Am I the only one that will prefer KSP than KSP2?

[Aerodynamic Kerbal]

Why will I not switch to KSP2? Well, thats why:

I haven't completed the game like fully, I haven't made a *successful* SSTO, haven't made it to other planets, other than Duna...

I like the looks of the original. Like the way the kerbals look, the parts...

So am I the only one?

[rettter3]

I'am probably gone stick with KSP, at least for the first Months because of mods and wanting to wait for reviews about KSP2.

[Defenestrator47]

I find KSP2 promising.  The delivery of an expanded base game, while keeping the core of what is KSP1, but adding so much that enhances the experience:

-Customizable ships, color scheme and pattern.  I'm waiting for a sneak peak/dev notes/feature reveal that talks about this more.  Yes, I am shallow enough to want my ships to look pretty.  In addition - better graphics, a more unified design philosphy for parts, lessons learned from KSP1.

-Advances in programming and engineering within games.  KSP1 suffers from being a decade-old plus game.  It is still great, but there are things that are baked in that aren't going to be improved on anymore, as they are done with updates to KSP1 except for critical maintenance.  Any game breaking bug, or keeping it working with newer OS versions and graphics drivers, should still happen for a while, but the guillotine is on the way down and eventually all support will be cut, whether it's in a year or two, or decades hence.

-Functions like space and surface colonies will become integral to gameplay, rather than something you can make and run if you want to but essentially having no greater purpose than 'I can do this'.  This is a fine purpose but personally, I did drilling for fuel on a colony I built on the Mun, refined it, sent it to orbit, refueled a larger ship ONCE and I was happy I got it done and I NEVER wanted to do it again.  Doing it once is figuring out a task challenge.  Doing it repeatedly is mundane work.  KSP2 promises to let you design and run functional colonies with purpose, but once you've got them established, they should run on their own, not having to mind them and run monotonous tasks like sitting on a resource node and wait for storage tanks to fill up.

-Procedural wings, (and radiators) which essentially brings a small infinity of parts of those types, to better suit a variety of design challenges.

Most of this is available in mods for KSP1, and I find managing mods tedious, and frankly running 20-ish mods makes my ancient computer slow to a crawl.  10-15 minutes to load the game, and a greater risk of crashing the game.

So personally, I have greatly enjoyed KSP1, and I look forward to KSP2 eagerly.

 

[Laxez]

It would be like saying "why do I have to buy a new car?" Maybe my car of 2005 works perfectly, maybe I even customized it, this is what I thought of my first car, then one day a friend of mine accompanied me with his new car, it is incredible to see how unlike a few years between my car and that car has brought so many improvements, I think Ksp 2 will be like that.

Ksp 1 has nothing wrong, but first no one forces you to buy it, and second I'm sure that once you try the second chapter you will fall in love as in the first, just as I fell in love with the new car I bought.

And no one will be able to steal my memories of my first car, like memories of ksp 1.

19 minutes ago, Defenestrator47 said:

-Customizable ships, color scheme and pattern.  I'm waiting for a sneak peak/dev notes/feature reveal that talks about this more.  Yes, I am shallow enough to want my ships to look pretty.  In addition - better graphics, a more unified design philosphy for parts, lessons learned from KSP1.

You have no idea how crazy it is getting to find the most suitable color combinations for each celestial body in the game.

[Vl3d]

29 minutes ago, Defenestrator47 said:

personally, I did drilling for fuel on a colony I built on the Mun, refined it, sent it to orbit, refueled a larger ship ONCE and I was happy I got it done and I NEVER wanted to do it again

Amin. That's where the fun stopped for me in ReStock+. KSP1 is great for building exploratory missions. Definitely NOT for infrastructure. At some point you have to spend hundreds of hours to build something functionally useless just to tell yourself you're better than other players. I am not a YouTuber, so my creation dies on my PC.

Motherships, space stations, colonies, fuel production - completely useless unless you like the grind of career mode and you spent your childhood playing Lego alone and telling yourself stories.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Vl3d

[jastrone]

that mostly just seems like how it looks. you defenetly dont need to "complete" the game. especially cince you can do the same things in ksp2.  and with better timewarp in ksp 2 i think it will be less anoying to go to places. in ksp 1 i only whent to other planets like 5 times

[mcwaffles2003]

@Aerodynamic Kerbal

Why would you develop a preference for or against a thing that doesn't even exist yet? Shouldn't you at least see what it actually is as a finished product first?

