Sign in to follow this  
hoojiwana

Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

Do you think KSP is ready for 1.0?  

952 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think KSP is ready for 1.0?

    • Yes
      256
    • No
      692


Recommended Posts

I just think that 1.0 being next is a big skip. Too big. Make it 0.99, and then make 1.0 a bugsquashing release. Besides that, clouds and nuclear reactors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides that, clouds and nuclear reactors.
Oh man, clouds! I'm so used to them now that I almost forgot they weren't stock already! They add so much beauty and drama and awesomeness for such a little feature, they should definitely be stock.

I kind of feel like Squad has gotten too used to its amazing modding community. Like they have fallen into the line of thinking that if something is missing from the game, players will just go get it as a mod, but there will always be a sizable chunk of players who will always play mod-free. I was like that for a long time, and it isn't because I was being picky or anything, it was because I wanted to play the game as it was intended by by the makers, because I wanted to trust the singular vision of the devs, rather than a bunch of modders that make great things but are all working separately. I eventually felt gameplay had too many big holes in it to continue playing stock, but I assumed that eventually there would be a game that I could go back to stock with, or at least almost stock (I was pretty bummed by them stating there will never be life support in stock a few months back, still am).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it may be true that all the features will be done, the game still needs fixes and improvements, such as Unity 5 (Pending release of course), slightly better 64-bit, more bug fixes in general, etc.

Oh, don't even get me started on the 64 bit rant. My opinion, that right there needs to be fixed, which I release requires moving to Unity 5 at least. Simply because people, like me, are going to load the game till it crashes. I've done it with every game thus far, and KSP is no different. Basically I think there needs to be a stable Win64 client ready before 1.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man, clouds! I'm so used to them now that I almost forgot they weren't stock already! They add so much beauty and drama and awesomeness for such a little feature, they should definitely be stock.

I kind of feel like Squad has gotten too used to its amazing modding community. Like they have fallen into the line of thinking that if something is missing from the game, players will just go get it as a mod, but there will always be a sizable chunk of players who will always play mod-free. I was like that for a long time, and it isn't because I was being picky or anything, it was because I wanted to play the game as it was intended by by the makers, because I wanted to trust the singular vision of the devs, rather than a bunch of modders that make great things but are all working separately. I eventually felt gameplay had too many big holes in it to continue playing stock, but I assumed that eventually there would be a game that I could go back to stock with, or at least almost stock (I was pretty bummed by them stating there will never be life support in stock a few months back, still am).

I always find it a bit jarring to watch someone play stock KSP, it can be so beautiful with EVE + Astronomers pack, planetshine, Distant object enhancement and most important of all texture replacer to get rid of that truly hideous starfield.

I'm not sure about how others feel but I honestly would stop playing the game completely without those mods, visuals are important and it seems like the dev's just don't see it that way.

I want the game to do well, but I'm more than a little concerned by this proposed release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a software developer and a mod maintainer there is no way this game is ready for release in the near future. There are just too many bugs and there is still a lack of gameplay and content. I've tried recommending this game to friends and when I say "it's good but you need to install 40+ mods" they look at me like I'm crazy. I like it, it's a good game, but I'm not letting that color my view about its current state of development nor alter my hesitation to recommend it to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, no.

In long... what you all said. The game is buggy and not ready for release. If the release game has even one of:

Tundra biomes next to KSC

Collision courses with Mun not even showing up as SOI encounters

Conic sections with no periapsis (which is impossible)

No Female Kerbals

A huge memory leak

Radial decouplers with no outward force

(and those are just off the top of my head)

...then the game is not even remotely ready for 1.0 release because those are BASIC things that need fixed. Not modified. Not changed. Fixed. They are bugs.

Yes. Even Female Kerbals.

I defend most of Squad's decisions because the game is still being actively developed and they specifically say on the box that they're not actually releasing it yet. That defense is out the window the moment this game hits 1.0.

I figured out what Project V is. |V|ojang.

