Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


283 Excellent


Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    8000+ hours Full Stock player on KSP1
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,484 profile views
  1. Well I've got to say that I don't really understand that. 2 theories come to mind : - These are not the same persons, and people that were not complaining about the game so far, came to compliment the OP, to say that they are happy about the communication changes, the transparency, the news. Maybe they were supportive and optimistic but not to the point of ignoring the previous official threads. - These are partially / a good proportion of the same people, and they are just genuinely happy to be able to say that they are happy from theses news. Like they've always wanted to but not being able, see previous point. For the latter, well, I can understand but I find it quite strange : as said previously, there is really nothing here that is able to recover from the bad previous communication. This is better, clearly, but nothing magical that would deserve a complete shift of public opinion. To me, at least, obviously. I'm quite thinking of a mix of both situation, quite some new people compared to the global complainers, as well as a bunch of eventual complainers that defintely "want" to express their support. I'm not one of them so far, unfortunately, and I'll really need a real kind of new "start" (nah, still not the Nate head, not even the dev team to be replaced...) to believe in a potentiel worthy future KSP2, be it in 3 years. Regarding the AMA, we all know that questions are quite cherry picked : it's normal, it's fine, but I think it could be a good way to actually deliver specific answers that community want to hear about. @whatsEJstandfor So, what do you recommend ? Keeping silent and now have a whole majority of positive feedback about the news, just because... Negative things have already been said ? True honest non-rethorical question. What would it means to the community, to the KSP2 Team ? Why should it be this way ? Obviously, regarding the state of the game, way more negative things has been said, and kept being repeated. Positive things were not much, it's not rethorical either, just some kind of facts that you're free to discuss about. Now, if more and more good things is brought to the game, to the communication, more and more people will speak about it, and it's cool, it's what we are all waitinfg for, isn'it ? But it does not mean that the game nor the communication is perfect or even good enough. Sure, unconstructive gratuitous rants are still not welcome, as well as troll or low-effort copy pasted complaints. But you might agree that theses are pretty, pretty rare. Though, complaints and critics still have their place. Here, I say that the OP is something better than before, and quite far from what I would expect for something really "game changing", that I think the game need some fresh start of any kind, to be discusses as well, etc. Can I ? Can we indeed repeat some things, insist on some other that had been said, to balance the very positive feedback on this thread and not being instantly flamed for that ? We're speaking about this "issue" way more than we should, I guess we all agree about that.
  2. Why guys are you so upset and defending when someone says his opinion about the game, about a post, a communication ? Why always this need to invite someone to log off, to take rest, to go back after some months / patchs ? Like we are not capable enough thinking about it ? A Mea Culpa is only an official post to say "Okay, KSP2 is not what it is supposed to be right now, even for an EA, we aknowledge that, we know lot of things could have gone better, we heard you, and we will provide some information regarding the new honest dev plan we are looking to, as follow : blabla". This is not what we have here, do we agree ? I'm not asking for Nate head or whatever the hyperbolic sentence you could say, it's ridicule. There is nothing like taking their self-esteem : it's just about sincerity, to recognise that things are not going good at all. KSP2 need a fresh start *in my opinion*. A date from which things are going to be different, including transparency, honesty, and maybe a required reorganization. That's all, it does not need to be a new development, a new team, nope. But it's a personnal take, it's something I feel necessary. Nowhere did I said they owe us to do so, you're not saying much about it, they don't owe us much at all, good, let's move forward ? I would not have insisted if comments were a bit more nuanced instead of 95% buying what is said : it's cool to be positive and optimistic, enjoying the new transparency and the news we are given. It is. But it's honestly quite lacking insights and contents, we were aware of most of this bugs being worked on, we knew there were various progress percentage about them. Now we can officially read it, good, but that's not anything particularly... meaningful, and theses states are not very reassuring either, don't you think ? Soooo, now that there is so many compliments, that you're free to consider deserved, can I nuance it with my own comment, the only one so far being quite negative ? Anyway, I'll keep "complaining" as long as I feel it's serving a purpose, as an humble no-one here, to discuss about the game, to keep it alive showing that we are a lot a bit depressed about it, but still hoping for the best rather than deserting the forum. And please, learn to nuance and moderate your words.