[miklkit]

I will prefer the least buggy game.  KSP is a good game with some very frustrating bugs.  If KSP2 turns out to be buggy too, then there is no reason to buy it.

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, miklkit said:

KSP is a good game with some very frustrating bugs.

Name them please (for latest version).

[miklkit]

I just quit playing ksp for a few hours because of a scary bug on Minmus.  I have a small science base there with some rovers for doing contracts in the area.  The rovers have to be stored in carports that lift them off the ground or they WILL explode.  I have lost 4 to date.

There are also 3 gas trucks close by for refueling spaceplanes.  I have been careful to keep them well over 1k away from the base in case something bad happens.  But, after many landings I am getting better and started landing less than 1k away and forgot to move the gas trucks back after refueling.  They were still over 1000m away but slowly started coming apart while I was there doing other stuff.  so I backed them away and after they got over 1.3k away they slowly started healing themselves.  Very strange.  The Mun base does not have this problem.

Then there are things like the maneuver planner sending space craft to the center of Kerbin.  Or Kerbol.  Or completely out of the system.  Or sending a craft to a rendezvous only to find after getting there that the planet is nowhere to be found.   2 out of 3 trips to Eve.

Craft spinning in circles in place on the runway.   Planes becoming unflyable and crashing when going into warp.  Parts refusing to line up properly in the VAB and SPH.  The list goes on and on.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, miklkit said:

I just quit playing ksp for a few hours because of a scary bug on Minmus.  I have a small science base there with some rovers for doing contracts in the area.  The rovers have to be stored in carports that lift them off the ground or they WILL explode.  I have lost 4 to date.

There are also 3 gas trucks close by for refueling spaceplanes.  I have been careful to keep them well over 1k away from the base in case something bad happens.  But, after many landings I am getting better and started landing less than 1k away and forgot to move the gas trucks back after refueling.  They were still over 1000m away but slowly started coming apart while I was there doing other stuff.  so I backed them away and after they got over 1.3k away they slowly started healing themselves.  Very strange.  The Mun base does not have this problem.

Then there are things like the maneuver planner sending space craft to the center of Kerbin.  Or Kerbol.  Or completely out of the system.  Or sending a craft to a rendezvous only to find after getting there that the planet is nowhere to be found.   2 out of 3 trips to Eve.

Craft spinning in circles in place on the runway.   Planes becoming unflyable and crashing when going into warp.  Parts refusing to line up properly in the VAB and SPH.  The list goes on and on.

Yep, the lack of base parts in KSP is not a design choice driven by gameplay but by the simple fact that the game doesn't like to load multiple crafts sitting on the surface near each other.

[shdwlrd]

7 minutes ago, miklkit said:

I just quit playing ksp for a few hours because of a scary bug on Minmus.  I have a small science base there with some rovers for doing contracts in the area.  The rovers have to be stored in carports that lift them off the ground or they WILL explode.  I have lost 4 to date.

There are also 3 gas trucks close by for refueling spaceplanes.  I have been careful to keep them well over 1k away from the base in case something bad happens.  But, after many landings I am getting better and started landing less than 1k away and forgot to move the gas trucks back after refueling.  They were still over 1000m away but slowly started coming apart while I was there doing other stuff.  so I backed them away and after they got over 1.3k away they slowly started healing themselves.  Very strange.  The Mun base does not have this problem.

Then there are things like the maneuver planner sending space craft to the center of Kerbin.  Or Kerbol.  Or completely out of the system.  Or sending a craft to a rendezvous only to find after getting there that the planet is nowhere to be found.   2 out of 3 trips to Eve.

Craft spinning in circles in place on the runway.   Planes becoming unflyable and crashing when going into warp.  Parts refusing to line up properly in the VAB and SPH.  The list goes on and on.

