Change your mindset!

[Tundra]

My game, for whatever reason, literally became unplayable.  Just yesterday I booted the game up, and  when I loaded my campaign I was stuck on a screen of the VAB, but nothing would do anything.  Ok, no big deal.  I'll just quit and restart the game.  Ok then, I'll just delete the logs and restart the game.  Fine, I'll completely uninstall and reinstall the game,  deleting my whole save, and also restart my computer.  

 

It didn't work, making new campaigns doesn't help.  Trying new saves doesn't help.  It has literally become unplayable.

[RocketRockington]

54 minutes ago, Tundra said:

It didn't work, making new campaigns doesn't help.  Trying new saves doesn't help.  It has literally become unplayable

Take the OP's advice.  Just change your mindset!  Open up minesweeper but pretend it's KSP2.  That's clearly how KSP2 wants to be played, after all. You have to adapt to it. Shame on you for expecting the game you bought to run and entertain you.

[Tundra]

Look, I landed on Laythe!  Aren't the graphics just beautiful!    As you can see, one of the landing legs fell off.  How do you thing I should rescue my Kerbals?

 

Oh wait, I can't.   

 

[mcwaffles2003]

5 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Take the OP's advice.  Just change your mindset!  Open up minesweeper but pretend it's KSP2.  That's clearly how KSP2 wants to be played, after all. You have to adapt to it. Shame on you for expecting the game you bought to run and entertain you.

I think you're extrapolating a bit here. I don't think anyone's saying it's okay that a game literally becomes unplayable to the point that you cant even interact with it. I believe the objective of this thread was to point to those trying large missions or complex builds with a clearly nonperformant game as though it were stable.

@TundraThat's genuinely a bummer and I hope you can find a way to get the game working again and it's strange that even a full uninstall doesnt help when you've had the game able to play before. What kind of system are you playing it on?

[RocketRockington]

15 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think you're extrapolating a bit here

Nope, was being 100% serious and not at all illustrating a point through sarcasm.   How dare you not adapt to my statements.  Change your mindset!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

11 hours ago, tstein said:

 I advise you to READ the steam  requirements...  and try  to cope with reality. Just because you like something your wishful thinking does not change reality, just make your opinion  worthless because it is obvious that you are enamored with something and you would find it ok if the game poisoned you  and caused cancer.

 

My life is not ruined, I do not  CARE  for the game. If  KSP vanishes that will NOT hurt my life in any significant form , but  I do care for the HYPOCRISY of humans , and   people that pretend this is ok are just hypocrites that feed the bad things in this world. Software industry   is each day WORSE exactly because people  have this behavior of   embracing poison.

You are making an awful lot of very upset-sounding noise for somebody who claims to not care about the game…

Clearly, the game meets the Steam requirements if it’s been selling on Steam for eight days.  If you feel this strongly about it, you could try complaining to Steam.

 In the meantime, though, I think I’m going to play some more KSP2, since, notwithstanding your opinion, it’s fun in mine.  Not sure whether to go for Dres or Duna.  Have a nice evening!

6 hours ago, regex said:

Confirming that it is, in fact, about ethics in gaming journalism. It's the principal of the damn thing, don't you get it? Why don't you all agree with me?!?

I wasn’t going to mention that, but now that you have, yes, that had occurred to me too.

[Vanamonde]

Some unnecessarily sarcastic remarks removed. Keep it civil, please. 

[Kerbart]

5 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Take the OP's advice.  Just change your mindset!  Open up minesweeper but pretend it's KSP2.  That's clearly how KSP2 wants to be played, after all. You have to adapt to it. Shame on you for expecting the game you bought to run and entertain you.

Don't worry, I don't expect everyone to have the creativity and insight to deal with it in a gracious manner. Enjoy minesweeper!

[Fullmetal Analyst]

On 3/3/2023 at 7:00 PM, Kerbart said:

I had a bit of an epiphany last night which might come over as blindingly obvious until you seriously reflect on it: the games (1 & 2) are not the same.

I was about to give up playing KSP2 until the first patch comes out (hoping it will get a lot better from there) staring at yet another effed-up orbit and discovering that , after a successful recovery, Jeb, Bill 'n' Bob were no longer on the roster. I have one messed up station on a 40° inclination that needs fuel to straighten its orbit. As I built a refueler probe, a bit more resilient to the various bugs I had ran into at that point, it kinda struck me what I was doing wrong: I'm building and flying as if I'm playing KSP1.

The hardest thing is unlearning what we've learned, and with what we're used to, and start playing it again as if you've never encountered the game before.

Once you let go of those "why can't I do..." and accept shortcomings just as "'tis the way it is" the game becomes a lot more enjoyable.

