Feedback Requested: 1.0

[sherkaner]

Currently KSP exists as a bunch of disparate features with little to no connective tissue between them (Asteroids and Science being some of the best examples). Pilots still feel extraneous, unmanned probes should be encouraged more (starting off the tech tree with unmanned pods would help this a bit). Kerbal experience seems tacked on. Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, exactly. I think for many here this doesn't feel like such a big deal if they're just building out their dreams in sandbox mode, but I think getting the features feeling really right together in a sensible career mode is critical to a true 1.0 release. Right now it feels like a lot of pieces that could make for a great career mode, but it needs to be really fleshed out, balanced, and refined.

[Destroyer713]

Personally, I think you guys should focus on the Aero overhaul, bugfixing, and balance. My main reasoning for this is that since this is going to be 1.0, reviewers are going to treat it as a finished product. If the update's buggy or unbalanced, it's bound to draw criticism from reviewers and drive away potential newcomers to the game.

Better to get a nice and polished product out there now when it's going to matter the most that's it's bug-free. Then you can use the future updates to focus on adding cool new things or converting to Unity 5.

This is all my opinion, of course.

[TheBrisbyMouse]

IMO this should be the priority:

Optimization > Stability > Balance > Content

We don't need more parts. We need current ones balanced *CoughGlassMK3PartsCough*. Bugfixes would be nice, keep Danny on his toes(AKA fixing the planet destroying glitches).

But what us players have fought tooth and nail with one thing since the introduction of struts: Part count. That game-crashing, CPU-frying, time-consuming, frustrating menace to our creativity. There are some things I'd love to do, like a Eve landing and return, but can't, because the part count of the rocket required is too much for my computer. New computers won't help much, as KSP doesn't multithread.

How to fix the problem? I don't know, I don't program computers. I just build virtual rockets and listen to what sounds reasonable on the forum. Some solutions I've heard have been part welding (from what I've heard, it's the easiest to implement and will have the biggest impact on FPS), multithreading (however, I heard it's impossible, something about Unity not being up to the task), and a physics code overhaul (yeah, like that's ever going to happen).

Just my $0.02

Edited March 17, 2015 by TheBrisbyMouse

[Francois424]

Thanks for asking our input. Obviously this is where I ask for the Mun (pun intended) no ?

I'll keep it short, don't worry

#1 - IMHO, we need unity 5 support asap. why ? 64 bits support, and help with laggy ships+stations. I had the chance to try x64 in 0.24.2 and the performace increase was easy to feel... even a modless install with only kerbal engineer was awesome.

#2 - I agree with poster above (at the time of writing this, "TheBrisbyMouse") about Optimization > Stability > Balance > Content... which incidentally kinda fit into my #1 here. There are also many other fixes for that, such as longer fuel tanks or maybe have some way to tell the engine that our 2x Orange tank +1 engine +2 ASAS +1 RCS tank + 1 Nosecone (in one cylinder) = 1 part. That way my 15x engines super-duty launcher will count like 15 part instead of 105 (well, beside the RCS port, struts, fuelines and lights, but still).

#3 - (the for myself suggestion) IMHO, we need an electric propeller or 3 (small/medium/large, with possibility to toggle push/pull), and solar wing or solar panel coating (a film of sorts) that we can put on surfaces (especially wings/canard). It will help tremendously with exploration and will be very fun to do.

Oh and please make the Piloting "Automatic aiming" be more precise, if only for a 5-star pilot and top-of-the-line remote controller... case and point: Mechjeb or Remotetech flight computer. <-- this is a nice to have, not priority.

Your game is awesome, and will definitely get better. Great Job !

[federicoaa]

Thank you maxmaps for asking us.

I think focus on what you have and try to polish as best as you can, and take your time to make 1.0 the best release, then go full into unity 5 for 1.1

[Maxmaps]

Just to try and guide the conversation here guys, as much as we're committed to moving the game to Unity 5, it is by no means a small task and would add a massive amount of overhead to any update it is part of, to the point where it would likely almost be an update of its own.

This is regarding the current feature list for 1.0, as adding more stuff like specific parts, new systems and what have you would most likely just complicate any issues we may have about dedicating enough time to every feature to make sure we're happy with its quality.

[Slam_Jones]

I can't help but think of back in the day when you would buy games physically at a store. At launch, the game-makers made sure their product was as polished and ready for public use as possible, because they knew that critics would look relentlessly for any flaws, and planned accordingly.

Nowadays, it seems, that's not the case. With the fact that we can so quickly and easily download patches and hotfixes, etc. that game-makers feel like they can be lax on existing problems, instead pushing for flash and features to boost sales.

Basically, polish what you have and make d*mn sure what you're putting out for release is 100% of what it can be. Don't be one of the lesser makers, be one of the great ones.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Amihan]

This far in and now you're wondering if you're adding too much at once?

I might change my mind later, but keeping in mind this is what reviewers are going to be judging, I would put anything that makes career mode more... coherent? Rewarding? Cohesive? at the top, alongside bug-fixes and some balancing. Then tutorials, since... well, how many people know the first thing about spaceflight. I assume you have a list of new stuff you intend to include no matter what since that was your vision for 1.0, so considering that it does seem better to work on polish.

