Dakitess

Dakitess: "I think it runs poorly while it also looks bad which is nonsense" Periple: "Reductio ad absurdum"

I really really don't like the way the parts reflect the light, the shininess, the specular. And I very disappointed by the parts details as well, same as KSP1, a close up would immediately show that a cylindric part is actually made of about 20 faces, very visible Yeah, parts being 90% taken from KSP1 with no major enhancement + same flaws + very weird lightning, not a plus of this game unfortunately, to me.

If only it was beautiful and running well... It's really something missing from KSP1 and KSP2. Incentive to explore, land, visit, drive, settle. Incentive to take screenshots, to share them, to find the best location to build your colony, at the top of a beautiful and details cliff, to benefit / be challenged by the terrain topology. To build specific Rover being able to handle the rough terrain and scatters with proper physics. Etc, etc, etc. Even with as much bugs and limited part selection, if it was really beautiful and running fairly well (say, 2-300% better, like 45 FPS with a 150 parts craft on a 1000$ recent desktop PC), I would definitely, deeeeefinitely play it. It's the main thing lacking for me, the main thing I was waiting for. Scenery. Terrain. Graphics. I'm not keen of playing an already vastly outdated game and I don't think it will improve enough, by a huge margin. Actually I perfectly remember almost not installing KSP1 at all when I saw the pics, back in 2013, like, soooooo outdated. BUT : it was one of its kind. Indie. Very early in dev. KSP2 is none of this and has no excuse. I don't understand.

I do agree, but... Well, re-read the thread if you want to get why it's as it's right now. My bet is that no one here actually prefer being negative rather than enjoying the game.

Well we might agree that it's not a "bad launch". It's a very bad one, based on an existing game, using 90% of the same tech, the same parts, the same ideas, with a new UI, barely new graphics, and some tutorials. This is not a novelty, a risk, a try, like NMS or other examples. Let's not hide behind that. There is other things to advocate, but KSP2 being a new game and needing time to prove its value, well, is a limited argument to my eyes, that we, Indeed, face a lot of time, as much as saying that the game had a terrible launch.

Thanks for the detailed informations, it was a nice read ! Sadly, i'm quite concerned that, indeed, we fall back to KSP1 dead ends while it's the opportunity to do better... This system has shown a lot of limits we just honestly know won't be overcomed, and it's annoying. Not everything need to be redone from scratch, but it looks like barely nothing does. And everything that had been brought from KSP1 is globally less effective, buggy, not finished, so... Yeah hard top see any benefice so far. I can't understand why we are facing the same issues, the same dev debugging that we had in KSP1, but in even worse, and while having... KSP1 as a basis. It very looks like we are seing a KSP game being born without any predecessor before it. But it's not. KSP1 exist and yet "we" face the same dev issue as the original indie team that actually create something at its time. We face the same known deadends and still go for it, toward the wall. Sure it might end with something working OK-Ish, like KSP1. But... Why ? Why sticking to this solution and not trying something "next-gen", something that would set appart KSP2, more realistic/reliable, along with many others uprades rather than doing again KSP1 in a slightly (sic...) better graphics and a New UI ?... Damn.

It's not like... Official posts got more "transparent" and rich because there was quite a lot of grumble, eh ? Fair enough, there is a LOT of repetition, of threads discussing why KSP2 is bad, of comments in each new official statement which are mostly criticism and people criticizing the fact that there is too much criticism. Sure. But, again (again (again ?))) most of these criticism are legit, are well written, basically no trolling, no flaming, no personal attacks, no free negativity to spare, just... Legit criticism. The only thing is, yeah, it keeps appearing again and again, to deal with a specific subject, which then get enlarged, or decline in the usual "why again criticism, you already said that" which trigger the now habitual 10+ posts to address the situation. I definitely don't understand why people don't get that. When there is criticism and complaints, it's about a given subject, which might be the same as before because the official post actually tells about it but don't show much progress / is very concerning / seems overpromising / add any other reason here. And because / thanks to that, devs and communication team can't miss that most players are unhappy, that they keep saying it, that will still do as long as things does not feel going in a sufficient good direction. Sure, posts are now more transparent. Do you feel it's enough / that the now more transparent news are good ? I don't. Many others don't. We'll say so, politely, so that there is good feedback about it AND bad feedback if it's legitimate. If you keep repeating that "dang, stop complaining again and again", we'll answer again and again everything in this thread, creating 10+ more dedicated messages, while it should have stick to some good feedback, some bad feeback, some new, some repeating because it's the subject of the thread. Etc. Yeah, keeping the complaints actually help, as long as it's constructive and legit. And polite. And cordial. You're only tripling the numbers of message by saying to stop.