• Noodly ships? Don't build flying Burj Khalifa's. Build flying pancakes. We used to do that in 0.20. The problem will get fixed, but as with any engineering problem, deal with what you have at hand.
• Decouplers don't decouple? Easy, don't activate engines in the same stage as you fire a decoupler. Yes, it should work. No it doesn't always. So don't do it.
• Reload the game -- while that is a recipe for disaster too, I've learned that when things don't work but should (decouplers, stabilizers), simply reloading the game can fix it.
• Don't try to do things the game can't do. I have a habit of deactivating tanks on refueller tankers so that precious content doesn't get used. Well, the game doesn't support that yet. Or fuel priority. I can ragequit, or simply shrug and say, I guess I have to pay more attention and redistribute what I have in my tanks on the way to a rendez-vous. Which, by the way, taught me that fuel transfers are now amazing. So there's that. Complex missions relying on docking/undocking all the time, assembling ships with robotics? Maybe now is not the time for that.

During the KSP1 evolution we've gotten used to being adaptive, especially when new features were added to the game. We can choose to be a bit resilent (I never adapted the "go up to 10km, then slem your ship in a 45° angle" launch style as I found it unnatural), and at the same time just be flexible in what the game currently demands for play. Some of that you can't control, but where you can, adapt, don't get frustrated with it's wrong — just play along, work with the game, not against it, and hopefully it'll get better over time.

 

to summarize this post:

if you like ksp franchise and doing fun things in space, just dont play ksp2, get a refund and play ksp1 instead

[pandaman]

I think there is a big difference between the game simply not 'doing things' in quite the same way as KSP1 (to which we all need to adapt), and it just currently missing some fairly basic features we (not unreasonably) thought would probably be in this initial EA, which we will just have to live with and work around for now.

Some of of the really obvious bugs that may not render it 'unplayable', but certainly dampen one's enthusiasm, are a completely different issue though.

 

[cfds]

13 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

When Subnatautica Below Zero came out in early access, it was buggy, it had no voice over (just text) and about 40 minutes of playtime.  So there is very much precedent for this.

But "missing content" is absolutely ok for early access. Content can be added easily, fixing a broken foundation is way harder.

[Periple]

20 hours ago, tstein said:

Survival game and I will say it  it is NOT less complex than KSP2. Contrary to what so many believe KSP2 is a VERY VERY simple simulator.  We basically have a SIMPLE physics engine and renderer, basically no other mechanic

That's just silly

It's like you're saying, "I've been a car mechanic for 30  years and let me tell you, a rocket is a VERY VERY simple machine. We basically have a tube that is on fire at one end" 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Periple

[Tundra]

13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

@TundraThat's genuinely a bummer and I hope you can find a way to get the game working again and it's strange that even a full uninstall doesnt help when you've had the game able to play before. What kind of system are you playing it on?

It turns out that it was a file in the AppData folder.  After deleting all of the data there I was able to get it working again.   I'm glad I was able to fix it, but what a waste of an afternoon.

[PakledHostage]

On 3/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, RocketRockington said:

It's interesting how for 4 years here it was all about raising the expectations above what KSP1 - that it was going to be more performant, more stable, far less buggy, etc.   And suddenly a large fraction of the community seems to be about lowering their expectations.  But I get the sense it's the same portion of the community that was being unrealistic about the game before launch now being dogged about how we shouldn't expect much from it post launch.

I don't think that's a fair generalization. I haven't played KSP since about 2014. Not one single hour. But I am back playing KSP2 now that KSP2 is out. Sure it's a bit frustrating to have to deal with some bugs, but I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram. My kids and I will work around the bugs and have some fun while we wait for patches. So some of us here who are advocating to just "make lemonade" out of KSP2' s lemons weren't among the cohort you mention.

Edited March 5, 2023 by PakledHostage

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/3/2023 at 6:05 PM, regex said:

Quote

I had a bit of an epiphany last night which might come over as blindingly obvious until you seriously reflect on it: the games (1 & 2) are not the same.

I've been operating under this assumption since I got the game.

They're treating it like an epiphany as if we've not been screaming this since the game was announced

[Tundra]

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

They're treating it like an epiphany as if we've not been screaming this since the game was announced

I believe that might have been "Sarcasm"

[mcwaffles2003]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:02 AM, Tundra said:

It turns out that it was a file in the AppData folder.  After deleting all of the data there I was able to get it working again.   I'm glad I was able to fix it, but what a waste of an afternoon.

Well Im happy you found the reason.

Do you remember which file? Could be helpful in the bug reports

On 3/4/2023 at 3:37 PM, RocketRockington said:

Nope, was being 100% serious and not at all illustrating a point through sarcasm.   How dare you not adapt to my statements.  Change your mindset!

I wasn't taking you at 100% seriousness but I assume you were trying to make a point of some sort, [snip]?

