Make up your mind and pre test please.

[Vaporized Steel]

I'm not angry at all. Just slightly annoyed. I'm annoyed by all those unnecessary mini updates.

Did the developers even test their own 1.0 version before they released it. Why dont they fly some rockets/planes themselves prior to release so they could have released v1.02 as v1.

Or...

Assuming we get a 1.03, 1.04 in a short future timespan or moar...

All the fixes these updates add are quite transparent ones.

It would have been far better for squad to postpone their 1.0 release with the transparent bugfixes already incorporated.

Most notably the

"I can not make up my mind kind of attitude over the aerodynamic model"

If they'd have actually flown a plane in 1.0 and find out how aircraft accelerate to mach 3 at sea level they could have already incorporated the fixes in the main release. And this is just one of many examples.

My idea about game making is that a main release is a complete publication with overlooked bugs and deficits.

I can't grasp how some of the in game 1.0 bugs could ever have been overlooked.

Why am I annoyed by all this?

Because I keep redownloading a new version just because pre-release testing is not part of the developers strategy.

Mod developers who worked hard to update their mods have to recode their plugins for every little update to come. Mind you that 1.02 is most likely not the last of many future patches.

And it ruined my carreer mode atleast a bit. Mod parts like mechjeb and many others that dont cross operate between v1.x version to the next left my VAB full of rockets with the "contains invalid parts" message.

Maybe this attitude and ways of operating a programming campaign is just part of the strategy for developers of a indie game.

Maybe it's just arrogant from me to demand high end professionalism for paying €28,00.

But regardless of whether what I wish for is acceptable to demand from the devs I do think I have a point.

Even although I might have impressed myself as a complainer I hate being one.

And this complaint is about the only one in a sea of sympathy and compliments. And as for v1.0 in general it made ksp whole and complete to a large degree. Better said I defenitely enjoy myself.

But pre release testing and implementing ways to reduce frequent patching would be highly appreciated.

[Lord Aurelius]

I agree with this, you're not the only one frustrated with how Squad is handling this release. There have actually been a LOT of posts along these lines (some of which were so inflammatory that the devs started a thread specifically to address them), but for the most part they tend to get buried in threads as a lot of players come out defending Squad and drowning out even valid criticism. While Squad has definitely produced an excellent game, IMHO Squad could have handled this release (and the community expectations around it) a LOT better.

As far as better prerelease testing, a lot of other early access and indie titles have a public beta branch alongside the release, and new patches are pushed to the public beta and soak tested before being incorporated into the main release.

[Sudslv]

The game is not even done and they do 2 big jumps from 0.25>0.90>.1.0

its like saying "okay we are done with this game, most of the people who would buy the game have already done it, so lets speed up the final version, fix few bugs and start a new project". the game is FAR from 1.0

Other than making and flying rockets/airplanes/rovers there is nothing to do. Its like all these bread simulator/goat and what not simulators where they just give you few features, suck out the money and abandon it as the hype goes over. What they really should do is add all sorts of things to all the planets and add those other planets that they have been promising us (gas planet1-2 and their moons) Currently the KSP looks great and i cannot name any other project with a greater potential. If you would take a bit of time to just fly around the plants you may get disappointed because there is nothing to fly to. I would want to see lots and lots of things like "the mun arch", but with better texture colliding so it wouldn't stand out so much as a foreign object. The surface of planets need to be reworked because its mostly all bumpy without real flat surfaces (big fields of grasslands instead of the more unrealistic bumpiness everywhere (but it just might be me as i'm living in an area with highest mountain peak 300m ASL and mostly 30-60m ASL)) and the mountains look bad. what i would want to see is:

-water bodies above sea level

-detailed mountains(at least 2x more than what they are now)

-dozens of lakes, ponds, streams, rivers

-caves (of all altitudes, underwater as well)

-Detailed, more realistic water

-natural objects of interest (volcanoes, waterfalls, mountains with steep falls and holes to fly through, ect.)

-Some signs of kerbal presence (in kerbin/mun) - Dams, observatories(detailed arecibo observatory would look really good) , cities, random buildings, monuments, ect.

