Temeter
-
Posts
2,625 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Article Comments posted by Temeter
-
-
Sad, but I guess things gotta change sometimes. Good look on your futures endeavours!
-
6 minutes ago, KocLobster said:
Of course; I assumed that this went without saying. I guess not in your case huh?
You didn't assume it for him, so why should I expect it from others?
QuoteTake a look at the relevant tech support forums and the bug tracker. You will quickly discover how massive the issues and bugs are, and how a huge portion of the community is experiencing significant problems.
Oh, i've played KSP for 1+ thousand hours by now, and also spend quite a bit of time post 1.1. I'm aware of a lot of issues. Still few things I'd call unplayable.
-
13 minutes ago, KocLobster said:
Exactly, you have no experience with what everyone is talking about. You might not be saying that and have the attitude you do if you had experienced all the many game-breaking bugs that everyone else has.
You aren't speaking from experience or expertise either. Just because your game isn't broken doesn't mean that 90% of our games aren't broken too. You seem to fail to grasp and understand this.
Your realize how silly you sound right? You basically said "I haven't seen any of these bugs so they must not exist/people are over-exaggerating."
Just because your game is broken doesn't mean everyone elses game is broken. Duh, that also works the other way round.
Situation is sub optimal in some regards, but there were always issues with the game. 1.1 is a net positive to a huge degree to me. Even rover wheels work a lot better than what we had before. Plane landing gear still needs tuning, but it's promising to be a lot more reliable when the quirks are hammered out. For example, the old landing gear would just rip appart when it got to fast. That kind of stuf doesn't seem to happen anymore.
10 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:What isn't clear to me is how "unity wheels" worked alright in 1.0.x (unity 4), but not 1.1.x (unity 5).
From what I can see, it's because the systems are completely different, the U4 wheels just don't work in U5 anymore. KSP uses wheels in a very unique way, so there is a lot of things that need to be changed. Our current wheels are also a lot more complex, featuring much more realistic grip, especially sideway (U4 rovers would just tilt over all the time), and much more advanced suspension.
E.g. vehicles in KSP are somwhat loosely connected parts. So those parts act as a suspension for itself, tilting in when heavily loaded, and pushing back when trying to get to a neutral spot. Combine that with wheels having their own suspensions, and you can end up with 2 systems fighting against each other. That also lead for example to oscillations, where parts would just jiggle themselves to death.
On top of that, we got apparently also got bugs in Unity 5 itself, causing additional issues with wheels.
All said, the new system is better in a lot of ways, but it's gonna take a while to get fixed. For short term fixes, keep a look out at the modding community. Modders are usually a bit faster than a dev (there are also a lot more modders than devs :^) ). Most of the issues I see are with plane landing gear. Rover wheels seem to need more careful setup because of their added complexity, but they seem to work fine most of the time.
-
19 minutes ago, Kilof said:
We have bug in fairings...
in editor mode...
Just scare them away, bugs are dumb. At least as long as its not a brain bug. In that case, run!
-
41 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:
Tweakable suspensions, yes!
Yeah, that was the thing that totally stood out to me. Gonna help, especially with FAR, where you got like 80m/s landing speeds at times!
-
Update looking very nice.
-
1 hour ago, Drakomis said:
Well, allow me to explain it. I use Supply and Demand as an example. As we both probably know, supply and demand works off two basic principles:
1. The manufactured supply of a product
2. The demand for that product.
Now we can go for hours just explaining this fact, but let's leave it at our basic, common sense understanding. Applying this to gaming, and the industry as a whole, and we got a foundation for understanding each other here. Moving on, Squad has produced a product which is supposedly in demand by a specific portion of the population. Their move is extremely strategic (whether knowingly or not) in the way that it requires the populace who wishes to participate to buy their product from a source of hard revenue (in this case, a platform such as Steam which will provide a source of revenue). There are two reasons for this, and I've honed my reasoning down to one probable explanation. I believe that this move was done to emulate similar companies who wanted to gain a minor revenue boost, such as companies who provide games with add-ons or, more specifically, Activision or EA. While their model is more Draconian, it works, and if we can move that model over to what Squad has done, we can see that not only have they ensured that the product will be in demand, but it will be desired after.