You're just scratching the surface. I've seen these bugs and can add a few more. A loose part sliding across the surface with a less than 1 degree slope. Stopped on the surface and still registering movement. Loading large complex crafts can fail. (See some of ShadowZone videos.) Bases loading in the ground and either exploding or jumping in off the surface. (Yes, this bug still remains, just much less common. ) Floating bases. Weird, unexplained physics reactions. (All the Kraken drives still hanging around.) Wheels clipping through cargo bays and ground. Inconsistent wheel behavior. Sometimes you drift, sometimes you flip. No leeway for wheel angles. Inconsistent suspension behavior. One jump they will survive, the next they will collapse and boom goes the rover.

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, Aerodynamic Kerbal said:

I haven't completed the game like fully, I haven't made a *successful* SSTO, haven't made it to other planets, other than Duna...

(Knowledge based sandbox)-progression will be the same as in the original.

12 hours ago, Aerodynamic Kerbal said:

I like the looks of the original. Like the way the kerbals look, the parts...

Why does this outweigh new star systems, a much expanded frontier, better physics, better optimisation, etc. to you?

[darthgently]

15 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

You're just scratching the surface. I've seen these bugs and can add a few more. A loose part sliding across the surface with a less than 1 degree slope. Stopped on the surface and still registering movement. Loading large complex crafts can fail. (See some of ShadowZone videos.) Bases loading in the ground and either exploding or jumping in off the surface. (Yes, this bug still remains, just much less common. ) Floating bases. Weird, unexplained physics reactions. (All the Kraken drives still hanging around.) Wheels clipping through cargo bays and ground. Inconsistent wheel behavior. Sometimes you drift, sometimes you flip. No leeway for wheel angles. Inconsistent suspension behavior. One jump they will survive, the next they will collapse and boom goes the rover.

The best explanation I saw for surface base loading issues is in taniwha's Extraplanetary Launchpads manual; as I recall it all has to do with sagging because of gravity and snapping out-of-sag during loading when no gravity is yet considered or something like that.  There is a section in this pdf that was quite enlightening: https://taniwha.org/~bill/EL_Manual.pdf

[SunlitZelkova]

I was thinking about this last night.

At first, I thought "there is so much I haven't done" and "there are a lot of craft I like driving in KSP, it would be a pain to build them all over again in KSP2".

After thinking more about it, I'm personally in favor of KSP2 because of the new opportunities it creates.

Nonetheless, here are some potential pros and cons. For myself, the pros ultimately triumph over any cons or the pros cancel out cons. It may be different for others-

Pros:

1. New parts. There will probably be more available for pure Kerbolar system exploration too.

2. All KSP1 parts will be in KSP2, but will undergo changes. For example, the NERVA will be 2.5 meters in diameter in KSP2. Thus "rebuilding" craft (even if just to the greatest extent feasible) will be more interesting.

3. Support. I did not think about it, but if I am not going to be able to play KSP1 eventually anyways, I might as well move over to the modern successor now.

4. The Kerbolar system is being left as similar to KSP1 as possible. New technology and features but the basic environment is virtually identical. Ironically, specifically because I have so much left to do in KSP1, I don't mind going back and doing what "little" I have done in KSP1 over again in KSP2- in fact, it would be great fun (I enjoy flying missions over again) and would have a tinge of newness to it thanks to new features and the visual enhancements. So, I am not really leaving KSP1 behind at all- it is all there in the new game.

4a. Because KSP2 is a new game, instead of just "doing what I did over again" it may as well be doing it for the first time.

5. Bug fixes/bugs-problems not existing in the new game. Assuming the rover bug mentioned above is fixed, among other surface related challenges, missions that were previously a little unworkable (like standalone rover probes) will be more feasible. I found it rather unfortunate that my Lunokhod 1 replica exploded just a short while after the mission concluded.

6. New technology. I like to build replicas, but there are a lot of replicas that I can't build because the parts aren't there in KSP1 (I play the game stock). Especially the addition of more electric engines will be nice. Also, finally having nuclear reactors as power options will be great too. Paint schemes will be nice, as I will be able to make a green Soyuz and an orange External Tank, the latter without having to use colored flags.