Same as with your other thread message. Bring elements, otherwise you're only attacking the message and the author. I gave my feeling about it, with numbers to compare things accordingly. Do it as well if you don't think so, or express your opinion, [snip] So, for you, what would be some key performance indicator to get for KSP2 ? 30 fps for 100 parts ? How is it supposed to scale with, say, 200, 500 and 1000 parts ? What's your take about it ? What do you think we will reasonably get ? You don't want to think about 1000 parts crafts ? Okay, then tell us your performance expectations with your own criteria. This is what I did, feel free to disagree.

Who said that ? Because you... Disagree ? You don't think that a game supposed to be dev from scratch a by a pro team a decade After an indie game with dirty basis, should be more optimized ?... And Nate himself did say that, KSP2 will be more optimized. It probably aimed more at part count craft handling but hell, we don't have it either and I feel reasonable to extend to graphics performance. You're free to think otherwise. Do you ? Regarding the fact that "being beautiful" and "performance" has very little to do together, well... I won't elaborate further. Your right to think so as well, but going hyperbolic and attacking won't help, at all. A bit of fairness and honesty is required. I gave my personal take about it, with some comparisons and éléments, do it as well if you feel like discussing the subject. Otherwise you're only debating about my message rather than the subject, telling me i'm wrong and... That's all.

Oh please no, leave KSP1 alone, don't touch it, don't ruin it, stick to KSP2 xD

I, for myself, consider that KSP2 should totally run on last-gen high-end CPU integrated graphics. KSP1 totally run on old-gen CPU integrated graphics, with crappy settings of course. It runs 1080p with good settings using recent-gen ones, on laptop. It does, try it. KSP2 is supposed to be more optimized than KSP1 at a given graphics, right ? Well, KSP2 is not particularly beautiful at max, nor it is a minimum settings. To me, it should totally run at minimum settings on a 12500H cpu which embed a Iris Xe Graphics. We know it does not AT ALL, but according the promise to be more optimized (which is totally required), to the fact it does not look demanding at all (really, it's not...), it should. And it's quite in the motto of KSP to be able to run on students laptop with a bare 1050 mobile or their integrated graphics, to enable workers to get in the train and run it on their professionnal GPU-dedicated-less laptop, with crappy graphics but running nonetheless. I'm myself doing a lot of courses using KSP as the main support. Celestial mechanics, Kepler Laws, etc etc, at very different levels. I'm not able to recommend KSP2 at all, not to mention the bugs and stability but solely because of performances. And the students don't get how / why we should work with an older version while the new one just came in and is supposed to be better in any way. It would be fine to have some dedicated very low settings to enable this. Like being able to use lower definition, to deactivate some graphics stuff, so that it would run even very correctly with this settings. Again, read me : nope, it's not because "it's a new game that it's normal to ask for new rigs, new components", that "it's normal for a new game to not run well on a 1650". This is NonSense than has been repeated again and again while the game we are speaking about is KSP2, because it's not beautiful, it does not feel it's demanding by any means visually speaking. It should be more (more (more)) beautiful at max settings, so that rich players can enjoy a magnificent game that would benefit a LOT from good graphics and allow for low graphics for smaller rigs. But now that it's not happening, at least the oldish graphics should run on low end specs, clearly, and it would fit the KSP spirit.

Sure but it's more than a technical aspect, it's something mandatory for a game, like, really, and it's quite concerning that we don't have an information in the Official posts or in AMA.

I don't get why this kind of thing remain uncommented... I've submitted a question for the AMA regarding it, i'm quite sure I was not the only one, and there is a lot of mention of it in Threads, reviews, etc. So instead of very conventional (yet totally okay don't get me wrong) question picked, almost Always not very technical, I don't get why it's not commented...