And these are just about the map, there are plenty of things to add in science, parts, gameplay, career...

Im hoping that the worst case of squad slowly abandoning KSP unfinished isn't currently happening and that they might once in a lifetime check the suggestions forum because there are SO much of things that should be added, but unfortunately there are more of those which should not.

Tundra in KSP:

Tundra in real life:

So you can see some differences. And rethink if KSP should be 1.0

Edited May 4, 2015 by Sudslv

[DoToH]

Bugs aside, I'm sure that QA and experimentals have played with different sets for aero values (the main difference between 1.0 and 1.0.1). Devs decision on adopting one or another different set for aero config values is a matter of how they want the aero to afect playstile.

The change in 1.0.1 is big (~30% more drag and ~20% more lift IIRC). It's a very radical change for a hotfix unless they have tested the new set of values previously.

That is from a logical point of view.

There are more options: one of them includes devs playing randomly with aero values for dozens of hotfixes and sticking finally with the ones that generate less rage posts in the forums.

[Lord Aurelius]

I didn't mention it in my earlier post, but I think a big part of the polarization of the community is that many players (and even the devs) seem to be stuck in the early access mindset. By early access standards, this has been a great release, lots of new features and relatively minor bugs all things considered.

What a lot of the fawning players are missing is what other posts in this thread and other threads have tried to say (before getting shouted down): this still feels like an alpha/beta product (depends on how many major further changes Squad decides to implement) that's still in early access. It doesn't FEEL like a final release at all. Lots of little inconsistencies throughout the game, especially on the graphics side, and a career mode that is outright broken in a lot of ways.

Like sudslv said in his post, there really aren't that many interesting places to visit beyond a handful of easter eggs. Once you get over the novelty of learning how to build and fly rockets to other planets, you find that the planets themselves are actually quite boring. At least designing and building the crafts to get there is interesting.

What this game really needs is a major polish pass once all the core features are in place. No new features, just focus on cleaning up inconsistencies and making the game FEEL finished.

@DoToH

I seriously hope it's the former and that it just didn't make it into the release due to some revisioning mixup rather than the latter... Still, it seems like after the code changes are frozen you do one final check to make sure that the release code is actually the code you intended to release and not some older version that still has an issue that's already been fixed.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[Sudslv]

I didn't mention it in my earlier post, but I think a big part of the polarization of the community is that many players (and even the devs) seem to be stuck in the early access mindset. By early access standards, this has been a great release, lots of new features and relatively minor bugs all things considered.

What a lot of the fawning players are missing is what other posts in this thread and other threads have tried to say (before getting shouted down): this still feels like an alpha/beta product (depends on how many major further changes Squad decides to implement) that's still in early access. It doesn't FEEL like a final release at all. Lots of little inconsistencies throughout the game, especially on the graphics side, and a career mode that is outright broken in a lot of ways.

Like sudslv said in his post, there really aren't that many interesting places to visit beyond a handful of easter eggs. Once you get over the novelty of learning how to build and fly rockets to other planets, you find that the planets themselves are actually quite boring. At least designing and building the crafts to get there is interesting.

What this game really needs is a major polish pass once all the core features are in place. No new features, just focus on cleaning up inconsistencies and making the game FEEL finished.

I would disagree on that, by making the game FEEL finished the devs will start to think that it IS finished therefore as i mentioned previously - abandoning the project. there are some inconsistencies in game mechanics but really for us - the people who know about KSP longer than 0.90 it feels like we have seen everything, i like building stuff, in this case spacecrafts, but once they are built it would be good to make some use of them by doing something progressive/fun. in previous post i talked about the map, but aswell just by adding lets say 10 unique science parts that do some actual science beyond logging a data (like leaving something like a drill mining for several days and analyzing the ores found on this body or making an experiment on how magnetic poles have developed on certain body), squad could attract more players and give us the same feeling when we started playing the game. Just by adding bunch of small parts that can have multiple uses will make the game more fun and greatly expand the gameplay time before getting bored.