In short, I don't anticipate nor predict a big boost from this move. What I do predict is a good source of short revenue to assist with what I could only believe to be a desire to gain additional cash flow - for a short period. I also believe this to be a test of some sort, to see if it would work. Obviously the community backlash will hamper any future decisions on this part without serious debating on behalf of the staff, but regardless like most companies who provide an excellent product, they have the advantage. And Squad knows it. This is why I believe they made this decision, because they knew peoples love for the game would outweigh their dislike for the decisions.
This is my view on why it is an excellent business move. It will provide revenue. People will buy it from steam specifically for this. There will be a short gain in profit. These are certain. What I don't know is what will happen in the future because of this, or what the backlash (however minor or major) will do for future business decisions. Overall, I think it's a rather mature and safe decision.
Have I adequately answered your question now?
(As a bonus explanation, it could all be because they got really tired of doing private beta testing or - the horror! - paying people to test the game and provide feedback. I mean, seriously, KSP has a wide community of players who stream their product for free advertising. They gain cash flow, yadda yadda, this and that. So maybe it's all because they got tired of having too few people test it or something. Eh...it's all a guess anyway.)
Don't hate me, but I got the feeling you are having too much fun writing to actually make any sense. They got a very stable business around KSP, for everything we know, there is just no point in any of this.
We got already a good explanation, the logistics. No point in trying to analyse Squad as a business (which we don't actually know much about).
4 minutes ago, John FX said:That makes it more understandable.
So there is nothing stopping me from getting my friend to come over, verify I am someone he wants to share his library with and when he is not playing a game on steam (he only rarely plays), I could bugtest 1.1 and help bugtest.
So out of curiosity how would the `must be online` bit work for a game like KSP which does not check that when you run the executable directly?
Steam shouldn't differentiate. Since you can start KSP without steam, it should be no hindrance at all. Tbh, you could also just log into your friends account on your pc and then copy the download somewhere on to your hard drive (in that case you dont get updates tho).
Just mind you need email confirmation for his account to be used on your pc.
-
8 minutes ago, Drakomis said:
They're gaining revenue.
When you build a big post around a singular statement, please at least explain it first. I'm not really seeing how getting a smaller percentage of a sum creates more revenue.
-
28 minutes ago, John FX said:
Steam say that up to ten people can share your entire game library through the scheme. Only some games that require a key or similar are excluded.
It seems to be one of those things where if you are not opted out, you are opted in. If Squad don`t want to be part of the scheme maybe they should think about it a bit...
EDIT : It seems that the people who share your library get their own copy of the game and have their own saves etc so they pretty much have their own copy to play without ever purchasing it.
It's not that easy.
I'm actually using the sharing in-house. There are three huge limitations:
1. You can not play shared games in offline mode.
2. You can not play shared games from an account as long as the real owner is playing one of his games.
3. Shared accounts need steamgard protection.
Basically you have to be online and the guy lending the game can't play any steam game as long as you access shared software. So it's not like you just copy games onto another account or anything. Also can't do it with strangers, because you need to do additional steamguard verification for every pc, which would be a huge security risk doing it outside of a very close circle of family or friends.
-
1 minute ago, Elway358 said:
I originally discovered this game by accident from browsing youtube vids. A mediafire link was included in the video to download version .90. After being informed that version .90 was not included in "older" versions that could be downloaded free, I did the right thing and purchased a copy from the store. In between these 2 actions, I received links to fully download version 1.0.5.1028. Had I wanted to not do the right thing, I could have easily kept my money and been playing the game right now in it's current stable version without having spent a dime.
What do you think is gonna be the decision for a number of people after being treated like second class citizens by Squad in this instance? You better believe the fact that they have locked out access to what will be the most recent build to half of their customers will ensure a good day for torrent apps. After people get the "beta" build for free do you really think they will go back and buy the game? LOL
Squad basically guaranteed that their version 1.1 will be one of, if not the most "pirated" version to date.
Can I have a look into your crystal ball?
-
Well, literally uploading a copy into the interwebs for people to download is indeed something you shouldn't do, be it a private link or not.^^'
-
7 minutes ago, BrutalRIP said:
Well yeah, but technical definitions and practical reality can very well differ. Lol
That's why the stable is considered the 'up to date version', even though there is a half broken pre-release beta that is technically newer.