EDIT: Okay I was out all night and just read this before finding out that they both ARE adding Females to the game AND revealed what "Project V" is. So I rescind both of those. And I can't even comment on the Project V thread about how shocked I am that they called it that, because the thread was locked :D

Edited by 5thHorseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There will ALWAYS be things being found. There has never been a game released where things weren't found. Expecting zero bugs is a ridiculous bar in any game - heck - any piece of software release. I think the big questions are:

1) Do the new features work well within the game

2) Have things been properly rebalanced

3) Are there any major bugs that would significantly impact gameplay

If the answer to all 3 of those are "yes," then my answer to the poll in the thread is "yes, it is ready."

Very succinct summary, thank you. I had to vote a resounding NO.

1) The new features seem pretty good. Although I don't play career, I follow the news on its balance issues, and they appear to be many. Particularly, the tech tree.

2) Generally, balance has gotten MUCH better, but the smaller rocket engines need work.

2 AND 3) New aero, lift, AND resources without widespread beta testing?!?

3) Decouplers, timewarp through SOI changes, general stability and optimization. Anything handled by Claw's Stock Bug Fix.

Old features not working or not adequate:

4) Tutorials: I'm not sure where these are at. Last I heard, they were broken or in bad shape.

5) Demo: Needs to be upgraded to the latest version. Without the demo, I probably would have never bought the game.

I think releasing 1.0 without another Beta release will harm Squad in the long term. Bugs, stability, performance, and balance issues will drive away new players, and make the game less popular than it could be. I like these guys; I want to see them make all the money they can.

As a community, we have the opportunity to do something constructive here.

A) I think those of us that have voted "no" need to start hammering the bug tracker.

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp

B) I feel like a cheapskate for having so much fun for so little money. I've already purchased KSP for myself and a friend--

I pledge to buy a THIRD copy if they have another Beta release.

Edited by FleshJeb
language filter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and Yes and yeah

There're no so much for me, only random crash or something.

Features are done, bugs are dead (almost), why not 1.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think KSP is ALMOST in state of completion but not, so I voted NO!.

Instead of whining about the bugs or missing features, I am going to create a game plan for Squad for the Next 1 year till release.

GAMEPLAN:

1) Ditch the original plan, you and your customers would be better off if you took your time and made a polished product.

2) Use what you have as a roadmap to 1.0, don't add or take things away but instead break each feature up into smaller updates. Remember guys, the late game is about fixing as many problems as possible and less about adding features.

3) Increase update frequency, every second or third update should purely be bug fixes for KSP and the 64 bit version. Since most features are almost done and bug fixing doesn't take as long creating new asserts, updates should become more frequent.

4) Possibly update to Unity 5, this depends on when it comes out though. If it comes out in the next couple months, then great, update to it and start fixing the bugs that come along because of the transition, if it comes out at the end or next year then it might not be worth it.

5) There is no harm in going back and looking at the tutorials and scenarios, since this most likely what new players will come into contact with, my suggestion it to integrate a tutorial with the sandbox and career modes so when someone starts up, they go into these first. Scenarios can be about more specified things, like docking or actual missions.

6) Right before release, redo the demo so you can show off how far KSP has come to the cynical consumer.

I love your game, I think everyone here does and that is why we don't want to see you guys fall flat on your face with these last few months. There a bit more spit and polish can go a long way in terms of game sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it's ready for 1.0. As soon as the game seems "finished", all those game reviewing magazines and sites will be going to it. With that amount of bugs and unstable condition...does squad really think they're going to earn good scores on more promises? It might give a terrible first impression(similar to the existing one).

For someone who has never played the game and is looking at screenshots ("Y U NO CLOUDZ?") and listens to hearsay("Awesome unique game, but don't rate it after the ancient demo and install at least those mods ..."), it might not be very convincing.

I love the game and I know that it's for a niche market but the planned update seems more focused on the existing community than a more public one. New players don't know and won't really give a... about new aerodynamics or larger wings. They don't know the game. Squad, for your own sake...don't rush it.

Edited by ximrm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP is so not ready for version 1.0. As many others have pointed out, reviewers will tear them apart if they do that.

Besides the mass of bugs and technical limitations (no multicore, no functional Windows 64-bit client), there still are a lot of corrections and additions they need to do. Some of these are announced for the next release, but until they are out we have no guarantee they will be included in that next release.

