Kerbal Space Program 1.0 Enters Experimental Testing

[basic.syntax]

Greenfire32 started off just hoping, as do I, that 1.0 will be much more stable, and that the average player will collide with fewer bugs than any previous release. In .90, its much too easy to run into bugs. With hope, the longer-than-usual "Experimentals" test phase (made longer because Squad also puts some importance on the "1.0" label) will give the developers time to fix problems they report.

Bugs and stability are separate from any wish for x, y, or z feature that a particular player might want to see, for them to consider the game "feature complete." Regardless how easy we might think a feature is to implement, there is no end to it. We might never see another build if Squad succumbed to Feature Creep. Do you want more frequent releases, or more stuff in each one? Software development is an endless battle - we are very lucky that they have announced that 1.0 is not the end of this road.

[razark]

Hope that cleared things up for you!

Not really. Kind of missed the point, really.

If bugs are harder to find, we should expect more quality control, not accept more bugs.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Why no 1.01?

[uglyduckling81]

Same here. As I've been saying for some time, career mode is still flawed.

The problem is conceptual- they made career a series of impediments regulating what the player can do until they've progressed by fulfilling some else's space plans.

They didn't make it about planning and managing the kerbals, exploration and utilisation of space. That happens, but it seems secondary.

When it was just sandbox, imagination ruled. People went to the planets, because it was awesome to explore, built complex vessels because it was fun to embrace the challenge, built stations and bases because it was fun to be a pioneer in space.

All they needed to do was stick the right meters on things, and provide a way of measuring what the space program was achieving, )So we'd earn/lose money depending on how cost effective we were,) and add a few more activities to make the experience complete.

Instead, we've got a set of task lists to tick off- unlock the parts, build the buildings, visit all biomes.

Then fly around doing someone else's missions until you're bored of it.

It's not that what career mode has is bad per say- fulfilling some contracts can be a fun, working with limited parts an engaging challenge. But it just doesn't come together to create a fulfilling whole. And even though we may see great improvements in future expansions, that is a problem when this is this the 'complete' game.

I like the career mode. It's the only mode I play. I play with a lot of mods to enhance the experience like station science, remote tech, and about 50 other popular mods. There is something satisfying getting a rocket to land on the Mun and back with only 30 parts. The small decisions like well I guess I can only have 3 landing legs, 1 battery, do I need more rations on board in case I get stuck and need to wait for a rescue team. It's all a lot of fun, a lot more fun than having unlimited everything and landing a 150 tonne lander on the Mun and getting home with half my fuel left over.

[basic.syntax]

Contracts still leave room for imagination in craft design... but they are channeled to achieve an end that someone else decided. Yet, if you want to try getting to a far away place and back with just 30 parts at the start of career, there may not be any contract for it, but you could try it.

Tw1 has some good points. I feel like I'm participating in a space program, meeting goals that are suggested to me - but not really "directing" a space program. Others have suggested an alternate method for contracts, where the player might construct a mission. Pick and choose from lists of goals and restrictions that are of interest to the various contract companies, which added together make the final payout. A long, idea-filled discussion occurred in this thread.

[Greenfire32]

In making your point though you are ignoring the fact that it's far easier to stabilize and bugfix a program that is tiny enough to fit on an old Atari 2600 cartridge than it is one large enough to download off the Internet on a modern broadband connection.

I didn't ignore that a cart would be easier to optimize. I didn't even get into the difficulty of doing so as that's really not a valid topic--of course games today are harder to fix than those of yesterday...

All I said was that 1.0 needs to be optimized and I don't think the next update is going to be the one to do it. KSP isn't ready for 1.0. There's still too much to fix.

Greenfire says that verifying the amount should not be much harder than it would have been back when you had 17 pennies.

5th states the exact opposite.

...no...

What I was trying to get at with the whole cartridge vs digital (then vs now) comparison was that back in the day, games that were considered "Official Release" HAD to be borderline perfect. Because if they weren't two things would happen:

1: You had to live with any bugs after the game shipped.

2: The Public would ridicule you for making a sub-par game.

All I was trying to say was that I don't think KSP is ready for "1.0 status," because there's too much that has yet to be addressed. Bugs, optimizations, missing features that really ought to be in the stock game (like Kerbin not being inhabited ONLY by the space center...)

At no point did I say it should be "easy."

Greenfire32 started off just hoping, as do I, that 1.0 will be much more stable, and that the average player will collide with fewer bugs than any previous release. In .90, its much too easy to run into bugs. With hope, the longer-than-usual "Experimentals" test phase (made longer because Squad also puts some importance on the "1.0" label) will give the developers time to fix problems they report.