-
@BrutalRIP, that's actually not correct. 'Up to date' is a term used for stable versions.
5 hours ago, mcirish3 said:Well that is not quite true, DRM prevents (technically makes difficult) the the redistribution by a legal licence purchaser of software to others. In other words DRM id designed to prevent non-purchasers from accessing the software. Obviously there are ways around it but, it is irrelevant, also unless I am mistaken.
Well yeah, but technical definitions and practical reality can very well differ.
Even a lot of big companies mostly used copy-protection to satisfy shareholders, (and basically excrements on stakeholders in the meanwhile), and later platforms like origins/uplay/bnet are more about having a direct line to their customers than to implement DRM as copy protection (customer retention).
Otherwise I don't really want to continue that discussion much more, either. Squad is clever - and respectful - enough to their customers as to not implement DRM anyway. Not to mention DRM would basically break the ability to have multiple installs, crushing the games mod scene, so you shouldn't even worry about it.
-
22 minutes ago, DrMarlboro said:
in his case it won't hurt anyone no. You're right. But, I'm pretty sure it goes against the EULA. I will have to read it again to be sure, but either way, If the EULA says no, whether it is hurting anyone or not doesn't matter. Rules are rules for a reason.
Now don't get me wrong, I completely understand where you are coming from but you have to understand that it's still against EULA for you to allow someone else to download and play on your license, and it makes no exceptions for someone who has already paid for a license. Steam sharing is intended for a single household, not friends ("family sharing"). And many of the posters here are right in their worry. If Squad comes here and sees that people are talking about sharing the game in direct violation of their license agreement and ignore it, then they are passively allowing a landslide of sharing even to (and especially to) people who are not license holders. The only way to prevent that landslide would be to introduce DRM, which is something that could likely damage the community as a whole. Whether we like to think of them as great people or not, Squad is still a business with a product. If they cease to make money without DRM then they will cease to have a product, which jeopardizes the game. People are correct in their fear of this type of conversation taking place on the forums.
First, all EULA's are of questionable meaning in the first place. Especially european law often outrules invalid pieces of EULAs, Steam itself gets regularly under fire by european courts. If you buy a retail game in germany, that EULA is even invalid by definition. Yeah, rules are there for a reason. But you are ignoring why they are there and just take them word by word. Even in court, laws have to be interpreted.
Otherwise, I really dislike the line of thinking in the latter part of your post. That's nothing but fearmongering before the menace of piracy. Btw, even the word 'piracy' itself is already loaded language, because it has literally nothing to do what torrent sites do, hence sites like pirate-bay took the name and made a joke out of it. All coming from industrials trying to scare people, and you are just citing that nonsense. Like the notion of someone talking about lending a game to a friend will have dire consequences for a product. That's propaganda level nonsense.
Everybody knows the sites and where they can get to download games anyway, broadband internet is everywhere, yet games still sell better than ever before. Pretending the mention in a forum would bring an end to KSP and DRM being the only salvation is utterly absurd. KSP doesn't have DRM in the first place because it's a) 95% useless and b) will only hurt their sales, because DRM only affects people that bought their game in the first place.
-
Man, seeing some of you write one could believe lending a game to a friend is a capital crime. Stop being so childish and think for yourself:
When @John FX want's to get the pre-release version from his friend, it won't hurt anyone, he already got a license from buying KSP for himself anyway, and assuming anything else is just ridiculous. Steam even has a family sharing system with which you can allow others to download your steam library games.
Also, 'piracy' isn't a possible charge. If anything, it's copyright infringement, which often enough doesn't even apply in close circles. Who is even surposed to charge anyone in that regard?
-
30 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:
Well, the first "useful" modern style rockets had engines running on ethanol. Earlier rockets used solid fuel or some pretty nasty hypergolics, including some of the bad person rocket planes.
The good thing about RP-1 and Liq Hydrogen is that your engineers don't steal it for happy hour.
Well, solid engines are technically not rocket 'engines', that's more of a liquid rocket thing.
While the german rocket development, where the tech really started advancing, used hypergolics early in its development, Wikipedia says the first reported liquid fuel rocket already used gasoline and liquid oxygen. Apparently started by an US professor in 1926.