1. New aero model with drag and lift, including sonic effects, including re-entry heating, and the parts needed for these improvements (fairings, interstages, heat shields)

2. New operation models for rocket engines (make rocket Isp vary with air density, not max fuel flow, done in 3 current mods (BTSM, KIDS, Real Fuels)) and jet engines (see Advanced Jet Engines for more info)

3. Numerical support in the editor and in flight (some large fraction of what KER, MechJeb, VOID, RCS Build Aid, Precise Node, and other mods provide)

4. Better spacecraft pod interiors (like what RPM and extensions to it provide)

5. Better flight visuals (like what EVE with Astronomor's Pack, HotRockets, and similar mods provide)

6. Improve UI, especially flight information and controls (like what Editor Extensions, Trajectories, Navball and docking mods, and similar provide)

7. Better coverage of both core and extra parts (like what Navigation Lights and other good parts mods provides)

8. Better memory usage (make OpenGL default if needed, get Windows 64-bit working) and other resource usages (multicore)

9. Better career progression and Kerbal tracking (like Better Than Starting Manned, Final Frontier, and similar mods provide)

10. Significant effort to fix bugs and other design issues, like fixing all the parts' numbers (like cost) that often make no sense, especially compared to one another

That's a lot that needs to be added on top of what we have right now with KSP 0.90. I think a minimum of 3 beta releases (0.91, 0.92, and 0.93) have to come out to incorporate that many significant things.

Then, when 0.93 is out and appears to have no major issues or other shortcomings, they can think of rolling out a tiny bug-fix release and call that 1.0.

If they don't do this, Squad can expect to fail and suffer for it.

EDIT: Adjusted the wording of #2

Edited by Jacke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have to agree that it's not ready for full release, but they've already announced it, no turning back now.

a small group of people managed to make squad delay the barn,I'm sure 160+ people can do the same but with the release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KSP is so not ready for version 1.0. As many others have pointed out, reviewers will tear them apart if they do that.

Besides the mass of bugs and technical limitations (no multicore, no functional Windows 64-bit client), there still are a lot of corrections and additions they need to do. Some of these are announced for the next release, but until they are out we have no guarantee they will be included in that next release.

1. New aero model with drag and lift, including sonic effects, including re-entry heating, and the parts needed for these improvements (fairings, interstages, heat shields)

2. New engine models for rocket engines (make rocket Isp vary with air density, not max fuel flow) and jet engines

3. Numerical support in the editor and in flight (some large fraction of what KER, MechJeb, VOID, RCS Build Aid, Precise Node, and other mods provide)

4. Better spacecraft pod interiors (like what RPM and extensions to it provide)

5. Better flight visuals (like what EVE with Astronomor's Pack, HotRockets, and similar mods provide)

6. Improve UI, especially flight information and controls (like what Editor Extensions, Trajectories, Navball and docking mods, and similar provide)

7. Better coverage of both core and extra parts (like what Navigation Lights and other good parts mods provides)

8. Better memory usage (make OpenGL default if needed, get Windows 64-bit working) and other resource usages (multicore)

9. Better career progression and Kerbal tracking (like Better Than Starting Manned, Final Frontier, and similar mods provide)

10. Significant effort to fix bugs and other design issues, like fixing all the part numbers that make no sense, especially compared to one another

That's a lot that needs to be added on top of what we have right now with KSP 0.90. I think a minimum of 3 beta releases (0.91, 0.92, and 0.93) have to come out to incorporate that many significant things.

Then, when 0.93 is out and appears to have no major issues or other shortcomings, they can think of rolling out a tiny bug-fix release and call that 1.0.

If they don't do this, Squad can expect to fail and suffer for it.

sorry to disappoint you but this is simply beyond their abilities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can it be called complete if half of the crew modules don't have interior view? :(

Mk3 and mk1 inline IVAs coming soonâ„¢ .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think that it's ready.

My primary reason is that the new update is going to feature a new aerodynamics model, which could mean that our entire intuition about what it means to build rockets in KSP may now be subject to drastic change. If either a) the aerodynamics wind up buggy or B) the aerodynamics wind up contributing to a poor gameplay experience, then this would be a terrible note for Squad to officially release on, and would garner it criticism that could easily (though wrongly) link it to other games on the market that have been released without "being ready".