And if we have to hope, then that means the game isn't ready for official release yet. You cant "hope" for anything without also harboring doubt, no matter how tiny it is.

Why no 1.01?

Squad has stated that they intend to continue developing KSP after the 1.0 release. Whether or not development will continue after 1.0 is not the issue.

The issue is that "1.0 status" is a BIG deal. It essentially means the game is complete as per the specs set forth by the devs. It's (and I'm going back to the cartridges here), basically the same as saying KSP is officially "done" and will now be "produced" and sent to market for the masses to buy.

So if 1.0 is as big a deal as Squad, myself, and many many other people think it is, then KSP isn't ready for it. There's still too much left to do.

Let's use Minecraft as an example.

When 1.0 hit, the game was done. It had all the features the devs wanted, little to no bugs (at the time of release), and there was even a big "Day One Release Celebration" where the game was symbolically released as an official game you could buy. Sure, they've added a ton more stuff after the official release, but at least they made sure that Minecraft 1.0 was a viable stand-alone game that didn't need an update to fix bugs or add features that should have been there from the start.

In a sense, DLC has made gaming a better place. But's it's also removed the urgency of getting it right the first time, since all you need is an update down the road.

--------

All that said, I love KSP and I'm not bashing the Devs for wanted to finally "finish" their game. I just think they're jumping the gun and moving a little too fast now that the end is in sight.

I do not think KSP is ready for 1.0 status, yet I am still excited to finally see it get there.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Greenfire32

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Squad has stated that they intend to continue developing KSP after the 1.0 release. Whether or not development will continue after 1.0 is not the issue.

I meant that the numbering system was counting by "Hundredths" i.e. .24 .25 so I was wondering why everyone assumed that it would go 1.0 1.1 instead of 1.0 1.01.(It would like going from .20 to .30)

[Greenfire32]

I meant that the numbering system was counting by "Hundredths" i.e. .24 .25 so I was wondering why everyone assumed that it would go 1.0 1.1 instead of 1.0 1.01.(It would like going from .20 to .30)

My mistake. I thought you were asking why there couldn't or wouldn't be another update after 1.0

Apologies.

[Superfluous J]

All I said was that 1.0 needs to be optimized and I don't think the next update is going to be the one to do it. KSP isn't ready for 1.0. There's still too much to fix.

I agree with you in theory on both points. But if you want any modern program to be as bug-free as the ancient stuff from even 20 years ago, you will never ever see a piece of completed software again.

[henryrasia]

*sigh* I remember the days when we were all "testers"... Talk about dev-early adopter alienation

[basic.syntax]

And if we have to hope, then that means the game isn't ready for official release yet. You cant "hope" for anything without also harboring doubt, no matter how tiny it is.

[...]

All that said, I love KSP and I'm not bashing the Devs for wanted to finally "finish" their game. I just think they're jumping the gun and moving a little too fast now that the end is in sight.

I do not think KSP is ready for 1.0 status, yet I am still excited to finally see it get there.

I appreciate your concluding comments. Otherwise, your method for when to declare a 1.0 official release is unrealistic. If Squad held back their 1.0 because there was a sliver of doubt the game might crash under some permutation or combination of parts... which only (theoretically) occurs when your speed crosses a certain threshold value, and your G-loading is %some number%, and solar panel #3 is going into shadow... I think you get the picture. There are so many variables that even with automation tools, I doubt every possible combination can be tested. Striving for perfection is just that: striving. Doing your best, picking up the pieces and moving on when a problem is discovered.

I remember apps crashing all the time on Win9x, increasing stability in WinXP, and now I'm on Win8.1 and it's been the most stable OS I've used yet, task manager says I have 1000 hrs uptime, atm. Each of those OS versions had big CEO announcements saying it was their best version yet. And yet, I get windows updates every week or so, patching vulnerabilities that have been recently discovered, but were always there.

[Ippo]

Regarding testing, please keep in mind that the largest part of KSP is assets, not code. So it doesn't fit on a cartridge, but it's mainly because of models and textures. Plus, the vast majority of the code (the engine) is Unity's responsibility. So yes, it's still totally possible to debug a game.

[Laie]

I remember that some blatant bugs have made it past QA and testing before. Like decoupler torque or the textures on Mk3 adapters (now you see them now you don't). Also, what will be considered a bug? Deadly water is one of those things I consider to be a bug, or that even the strongest decoupler can't hold a single large booster.

I hope for the best, but expect much less.

[Melfice]

*sigh* I remember the days when we were all "testers"...

Squad does too.

That's why we're no longer all tester. We sucked at it.