There is kerbalEDU which is supposed to help in education and i believe by adding stuff that does real science (same as NASA) we could not only have fun, but learn about something. before i started playing KSP i knew pretty much nothing about how orbital mechanics work.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Sudslv

[Lord Aurelius]

@Sudslv

That would be a worst case scenario. Maybe I used the wrong word, I should say "complete" instead of "finished". I'm coming from the approach that Squad already chose to go for 1.0, so now they need to focus on making the game feel like a released title. That will definitely include adding a few new features to the game and lots more stuff to do on planets.

If Squad abandoned this game, I have no doubt the modding community would pick it up and reverse engineer it if need be to see it through to a finished state. It has happened to many titles before, and the community surrounding this game has everything needed to make it into a cult classic that is kept on going by the community long after the devs are out of the picture.

[Sudslv]

@Sudslv

That would be a worst case scenario. Maybe I used the wrong word, I should say "complete" instead of "finished". I'm coming from the approach that Squad already chose to go for 1.0, so now they need to focus on making the game feel like a released title. That will definitely include adding a few new features to the game and lots more stuff to do on planets.

If Squad abandoned this game, I have no doubt the modding community would pick it up and reverse engineer it if need be to see it through to a finished state. It has happened to many titles before, and the community surrounding this game has everything needed to make it into a cult classic that is kept on going by the community long after the devs are out of the picture.

I am skeptical about squad releasing any major map improvements because of those huge version leaps. As well we can never know who could take on continuing improving the KSP. After all it wouldn't be the same working on a dead project. I really hope that squad wont abandon it so early (or maybye not that early - 4 years).

Time will show us.

[Mr. Scruffy]

The game is not even done and they do 2 big jumps from 0.25>0.90>.1.0

its like saying "okay we are done with this game, most of the people who would buy the game have already done it, so lets speed up the final version, fix few bugs and start a new project". the game is FAR from 1.0

[...]

[emphaszis added]

Well, the prudent thing to do then is to announce the begining of work on KSP2 and charge again. I´d have no issue with that. I´d even have no issue if the devs are a bit fed up with little green people going to space and want to do something else with their lives for a change. In that case, they should ´rent out´ (not sell!) the franchise, let some other people take over with fresh ideas and energy for 2 and get back to it when they feel re-inspired for 3.

[KSK]

I agree with this, you're not the only one frustrated with how Squad is handling this release. There have actually been a LOT of posts along these lines (some of which were so inflammatory that the devs started a thread specifically to address them), but for the most part they tend to get buried in threads as a lot of players come out defending Squad and drowning out even valid criticism. While Squad has definitely produced an excellent game, IMHO Squad could have handled this release (and the community expectations around it) a LOT better.

As far as better prerelease testing, a lot of other early access and indie titles have a public beta branch alongside the release, and new patches are pushed to the public beta and soak tested before being incorporated into the main release.

Without wishing to be a Squad apologist, could I ask how you would have handled community expectations? So far as I can see they did a pretty decent job. Regular dev notes from the lead developer including a direct warning regarding the new aerodynamics model, listening to feedback on the small stuff like the Round 8 tank, getting the 'tuning' releases in ASAP, so that players only have to change a few days worth of new designs, rather than sticking their fingers in their ears and leaving the discussion to fester. Yes it sucks to have your 1.0 craft not work so well in 1.02 but better to sort that out now rather than at whenever 1.1 comes out and everyone has to rework/relearn months worth of stuff.

The new aero/heat models (which I think is where most of the vitriol is coming from) were highlighted as 'something that will break some designs but something that we're trying to balance to keep some of the crazy contraption spirit of KSP alive' (my wording but I think the tone is about right). That's pretty clear expectation setting right there.

KSP is a sandbox style game that deals with a complex subject. I don't think there's any realistic way of balancing that 'correctly' so that it suits all tastes. I'm not even sure if the parallel beta approach would help that much (although that is a good and positive suggestion) - assuming Squad could find a build to make all the Beta testers more or less happy, I can almost guarantee that we'd get the same kind of responses from everyone else that we've seen so far once the beta releases were merged into the main build.

