[Poll] So what are we thinking about 1000 part ships?

[Alexoff]

If the game can't handle 1000-parts craft, then what kind of colonies with automatic supply routes can we talk about?

[Jarin]

47 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

If the game can't handle 1000-parts craft, then what kind of colonies with automatic supply routes can we talk about?

Supply routes will primarily be abstracted. You won't be seeing cargo ships flying around at feature release, if ever.

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I still think it's a fair question, though. We've seen enough, I think, to have a good idea of future performance

I don't disagree. It's a completely fair question to ask, if not premature. I'd understand asking the question after at least few patches were released or around one of the EA milestones. But only after one patch and one month in EA? It's too early to tell right now.

The game, as it sits currently, isn't really in a very stable state. There's still reports of save corruption and crashes coming in after the patch. Let Intercept fix the true game breaking bugs before asking for opinions on performance. Once the game is stable, then it would be fair to ask about performance and your expectations of future performance.

[Observe]

With several years development and KSP1 as a base, I figured KSP2 early access would be at least as capable as KSP1 final version in every way and would already have overcome or improved significant KSP1 fundamental weaknesses .  I find it odd, to see so many people excusing KSP2 problems by comparing it to early KSP1. This is like excusing the wheels falling off a new car, because wagon wheels couldn't go that fast either.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Observe said:

I find it odd, to see so many people excusing KSP2 problems by comparing it to early KSP1.

Why is it odd? You're looking at the first patch of KSP 2. I think people's expectations need checking. People were happy to forgive Harvester for what came of KSP 1 despite single-person teams having achieved much better things.

[twich22]

39 minutes ago, Observe said:

With several years development and KSP1 as a base, I figured KSP2 early access would be at least as capable as KSP1 final version in every way and would already have overcome or improved significant KSP1 fundamental weaknesses .  I find it odd, to see so many people excusing KSP2 problems by comparing it to early KSP1. This is like excusing the wheels falling off a new car, because wagon wheels couldn't go that fast either.

I don’t think anyone is excusing anything. At least I am not. The game sucks right now. I think we’re all aware of that. It’s not what we have been envisioning or hoping for. It’s not even close to ksp1. 
 

So now we look to the future. We all want a better KSP. So the question is, will this game ever get there?

[regex]

1 hour ago, Observe said:

With several years development and KSP1 as a base, I figured KSP2 early access would be at least as capable as KSP1 final version in every way and would already have overcome or improved significant KSP1 fundamental weaknesses .  I find it odd, to see so many people excusing KSP2 problems by comparing it to early KSP1. This is like excusing the wheels falling off a new car, because wagon wheels couldn't go that fast either.

It's a matter of perspective. I got into KSP1 when it was in early access and it wasn't anything like how it ended up after eight years of development. In fact, it was a complete mess. I was okay with that because it was an early access product (although I was not okay with the complete lack of a plan on how the game would evolve from Squad). Same with KSP2, it's a mess right now but it's getting better, and should move along at a much faster pace due to having a bigger staff behind it. Plus, Intercept actually has a public roadmap so we know (largely) what to expect. Squad ultimately failed me with KSP1; the direction of the game was completely uninspired beyond the basic build/fly/repeat gameplay. KSP2 looks to repeat the basic build/fly/repeat gameplay, which is fine and well, but they have yet to let me down with further gameplay elements. Unfortunately I have to wait to see how that pans out. If they're just going to warm over KSP1's gameplay I'm going to be right mad.

I also think there's a tendency to read too much into positive statements from forum-goers; I'm not exactly sitting here with a big dumb grin on my face regarding the game right now but I have no reason to be up in arms either. Maybe I just don't buy into hype or something, don't read statements as promises, who knows, but when it's time for me to grab a pitchfork you can be damn sure I will.

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

I don't disagree. It's a completely fair question to ask, if not premature. I'd understand asking the question after at least few patches were released or around one of the EA milestones. But only after one patch and one month in EA? It's too early to tell right now.

I didn't ask it because I think the community is a perfect prognosticator of future work, though what data miners have done to examine the code is amazing.

The reason I decide to ask is because I'm looking at what feels like an odd trend in the community - a lot people were hyped up for certain features, and often seem virtually sure they'd be there - whether there was a specific dev promise or not.

Though I  do think there was more than enough dev speech toward it though in various communications even if the words 'promise' or 'guarantee' were never used, and the only reading you can give it after the fact is a legalistic one where they didn't precisely pin themselves down to a commitment, but must have known they were leading the community on and did nothing to dissuade it.

Anyways, a lot of the fan base who were certain and hyped up about things before release... seem just fine to have their expectations unmet afterwards.  Almost seemed to double down because of it.  To me, they seem to have been so wrapped up in believing KSP2 is or will be good that it became irrelevant if it was - they'd excuse or rationalize virtually any defect or undershot. 

So I brought up this old expectation to see if they still are there for people, or if a larger percentage of people have just moved on and will be ok regardless of how KSP2 performs, or if there's true belief is just going to happen some day.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

Let Intercept fix the true game breaking bugs before asking for opinions on performance. Once the game is stable, then it would be fair to ask about performance and your expectations of future performance.

This is a fair point. I would not normally be critical this early. Just going by what I've seen, I think low-spec systems are gonna struggle with this game no matter how much optimization they do. I think a realistic goal is to get the game to run well on low-end systems, all settings on low. If they can do that, it would at least be playable for everyone. I would consider that a success.

[RocketRockington]

32 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

This is a fair point. I would not normally be critical this early. Just going by what I've seen, I think low-spec systems are gonna struggle with this game no matter how much optimization they do. I think a realistic goal is to get the game to run well on low-end systems, all settings on low. If they can do that, it would at least be playable for everyone. I would consider that a success.

Performance will be addressed of course - but fundamental changes to how craft work under the hood (basically the same as KSP1) and thus permanent bottlenecks on how high part counts go won't ever be changed - especially because the team will be scrambling to fix other issues and get to new features.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

12 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

thus permanent bottlenecks on how high part counts go won't ever be changed 

Not true. They successfully changed the bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU .

[RocketRockington]

4 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

Not true. They successfully changed the bottleneck from the CPU to the GPU .

Lol. Well I did mention KSP2 added its own bottlenecks.  But that one - at least in space, while not looking at terrain - is reasonable to expect they'd address.

[Majorjim!]

10 hours ago, regex said:

Were 1000 part ships ever an actual thing that was promised? Why would you need 1000 parts on a single vessel?

As far as I'm concerned there are more patches to wait for and play with before I answer a poll like this.

The developers mentioned multiple times that playable part counts of around 1000 would be possible in KSP. I asked that as an AMA question, which obviously didn’t get asked.. sigh… 

 and I can think of many reasons why having 1000 parts in one vehicle would be super freaking cool. 

8 hours ago, regex said:

I don't have any reason to doubt this but ... [citation needed]

Look for it. It’s there. If you look. 

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

I asked in another context where people thought that higher part counts were promised, and I received a link to an interview with a Youtuber, who asked how the availability of "new hardware" had affected the development process. Nate responded, in part:

... which the fan base interpreted as a commitment to dramatically improve performance for high part count craft, as can be seen in a few comments above (much like what happened with the "slay the kraken" comment, which just means "we will have a process for fixing bugs").

No I heard them specifically say part counts around or above 1000. When I have time to waste I will look for it. It was in a video I saw on YouTube. 

[regex]

3 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Look for it. It’s there. If you look. 

Typically the claimant is responsible for providing the proof but I guess we don't operate that way on the internet. vOv I don't really care either way so I'll just assume it was never specifically stated.

[Majorjim!]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Typically the claimant is responsible for providing the proof but I guess we don't operate that way on the internet. vOv I don't really care either way so I'll just assume it was never specifically stated.

Yea this isn’t a court of law. I will look for it when I have time. I remember it clearly as hearing the devs say such a thing was the first time I really had hopes for the game. 
  The video game industry has burned me so many times.. sure their just game and I’m a grown man but I’m a grown man who loves video games. 

[regex]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Yea this isn’t a court of law.

It ain't about law, it's about simple conversation. But w/e, again, I don't really care one way or the other, I don't assume what some dev says in regard their game is a "promise" or guarantee of some sort.

[HebaruSan]

I look forward to seeing your citation, @Majorjim!. I've been quite curious how people convinced themselves this was a thing.

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

The reason I decide to ask is because I'm looking at what feels like an odd trend in the community - a lot people were hyped up for certain features, and often seem virtually sure they'd be there - whether there was a specific dev promise or not.

I can't answer for anyone else, but my reasoning for not tearing Intercept a new one is that this isn't the first time that a game developer has over talked or given a false impression about a game. (Take the 2013 release of SimCity for example.) The difference here is Intercept was mostly honest about the state of the game. (A bit not to the full extent of the roughness of the game.) 

3 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Anyways, a lot of the fan base who were certain and hyped up about things before release... seem just fine to have their expectations unmet afterwards.  Almost seemed to double down because of it.  To me, they seem to have been so wrapped up in believing KSP2 is or will be good that it became irrelevant if it was - they'd excuse or rationalize virtually any defect or undershot. 

Yes, I was disappointed about the EA announcement. Disappointed about the roadmap and realization that the features I was looking forward to wasn't in the EA release. But that's the nature of EA. What really disappointed me was core functions were never fixed prior to release.

But being a reasonable adult, not the complete jerk you find on most other platforms. I'm giving Intercept the chance to fix the problems. Much like how you would give a coworker or subordinate a chance to fix their errors before running it up the chain or disciplining them. Or a shop a chance to fix a botched repair before releasing all hell on them.

Notice I said chance to fix the problems. If Intercept doesn't make reasonable headway with the bugs and performance before moving through the roadmap, I would be joining the torch and pitchfork crowd saying wth Intercept. What are you doing. 

Basically the saying "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again, shame on you."

Edited March 25, 2023 by shdwlrd
Auto censoring... gotta love it

[RocketRockington]

19 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I can't answer for anyone else, but my reasoning for not tearing Intercept a new one is that this isn't the first time that a game developer has over talked or given a false impression about a game. (Take the 2013 release of SimCity for example.) The difference here is Intercept was mostly honest about the state of the game. (A bit not to the full extent of the roughness of the game.) 

So you give Intercept credit for basically overhyping their game for since 2019 - 3.5 years, and then 4 months from launch, telling the community that it was going to launch in a dramatically-cut down state, and then releasing it as an extremely buggy AND cut down state - but Sim City, which didn't hype for nearly as long and, while it had some crippling issues, launched in a feature complete state and  was patched 8 times in the month following release - and was fully working AND feature complete in about 2 months. 

And yet that launch killed the SimCity franchise.  But somehow you believe Intercept's behavior is... better?  1 patch in the last month, still massively feature incomplete, still miles from even being bugfree.  

Overall I think the only difference is that you don't like EA and you do like Intercept, and you're giving Intercept a much bigger benefit of the doubt.

19 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Notice I said chance to fix the problems. If Intercept doesn't make reasonable headway with the bugs and performance before moving through the roadmap, I would be joining the torch and pitchfork crowd saying wth Intercept. What are you doing. 

Basically the saying "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again, shame on you."

I believe they've overpromised many times and about many many things, failed to deliver and people just seem to aggregate it into one event.  An example of the bad boyfriend mentality "I'm sure THIS time it'll be different."

Anyway you seem reasonably balanced so I wasn't specifically thinking of you when I spoke about a section of the community as a generalization.  Though given your comparison to SimCity I might be reevaluating that,

Edited March 25, 2023 by RocketRockington

[RocketRockington]

Oh btw - can anyone imagine trying to use the Part Manager with a 1000 part craft?  

[twich22]

For what its worth, I have already launched craft over 1000 parts. I get less than 1 FPS, but Ive done it. Parts manager takes like 20 seconds to load. 

Spoiler

 

[PopinFRESH]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

...Basically the saying "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me again, shame on you."

You got that backwards mate. It is "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

...Yes, I was disappointed about the EA announcement. Disappointed about the roadmap and realization that the features I was looking forward to wasn't in the EA release. But that's the nature of EA. What really disappointed me was core functions were never fixed prior to release.

But being a reasonable adult, not the complete jerk you find on most other platforms. I'm giving Intercept the chance to fix the problems. Much like how you would give a coworker or subordinate a chance to fix their errors before running it up the chain or disciplining them. Or a shop a chance to fix a botched repair before releasing all hell on them.

Notice I said chance to fix the problems. ...

I was very much looking forward to this since 2020. I didn't care at all when they announced the multiple delays. However, I took pause when they announced that it would be launching as Early Access after 5 years of development given the majority of the communications really had a tone and tenor of launching a feature complete game which they were... taking some extra time to "polish". I still gave them the benefit of the doubt when it launched, however, in less than an hour and a half of fighting the game just to try to do simple things I refunded it. I'll still give them a chance to right the ship also, but that is going to be on someone else's dime.

[PopinFRESH]

2 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Yea this isn’t a court of law. I will look for it when I have time. I remember it clearly as hearing the devs say such a thing was the first time I really had hopes for the game. 
  The video game industry has burned me so many times.. sure their just game and I’m a grown man but I’m a grown man who loves video games. 

You might be referring to this interview with ShadowZone where they talk about "high part count" and specifically make mention of ShadowZone regularly making 1000+ part assemblies in KSP. (Time Stamp @ 5:27)

[RocketRockington]

18 minutes ago, PopinFRESH said:

You might be referring to this interview with ShadowZone where they talk about "high part count" and specifically make mention of ShadowZone regularly making 1000+ part assemblies in KSP. (Time Stamp @ 5:27)

Thanks for digging this up.  Nate has spewed so much stuff like this over the years.  The best you could say is that he was taking for granted that tentative plans they had would work out - but it also just seems the case that he's a similar prevaricator to Peter Molyneux or Sean Murray, just telling the audience what they want to hear rather than paying attention to what his team is even remotely capable of delivering.  

[jost]

I didn't participate in the poll since I think the second and third question is actually a bit pointless from my point of view. 
In my opinion it shouldn't be needed to run 1000 parts ships with a reasonable frame rate. Instead the game should provide the tools and parts to build crafts without high part counts but the same result from a gameplay point of view.
With other words: There should be options to weld docking ports or subassemblys. There should be parts which combine a lot of functions (e.G. docking ports, rotation wheels, battery etc). There should be procedural parts so you don't need to make one drop tank out of several small ones etc pp.  I'm not sure whether KSP2 will do this (I fear not) but the second and third question of the poll don't have anything to do with my argument thus I didn't participated in the poll