For every good, useable piece of feedback, there were 100 more "GAME CRASHED! FIX! YOU SUCK!" reports.

[Melcom]

Are there any news on the new resource system? A Description, some picture maybe? It's one of most importand new features for me but i haven't heard of it since the announcement.

[basic.syntax]

The new resource scanner is highlighted with a few words in this squadcast summary.

I haven't noticed an all-in-one-place written overview, as of yet.

If you are feeling brave, the hype thread has more pix.

[Melcom]

Thank you!

[Whirligig Girl]

I didn't ignore that a cart would be easier to optimize. I didn't even get into the difficulty of doing so as that's really not a valid topic--of course games today are harder to fix than those of yesterday...

All I said was that 1.0 needs to be optimized and I don't think the next update is going to be the one to do it. KSP isn't ready for 1.0. There's still too much to fix.

...no...

What I was trying to get at with the whole cartridge vs digital (then vs now) comparison was that back in the day, games that were considered "Official Release" HAD to be borderline perfect. Because if they weren't two things would happen:

1: You had to live with any bugs after the game shipped.

2: The Public would ridicule you for making a sub-par game.

All I was trying to say was that I don't think KSP is ready for "1.0 status," because there's too much that has yet to be addressed. Bugs, optimizations, missing features that really ought to be in the stock game (like Kerbin not being inhabited ONLY by the space center...)

At no point did I say it should be "easy."

And if we have to hope, then that means the game isn't ready for official release yet. You cant "hope" for anything without also harboring doubt, no matter how tiny it is.

Squad has stated that they intend to continue developing KSP after the 1.0 release. Whether or not development will continue after 1.0 is not the issue.

The issue is that "1.0 status" is a BIG deal. It essentially means the game is complete as per the specs set forth by the devs. It's (and I'm going back to the cartridges here), basically the same as saying KSP is officially "done" and will now be "produced" and sent to market for the masses to buy.

So if 1.0 is as big a deal as Squad, myself, and many many other people think it is, then KSP isn't ready for it. There's still too much left to do.

Let's use Minecraft as an example.

When 1.0 hit, the game was done. It had all the features the devs wanted, little to no bugs (at the time of release), and there was even a big "Day One Release Celebration" where the game was symbolically released as an official game you could buy. Sure, they've added a ton more stuff after the official release, but at least they made sure that Minecraft 1.0 was a viable stand-alone game that didn't need an update to fix bugs or add features that should have been there from the start.

In a sense, DLC has made gaming a better place. But's it's also removed the urgency of getting it right the first time, since all you need is an update down the road.

--------

All that said, I love KSP and I'm not bashing the Devs for wanted to finally "finish" their game. I just think they're jumping the gun and moving a little too fast now that the end is in sight.

I do not think KSP is ready for 1.0 status, yet I am still excited to finally see it get there.

KSP at 1.0 will have all of the features the original design document said should be in it to be Kerbal Space Program. It doesn't mean that there's not a whole lot of things that KSP needs in it by this point, but at this point KSP has all it needs to be KSP. A game where you can fly rockets to planets and back, with all of the other stuff in between. I think (and so did Scott Manley in one of his Reusable Space Program episodes) that it wouldn't have been a truly horrible thing if they stopped KSP at 0.18 or 0.19, because at that point it was really close to being sandbox complete. Of course, I'm really really glad that it is not stopped being developed, because there were still a lot of features that still needed to be implemented.

- - - Updated - - -

I meant that the numbering system was counting by "Hundredths" i.e. .24 .25 so I was wondering why everyone assumed that it would go 1.0 1.1 instead of 1.0 1.01.(It would like going from .20 to .30)

It's not a decimal system. The first version ever was 0.0, second was 0.1, third was 0.2, and the release version was 0.7.3. 18, 19, 20, 21. It's an integer (0 until this update), followed by an integer (7, 18, 21, 90), followed by one more integer if applicable (1, 2, 5). It's Major, Update, Minor. It's not decimals.

[ManTrelk]

I think most of us would prefer another beta release before 1.0. Hell, I'd be happy for squad to simply puh the experimental branch to stable and let us do a few weeks testing of the new systems before release, if it were possible. That said, I think it's pretty clear they're dead set to go ahead as planned and make the next release 1.0. Given that reality, I think it's time we stopped criticising the move and got behind Squad. We should celebrate the move out of early access. This is a fantastic game and development has been a wild ride. Let's give Squad the support they've earned and help make this event as happy and successful as possible.

[Superfluous J]

I think it's pretty clear they're dead set to go ahead as planned and make the next release 1.0. Given that reality, I think it's time we stopped criticising the move and got behind Squad.