  3. Well, i'm really not going to be as positive as you, guys... There is barely nothing in this post. It's only very simply reacting to the whole complaints about the lack of transparency, to say "I get it, sorry, I'll be more honest and give you more details". It's, like... Not even a sincere Mea Culpa, just bare communication. And as en example of transparency we get some classification for bugs (wew !) and then a top10 with some comments on the status. But damn, this is the very minimum of anything ! It's good to have, thanks, better than nothing, but there is nothing to praise at all ! Ans well, it really really does not show much progression to say the least. When patch3 will come, patch2 might be 2 months old, and we might not see any meaningful bug fix in it, if I read it correctly. Get me right : it's nice to now get more insights and details. But it's very basic, and as a communication reaction to the past week in Mohopeful. It does not feel sincere, it does not Say much. Ksp2 really really need an honest and transparent Mea Culpa with a plan to save it. A new "starting date", a milestone that community will aknowledge as a New start with a new organization, a New motivation. It needs this Mea Culpa. At least, it will help people complaining about repeated and insisting complaints, understand that yep, it allows the ksp2 team to really get that there is something wrong which Can't be ignored and need to be address.
  4. Yeah but... you're not paid to provide something efficient and inexpensive, do you ? I play KSP not to do an optimized version of Apollo or Viking, but to dream about things that can be done IRL ^^ This unlock the ability to get aesthetic AND efficiency AND features / functions And sometimes indeed, pure performance, and I find this to be less and less interesting since people are using weird bugs / tricks / dirty alpacas and sometimes limit between legit and bug using gets soft and blurry, it does not really give an incentive to pursue in this way. I rather like to think an overall long (1-5 years) mission to be comfy enough for a given crew, which requires some room and features which are not all about efficiency, even if you can consider them as requirements and then go the efficiency way to design the craft accordingly, of course. I quite like my DeltaVee (in my signature) for theses considerations : quite tough requirements, especially RolePlay ones, and requiring a LOT of room for the crew to operate for a 1 year duration mission. And I felt the need to keep everything efficient and aesthetic as well. And it's SSTO capable, because, KSP :p Two Stage To Mun, actually, to preserve this efficiency goal, ditching the Rapiers engines.
  5. Aesthetic + functionalities + performance is the ultimate goal ! It's quite easy to reach 2 of them, but the whole 3-pack is quite a challenge, and this is why it's a pure joy to try and success when it works ! I'd say that only 4-5 crafts among the 1000's I've made fulfill this goal. And they are all 50+ hours at least in the VAB haha. The last 10% of fine tuning is always 50% of the overall time, of course x) This is something I look forward to do in KSP2, I don't do "small simple craft" for a long time, but alas, it's not possible nor interesting so far.
  6. I've never never ever had a spin because of the speed referential switch from surface to orbit. At 36km, you really barely have no lift / drag that would cause that. I guess if you have something with TONS of wings at the tip + no GT, just vertical ascension at low low speed and the shift is then maybe a sudden 10°, while not having any gimbal, it might *might* happen, but that sounds unlikely to me. Any GT, even very conservative, would lead to <5° switch I guess and any Gimbal would perfectly deal with adjustments while prevention for a spin. Do you have a screenshot of a problematic craft that spin because of that prograde switch from Surface to Orbit ? Anyway, as said previously, theses considerations change nothing to the fact that, indeed, this is very weird to have this referential switch. It does not serve any use and is not comfortable either, should just trigger past 70km so that newbies get the proper referential when they load a game / a craft or get to orbit the first time.