That said, even assuming most reviewers are male I personally will be an unhappy person if female Kerbals get delayed. Acknowledging that women exist is already commonly an afterthought

[Randazzo]

Bugs need to be fixed. A release game should not require a mod patch to make it work properly.

I don't mean that to be harsh, I very much enjoy KSP and very much want it to succeed.

There are obviously some "behind the scenes" sort of things like wiping out memory leaks as much as possible, but I think bugs that directly impact gameplay (such as kerbals flying off ladders randomly, or radial boosters behaving strangely once cut loose) need to be given a priority.

When you're about to get married, you don't go around in jeans and t-shirt telling everybody how great your cholesterol levels are, you get a tux.

I'm sure that statement makes sense to at least two people.

Disclaimer- I know jack squat about code or development

Edited March 17, 2015 by Randazzo

[Francois424]

Just to try and guide the conversation here guys, as much as we're committed to moving the game to Unity 5, it is by no means a small task and would add a massive amount of overhead to any update it is part of, to the point where it would likely almost be an update of its own.

This is regarding the current feature list for 1.0, as adding more stuff like specific parts, new systems and what have you would most likely just complicate any issues we may have about dedicating enough time to every feature to make sure we're happy with its quality.

Very well, I still think that Unity5 needs to be done asap... as soon as you can after 1.0 is done, that is fine with me.

As for 1.0 stuff ONLY, quoting the perfect answer thus far :

If I were to prioritize the main changes you have planned for 1.0, I would do this:

High Priority

1. New Aerodynamic Model
   
2. Fairings
   
3. Tech Tree Rebalance
   
4. Part balancing / General game balance
   
5. ISP affects thrust instead of fuel consumption
   

Medium Priority

1. Re-entry Heat
   
2. Deep Space Refueling (ISRU)
   

Low Priority

1. Female Kerbals
   
2. Delta-V Readings
   
3. Design Concerns in the VAB/SPH
   
4. Warp to point in orbit
   

[CptRichardson]

Right now, the biggest things I can think of are optimization, optimization, optimization! Something like 90% of your efforts should be going into squeezing every last screaming drop of performance and stability out of the engine for the moment, to minimize any possible chance of the kraken or any other issue showing up in game, killing (as close to it as possible) the time-to-memory crashes, and otherwise fixing all those issues.

All that other stuff is good now that you've got it mostly done, but I'd prefer that you work for the next four to five months on perfecting the performance of the game.

If you've got time, I'd love to see what I mentioned a few weeks back in the form of an AI-controled rival space program launching from the old center site as an optional competitor, but that's really not something you need bother with.

[tater]

I have to say bug fixing, optimization, and balance. Note that of course this is not simple as the science/tech/career systems are really out of whack, and touching one really requires touching all to an extent, possibly in a fundamental way. Claw's thread is filled with a number of ideas about the contract/career system that bear close attention, IMO.

Also, keep in mind what the new systems do, and are for… what's the goal, etc. It makes a difference in career, anyway.

[LordFerret]

I would think spit and polish - as in optimization and bug fixes. Foundation. Adding new content at this point would be nice, but eventually the optimization and bug fixes will need to be addressed; I would think that to focus on that now would prevent the need for broader compounded optimization and fixing.

[kujuman]

If the question is about extending new features for 1.0 (ie more parts, better art, etc) or adding new smaller features we haven't heard about versus improving what's already been developed, I'd much prefer bug-fixing and improving what's already there. A 1.1 patch that has new ISRU scanners and equipment etc feels like a nicer patch than a 1.1 that fixes bugs that have been in the game awhile.

New content (above and beyond what's been announced) we can live without; at the very worst, we can continue using mods to add functionality. For example, if the question was between bug-fixing the claw vs adding KAS-like functionality, I'd much rather the claw be fixed in 1.0 if KAS-like connectors did appear in 1.1. Of course, if during debugging the claw it becomes very easy to extend it to KAS-like functionality, by all means do both

Optimizations I can live without until the port to Unity 5, since there's no point having to potentially rewrite things.

Finally, as I'm sure you're aware, if things are rebalanced much at all say, in 1.1, then people probably won't be happy if the saves they've worked on become no longer useable or if vessels in flight now behave differently. If we did get better SRBs in say 1.1, players who've learned the how the SRBs work in 1.0 would be in for a shock.

Just some thoughts.

[loch.ness]

Personally I'd put:

High priority:

Bug fix and Balance - Get what you've got working as good and possible since there is already an awesome game going on.

ISP and Aerodynamics change - place holders like the current Aero model should be pushed through so that balance and Bugs can be addressed.

Medium High priority: Female Kerbals - This one generates a large number of threads / comments / discussions on the forum from a loyal fan-base. No need to give anyone ammo for a negative review if it can be avoided.

Medium Priority: Tech-tree re-balancing, Adjustments / alterations to UI, tutorials. Fine tuning a balanced - bug-free game to make it even better would be awesome.