So the fact that it's sure to happen removes all need to criticize the bad decision? I do not agree.

Note: I'm totally happy with the feature list and the list of bugfixes*. This update seems to be a true and great end to a long, hard-fought Alpha phase and a strong entry into the middle of Beta (with all the bugfixes). My problem is presenting a Beta build as complete to the world.

Right now, when people talk about all the problems with the game, I can say "Yeah but it's in Beta. Well, actually it's in Alpha." After 1.0 comes out, all I'll be able to say is, "Yeah. They boned that up pretty good, huh?"

*Both told to us and implied. I'm willing to assume they're fixing a lot of bugs because they've told us, even though they haven't yet put up an official list. Nor do I expect them to or feel it's required.

[Lord Aurelius]

@5thHorseman

Exactly my thoughts as well. The next update will probably be an amazing update compared to what we've had so far, but as you said, it's shaping up to be an excellent beta release, not something I would call 1.0.

[ManTrelk]

So the fact that it's sure to happen removes all need to criticize the bad decision? I do not agree.

Not at all. But the concerns have been voiced. This topic has been debated endlessly since the announcement. What I'm saying is I think it's time to accept the inevitable and get behind it as much as possible, to make the release of this epic game as positive as it can be.

[Procyon]

Its a great game, it works, it has lots o features and they are planning on more, they are putting in things ppl have been asking for for ages. Seems to me It is complete, even if it does still has a few issues, they seem to be very minor, nothing game breaking. Nothing in the world is perfect and if you are going to wait for perfection your going to be disappointed. I don't really care what they want to call it as long as i can play it

[Gkirmathal]

@5thHorseman, well said sir. I wholly share you critical look.

@Procyon, you say 'they seem to be very minor, nothing game breaking'?

No offense, but if I may guess you have never modded KSP with part/beautification/planets mods right? Or stock, done very long design sessions, only designing > test launching stuff and lots of reverting?

On the memory side of KSP, there is A LOT which is not working properly, even for a BETA version. This is where a lot of the criticism towards SQUAD comes from.

Like 5thHorseman said, they tell us they have fixed a lot of bugs and have been working on improved performance. But, have not released any info what exactly has been done/fixed/improved. This for me caters to a bad image, as I have had some bad experiences with other products and their development teams or lack of.

So until I can read a list, which also addresses the above memory related issues and bugs fixes etc. I'll remain very skeptical.

[Fel]

What I was trying to get at with the whole cartridge vs digital (then vs now) comparison was that back in the day, games that were considered "Official Release" HAD to be borderline perfect. Because if they weren't two things would happen:

1: You had to live with any bugs after the game shipped.

2: The Public would ridicule you for making a sub-par game.

I'm fairly certain that companies DID ship with a plethora of glitches and, if a glitch was serious enough, they WOULD release a different cartridge as a "bug fix" (or, sometimes, it would simply be fixed in the international version.)

http://s9.zetaboards.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/topic/7118517/1/

"Concerning the letters you sometimes see next to these numbers (A, B or C), it's the "Revisions" (or re-release) of the games, with slightly differences from the original ones (most often some bugs are corrected between two reprints)."

Why are we really going all the way to cartridges though? Even game consoles didn't have a serious way of distributing patches.

Of course...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061217170813AAASUHA

"PS2 frozen during saving?"

"just start the ps2 up again then all will be fixed.............that kindiff stuff just happends sometimes"

In other words, neither result is accurate.

Look, most of the major issues come from Unity Engine and C# and there isn't much they can do to fix that. Unity 5 is NOT a bandaid, it has the potential to break more than it fixes and cause more memory related bugs.

As far as eye candy goes (which has been mentioned far too often), these tend to be subjective and do have a cost of valuable computer resources. Are we fixing bugs... trying to reduce the memory footprint... or adding bugs by increasing it in favour of pointless eye candy?

So, in short, unless YOU are volunteering to do the work, saying how bad the game is doesn't accomplish anything. There is only so much that SQUAD is capable of doing; and at this point, they've likely near exhausted what they believe can be done.

- - - Updated - - -

Squad does too.

That's why we're no longer all tester. We sucked at it.

For every good, useable piece of feedback, there were 100 more "GAME CRASHED! FIX! YOU SUCK!" reports.

Well... the majority of people don't really know what a bug is. They often reference symptoms, "x happened... fix it!" but don't understand that x was caused by y which was caused by z. The game crashing, for instance, is not a bug. The "crash" is a feature of the operating system designed to protect your computer from damage. What IS a bug is what caused the crash. In most cases the attempt to allocate memory past what the system can provide.