My two cents? Make the next release Beta .99. Make the bugfix patch 1.0.

Beyond that, I'm also kind of surprised that KSP is being considered done without one ringed planet. I'm pretty sure that everyone was expecting at least one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's rushed, it's madness, you have a beta community, PLEASE USE IT.

The media backlash for backtracking on your '1.0 imminent'-declaration is preferable to the media + community backlash for going through with the current course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry to disappoint you but this is simply beyond their abilities...

That people believe that is true is more damning to the devs than anything I can say. The only one that's not is possibly #8, as that's a problem with Unity. Everything else has been done by at LEAST one mod. Modders should not have better mastery of a product than the actual developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP ready for v1.0, this is a joke right? Seriously? The game is basically unplayable for me right now because of stuttering caused by unity's GC and they're talking about leaving beta!

Squad, we're all routing for you and for the day you do make it to 1.0, but now is not the time. We've only just arrived in the beta phase and after one beta version your saying your ready to release? That just doesn't make sense, I was expecting quite a number of beta versions, some that added small/trivial new features and a lot that didn't add anything but just fixed existing things.

I'm actually really quite tense about this. I've loved KSP, played it almost exclusively, made some fun vids and been immersed in a wonderful little universe. But I can't do any of that currently because of how the game performs, it is impossible to immerse in something that freezes every few seconds (even more impossible to film it) and I'm so limited in what I can create before the game becomes unplayable. I used to build 400+ part craft and fly them without problem (just low FPS) and the only real restriction was my creativity. In the last few versions I feel the game has gone from mostly-working to fairly-broken, which is all fine and expected in a alpha/beta stage when there is the assumption that new things will break/effect old things, but there will be fixes. To hear that KSP is going out of beta while still being so buggy is deeply concerning to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HELL NO!!!

KSP is not ready for version 1.0. As previous members said the game needs a few more beta releases for bug fixing and balance issues. There are also many things missing and female Kerbals are not the most important thing right now. The tutorials are unplayable, cockpits lack interiors, there is a need for clouds in the atmosphere of the planets, reentry heat is a crucial factor that can be toggled on or off in the difficulty settings, fairings will be good to have with the new aero model, rebalance the tech tree (for the love of God there is a thread the forum devs posted as thread of the month for rebalancing the tech tree) and many more things.

Anyway there many things that need to fixed for the game in order to think that the game is actually complete. If squad is going for a full release this year, since they mentioned that the beta will take a year to finish, i recommend for the game devs to start a discussion with the community about feature and balance issues. This announcement is very rushed and i think it has to do more with funds being stretched low for continuing developing this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KSP is so not ready for version 1.0. As many others have pointed out, reviewers will tear them apart if they do that.

Besides the mass of bugs and technical limitations (no multicore, no functional Windows 64-bit client), there still are a lot of corrections and additions they need to do. Some of these are announced for the next release, but until they are out we have no guarantee they will be included in that next release.

1. New aero model with drag and lift, including sonic effects, including re-entry heating, and the parts needed for these improvements (fairings, interstages, heat shields)

2. New engine models for rocket engines (make rocket Isp vary with air density, not max fuel flow) and jet engines

3. Numerical support in the editor and in flight (some large fraction of what KER, MechJeb, VOID, RCS Build Aid, Precise Node, and other mods provide)

4. Better spacecraft pod interiors (like what RPM and extensions to it provide)

5. Better flight visuals (like what EVE with Astronomor's Pack, HotRockets, and similar mods provide)

6. Improve UI, especially flight information and controls (like what Editor Extensions, Trajectories, Navball and docking mods, and similar provide)

7. Better coverage of both core and extra parts (like what Navigation Lights and other good parts mods provides)

8. Better memory usage (make OpenGL default if needed, get Windows 64-bit working) and other resource usages (multicore)

9. Better career progression and Kerbal tracking (like Better Than Starting Manned, Final Frontier, and similar mods provide)

10. Significant effort to fix bugs and other design issues, like fixing all the part numbers that make no sense, especially compared to one another

That's a lot that needs to be added on top of what we have right now with KSP 0.90. I think a minimum of 3 beta releases (0.91, 0.92, and 0.93) have to come out to incorporate that many significant things.