Yes it will. I expect it to be something like 2-300% more fluid as it is right now. Like going from 15 FPS to 45FPS. This is quite massive and it might take a whole 2 years from now. But... But I don't see how we will get some 1500% more performance which is actually required to step up (or even equalize) KSP1... 15 FPS at launch for 100 parts crafts with a 1000$ rig is not OK, 45 FPS will be "fine". But that's for a 100 parts. KSP2 needs to allow for 1000 parts craft with somewhere like 20-30 FPS, with a decent machine. Let's say a 1000$ machine that would exist in 2 years. This is a 1000 to 1500% performance gap, and nope, I definitely don't see how we will get this, even not factoring the fact that the game is supposed to enhance its graphics along the years, and add features and contents that won't simplify the optimization, definitely. You'll say, I know, that 200 parts crafts are already totally fine, and 20 FPS is good for you. That's okay. But it's a massive step backward from KSP1, which I personnaly don't accept AT ALL, while the promise (yeah yeah source, blabla, etc) is some vastly more optimized performance, even / specifically for big crafts.

These unrealistic aspect mentionned are chosen ones : the player are definitely welcome to design with some RolePlay, to give crew enough space for long duration mission, including some snacks / fret area with basic part like a tank which would weigth XX tons. This is actually how I play the game. Some people like to strap a seat on a nuke with some fuel donuts, it's fine, I don't, except sometimes for some competition, but it's a choice, you're not "supposed" to do so, you can perfectly use trusses to get some separation between your Nuke engine and you crew, or tanks, etc. Regarding the Interstellar, otherwise... It would not be a choice to get something "too easy". Let me be clear, there is nothing like gate keeping or anything, just some balance and equilibrium for something which pretty much look like a late-game feature. It needs to be accordingly difficult and credible, to me. It's not "something else", it's not a divergent feature, another kind of gameplay, this is... Propulsion. DeltaV. Thrust. ISP. It already exists, it respects the theory, let's not break that. So yep, a 1/10 distance compared to IRL would fit the 1/10 scale we got for the Kerbol Star System and it's fine. It would still be something like at least 0.1 light year distance, which need a LOT of speed to get there in a generation, which means a LOT of DeltaV. It's okay to have 1,000,000s ISP engine (at most, let's not get completely out of our mind with weird exotic tech) but it still required a lot of fuel and tiny payload, or, to be more generic : tiny dry mass. I want theses vessel to be 95% fuel, 4% drymass (engines and power supply would represent a lot of mass, definitely), 1% at most for payload. Something that we are not very used to in KSP, with usual 10-50% payload mass ratio haha. It needs to feel different, to be an achievement based on a well tought design, with sacrifices, compromises, roleplay, etc. Especially if the fuel gathering is something that get automatized and is not a real challenge by itself, once colonies are able to feed it. So yeah, something that is like the Hard SF vessel, with good numbers that match Tsiolkovsky equation, to the very least

It's a nicer way and tone to communicate indeed. More information and insights, especially when it comes to some issues being tougher than expected. Unfortunately, I find the Top10 issue progression to be quite concerning, most of them are being worked from Day1 if not even before and most of them remains "worked on" / "possible fix" / "investigated" etc. Not much are actually going to be fixed and I guess that most of the other issues which don't belong to the short list, are not very well advanced either, otherwise I would suggest insisting on them as well so that people can find some hope. Not to be rude or anything here, just that having some success, be they less important than this Top10, can help readers being confident again regarding the upcoming patches and global dev So far, yeah, it's quite underwhelming. It's nice to be honest and communicate with transparency though.

I'm fine with Engines being very very efficient ISP / Thrust wise, as long as they don't violate at all the Tsiolkovsky equation. There is nothing different between an injection from Earth to Mars and from Earth to Proxima Centauri, nothing, except that one is XX minutes duration while the other one would accelerate during whole YEARS depending on many aspects. So yeah, go ahead for 1,000,000s of ISP as long as it exactly needs a whole lot of fuel to be able to get 10% of c, which is 30km/s + the same amount to slow down at the arrival. Because, yeah, even with that high ISP, it actually requires a LOT of fuel to move a very tiny fraction of Payload, since the engine is more than often very high in drymass. So yeah, I belong to the "small team" saying that it's forever impossible to be able to carry a human crew in an interstellar trip, but i'm okay if we have some technologically and theoretically possible High Efficiency engines, but they really need to match the maths, not some kind of dry ratio like 25-50%, it does not work, except for antimatter. I want the payload to be very very minuscule and carefully designed, because each kilogram would equal to literal tons of added fuel to compensate. A whole challenge by itself, some kind of end-game gameplay which would cut with usual look of our tremendous overengineered vessels :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.