP 1.
I'm still waiting for the promised multiplayer for KSP1 as well. Also everyone who got KSP-EDU has probably died in wait as well. I wonder... who took on those obligations after purchasing the franchise? why were those never addressed again?
Hmm...
Btw, we're on our way to 9 months... this is still the state of docking:
-
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:
And optimisations will happen so don't consider it a permanent mark against KSP 2.
I refuse to judge KSP2 based on the dreams of community members. Heck, it's finally a pretty mainstream opinion even in the forums that it is not reasonable to 100% believe the official statements either. That's 8 months of building trust right there.
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:Non sequitur
It'll stop being a non sequitur when people start actually playing the game for real on long term science/exploration saves. But hey, you can talk about future imagined optimizations and I can't talk about a very real issue that's currently in the game waiting to explode? (did once already, too).
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:Nope, the altimeter is the primary example of bad design but the rest of the UI still suffers much the same of nonsensical (and inconsistent) placements.
May I know what you call nonsensical placements? You mean the navball and vital information such as speed right in the center as it exists on almost every plane or spacecraft cockpit? Again, altitude I give to you, that's bad.
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:Or maybe features that receive a lot of compliments and little criticism aren't going to be changed to please the critics? The instrument tapes exist for the same reason they exist in real cockpits, and frankly a complaint about "funny noises" in a game about space frogs is a nitpick of the highest order.
I mean, if you're talking from a different timeline, might as well make it clear now, because you seem to live on a completely different reality. Probably born from not leaving the forums, which is a common problem.
Normal cockpits might have a compass, altitude and speed tape, yet again, in real life they know those elements are not there to be pretty, and they should communicate information in a fast, compact and concise way:
- In real life, on a PFD, the speed tape exists to communicate overspeed, selected speed, current speed, and even acceleration. In KSP2 the speed tape does nothing but exist behind the one useful number it shows.
- The compass tape also communicates other elements, like selected heading. In KSP2 the compass tape exists as a huge useless element and the one thing it should communicate is a number which in KSP2 is sitting outside the tape, not even in it.
- An altitude tape shows your current altitude, selected altitude, vertical speed, and in some cases terrain altitude too. In KSP2 you need to hide one number to show the other, and the altitude tape exists only as a background element that does nothing useful.
- In real life, all these elements are presented in a compact way, on a single square screen that doesn't waste any space, yet shows all the useful information without overwhelming the pilot. In KSP2 it looks like someone hit the explode button, with every element taking useless space for no reason.
Here's a real life PFD as an example. It sits centered in your view, so you just look down and see it, and can derive all your information from it. In the worst case, it's on one of two or more screens, but you can select on which to display it.
Just now, AtomicTech said:I would not say that.
I would say that perhaps the engine of the original didn't easily support that and that it's awesome that we get these new QOL additions.
Not everything has to be negative
It's the same engine, but don't worry, hating on Squad and KSP1 after getting thousands of hours on it is the only cope that has been found to justify KSP2, even though KSP2 is still the worse product of the two.
-
1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:
That's objectively wrong. The game handles its assets much differently which is evidenced by the fact that loading times aren't long enough that your resolve to play the game can fizzle out between telling the game to open and seeing the space center (and to some extent, the way parts are coloured and respond to lighting). Engines can burn in warp which is an immediate advantage given that in KSP 1, Better Timewarp and/or Persistent Thrust are prerequisites for ion engines and the NERVA unless you have all the patience of a stray atom in intergalactic space. The UI also doesn't suffer the problem the KSP 1 UI had in terms of layout, that is some jobsworth working at Squad refusing to have the altitude and speed moved closer together from where HarvesteR put them back when KSP 1 had effectively no features (either that, or they seriously didn't see a problem with the layout of the UI for the many years people had to look at it when doing QA). A landing can be done without diverting ones' eyeballs from the navball which would have been impossible if the navball, input gauges and altitude were still scattered haphazardly across the screen. The style might be debatable and the way the UI is rendered is suboptimal, but those are frankly nitpicks compared to the overall layout, which is no longer, to put simply, stupid.
People can keep panicking about the features, but when it comes basic QOL features that Squad deprived us of like persistent thrust, a UI that isn't ridiculous, load times that aren't idiotic and acceptable RAM usage, I'd say it improved a great deal on KSP 1 and delivered the more solid foundation we were waiting for.