I think the Squad approach of listening to feedback, responding to some (but not all) requests and making the game moddable enough that folks can tweak the rest to suit themselves is the right one for this style of game. Trying to accommodate absolutely everyone's requests in Stock will just lead to the gaming equivalent of a camel - a horse designed by committee.

Thankfully, the KSP community is pretty level headed on the whole. I don't even want to think about the levels of forum rage this kind of thing would have generated in other communities.

- - - Updated - - -

Like sudslv said in his post, there really aren't that many interesting places to visit beyond a handful of easter eggs. Once you get over the novelty of learning how to build and fly rockets to other planets, you find that the planets themselves are actually quite boring. At least designing and building the crafts to get there is interesting.

What this game really needs is a major polish pass once all the core features are in place. No new features, just focus on cleaning up inconsistencies and making the game FEEL finished.

I'm not saying you're wrong but that's a pretty big novelty to get over, especially if you haven't been playing various builds of the game for two years or more.

I would say that the game feels finished but a couple of extra layers of polish wouldn't hurt if somebody could find the time. Quick example - I like the extra bits of flavour text you get for completing various contracts. But the tech tree flavour text could use some reworking - the description of the FL-100 tank makes no sense unless you already know it was added to the game after the 400 tank, for example.

That might be a nice little project actually, if I can find the time. A small mod that keeps the current tech tree structure but makes the flavour text consistent.

I also agree that more stuff to do planet-side would be nice but that also sounds like a pretty big job. Paid expansion territory to my mind but I appreciate that that's a whole other can of worms. At the least I'd love to see Kerbin more thoroughly fleshed out (rather than just a spaceport on a large field) and I think that's one area where I've at least tried to put my metaphorical money where my mouth is.

Edited May 4, 2015 by KSK

[Guest]

KSP was published with placeholder graphics and near absent sound.

I played DOS games, that look similar to KSP. And work under MS-DOS 3.30 486DX40 640KB RAM + 1MB XMS. With lot's of sounds. Even voiced. Even with voice synthesis.

Anyone can remember, how fun was adding another 256KB of video memory to video adapter, in form of SOJ chips?

P.S.

Ok. It was Pentium 100 (MHz) with entire 2MB XMS!

Edited May 5, 2015 by Guest

[Lord Aurelius]

@KSK

The main thing I would have liked to see Squad do is to not try to pass off what is still essentially an early access title as full release when it still needs so much work. I do appreciate the devnotes to get an idea of what's going on, but they gave the impression that everything was going great, but if you watched closely you would see them abruptly stop talking about some feature (like some of the overlays) and then come release find out it had been quietly cut. A bit more honesty on the state of the game would have been nice.

I was expecting the major changes to the systems in 1.0, that didn't bother me at all. But I did expect the systems to work without needing two hotfixes in less than a week (with more tweaking and balancing likely to come in the next update).

The overall approach of making the game open so that those who want to can tailor their own experiences is great, and I'm very thankful that Squad is so supportive of modders.

As far as planets being boring, I haven't necessarily worn the novelty off, but for me the fun is in the journey, i.e. planning the mission, building the craft, and managing to pull it all off. The planets themselves end up feeling very samey, the different biomes for the most part don't really look all that different from each other, and the airless bodies are even worse as they all end up looking basically the same with small differences in color. It would also be nice if there were at least some interesting rock formations (with collision meshes) that were generated as part of the terrain scatter (and that the scatter had a lot more variety, especially across biomes) so everything didn't end up looking like a variation on rolling hills. Different surface materials that affect vehicle handling (i.e. sand, rock, gravel, etc) would be awesome, but like you said, now we're getting into major update/expansion pack territory.

[Vanamonde]

1.0 was extensively tested by a team of experienced testers prior to release. Not all the bugs they found could be fixed by the announced release date. It happens. The testers didn't find every bug that every user might encounter on every possible permutation of hardware and software. That also is inevitable.