-
19 minutes ago, richfiles said:
Oh you!
If Jeb, Bill, and Bob are old enough to fly rockets to the Mun, they're old enough for a chill brewski when they kick back at the KSC Astronaut Center rec room.
There's nothing evil or wrong about beer, or mentioning it... No need for flanderization!
And this coming from someone who maybe drinks 1-3 times a year, if even that! Just never cared for it.
The first rocket engines even ran on Ethanol! At that time, people knew what was good and how to build fine rockets.
-
2 hours ago, KSP Bros said: I bought it after.
I saw that renting out servers would cost a lot of money, so why couldn't Squad send e-mails to users to give them a window of time to download, not overloading the servers.
I think the issue is the nature of this pre-release version: It's a constant stream of small updates, and KSP store isn't set up for continued development versions.
-
36 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:
Worth mentioning (again) that updating through the KSP store isn't possible at all. When updates are released Squad rents extra severs to handle traffic for a few days. To rent them for two weeks would cost absurd amounts of money.
Huh, I didn't know. It's also just that you can't efficiently download something like daily updates over the store. Would have to login and download the whole game for every little update, while they'd need to constantly update on multiple platforms. Can't really rely on people always playing the most recent version.
33 minutes ago, Spacetraindriver said:O-o
I just got 1.0.5 last month!
See the positive side: You're not going to lose much progress. -
4 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:
I am going to go with Yes, though I did not make the statement. I guess maybe it is becuase to most people never stopped to think about it. The less revenue part is true but I am betting that Steam is a lot less hassle to maintain and deal with than their own servers. So maybe it is a wash, and when the users are all on steam the devs have more time to do well... dev stuff.
Come on, now we're drifting into the realms of conspiracy theories.
All the while we exactly now that constant and fast updating isn't possible through the KSP store.
-
17 minutes ago, Drakomis said:
I am quite surprised no one has called Squad out on the economic move it just made here.
You mean motivating people to buy their game through an indirect source that results in less revenue?
-
43 minutes ago, nosirrbro said:
I think a large part of your basis is that everyone is saying 'If I cant have it, noone can!', because only a few are saying that. My statements were merely that I payed the same and it felt bad to be treated as a second class customer due to my platform choice, and I, whether justly or not, felt that squad should be expected to possibly pay a bit for the ability to put less man hours and get more done as far as bugfixes and allow all to have it. As previously stated, by using the amazon listings I found that if on average 5000 people download from the store per day (The amount that KasperVld mentioned), the cost would be < 6000$. And as I do not know their financial situation, I myself cannot claim whether or not that is feasable, but from estimates I have heard that KSP has had over a million sales thus far, that pricepoint doesn't seem to crazy to me, especially for now getting double the bugtesters (and also double those who just play and dont bugtest, but thats beside the point), and possibly leading to a more polished update. Although I could be wrong, maybe SQUAD is in bad financial situations, or are seeing a decline in KSP sales strong enough that they may need to keep as much savings as possible to stay afloat, I really dont know.
That's assumptions for now, tho. I don't think this is about money: It takes a lot of time to set up a completely new infrastructure for fast updates and bug processing, it's not just about cost. My idea would be, it's probably just not worth it for two weeks. You aren't asking to spend 6k or anything, but to build a new steam-like platform. Don't think the patcher, if it even works atk, is built for that.
36 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:Oh, but this is something new. The experimentals group is, at least nominally, selected based on merit: You have to demonstrate that you can provide useful, constructive feedback during testing. The group is small so there is pressure to actually do testing and share the feedback; as I understand it testers that go inactive get removed from the group. And most importantly, the exps testers are under NDA and discuss the experimental versions in places out of public view. So people who weren't included in the exps group did not have to read about it and feel envious or excluded.
Well, all mass betas are kinda built around the idea of quantity>quality, at least in some respect. Which tbh didn't work out that well for KSP.^^'
That's why I'm also pointing out the media release. Ofc that stuf does make you a bit envious as well, but that doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. In fact, that's almost a plus. Thing is, people could live with it.