Loading times are only barely true if you keep your save clean. As part numbers and saved craft build up, KSP1 manages it so much better (on account of keeping track of less stuff, but still). Engines burning in warp is so far irrelevant, and comes at the cost of save game bloat, and a very hard limit on total parts per save before the game outright stops wanting to load, which is also why we constantly get teased "all in one" parts, like the ones on the science system. Just on that front alone, the game has shot itself in its foot, and it took the registry debacle for them to realize their "design decision" was actually a pretty firm nail on the coffin for the longevity of the game.
Whilst I dislike the altitude at the top in KSP1, just moving that over would mean KSP1 has a better UI than 2 (bar the design language itself). Further than that, since before release, the complaints that the UI is bloated and over-exploded have been almost ubiquitous. Love how they listened to that, as a year later the UI is still filled with useless instrument tapes, and feels more like a 90s website with funny noises than a professional product.
KSP2 is still using the same "load everything in at the start" method that KSP1 used, the only thing missing here is 80% of the game and mods. The "acceptable RAM usage" is just because of that.
-
7 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:
We don’t really know that they haven’t taken our feedback and built it into the roadmap items yet…
You don't need to get into roadmap items. There's been feedback on the UI, playability, QOL, physics and so on since day 1. If something wasn't a very obvious bug, that feedback hasn't been addressed neither positively or negatively.
-
22 minutes ago, Strawberry said:
I think theres a lot of potiental for science parts that tie into colonies/heating and i hope we get more when those systems begin coming more online.
14 minutes ago, Periple said:I expect they’ll want to go through the roadmap at A priority level before starting to implement B or C priority stuff. So I’d be surprised if Science gets major expansions before they’ve gotten to multiplayer, unless it’s something that explicitly ties into the new milestone (like scanning for resources).
You never know but it’s always a trade-off!
My question was more geared towards how little feedback they've taken in on what they have already out, much less on what they don't have. Adding more parts is the most basic thing. Really the biggest thing that's not a bug that I remember them taking from feedback is the public bugtracker.
-
I think "only 7 science parts" is a symptom of a bigger problem, in the same way science is still going to place with parts loaded, and right clicking. Sure, it takes time now and it is done with a single button, but that's just basic QOL. They've copied the flawed science system from 1, and merged it with the flawed contract systems from 1. This means they need pretty much a miracle bundle of good design choices to extract some fun back from what were two very bad things in the prequel.
Further on I ask, will they keep developing FS! after it's launched? will the science aspect of the game get updates as the game moves forward or whatever we get on december plus a couple fixes is what stays?
As always, my angle is whether KSP2 is justified in its existence (if it's not gonna fix the problems from 1), and its price, which "feature parity" is not a justification for me, it should be better, it should be bigger.
-
1 hour ago, The Aziz said:
This tells me you don't have the game. Cuz you're describing KSP1 very well, I'll give you that.
Which is exactly why later on I wrote "there's little hint so far that any more care has been put in KSP2s planets other than disjointed discoverables/easter eggs." I was talking about KSP1 indeed on that paragraph.
-
6 hours ago, The Aziz said:
Aside from cool details like particle effects and trails left behind the wheels, it's not much different from what KSP2 should offer if they stick to the level of detail shown prior to release.
NMS has only several types of planets, once you've seen them, you've seen the entire galaxy. And tbh they are quite boring, after 3rd hill you won't expect anything new, it's same old hills, valleys, flying islands and whatnot. And the way the game looked back in 2016 also left a lot to be desired, it didn't look like that from day1 either.
Looks cool until you get down to the surface. Cuz up close is eeeeeeh. And SE is full procedural, regardless if it makes sense to have pointy peaks on a body with barely any atmosphere or not. And again, once you've seen a piece of a planet, you know exactly what to expect on the other side of it.
What happens in NMS happens in KSP as well. Moho is the desaturated red ball, eve is the purple ball with metal oceans, Kerbin is the one with the most variety because it has a desert and poles but that's it, Duna is the red ball and the only variation is the frozen poles. Dres is so boring that most people meme it doesn't even exist, Jool is a gas giant so you can't land on it, and so far the cloud layers aren't anything to write home about, vall is the ice ball, laythe is the sand and water ball, tylo is a big mun, bop and pol are just asteroids like Gilly, and Eeloo is the mun but ice.
Every planet is just one biome, with 2 or 3 bodies including frozen poles. Every planet has no more than 1 or 2 memorable spots. After you go past one or two hills it's just more barren wasteland of the same color and there's little hint so far that any more care has been put in KSP2s planet other than disjointed discoverables/easter eggs.
You should try the latest versions of Space Engine, the surface looks decent now, whilst still being completely procedural, and Vova is implementing weather systems for data like winds and temperature to make sense.