  7. As for myself, I've never been annoyed by this transition : any Gravity Turn will lead you to a near-horizontal (+10° for extreme weird launches) attitude at ~36km anyway, and it's better to be even more flat to build horizontal speed rather than keeping in Surface Referential and keep adding vertical speed. I don't see how a massive really weird launch would flip at 36km because of that, except indeed if you're ascending straight vertical, but why doing so rather than a very gentle Gravity Turn using Follow Prograde ? You'll end up with vastly improved launch performance while not loosing anything in stability if you stick to that Follow Prograde SAS and have some gimbal (even just a little is enough). At 36km, the atmosphere is globally already empty so the sudden change of attitude would not to much even for an passive-unstable craft. Anyway, I find it mostly convenient but agree that it's weird, it should not switch before 70km for instance, and people like me enjoying flat GT would trigger the Speed Referential by themselves.
  8. ... Again. Without theses discussions, we would barely see no activities around here. Without the complaints, OP posts are so empty and lacking news that there is barely nothing to speak about. Be sure that people complaining mostly are passionate players who definitely want to see a good KSP2 emerging, be it a few months or a few years. But this game won't ever exist if there is only people saying that 15FPS is perfectly fine for a game like KSP, that a GTX1060 is an "omagad old card please invest, it's normal that new game requires new rigs" completely missing the fact that other AAA game way way way more beautiful / demanding are doing good on the same old components. That it's okay to have visual looking like 2017 at most, because it's not what matter for a game like KSP (again). That bugs and poor content is normal since it's an EA (...). That you're not a game dev and don't know how it works. We. Get. It. Complaints is a necessity, otherwise these people, who are on their own right to feel positive about the game and say so, would be the only one represented here, and it's not okay. Devs and Com team need to constantly feel that the game is not on the tracks at all, by any means, not able to be the new KSP for another decade. This is why we keep complaining. And as long as it's respectful regarding the teams, the moderators, and the other members, it's okay to do so. It also need to follow the thread subject, the topic, and not be gratuitous copy - pasted rants, for sure. But most of the time, all theses criteria are respected and you can't do much about it. Complaints will go lesser when dev threads will bring some good news, transparency, fair communication. When the update will show that the game is recovering, that there is a plan to make it better and worth of the KSP Legacy. Or... When there won't be any interest anymore in KSP2, if it has to happen. Hopefully not.
  9. Science Update is not going to be something before months from now, this is what you were speaking about, not the future patch. This is why I said "numerous". If wobbliness is still an issue past this point, well... I'll insist about it once again ^^
  10. Seeing the images posted by Spicat, I'm really not enjoying the visual. It looks to me like an old naked satellite view, with false colors, artefacts, over sharpened yet lacking details, no proper lightning, low poly or faked high poly. A huge texture being applied on top of an HeightMap, maybe this is how Engines are exactly working for game like this, but it's really give this feeling of something being on top of a poor topology like a satellite view. And other games are dealing with this way (way (way)) better so I do not see that as an excuse. Details are very unequal, not homogeneous, you immediately see where the texture feels stretched or not completely loaded, or something else. And it's like the mountains are not real shapes. Anyway, I don't like it, it's not up to 2020+ standard by any mean, even from orbit. Let alone when landed where everything fall off except on very specific location where it's crisp and nice, even though lacking micro - medium topology. Haaa... Graphics and terrain were what I was waiting the most I really don't see incoming new dev / tech to really improve this, apart for performance that might improve by 2-3 times if we are lucky, which won't be enough at all.