You are angry that patches are breaking your saves and craft. That is unfortunate, but it also proves that Squad cares about its product and is actively working to make it better. However, they can't win in this situation. If they didn't break your saves with patches, other players would be just as angry at them for not trying to fix the bugs.

Every game ever made has bugs. Every game that ever will be made has bugs. Good companies work continually to fix their bugs. The fact that there are still some bugs in the game does not mean anybody did anything wrong. The fact that Squad is actively working to fix them does prove they are doing something right.

[technicalfool]

KSP was published with placeholder graphics and near absent sound.

I played DOS games, that look similar to KSP. And work under MS-DOS 3.30 486DX40 640KB RAM + 1MB XMS.

A 486 DX, with MS DOS v3.30? And you got any decent game running?

Pretty sure that the classic games of the 486 era were demanding a minimum DOS version of 5.0 at the time, and most people were running DX-class 486s using DOS 6 and 6.22. You certainly wouldn't try running something like Quake with that little RAM.

With lot's of sounds. Even voiced. Even with voice synthesis.

Things have moved on a little from the days of the SBPro and SB16. I don't think you realise or remember just how primitive game sound was back in those days.

Anyone can remember, how fun was adding another 256KB of video memory to video adapter, in form of SOJ chips?

P.S.

Ok. It was Pentium 100 (MHz) with entire 2MB XMS!

A Pentium 100, with MS DOS v3.30? And 2MB RAM, when the recommended spec for most 486-class machines was 4-8MB? You know that DOS4GW requires at least 4MB, right?

Okay, discounting versions, this was the poster-child game for the Pentium processor and the sort of graphics it could enable, back in the day:

That view distance...

Edited May 5, 2015 by technicalfool

[technicalfool]

Tundra in KSP:

http://i.imgur.com/ul6wCk6l.jpg

Tundra in real life:

http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/images/tundra/alaskapipeline1.jpg

So you can see some differences. And rethink if KSP should be 1.0

You do realise you're comparing a computer game with a photograph, right?

I'll not say that KSP has the most detailed terrain of all games, but it's certainly not bad. I'm sure as and when a Unity 5 update happens, Squad could up the detail massively.

And then we'll get a ton of complaints because there's now a bunch of people who can't run the game any more without spending hundreds of $£€ on new hardware.

[Lord Aurelius]

And then we'll get a ton of complaints because there's now a bunch of people who can't run the game any more without spending hundreds of $£€ on new hardware.

That's what graphics settings are for. Leave the defaults where they are currently, and add high detail options for those with the hardware to run it.

[Guest]

Recommended 8MB and what you can afford is different things. Once I fell so low, that I bought a Winchip 200 as main CPU.

Actually, I still own the chassis from my first PC: 386SX33. There is a bit different config inside now (386DX40), but I restored it very close to original.

[KSK]

@KSK

The main thing I would have liked to see Squad do is to not try to pass off what is still essentially an early access title as full release when it still needs so much work. I do appreciate the devnotes to get an idea of what's going on, but they gave the impression that everything was going great, but if you watched closely you would see them abruptly stop talking about some feature (like some of the overlays) and then come release find out it had been quietly cut. A bit more honesty on the state of the game would have been nice.

I was expecting the major changes to the systems in 1.0, that didn't bother me at all. But I did expect the systems to work without needing two hotfixes in less than a week (with more tweaking and balancing likely to come in the next update) *snipped other stuff that I agree with*

Thanks for the reasoned response.

Have to admit that I don't remember the overlays - I keep an eye on the dev notes but those passed me by. On the other hand, I do remember the Barn, the initial iteration of the crew experience system and especially, the first draft resources system where the dev team were very engaged with the community and/or honest about why stuff got ditched. They didn't necessarily give the answer that everybody wanted to hear (we ditched this because we didn't think it was fun), but they were honest. Likewise, I was impressed with a recent comment from HarvesteR about the 'changing sphere of influence at high warp' bug, where he admitted that it had actually turned out to be a pretty simple one to squash.