-
Lots of people lying to themselves here.
ED has planet sized planetary bodies, for example (Horizons launched 2015):
Spoiler
No Man's Sky launched 2016, has Kerbal-sized planets:
Spoiler
Space Engine launched 2013, has planet-sized planets:
Spoiler
That the game looks dated is an objective observation. Whether you take the cartoony style into account or not.
-
56 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
That what you describe is usually handcrafted, at scale reaching some dozens kilometers at most. Forgot we're dealing with literal planet-sized bodies? Nobody's going to do that by hand, ever.
Nitpick, but 10th-of-a-planet sized bodies
Still, even through procgen you can create beautiful stuff, like on Space Engine, which is now 13 years old.
-
1 minute ago, Sans said:
On azerty we can very easily type : é è | ç à ` £ ¤ €. Letters needed in French, Spanish and Italian
On qwerty that would be kind of... annoying
Unrelated to the report at hand, but in Spanish the standard is qwerty, and in Latin America we use a Standard for the whole region that includes ç and ñ as physical keys, and changes the disposition of []{}¨Ç^*´ç`+ which are between P, Ñ and Enter and Shift. (Red circles aren't mine, some symbols may vary)
-
31 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
Maybe this is just a word interpretation issue. By problems I mean challenges--fundamental physical and programming solutions that need to be found one way or another. They're running into many of the same issues because they're trying to solve many of the same challenges, but now with added constraints imposed by new features and systems.
Okay let me rephrase. First off, I don't think they coded in such a problem willfully, wanted to clear that up.
My point is: You have the system already coded (fuel logic from KSP1), and you have unfettered access to the bugtracker both public and private to see which problems it ran into. So you know making the fuel logic behave a certain way is gonna make the game chug when you spam engines.
It's no longer crashing against a new issue, it's repeating a well known and probably even well documented one in a system that's supposed to not be the same as the last.
I don't believe in "we're organically finding the same issues" without also having to take into account that they are either ignoring that the issues were there, or worse.
-
2 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
I mean I think the answer to this:
is this...
Because the underlying structure needs to be much different in order to accommodate things like acceleration under timewarp, interstellar scales, and future multiplayer implementation they can't just copy paste solutions from one game to the other. They do still have to solve all the problems KSP1 encountered but in a different way. As a far as I understand it even something like axial tilt would have been very difficult to implement in KSP1 because its fundamental code was structured the way it was.
But you know the problems KSP1 had, why program them in again?
-
1 hour ago, Vl3d said:
I'll just leave this here from 4 years ago. You can watch both interviews and compare the subject matter talked about.
"it is my understanding there's no holdover code on that [fuel flow] system at all, that we're organically encountering the same challenges that KSP1 is facing, because we're attempting to simulate fuel flow across in some cases some very complicated trees."
How is a listener supposed to take this? You have the first game, you can look at the code of the first game, yet you develop an allegedly new solution that has the same problem, even though you know that barrier is still there? There's no good way to take this.
"I can not make a categorical statement that nobody has copypasted any code between KSP1 and KSP2. My understanding not being a person who can look at code myself is that there's little to no reuse. Perhaps if other people are performing a forensic examination of the codebase and determine there's significant code reuse I'd be very curious to hear about that".
Nate, you know it breaches EULA to look at the code, and it's even illegal in some countries...
"If a feature could be replicated at relatively low cost by duplicating it from KSP1, I'd be eager to do that. That's one of the things that's made KSP2 complicated is that this is very rarely possible to even theoretically do that, because the underlying systems are so different".
And then ShadowZone reveals they're using the same middleware as in KSP1. Lmao. That's probably another reason they decided to stick with unity, having to depend on third parties' software that might not be available anywhere else, much less if they went custom.
-
2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:
Getting back on topic, suppose IG ditches Unity and develops an engine designed for massive physics computations for KSP 2, and then proceeds with what they have planned now. You don't seem happy with the path they are taking, so would you be happier if underlying tech is different? Probably not, as you don't care what's underneath a product. No one does.
Except what's underneath is what most people cared for, or didn't you hear the constant questioning for the "reworked core systems" or "the new codebase"? People didn't expect a comical repeat of picking an amateur engine and filling it again with technical debt, being badly stretched and with a new coat of paint.
So far, KSP2 has failed to evolve on any aspect, other than the atmospheric graphics.
2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:Tech breakthrough, is not the same as genre defining.
