• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About Murph

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist. Inactive forum member (driven away by IPB).

Profile Information

  • Interests vBulletin forums, and NOT the current terrible IPB forum software.
  1. IPB is simply such dreadful software, with so many visible complaints, so many aspects of the user interface and general functionality that I detest and consider to be terrible design, that I find it inconceivable that there are not a significant number of people who are simply silently very unhappy about it. That leads me to conclude that there must be a significant number of people driven away from the forums by it, both presently and in the future. No, foolish is giving out a positive review when you have major concerns about the entire product experience. When the primary support mechanism is no longer a good user experience, and the community forums are no longer a good user experience, and I see strong evidence of bad management decision making around those areas, then I can no longer give a public positive recommendation. I have a high standard before any game gets a positive public review, and KSP no longer meets that standard. It is still a good way above getting a public negative review, at present, but I can no longer give the positive review, so after some consideration it has been deleted. You may, and should, consider this a "vote of no confidence" in the web/online side of KSP and the staff (the employees, not the volunteers) responsible for it.
  2. Included in that big majority are, I believe, a significant number of people who have been driven away from participating in these forums, and will continue to be driven away from them, by this truly dreadful failure of software and user interface design. I've been periodically looking back in to see if there's any sign of the terrible interface improving, or if it would become less objectionable over time, but I continue to be profoundly disappointed by it to the point of having lost nearly all interest in any form of active participation (and I'm not even really passively participating any more — I've almost entirely stopped randomly browsing the forum due to the new software). Honestly, if the forum software had been this terrible when I first heard of KSP, it would very likely have had a major negative impact on my decision to buy. I have now, reluctantly, deleted my positive Steam review, as I am not able to recommend a game in good conscience when the primary support mechanism uses this software.
  3. Honestly, I'd rather pull out my fingernails with rusty vice grips, than use this garbage format. I don't care that there's hoops I could jump through to get a marginally better presentation, that's too much effort to have to keep doing for every visit to the forum, every thread opened. Historically, I've drifted in and out of levels of activity, but I'm not willing to deal with this new software on a regular basis. My days of frequently browsing the latest questions and occasionally trying to help a newbie out are over, and never likely to return as long as the current horrible software and default discussion inhibiting format remains. I hate the new software, I hate this new format. I've come back to it repeatedly to see if I could warm to it, and I end up absolutely loathing it every single time. Bad forum software, badly managed migration to it, bad user experience, just bad all round. Overall, I'm mostly done with these forums because of the new software, I'm no longer interested in being an active part of them.
  4. Comms network which was more or less designed to be a distributed, chaotic, anarchistic free for all descends into chaotic anarchy. Film at 11!
  5. In one word: dreadful! This terrible software could be a perfect case study in gross inefficiency and failure to learn from decades of past experience. The index pages fit about half as many forums/threads per screen page, and with far less information than is typical of good forum software. There is an elegant simplicity, highly developed efficiency of layout, and a maximising of visible information with phpBB, vBulletin, etc; and that is entirely missing in this dumbed down nonsense. Overall, it just puts me off wanting to read the forums and contribute to them. It is a huge step backwards.
  6. They say first impressions count. My first impression is that I hate the new look, it feels very awkward to use compared to vBulletin, phpBB, and others. Everything seems to make horrendously awful use of space, with zero effort to actually maximise the amount of information which can be on screen (far too much white space on index pages, feels like considerably less than half the information presented per screenful/page). This looks like a huge step backwards to me, piling on a bunch of glossy but entirely unnecessary features and junking the elegant simplicity and optimal/efficient layout. Overall, I detest the look and feel of it, it really puts me off using it. Thumbs down, 1/10, poor effort!
  7. It's an ancient bug. I've encountered it more than a few times, but overall infrequently. It appears to be something about the way the KSC loads when it comes into physics range. My guess would be some sort of race condition with the creation of the colliders, where they come into existence before all of their parameters (e.g. position and size) have been set correctly.
  8. [quote name='UmbralRaptor']The migration was finally finished on October 26. (As mentioned on the front page of the wiki)[/QUOTE] Yes, although there are still multiple outstanding issues. The only thing fixed at that time was the file uploads.