7. Performance? The discussion on this seems a little all over the place to me. On the one hand, resource use (or whatever it is called) is going to be improved, but on the other hand, I recall a thread discussing the ideal computer for KSP2 claiming the specs have been raised? I don't know.

Cons:

1. It is indeed going to suck that 2 years of building in KSP1 is going to go away. On the other hand, when I was in the process of considering buying KSP two years ago, I knew full well that KSP2 was on the way. Although I bought KSP1 instead of waiting on the grounds that I didn't really care about interstellar travel and thus wouldn't need KSP2, I eventually became interested in such concepts and continued playing KSP1 while fully being hyped and excited for KSP2- recognizing that I would "lose" my work. So I don't have too much of an issue with this.

2. I thought I had more last night, but I either I can't remember them or I didn't.

3. Performance? As above, I don't understand the situation on that. Perhaps I won't be able to even play KSP2, in which case I don't have too much of a problem with sticking with KSP1 and might examine using parts mods. Although I would still get it in the future, I probably won't get a new computer just for KSP2 (yes, get, I am not technologically fluent enough to build a PC, and in any case, I hear it is expensive at the moment anyways).

It would be really cool if we had a memorial to KSP1 in KSP2. I would like to build a space resort around it, and put old KSP1 parts on display in a museum next to it.

[Kerb24]

I plan on buying KSP 2 as soon as possible, but I will finish KSP 1 before playing KSP 2.

[whatsEJstandfor]

56 minutes ago, Kerb24 said:

I plan on buying KSP 2 as soon as possible, but I will finish KSP 1 before playing KSP 2.

I'm curious what you define as "finish". I felt like I had finished after completing the tech tree in career mode, but that's pretty arbitrary

[Aerodynamic Kerbal]

11 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why does this outweigh new star systems, a much expanded frontier, better physics, better optimisation, etc. to you?

I've never cared about super giga extra graphics - I just care about FPS and gameplay. KSP2 will be just too "advanced" for me. And see, don't hate me for that, but...

I've never really been a fan of gigantic sci-if monolithic structures. Like colonies, or big spaceships.

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

After thinking more about it, I'm personally in favor of KSP2 because of the new opportunities it creates.

I have been on Windows 7 for quite some time. Now I'm on 10. 11 came out. I STILL prefer 7 than 10 and 11, even though the newer ones have more stuff.

[Kerb24]

11 hours ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

I'm curious what you define as "finish". I felt like I had finished after completing the tech tree in career mode, but that's pretty arbitrary

Visit every planet and moon at least once.

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, Aerodynamic Kerbal said:

14 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

After thinking more about it, I'm personally in favor of KSP2 because of the new opportunities it creates.

I have been on Windows 7 for quite some time. Now I'm on 10. 11 came out. I STILL prefer 7 than 10 and 11, even though the newer ones have more stuff.

False analogy. AFAIK Windows 8-11 has been universally hated, and for many good reasons.

6 hours ago, Aerodynamic Kerbal said:

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why does this outweigh new star systems, a much expanded frontier, better physics, better optimisation, etc. to you?

I've never cared about super giga extra graphics - I just care about FPS and gameplay. KSP2 will be just too "advanced" for me. And see, don't hate me for that, but...

I've never really been a fan of gigantic sci-if monolithic structures. Like colonies, or big spaceships.

How do you know if you haven't given it a chance yet?

Also, false dichotomy. KSP 2 will be much more optimised than KSP 1. Regardless of your stance on graphics, KSP 2 should run better.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[kerbiloid]

KSP-1 has alreadt paved the way in RAM and will follow its own tracks.

How KSP-2 can be as fast as 1 then?

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

KSP-1 has alreadt paved the way in RAM and will follow its own tracks.

How KSP-2 can be as fast as 1 then?