  11. It's good to see people being able to debate politely about the state of KSP2. It helps other readers to see that critics are constructive and not some random rants. Because yes, KSP2 is so far a real failure about so many subjects and this topic discusses a bunch of them. I agree with what have been said : I don't see how incoming optimization would help with the crazy performance gap we're facing. I've often used a quick comparison to find out that we are somewhere 10 to 15 times worst than it should be / it has been advertised, to run 1000 parts craft at decent (let's say 20 FPS) framerate. It's... Gigantic, enormous. 50-200% framerate gain are already something really hard to achieve, I don't see how they could accomplish such a thing while keeping the game as it exists right now. And this performance topic is very centric as it will condition most of what can be added / improved / enhanced. I see more and more people saying that they're not happy with how the game is looking so far. Or actually, I don't find much people saying otherwise anymore. At the beginning, it was clearly IMPOSSIBLE to say that the game was not looking 2020+ as it should. It's debatable, I guess, but I maintain that it really must be looking decently modern and technically up to date, I don't understand how / why people are okay, saying that "C'mon it's KSP who care about graphics". I do. It's like, core-feature for a game like this. It means everything. It's an incentive to visit, to move, to build rovers and plane to find a place and settle cause you find the sweet GPS coordination and to share it with others, to make forums lives, etc etc etc. I very (very (very)) honestly find myself asking if *this* screenshot is KSP1 or KSP2, I mean it ! How is it even possible ? Anyway, now theses people are less prone to engage aggressively when other are saying that they find the game lacking visual attractiveness. I consider it to be very very lacking on this point, and nowhere close to what it should have been. So it's running bad, while looking bad, and it's not going to be easy to fix it properly. We might end up with a 1.0 KSP2 in about 18 months, I'd say, including some okay new features, and with performance improvement allowing for 30 FPS with 1000$ rigs and 200 parts craft. Okay. But then... What is the point of KSP2 at all ? It's what KSP1 is able to do, using mods, for years. I've been waiting KSP2 since 2015 : I already had something like 2500 hours and faced the situation where this Indie Game could be so much more beautiful, performant, featureful, bug-less, etc. I'm probably not the only one, for sure ! KSP1 is my favourite game, period. Still, it was already possible to feel a dead-end, the need for a 2nd opus that would be held by professionals, enjoying new techs, new core-dev, new engine, new everything, from scratch. It's lightyear from what we have so far, and what we'll have at the end, i'm afraid. And I would be pleased to be proven wrong, of course. But that's a missed opportunity to me, and a terrible one.
  12. You actually are very very late on your Gravity Turn in those videos, you can turn much sooner. GT PitchOver is mostly function of your LiftOff TWR. Here is a comprehensive analysis I've ran with a friend, based on hundreds (and hundreds) of empirical automated kOS launches : I'll allow myself using DeepL to provide a translation about this figure : Each color corresponds to a given angle amplitude, calculated from the horizon. The abscissas show the TWR, and the ordinates correspond to the values of VpitchOpti. In other words, reading this graph allows you, for any launcher, and from its TWR at takeoff, to deduce a good estimate of the VpitchOpti leading to an optimal GT. For each TWR on the x-axis, we have several pairs of (Amp ; VpitchOpti). The couple of values with the lowest Vpitch will very generally be the best, but the results remain essentially the same. It will remain easier for a "hand" use to trigger a GT at 16m/s rather than at 8m/s for example, in terms of reaction time and speed of execution. Let's take an example! The TWR 1.4 offers us 5 curves, so 5 couples of possible values, here they are 85° ; 22 m/s 80° ; 36 m/s 75° ; 50 m/s 70° ; 62 m/s 65° ; 78 m/s Overall, all these combinations should lead you to a very aggressive and optimal GT. The combination with the lowest PitchOver amplitude value, here 85° (5° amplitude from vertical), allows the most natural and efficient trajectory. The launcher realizes a small 5° offset, very soon after the launch, from 22m/s, then remains in prograde until reaching the Apoapsis of 100km, and finally circularizes. Nevertheless, be careful: this is an ideal target value for our precise craft. It is therefore a very good starting estimate, but could be slightly out of limit for any other craft of the same TWR. As a precaution and if you are not the kind of person who would restart a craft several times to find its perfect torque (Amp; VpitchOpti), don't hesitate to simply take a little margin, by adding 5m/s for example! These curves can be used by users who do not have a kOS and simply do their launches by hand. However, there is an important consideration to be made: the reactivity of a program is certainly much greater than that of a human, but the angle shift command will be slower for kOS than for you, because the program remains dependent on the servoing of KSP, which does not send a binary "turn" command to the keyboard. You can find the whole article right here, use the translation button in the upper right corner : https://kerbalspacechallenge.fr/2021/07/22/optigt-a-la-recherche-du-gravity-turn-parfait-partie-1/
  13. I'm very very very pessimistic regarding the graphics potential of Vanilla KSP2. We are miles away from the 2019 cinematic trailer, which is OK to not get 100% of course, but we are, like, 5-10% at most of we've seen. I've been hopping for 25-35% and I don't think it will get that good in a decade of Vanilla dev. Apart from performances and bugs, it's my main disappointment, it really does not look good by any standard, except... KSP Standard, actually, haha. This is why people seems to be okay with it, used to Vanilla (?) KSP1, and it does not push the dev and artist to offer something up to date. Now, mods : quite hard to guess. It's day and night when it comes to KSP1. Modders really unlock the potential of KSP1 and managed to offer something more beautiful than a "from scratch Pro Dev 2023 KSP2" which really is a shame. So they could be capable of miracle, really, but not by the same margin if the basis of KSP2 is completely out-dated. Future releases might help with HDRP and all the hot subjects that I don't know about, but I frankly doubt. Anyway, they will probably be able to offer some good enhancement that will help the game to look like a decent 2020+ game, in about 2-3 years, finger crossed and thanks in advance, modders !