On 3/4/2023 at 3:11 PM, RocketRockington said:

Take the OP's advice.  Just change your mindset!  Open up minesweeper but pretend it's KSP2.  That's clearly how KSP2 wants to be played, after all. You have to adapt to it. Shame on you for expecting the game you bought to run and entertain you.

Your point here wasn't a jab at the OPs statement about mindset changing and how that's not possible when the game is literally unplayable? Which is extrapolating OPs point well beyond its intention to make a point of your own.... But hey if people use sarcasm then it makes sense that no one should contradict that opinion and its intent leaving it out out of the realm of critique..

[snip]

Edited March 9, 2023 by Vanamonde

[J.Random]

Adapting to something new is fine. Battling ancient resurrected bugs and pretending you're "adapting" is... something else entirely.  "Hey, just hit yourself on a head with a brick, forget previous 10 years and you'll be ignorantly happy!" Imagine modern healthcare forgetting the hundreds of years of progress and reverting to montypythonesque "Bring aht yer dead!" and expecting you to "adapt" to it.

[snip]

Edited March 6, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[tstein]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:41 AM, Periple said:

That's just silly

It's like you're saying, "I've been a car mechanic for 30  years and let me tell you, a rocket is a VERY VERY simple machine. We basically have a tube that is on fire at one end" 

No it is not silly.  Your example is in reverse in fact. I have worked with REAL complex simulations and KSP 2 is not even a POC of a complex simulation.  Even on  the category of GAMES  KSP 2 is not a very  complex simulator (most air sims are far far more complex physics wise)

[p331083]

On 3/3/2023 at 11:00 AM, Kerbart said:

I had a bit of an epiphany last night which might come over as blindingly obvious until you seriously reflect on it: the games (1 & 2) are not the same.

I was about to give up playing KSP2 until the first patch comes out (hoping it will get a lot better from there) staring at yet another effed-up orbit and discovering that , after a successful recovery, Jeb, Bill 'n' Bob were no longer on the roster. I have one messed up station on a 40° inclination that needs fuel to straighten its orbit. As I built a refueler probe, a bit more resilient to the various bugs I had ran into at that point, it kinda struck me what I was doing wrong: I'm building and flying as if I'm playing KSP1.

The hardest thing is unlearning what we've learned, and with what we're used to, and start playing it again as if you've never encountered the game before.

Once you let go of those "why can't I do..." and accept shortcomings just as "'tis the way it is" the game becomes a lot more enjoyable.

• Noodly ships? Don't build flying Burj Khalifa's. Build flying pancakes. We used to do that in 0.20. The problem will get fixed, but as with any engineering problem, deal with what you have at hand.
• Decouplers don't decouple? Easy, don't activate engines in the same stage as you fire a decoupler. Yes, it should work. No it doesn't always. So don't do it.
• Reload the game -- while that is a recipe for disaster too, I've learned that when things don't work but should (decouplers, stabilizers), simply reloading the game can fix it.
• Don't try to do things the game can't do. I have a habit of deactivating tanks on refueller tankers so that precious content doesn't get used. Well, the game doesn't support that yet. Or fuel priority. I can ragequit, or simply shrug and say, I guess I have to pay more attention and redistribute what I have in my tanks on the way to a rendez-vous. Which, by the way, taught me that fuel transfers are now amazing. So there's that. Complex missions relying on docking/undocking all the time, assembling ships with robotics? Maybe now is not the time for that.

During the KSP1 evolution we've gotten used to being adaptive, especially when new features were added to the game. We can choose to be a bit resilent (I never adapted the "go up to 10km, then slem your ship in a 45° angle" launch style as I found it unnatural), and at the same time just be flexible in what the game currently demands for play. Some of that you can't control, but where you can, adapt, don't get frustrated with it's wrong — just play along, work with the game, not against it, and hopefully it'll get better over time.

 

The absolute irony of your avatar and this post.

[Superfluous J]

19 hours ago, tstein said:

I have worked with REAL complex simulations

Was your REAL complex simulation by chance a video game solar system with user-built rockets with no limits placed on design, that then simulated any number of them in any conceivable situation spread throughout that system?

Because if so you should be touting that game here, there are a lot of people - myself included - wanting just such a game.

Considering how easy it would be to make and your obvious experience in the field, this seems to be a great opportunity!

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Was your REAL complex simulation by chance a video game solar system with user-built rockets with no limits placed on design, that then simulated any number of them in any conceivable situation spread throughout that system?

Because if so you should be touting that game here, there are a lot of people - myself included - wanting just such a game.

Considering how easy it would be to make and your obvious experience in the field, this seems to be a great opportunity!

I think he was talking about the renown title, Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X

[Vanamonde]

Watch the personal remarks, please. Comments removed.