Lower priority: New features. I would love to see the new stuff added for 1.0. I'm really looking forward to Stock re-entry heat and ISRU. They'd make a pretty good 1.1 update on their own though. Of the two - re-entry is higher priority as it would force people to change ships already in flight. ISRU can be added later without such problems.

All in all - I already love the game and everything looking to get added looks to make it better. I agree with most other posters: Polish and Cohesion trump new features at this point but I'd still love the new featu

[tater]

Take ISRU and something like scanners. That implies a kind of "science" we do not have in stock, and one that is better (mapping planets), more realistic, and actually useful in addition to science! points. So any balance needs to be cognizant of new things on the horizon (this is a reason I suppose many prefer a 0.99 release to beat up first, I suppose). Concern about saves should be a non-issue, BTW.

[daniel l.]

How about replacing the sun flare with a Realistic yet flashy new one, And replacing the current skybox with a more vibrant and interestin one. I do think that while the features you are adding are cool i would prefer that you make 1.0 more extensive since you decied to skip 10 whole releases ( After you skipped 65 releases.)

[Mitchz95]

I say focus on bugfixing. Reviewers will be willing to put with missing features, but they'll be less forgiving of game-breaking bugs.

[White Owl]

I think the single most important feature we've heard about is the aerodynamics overhaul. The nonsensical aero has been the worst flaw in this otherwise excellent game for a very long time. As far as I'm concerned, if you can make aerodynamic flight make sense then all other concerns can take a back seat.

I think the second most important thing to work on is bugfixing, optimizing, plugging memory leaks, etc. Can I even dream that textures be loaded on demand?

[kujuman]

I'd also add that we need to be clear on definitions, just so we have the same starting point. Here's how I understand these

-New Features: Things not announced as being in 1.0; e.g., new SRB mechanics, being able to connect fuel lines between ships on the surface, allowing mods to create new vessel types (so we can designate ComSats, SpacePlanes, etc, a feature I'd really like ) etc.

-Bugfixing: Solving problems from occurring inside the game. These can be simple typos, memory leaks (I believe Mike found the causes of the two biggest ones already), or things like the radial decoupler bug, etc.

-Optimizations: Doing more with less. E.g., Better RAM management (dynamic loading of parts, load textures in a smaller format), creating a smaller HDD footprint, creating shared textures when possible, etc.

-Performance: Reduce clock cycles to perform a task. E.g., rewrite the physics code, update orbital information less often, make contract checking less of a burden, write faster shaders and other GFX improvements, etc.

Note the difference between "optimizations" and "performance". Using a gigabyte less of RAM won't allow you to build larger vessels that run at full speed, nor will being able to have a 1000 part ship that runs at 100% necessarily mean that you've reduced the RAM requirements.

[White Owl]

Hang on, wait a minute here!

If the big concern is what features and/or fixes can make it to the release version 1.0... and it looks like you can't get in absolutely everything you want, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist... and you say you're willing to change the plan on the fly...

Does the next version really have to be 1.0? Can you just change that part of the plan? Or is it just not at all possible?

From where I sit out here in the bleachers, changing the version number to 0.91 looks like it would be whole lot simpler and bring significant benefits. If you can't get everything done in time... just change what "in time" means.

[Xaver]

I think it is up to you. Take the choice you prefer for better results.

[Tarmenius]

I'd have to say that given the scale of features to be added, bugfixing and general optimization should be the top priority. Since any remaining "placeholder" code will need to be cleared away during this update, it should be the fist thing that gets done. From what I understand of game development, this will allow you to work from a code base that is relatively solid, streamlined, clean, and easier to maintain. Programming new features will be easier, debugging will be faster meaning that more features overall will be able to be added.

After that, I'd say the Overhauled Aerodynamics is likely to inflict the greatest change in balance, so get it out of the way first and leave balancing for last.

Lastly, I'd like to thank SQUAD for making a truly great game and for involving us in the process.

[regex]

We've decided that the next release will be 1.0 because it accomplishes the goals we've set up with the development of KSP from the very beginning, my question to you is whether you'd prefer we try and add more features, or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

Fix bugs, fix bugs, fix your memory management, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix bugs, fix your memory management, fix bugs, fix your memory management...

Yeah, fix bugs and fix your memory management.

Seriously, fix the memory management, it makes the game look really bad.

Fix it please.

[Merinsan]

Hang on, wait a minute here!

If the big concern is what features and/or fixes can make it to the release version 1.0... and it looks like you can't get in absolutely everything you want, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist... and you say you're willing to change the plan on the fly...

Does the next version really have to be 1.0? Can you just change that part of the plan? Or is it just not at all possible?

From where I sit out here in the bleachers, changing the version number to 0.91 looks like it would be whole lot simpler and bring significant benefits. If you can't get everything done in time... just change what "in time" means.

I completely agree. It kind of reminds me of the old days in WoW, were you had to travel through the world to get to a dungeon. Once you got there, and realized you would fail (for whatever reason), and someone would say, "well we are already here, might as well try". Of course, it just ended badly, and you lost money on repairs in the end.