QuoteThis beta is different. The only requirement is that you bought through Steam. There is no onus to provide any useful feedback, users can just play with the new toys and let everyone else do the work. And worst, the subforum for the beta will be public, and there's nothing stopping people from sharing their screenshots and video all over the forum while those who have to wait can do nothing but wait. All because they bought through a venue that put more money in the developers' pockets, while being told that where you bought it would not affect access to future versions.
I agree that's not optimal, but I think it's at least understandable. The KSP store just lacks any kind of infrastructure to reliable do updates like steam. My issue here is really, that at this point a plus to some people is considered worse than a plus to nobody. And as said, I'm seeing this whole thing as an unexpected plus. And I think the open discussion would definitly help the game, e.g. public feedback seemed to have a huge impact to the changes after KSP 1.0.
Yeah, sucks the store won't/can't do the beta thing, but at the same time Squad themselves always denied planning this kind of beta again in the first place, so it's not exactly like breaking a promise.
21 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:As for Group three they correctly state "BUT hey we can't have three grapes even though at first we were offered three grapes"( again the way the OP presented this made it even worse) "we lost a grape that really sucks even if I did not want the extra grape it still really sucks" (loss aversion). They are mad at group one for not recognizing the fact they they lost a grape.
But are the feelings of group 3 relevant enought to hurt everybody? Mind, there is a huge difference between people not being able to get the beta and people complaining about the situation, so the vocal group 3 might be only a fraction of an actual group. So is this 'group 3' even big enough to matter? Will they even care after a few days?
-
20 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:
Dude read the post just above the one you quoted, watch the video and listen to the podcast then talk. Knowledge makes all the difference.
Not even necessary to watch the video, I think I know exactly what you are trying to say. Of course these reactions are human and honest, I was bothered too when I first heard it's steam only, because I stayed on my steam store release. Then switched to steam because I kinda realized there isn't really a cost in going for steam anymore, if anything it's more comfortable.
But now matter if I got beta-access or not, I wouldn't have argued for nobody to get the pre-beta just because I couldn't. Because that's a bit of a dick move and really just costs me in the long run. Why do you think there are mods available as soon as an0 update of KSP officially releases?
14 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:Except Squad made , at least implicitly, a promise that they would not treat any group different depending upon where the game was purchased, however it does matter now doesn't it.
Talking about promises, these updates aren't new. Again, there are always were closed pre-release betas, as well as preview versions given out to modders and even streamers. There was even a small minority complaining about this stuff, seeing other getting the new stuff early. So there isn't actually anything new about all of this, they just expanded the amount of people getting the beta.
No matter as to how honest their feelings might have been, no matter as to how socio-economics understand this, this behaviour is still immature and I've got the intention call that out. Frankly, people complaining on the internet is taken far to seriously anyway. You can count the people being bothered in this threads on a few hands.
Problem is, vocal minorities are nowhere louder than on the web, and many companies are struggling with understanding these issues, being terrified of angering a customer base and basically act based on said minorities. Majority of KSP's player base will actually never even learn of the pre-release, as much as they don't seem to know these beta-processes are old.
-
33 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:
Alo as far as the flame war goes:
You have group one who correctly sees the pre-release a a bonus for themselves and the community and are confused as to why group three can't see this as a positive for all of us.
As for Group three they correctly state "BUT hey we can't have three grapes even though at first we were offered three grapes"( again the way the OP presented this made it even worse) "we lost a grape that really sucks even if I did not want the extra grape it still really sucks" (loss aversion). They are mad at group one for not recognizing the fact they they lost a grape.
I'd say this is more like Squad unexpectedly gave an earlier, unripe half of grape 3 out to some people, but can't do the same for others because of delivery issues, only guaranting the final ripe grapes to everyone.
Until now Squad always stated they wouldn't do open experimentals because of all the drama and issues with inefficient reporting (which might be partially fixed through steam). That's why the idea, Squad goes against their promise, isn't completely correct. They are kinda going against their original public stand.
It's even more questionable because the people being bothered by the decision, even if very understandable, are finally arguing by the basis of 'if I don't get a pre-release, nobody should'.
in editor mode...
Whats in a Vessel Name?
in Developer Articles
Posted
This will make dealing with landers, external satellites etc a lot easier. Always felt a bit janky that you needed to rename stuff after undocking.