  9. [B]Squad, please break everything with 1.1, if you need to. Don't compromise making the game better, or being able to fully embrace the new features provided by Unity 5.[/B] Yes, I fully expect 1.1 to break stuff for a lot of people, and that's just fine. I want 1.1 to break stuff widely for most people, as long as every breakage is due to an improved or refined feature (or an unfortunate side effect of Unity 5's behaviour just making it unreasonable to maintain some old behaviour). It is trivial to keep a 1.0.5 install around, so everyone is quite able to continue with current saves for as long as they want to, so there is no serious problem when (not if) 1.1 breaks stuff. That said, chances are that you'll be able to import saved craft from 1.0.x, and just modify them to work with 1.1. New versions breaking stuff DOES NOT mean that your old craft are all trash and you have to completely start over. It just means that you need to get over it and move forward by adapting them to the new version. To everyone who throws a tantrum at new versions breaking stuff: If Squad listened to you, development on the game would stop years before the potential was properly fulfilled. In some cases, your demands are extremely selfish and foolish. Squad have actually been very good at maintaining compatibility across the versions, and none of the tantrums have ever been appropriate or justified.
  10. Looks like the same bug exists on OS X with an ATI Radeon GPU, no mods installed. Just FYI, I'm not particularly looking for support.
  11. 1.0 has never been any guaranteed indication of "end of development" or "finished". It just indicates that it is feature complete for the first full release (i.e. contains everything they feel it needs to be a full release). Every developer gets to freely define exactly what 1.0 means for each of their products. Squad were quite clear that 1.0 was in no way the end of development, before they even released 0.90. Not once did they get anywhere close to suggesting or implying that 1.0 would not be followed by tweaks, fixes, and general polish, or that there would be no more issues with older saves breaking. Given the complexity of the product (due to the literally infinite possibilities for use cases), it was entirely expected and predictable that there would be a few minor releases after 1.0 to put some polish on it. They did the right thing, as taking it out of "early access" has some sales and marketing benefits for them. Be glad that it's an excellent developer that actually wants to properly squash every last bug, complete every last bit of polishing, and actually gives a damn about customers. Many big developers (e.g. EA and all of the names they have assimilated) slap a 1.0 label on any old incomplete barely functional crap and shovel it out the door with a price twice that of KSP; then publicly demonstrably outright lie about things to customers; then ignore major problems until everyone loses interest in it and gives up. - - - Updated - - - Nobody is forcing you to run the latest update. You can carry on with your existing save for as long as you like. It's your choice to use the latest version or not. You can play 1.0 from now to the end of time, without ever starting over, if you want to. Please, Squad, KEEP BREAKING STUFF! When there's something in the product that isn't quite right yet, and when the product gives everyone the trivial ability to keep using the older version, there's absolutely nothing wrong with breaking stuff to improve the product.
  12. Nope, you're dead wrong about "they do need to stop". They need to keep going with the changes and tweaks, and not let existing saves tie their hands. Over time, each feature will naturally mature to the point where it doesn't change much (i.e. doesn't cause anything to break) over versions. Squad, KEEP BREAKING STUFF! Break it as often as you need to, as long as the overall result is pushing forwards towards perfection. The approach so far is just fine, I wholeheartedly endorse and support your development practices, and do not see any major problems with them.
  13. I'm not sure exactly what the best fix is, whether it's to completely remove certain explosions, or just revisit the effects generated by each part and add some sanity. What I am sure of is that some work is needed, and what we currently have is not correct. The example that is bugging me right now is very early career mode, putting a 1.25m stack decoupler and modular girder segment as launch supports below radially attached RT-10 SRBs (needed because the centre column of the stack extends below the bottom of the SRBs). Doing things that way because the launch clamps are too deep down the tech tree (another thing which is quite stupid). On launch, there's a HUGE screen filling explosion from the modular girders and/or decouplers being torched by the SRBs, and it's just plain stupid and quite annoying, as there's nothing about either the decouplers or girders to justify such a huge visual explosion. It just makes no sense, and detracts from the game.
  14. You can already do that for 2.5m using stock fairings â€â€.they work as both interstage and top payload fairings.
  15. This whole OpenGL vs. DirectX thing is entirely moot and the above responses really make little sense. Unity provides both of them (it has to, as it is multi-platform), and it is Unity that controls if/when either of them are updated to a newer version. Squad's only real say in it is when they update to a newer Unity version, and the versions of graphics code that ship with the version of Unity they have chosen. As for the magic massive performance improvement theorised above, that's quite unlikely. Updated OpenGL and DX support will likely provide some improvement, but KSP simply does not push the graphics hard to make the massive improvements theorised likely. KSP performance is mostly limited by physics and simulation computation, not graphics, so updated graphics libraries and drivers are far less likely to deliver a big impact.