Except a lot of the stuff in your modern average shooter can be traced back to HL2, and those that go back further, to HL1. If your everyday shooter nowadays including physics and environments ready for you to exploit them is not enough of a clue, then you really have no clue what genre defining means.
-
2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:
And I completely disagree there. I still play HL 1 to this day (mostly mods), while I've barely finished the second game when it came out. First one was genre defining, second one was a chore.
I mean, if you wanna discount actual genre defining things like gameplay modernizations, the engine being the literal most popular piece of software (along with the prequel) for decades, to the point of still being relevant, the episodic structure, drivable vehicles (not the first game but still an evolution over the prequel), the AI being one of the most detailed, the size of the maps, the inclusion of physics puzzles, the grav gun and its need for a highly interactable world, and probably a lot of stuff I might be forgetting.
You're free to not like it. That it was genre defining, and thus a lot of its new tech we even take for granted on shooters nowadays, is not even up for discussion.
-
35 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
Kinda forgotten to write a reply, but other correspondence reminded me.
It all kinda falls on expectations. Would you say that Half-Life 2 and Ubisoft's Prince of Persia trilogy we're good? From game mechanic standpoint, yes... As sequels to their original games? Nooooooooooooooooooo...
Half-Life 2 was amazing for the time, it also was one of the most expected games of its era whilst still being retro-compatible enough thanks to its wide array of settings. It got a 96 on metacritic and an almost ubiquitous 100/100 from multiple publications. It was another momentous genre-defining game like the original.
Half-Life being a super linear shooter meant the sequel was well received as just that again and a continuation of the story. In fact, I did say this before: Singleplayer shooters can get away with little to no evolution as what you want from them is a continuation to the story and to shoot some new stuff. The only thing that went wrong with HL2 was the multiplayer component, but that's because the prequel's was such a globally acclaimed giant that it's still alive to this day (and I'm confident there's at least an order of magnitude more players from third world countries that are not on Steam for reasons).
As for Prince of Persia, I only ever played the DOS/Sega original, and a demo for Prince of Persia 2 on DOS, so can't talk about the trilogy.
-
5 hours ago, regex said:
I paid $50 to watch this game go through development, that's kind of what "early access" is all about. The fact that there's so much disconnect there is utterly baffling to me. If the amount is too much then why the hell did you even buy the game?
You do you, and all power to you, but that's not what EA is normally perceived to be for: you don't pay $50 to watch, you pay $50 (or whatever) to be part. In fact, this launch should've probably cleared it up pretty well that people don't pay specifically to be alpha testers and being held in the dark for months, they pay to influence the game and provide feedback on features, not on obvious bugs that anyone playing for 5 minutes would've noticed. As for watching the development, neither the forum, discord, or anywhere are paywalled, you don't need to pay to watch.
Also, price sets expectations. Ask anyone on the street if they'd expect this mess for $50. Heck, you don't need to ask, reviews are right there.
5 hours ago, regex said:Y'all need to exercise better judgement regarding hype campaigns lol
They showed a "complete" game (bar the obvious performance problems) for the best part of 2019 to 2022. Only in October did they announce it'd be early access with stuff missing, and even then they were still talking about how performant and polished it was gonna be. From experience, the people are really not at fault here unless you take straight up not believing anything they say or show as the norm. Sadly I can't express what I believe the marketing campaign was without risking another ban.
4 hours ago, Vl3d said:The game would be fine if it wasn't so buggy.
0.1.5 is really pretty solid, most people playing it are happy and would gladly tell you the game works, which is a huge achievement. Yet that achievement has only pulled 200 concurrent players and dropping.
The game is playable, and works wonders compared to release, and even compared to the previous patch, so you'll realize bugs aren't the problem. They were at some point, sure, but most glaringly foundational stuff can be considered fixed and the people are not coming back. Why? Exactly what I said before.
The game is stuck on a bad foundation, it's also known by now that there's a lot of easily disagreeable design decisions, there's also features confirmed not coming (robotics, life support), and of course, discounting all of that, the game is still lacking a lot of stuff you can find on the first. That is why people aren't coming back. You could make the current game bug-perfect and they still wouldn't come back.
KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Which of course is going to be an issue if they keep it as such a useless waste of space. At least I hope they make it moddable so people with real training in flight interfaces can get a crack at it, unlike KSP1.
Lmao, instead of dragging down drag to the side then. You can drag the view on all axis on KSP1 with the middle mouse, no need to remember half the numpad from memory.
Gotta love the cope-bashing.
Which means the craft picture is further on your peripheral vision and thus less clear. A brazilian man working on an indie project after 8 hours in the office got it right after starting the wrong way: