Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[pandaman]

The contents can be the same, but the UI will be worse. I can't see Squad spending comparable time and effort to perfect the UI as the developers of common web browsers, office suites, and operating systems have.

Whether or not you feel Squad can/will implement it well enough is a different issue to whether or not it would be BETTER to be able to access the same information from ingame without needing to have to connect to the Internet to do so.

As i said previously, IMO as much help with the basics should be given as possible OFFLINE by using in game 'pop up' tips and access to help menus etc. And, if done well, will convey the info without unduly affecting the flow of play.

[klesh]

Has there been any word on missing or placeholder interior views being fixed for 1.0?

[Jouni]

Whether or not you feel Squad can/will implement it well enough is a different issue to whether or not it would be BETTER to be able to access the same information from ingame without needing to have to connect to the Internet to do so.

I don't understand why the need for an internet connection is such a big deal for some people. We're no longer living in the 90s. The internet is everywhere.

[KerBlam]

I will agree that the ingame tutorials are not comprehensive, with nothing as far as science gathering. They even skipped Mun-landing, which has to be one of the harder things to do in the early game. However the tutorial system as I remember it (I did it the first day I played) was quite good so far as user experience and comprehension goes.

I imagine it's because the game is still being fleshed out, and as we start to see features being finally implemented and issues like science gathering being refined, we will see more tutorials added.

The wiki is great for in the meantime, as it can be updated with new information as the game changes, or that's how it's supposed to work anyway. I think a lot of info in there is in relation to older versions.

BUT it would be much harder to do that with an ingame wiki.

I agree that the graphics could use an overhaul, they look quite dated in stock. I definitely cannot see that happening for the 1.0 launch but I imagine it would be high on the devs list of stuff to do.

[Renegrade]

I don't understand why the need for an internet connection is such a big deal for some people. We're no longer living in the 90s. The internet is everywhere.

While I don't mind looking up information in a wiki where necessary with third party programs, I have to dispute this 'internet is everywhere' business.

Last time I was with a nameless company (the name started with an "R" and ended with "ogers Cable"), they put me offline for three weeks while their techs fumbled around trying to figure out what was wrong (and you were lucky to get a full megabit during primetime where I lived, with a nice gentle tickle of 30% packetloss). Fortunately I just had that as backup for my primary connection at the time with the DSL guys (no names but their name rhymes with "Dell")...who put me offline for a few days last year because of "nonpayment" in spite of timely auto-payments (they later corrected their records and gave me some free extra credit, but being down is being down. They want me to be happy with downtime, they can buy me a Ferrari).

So no, internet isn't everywhere. Don't put anything internet-based/always-on into my games. That's an automatic no-sale for me. External wikis, forums, etc, fine, but if my single player game doesn't start because my internet is down, my next call is to an attorney.

Bell, er I mean, the company that rhymes with Dell is a full-on monopoly here (any other DSL-based solution uses their last mile), and R-ends-with-ogers is part of a duopoly where they split areas geographically with a company whose name starts with 'S' and ends with 'haw Communications'. Y'know, like honest businessmen. Or maybe more like the mob.

[klgraham1013]

The contents can be the same, but the UI will be worse. I can't see Squad spending comparable time and effort to perfect the UI as the developers of common web browsers, office suites, and operating systems have.

I can always dream. Though, I agree. Squad could do it, but I'm not sure they will.

- - - Updated - - -

Has there been any word on missing or placeholder interior views being fixed for 1.0?

When did the inline cockpit get introduced? Version 0.15?

...

Yeah.

[Superfluous J]

I don't want a wiki in the game. I want natural, integrated training like how Portal did it. By the 10th level you knew how to play the game and barely read any text at all. Not just KSP, but every game should have such an organic teaching mechanism.

The problem is, those are hard. Letting the community maintain a wiki is much easier.

[NathanKell]

I find it unutterably depressing that anyone would seriously suggest that "googling" should ever be a replacement for "a manual."

[cpast]

I don't understand why the need for an internet connection is such a big deal for some people. We're no longer living in the 90s. The internet is everywhere.

I sometimes play KSP on the train. While Amtrak has wifi on the NEC, it's really unreliable. Unless Squad intends internet access to be a requirement for the full experience, they should not rely on the internet to teach players how to play. Games should be self-contained as much as possible; it's stupid to have tutorials be the only thing that requires internet.

[Bill Phil]

Part of the fun of KSP is learning how to play. That's why my playing of it has slowed down, I learned it all. I think a lot more things to learn would be great.

And why put internet in it? Having a mini-wiki inside the game wouldn't be too much at all.

EDIT: Heck, you could say there already is a mini-wiki in the form of part-stats and planetary details.

If they were all in one neat place and not in a part menu or the map-view and spread out so much, it would be easier to do.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Woopert]

Wowza. I'm tempted to put KSP to one side until the release. It looks like te update will change the game so much there's no point in building anything special right now.

That's what I used to feel with 0.24 and 0.25. I found career so frustrating having to restart every new update to get the full experience. I think I've given up on career, I like sandbox much more.

What is it you're putting KSP aside for? I haven't been following closely; is it because of the new aerodynamics changing crafts' properties? Cheers

[klgraham1013]

I don't want a wiki in the game.

I'd like it just for those times I want to get a quick peak at the Mun's highest elevation or something of the sort.

[Bill Phil]

Maybe in a career mode parts of the wiki need to be filled out?

[Brotoro]

I wouldn't â€Âput KSP aside†because of coming changes. I built a new, improved Eve lander/ascent vehicle, and I'll have to use it before version 1.0...because it uses a lot of 48-7s engines. So I better use it before it no longer works.

And this week I was building payloads stacks of a certain maximum diameter in preparation for fitting them inside fairings...in anticipation of the new aerodynamics model. I've also been doing some testing of Duna airplanes...so I'd like to get some use out of those before the world changes and I have to design something else.

Has anyone said what the new aero model is going to do to Duna vehicles? If the new aero model is going to "dilute the soup", is Duna's thin atmosphere going to become even more ineffective on wings and parachutes?

[klgraham1013]

Maybe in a career mode parts of the wiki need to be filled out?

I've always thought unlocking info about planets should be done through telescopes, probes, what not.

[pandaman]

The 'facility' to be able to access the internet from in game would be handy yes, and I have no argument against that. But not as a substitute for a comprehensive in game offline tutorial/reference/help system to cover all the details needed to learn how to play and learn the game itself. Squad are working on tutorials etc as we know, so we will see the results when V1. 0 launches.

[Superfluous J]

I don't want a wiki in the game.

I'd like it just for those times I want to get a quick peak at the Mun's highest elevation or something of the sort.

I misspoke in an attempt at brevity.

I don't want the teaching/training/tutorial system to be restricted to a wiki in the game, is closer to what I wanted to say. An actual wiki a la Mass Effect's Codex would be awesome.

[Jouni]

I find it unutterably depressing that anyone would seriously suggest that "googling" should ever be a replacement for "a manual."

It's easier to find information in the web than in a manual, and the UI of a web browser is also much better than any PDF reader. Most PDF readers also don't support having the same document open at different pages in different windows at the same time, which is kind of annoying.

[klgraham1013]

It's easier to find information in the web than in a manual, and the UI of a web browser is also much better than any PDF reader. Most PDF readers also don't support having the same document open at different pages in different windows at the same time, which is kind of annoying.

Again, there is no reason a custom / tailor made wiki within the game should be any worse. It should be better, in fact. Whether it would be so is another question.

Edited February 2, 2015 by klgraham1013
grammer

[NecroBones]

Something that would be cool, would be an in-game "manual" system that is extensible, similar to the way Unix "man" pages work. Think of it like wikipedia, but where each mod could contain a folder with pages relating to that mod, and perhaps a syntax to replace segments of stock pages (if they alter stock functionality directly, such as NEAR/FAR).

[monstah]

I wouldn't put it like that. I mean that we don't have access to all the information that Squad does, and they likely know more about the progress of the new features as well as other business reasons that make ending early access desirable.

They don't owe us a response or justification, they didn't even have to tell us in advance that the next version is 1.0.

Cool, I can agree with that.

Anyway, I'm totally happy with the game I bought, and have been ever since I bought it. So... *shrugs* whatever number they put next to it is fine by me.

[Robotengineer]

Something that would be cool, would be an in-game "manual" system that is extensible, similar to the way Unix "man" pages work. Think of it like wikipedia, but where each mod could contain a folder with pages relating to that mod, and perhaps a syntax to replace segments of stock pages (if they alter stock functionality directly, such as NEAR/FAR).

Or like the civilopedia in Civ. I would like an extensible type, so mods could add info. That is actually a really good idea.

[Aerolfos]

I accidentally voted yes, probably cause it's 5AM. Doesn't seem like I swayed the poll, exactly.

I don't know about that. For performance, I imagine critics will be reviewing on modern gaming machines so I doubt they'll experience what the majority of the community will.

This is where the very issue is. It does not matter if you have a crappy laptop or a BEAST of a gaming machine. As long as you are above 4 gigs of total RAM, KSP will run equally badly for everybody. I feel like the reviewers will tear it apart for that..

And if a reviewer gets the idea to install mods, that is an instant "do not recommend until this game fixes it crap". Because you can run such an amazing game with mods, but because limits in software you are so limited and just when you think you discovered how the game is meant to be, it stops working. It really is a huge negative for them.

And you cannot hide behind the "it is software out of our hands", why the heck are you calling it full release when you have no control over your software and it has glaringly obvious issues with actually running on anything!

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand why the need for an internet connection is such a big deal for some people. We're no longer living in the 90s. The internet is everywhere.

As long as you're a rich brat in the West, that is true. Most other places are not so lucky.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Red Iron Crown
Let's not get personal.

[Jouni]

As long as you're a rich brat in the West, that is true. Most other places are not so lucky.

Actually, internet connections are quite common in third-world countries. Unlike things like sanitation, clean drinking water, and a reliable electricity supply, basic internet connections don't require major infrastructure investments. Just like mobile phones 10-15 years ago, the internet enables people in poor countries to improve their quality of life for an affordable price.

As long as we're talking about people playing KSP, electricity and powerful enough computers are the limiting factor, not internet connectivity.

[Tuareg]

Actually, internet connections are quite common in third-world countries. Unlike things like sanitation, clean drinking water, and a reliable electricity supply, basic internet connections don't require major infrastructure investments. Just like mobile phones 10-15 years ago, the internet enables people in poor countries to improve their quality of life for an affordable price.

As long as we're talking about people playing KSP, electricity and powerful enough computers are the limiting factor, not internet connectivity.

sure, because where there is no electricity there still is internet pfff