  14. Come on, let's be honest here, i'm even being very on the good side saying 0.24 : It's KSP2. Two. It comes after the first one being out for a decade, with all the feedback and the knowledge it brought. This is a professional team, quite a lot more staffed than KSP1 at its prime. We are in 2023. Price is 50$. OF COURSE it's an EA, that's obvious, things will get better, etc etc. But the state of this game is definitely not a KSP1 0.13. Clearly not a KSP1 0.18. And only perhaps something like KSP1 0.24 as I proposed. It's just honesty, good faith, please don't go hyperbolic for no reason. KSP2 is advertised as an EA that will grow with us, not a random solo project from a solo Mexican passionate guy. KSP2 is sold damn expensive because they believe it's worth it (it's not, but that another story), because they consider it as well established version that can be used as EA at this price. A base for all the upcoming feature. Editors choose too rush it, probably against the opinions of Dev Team, and it was not ready, 3 weeks short of Patch1 which address quite a lot of major issues it had. But anyway : everything here leads to the conclusion that this is at least 0.24, to me. Feel free to argue differently. And again, that's just a small part of the discussion. Even using an elderly version of KSP1, it's based on OLD computers (please, really, consider this aspect), with OLD technologies (Game development wise), by a team, money, organization that has nothing in common. And after 4 (+ ?) years of dev. Soooo yeah, obviously, what its awaited is a game that runs better than a 10 yo indie game on 12yo low end laptops, it's common sense. And since, it does not runs better or just equally bad, well, that's no good. At the same state, both game should definitely not run the same, neither twice as good, but way more. And then only, it would improve to get vastly superior, as advertised to reach 1000 parts counts crafts at decent framerate. Yeah, 20 FPS would be good enough probably. But with the actual base, the actual start, it's probably a 10-15 times gap performance to fill, does not sound possible to me, as a candid player that just played a lot with KSP1 and knowing that they apparently re-used quite a lot of the fundamental pillars if the first old opus.
  15. Uh ? No, I play KSP since 0.13 and the actual version of KSP2 is supposed to be about 0.24 or so, which allowed to build multi-hundreds parts. Sure, it ran at 10 FPS at most, but according to the PC specs at that time, about 2-4 times less performant than nowadays rigs, it's important to not forget about this. I had a 500 parts multi-modules station, in Jan 2013, that ran about 3-6 FPS. But it's a Laptop from... 2009, that was 650€ at this time so not a gamer one. See the gap ? About the same performance or better (actually probably way better haha), while we are speaking of KSP1 10 years ago, on a machine 14 years old compare to now, game being dev by a single guy at this time. And it's facing a 4 year Professionnal dev game, in 2023, using 2000€ machines of the same year. No, KSP2 is BY FAR lower in performance and Parts Counts than KSP1. But it will improve, of course. By how much ? I won't bet on 10-15 times optimization unfortunately.
  • Create New...