KSP 1 is badly optimised. KSP 2 will be well optimised. "Good graphics = bad FPS" is the false dichotomy. It's as simple as that

[SciMan]

Considering that I have been playing KSP 1 since 0.13.3 (they had just added Minmus, and there were no other planets other than Kerbin and its two moons), and that to this day I tend to play the game "from the beginning" every time I come back to it after having taken a break, I'm not that upset about "losing all my progress" because of switching to KSP 2 from 1.
For example not being able to transfer craft or save files over doesn't really bother me that much (if those save files would even have any meaning in KSP 2, given that we don't know anything about if we'll even have funds, reputation, or science points to deal with in KSP 2), because for the majority of the time that I have been playing KSP, either you wouldn't have access to the new features if you loaded an old save or craft file in the newer version, or it would just throw several dozen Unity errors at you in the developer console (and the developer console wasn't always in the game either!).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I learned how to treat Early Access games the way that I do because of games like KSP and Minecraft, where (back nearer to those game's beginnings) you just wouldn't be able to transfer over anything from version to version. So instead of getting perturbed in any way about things that I could not do, I focused on the prospects of a fresh start, taking lessons I had learned in previous versions and applying them to the current version in hopes of having a better game experience.
For example, over the course of building several gigantic automated farms over several versions of Minecraft, I found that I became limited by my supply of iron of all things.
I needed that iron for hoppers (and they take a whopping 5 ingots each!), but I kept using hoes so much that they would either just break, or need repair at an anvil. And the iron to make those anvils and repair those hoes (and make new ones) was a significant drain on my resources so my hopper production was not keeping up with what I needed for how big of a farm I wanted to build. Here's what I learned: I know the "don't waste diamonds on a hoe" meme quite well, and usually it makes a lot of sense. However, in my situation a diamond hoe with at least Unbreaking III on it seemed to be what I needed. Even then, I went thru 2-3 of them. Now consider this: Where previously I might have needed enough iron to make 50 iron hoes, I could replace that with diamonds enough to make at most 3 hoes. Sounds like a good deal to me, since I'm already boring down to the level of lava and then just mining 1000 blocks from the origin in +- X and Z coordinates (turning the lava to obsidian but not mining it unless it's higher than the average lava level). Diamond supply was NOT an issue. Iron supply was an issue, before I switched to diamond hoes (and all other tools as well, with them usually having Unbreaking III and Mending on them, along with one Silk Touch pickaxe).
And as for why I wanted such a large farm in the first place? First off, why not! IMO farms in Minecraft are far too small to sustain a person, let alone many. Secondly, I ended up selling most of the crops to Villagers in exchange for things I actually needed, without having to "torture" the villagers (let them get turned into a zombie at night in a boat, and then cure them, and it gets you more favorable exchange rates, but I didn't feel like that was the intended gameplay mechanic so I avoided it).
So, what I learned from that is "Test or at least analyze the common knowledge to see if it applies to your situation like you think it does, sometimes your specific situation is an exception to where the common knowledge applies".

Anyways, the whole point I'm trying to make is that maybe you shouldn't get so hung up on "not finishing the old thing before you move on to the new". Especially since you have no idea how the new game plays. It's way more than just a graphics upgrade (but that is part of it). And if you do like the older looks of some parts, I'm sure a mod will come around that maybe lets you load the old KSP part assets into KSP 2 (using some form of asset referencing to avoid infringing copyright or modifying core game files, kinda like how ModuleManager works when applying changes to Squad files (it doesn't change the file on your hard drive, just how the game interprets it) but across 2 games that share a game engine).

[Bej Kerman]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:39 PM, Vl3d said:

On 4/29/2022 at 7:38 PM, miklkit said:

KSP is a good game with some very frustrating bugs.

Name them please (for latest version).

[SciMan]

I mean, I can do better than NAMING the bugs. I can submit video evidence.

Just do a YouTube search of "Danny2462 KSP"

Pretty much every single video that comes up should have its entire existence credited to one or more bugs in KSP, that they have attempted to wrangle to their benefit (and often succeeded).
Some of those bugs may be long dead by now, but there are over 10 of them that exist to this day in some form or another.

EDIT: IIRC, they even made a "top 10 bugs" type video, and it's one of their more popular ones.
Additionally, some of the videos that SWDennis made on KSP include many (many (many)) bugs, but that's often more because of the sheer scale of what they're trying to do (such as make a kilometers-tall mech, which if launched on the Runway has the unexpected side effect of literally distorting the joints of any craft that is subsequently spawned at the Launchpad, simply by the fact of that huge craft MERELY EXISTING on the runway).

Edited April 30, 2022 by SciMan