Honesty also works both ways. Gamers are an enthusiastic bunch (which is great!) but sometimes I think it would be better (and more conducive to further honesty) if some of that enthusiasm was tempered a bit. It's gotta be difficult for the dev team to do any kind of thinking aloud about the state of the game and what they plan for it, when their smallest utterance (no matter how carefully hedged) is a cue to stoke up the Hype Train.

Regarding passing KSP off as a full release - I think this is always going to be one of those grey areas. Personally, I think Squad have been pretty up-front about what they consider to be the release version - and for what its worth I think they've priced the release version in-line with that vision. If they had released KSP at AAA price levels then I'd totally agree with you. But they haven't.

Also, on a personal note, I do agree with you to an extent. To my mind, Career mode could do with being a bit richer and I've posted several comments to that effect. On the other hand, I am also very pleasantly surprised about how much difference a couple of extra contract types (especially the overhaul to the World First contracts), some new flavour text and a reworked tech tree has made. (Yes, I admit it - I like the new tech tree! ) Career mode feels much more strategic to me now, which it didn't before.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I am in agreement wit most posts here...1.0 then 1.02 I dont know what changed but if there were major changes in such a small update...0.1, 0.2? and 1.0 was supposed to be a full release? I was also looking for the Barn and building upgrade features like being able to change things with buildings and Science especially...Science they did add some features but it is still hours of work for experienced players only to fix the Science to make it a challenge before you can even play.

Zetadude

[DavidBowman]

While appreciating Squad and the testers, I hate to say that 1.0 update was so rushed.

Not all the bugs they found could be fixed by the announced release date.

Which one is better? A slightly delayed game with far less bugs (some HUGE bugs, so obvious one would wonder how it was missed!) and an annoyed community that would forget and forgive after releasing a better game , or a rushed and hyped bug-fest that spawns threads like this.

Personally, I'm having fun with 1.0.2 as it is. But you gotta admit, 1.0 sound much more better than 1.0.2

If we had .95 or 0.99 then the 1.0.2 could have been called 1.0, which sound more complete and more determined.

[TothAval]

That view distance...

that game was so cool, squad should make a remake

on topic: i am quite happy with 1.0.0 - 1.0.2. i will soon start adding mods to build bigger and better stations and stuff, but stock is quite nice atm. in my opinion career could be more polished, thought through and some QoL stuff should be done, but these are minor concerns. i am confident that with 1.1, unity five and proper x64 support and the features and fixes beside these major features the ksp experience will once more improve.

even in oct. 2013, when i buyed .22 or .21, it was a lot of fun and worth every penny, and felt already like a complete game to me, considering what it offered and still does. i don't get the discussion about 1.0, it was a better game in early access than most AAA titles 29 patches after release, considering playtime, fun and replayability. it got better each patch and i believe it will continue to do so. considering the major changes from .9 to 1.0 there are surprisingly few problems with 1.0.

just my 2 cent on the matter

[Lord Aurelius]

@TothAval

There is a remake of sorts: Arcane Worlds.

Still very much a WIP, but fun for what it is.

[TothAval]

@TothAval

There is a remake of sorts: Arcane Worlds.

Still very much a WIP, but fun for what it is.

thx a lot for the hint!

[spinomonkey]

I feel like a lot of people are forgetting that 1.0 is 'scope complete'. Meaning all the major features are in the game- even if the game itself isn't 100%. Now, I agree that Squad handled the release of 1.0 poorly in this regard and should have focused heavily on the concept of 'scope complete' rather than suggesting it was a complete game. Obviously it's not. IMHO, if squad would simply come forward with a statement explaining how things will be progressing from here on out, a lot of the community would back off.

[TothAval]

I feel like a lot of people are forgetting that 1.0 is 'scope complete'. Meaning all the major features are in the game- even if the game itself isn't 100%. Now, I agree that Squad handled the release of 1.0 poorly in this regard and should have focused heavily on the concept of 'scope complete' rather than suggesting it was a complete game. Obviously it's not. IMHO, if squad would simply come forward with a statement explaining how things will be progressing from here on out, a lot of the community would back off.

i would love for the devnotes tuesday to continue, was my weekly read on ksp and i really loved it