Then, when 0.93 is out and appears to have no major issues or other shortcomings, they can think of rolling out a tiny bug-fix release and call that 1.0.

If they don't do this, Squad can expect to fail and suffer for it.

1. Already in the works (but doubtful to the extent you seem to think is a must.) reentry heat would be nice (but DE is just tedious an easily overcame (slap a heat shield on the bottom. Boring.) Maybe pods with heat-shields built-in shuttle-type shielding, but otherwise no random shield part that could just be slapped onto anything (would prevent being able to return parts that are clearly not built for returning.)

2. New models? Is that really an issue at this point?

3. Hopefully the Engineer Report will cover Dv at least.

4. RPM is a nice mod, but not a needed feature (it isn't going to appeal to a large amount of players.)

5. Certainly needed and hopefully will get a good workover.

6. Again, nice to have but not a dire necessity.

7. More parts means more confusion for new players. Best to keep choices small per mission design (no need to have 10 1.5m engines with only slight stat variations. Better to have three to five clearly different, but practical 1.5m engines.) Late-game advanced versions would be nice to see though.

8. Memory usage is only a problem with large amounts of mods, even with the 4GB limit. If a player heavily mods the game, that isn't exactly Squad's fault. (Let's not get into the need/want debate over mods.)

9. The XP system needs some tweaking, and the tech tree could certainly allow for better player choice (Should I choose manned, unmanned, planes?)

10. Some bugs really DO need fixed (looking at you decouplers!) Part numbers don't make sense? Really? That's an issue? Seriously?

I voted no, but only because I feel a round or two of actual bugfixing needs to happen before they jump to an official release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Already in the works (but doubtful to the extent you seem to think is a must.) reentry heat would be nice (but DE is just tedious an easily overcame (slap a heat shield on the bottom. Boring.) Maybe pods with heat-shields built-in shuttle-type shielding, but otherwise no random shield part that could just be slapped onto anything (would prevent being able to return parts that are clearly not built for returning.)

The aero model is the fix that Squad will be judged on more than any other. Squad has to get it right. That they don't take the advice of ferram4 and others that have been dealing with this for a long time is very disturbing. And you have to have realistic re-entry heating and damage and destruction because that is a critical part of landing through atmospheres. High speed heating is another sonic speed effect and if they get that right they get re-entry heating too.

2. New models? Is that really an issue at this point?

Yes.

New engine models as in a new aero model. Stock rocket engines have fuel flow that varies with atmospheric density, which is wrong. Rocket Isp varies with density. That is literally a one-line fix and is done in at least 3 current mods (Better Than Starting Manned, KIDS, Real Fuels). Jet engines will be more complex. See the Advanced Jet Engine mod for details, but basically the performance of stock jet engines are way way wrong.

As Stargate525 has pointed out, everyone of my points except for #8 has been done in at least one mod, some of them several times over. And those mods are popular. And except for large numbers of parts they don't impact memory or processing that much. What would stop Squad implementing them into stock?

10. Some bugs really DO need fixed (looking at you decouplers!) Part numbers don't make sense? Really? That's an issue? Seriously?

Yeah, that decoupler bug looks like it's going for tenure. :mad:

Yes, there are crazy numbers that need fixing. Try comparing prices between parts. Especially related parts like the adaptors.

Edited by Jacke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a moment of levity, I just wanted to point out that getting 4 out of 5 KSP players to agree on anything is next to impossible, and to take a moment to thank Squad for finally bringing us all together on a topic ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Performance specs, not graphical models. gotcha. Sorry about that. But you are referencing jet engine issues and applying it to the rocket engines, which isn't accurate. the jet engines may very well see a nerf with the new aero model (see #1.)

You said "part numbers" and i assumed you meant the part model numbers, not the statistics. (It's late and my comprehension is apparently lacking. My apologies for the misunderstandings.)

- - - Updated - - -

For a moment of levity, I just wanted to point out that getting 4 out of 5 KSP players to agree on anything is next to impossible, and to take a moment to thank Squad for finally bringing us all together on a topic ;)

There is an overwhelming amount of agreement overall here today, which is most unheard of in these parts. Kudos to Squad, the uniters!

Edited by metl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this