Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


453 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Ex KSP2 Spacecraft Engineer, Now KSP1 player

Recent Profile Visitors

1,885 profile views
  1. The docking issues are the bug that keeps me from playing right now. Even after 1.5, and even when I don’t dock as Scarecrow does (which I normally do, even before I started watching Matt Lowne’s content) docking seems to cause issues. Loss of SAS, craft still occasionally flying off when dedocking and crafts that dock seem more prone to the bug where parts of your ship start drifting away causing miss alignment of thrust. I actually landed with an engine like that the week the game launched on the Mun. Was entertaining then less so this far after release. Not everyone uses docking frequently in their gameplay loops, but if you do it does for many of us make the game unplayable in the sense that the frustration outweighs the entertainment of the game. Not that it literally crashes the game. Well I personally don’t know any artist who started drawing lifelike people before they drew people in a simpler style. And the great thing about art is that you can draw however you want. If you have a canvas that catches fire if you draw in an anime style it is an unworkable canvas if that’s the style you like to draw.
  2. 1. Remove wobble replace with Kitbash like solution that still models stress between joints and punishes badly created crafts while allowing large structures and ships assembled with lots of docking ports in orbit to still be fly able. (may be lower on list if 1.5 wobble doesn’t cost too much on performance and is as rigid as it looks) 2. QOL changes and bug fixes I’m sure are in the works, parts manager being accessible for a single part by right clicking, make delta-v accurate and plannable for different atmospheres, TWR being more visible both in VAB and on staging during flight. A color picker with hex values (that you can type into on the ui) and able to click to match a different part. Transfer window calculator with alarm clock. Bring back the parachutes on Kerbals. Movable and customizable UI, an option to move most or all of the ui to a separate monitor would be a dream. Please let us type for maneuver nodes as well, instead of just dragging. Docking camera as a default camera angle. Hotas support, I love planes but hate flying with a keyboard. All of these I feel like are either actively being worked on or are planned, just giving my support that I would rate these as high priority. 3. Life support. @Pthigrivi had a great post detailing an interesting but not overly complicated life support. I really do feel like it’s needed to separate the gameplay and user stories of manned missions and probes. It also helps balance out “max timewarp to fill all of my resources” by having a negative affect on any active manned missions. Make a gameplay reason to take care of manned kerbals on deep space missions, and a reason to send rescue missions. 4. Robotics and electric propellers. More procedural parts, particularly fuel tanks. Modifiable engines would be nice, but I don’t think that’s as common an opinion. 5. Proper boat and submersible parts and propulsion, and a gameplay reason (science biome) to explore the oceans in the Kerbol system. 6. Much further down the line, the gameplay benefit of visualizing delivery routes to colonies may seem small for the effort it will take, but I for one would love actual craft flying the delivery routes. Like starfield not making space continuous to save a lot of developer effort for seemingly little gain led to negative feedback, this change helps so much in immersion I still think it’s worth doing even if it doesn’t much change gameplay. 7. Comnet/scanning improvements. Make the UI in map view more clear with the comnet and how far different relays and antenna can transfer data. Preferably even some information on the part description (this antenna can reach Kerbin from the mun/Duna/Jool etc. ) I do hope scanning for resources makes a return, hopefully even with a telescope system to discover the further planets and especially the other star systems. 8. Some basic script writing for some automation. Not full on mech jeb but the programming in Juno was nice. 9. Functional IVA views and movement, with EVA construction. 10. Capybaras. Or lower on my priority, but a “test” option alongside “fly” when launching craft would make hard modes without quick loading actually possible. Very hard to do when, even in KSP1, you’re not actually sure how the ship will load into the game. Test mode gives no science or resources, but also doesn’t cost anything. But I’d also take capybaras. Thanks for asking for feedback, it’s really appreciated. I hope some of common ones can go into consideration. Edit: forgot about recovering spent stages! That would probably swap out 10 for me and a test view goes to 11. I’m happy with a time rewind, or a higher range of physics for stages with a probe core but I would really like to be able to recover lower stages and boosters.
  3. On the subject of Shadow Zone’s interview I do think both Shadow Zone and Nate gave a good interview. I think it was professional from both sides. Like others, some of the explanations of what happened in the past leaves me a little confused. For instance running into unexpected problems that take longer than you think to solve is a totally understandable problem. However there’s no need to say the game is nearly finished and so fun it’s a production issue if it’s not nearly finished. Even if it’s hard to predict how much longer it will take to be feature complete, knowing how playable the game is at a given time seems easy, and there was no need to oversell that. All that said, I appreciated how in this interview the communication about the future of the game was different to how that has been done in the past. I personally vastly prefer this I undersell style, and if the game talks for them with For Science! I think they can still regain community trust. Even with the gaps in the explanation, this was Nate clearly understanding how he (unintentionally) contributed to the erosion of trust, said that it was reasonable to be frustrated, impatient, and to have low trust in the devs, and then said this coming update will speak for what has happened over the past 10 months. That’s a major step forward in being transparent. If the update doesn’t live up to the expectations, well they know and we know that KSP2’s image and potential sales will probably not be recoverable. If it does, I for one will wear my dunce hat for being overly pessimistic, admit where I was wrong, and enjoy the update and get hyped for colonies. I want a performant, bug free, and expanded Kerbal game way more than I want to win an argument or to know the exact causes of the slow start to development. I’m pessimistic on some things because being pleasantly surprised things went better than I expected is a lot easier for me to process than the reverse. I appreciate and agree with the view that the vocal frustrations come from a place of passion. I really hope For Science! makes me have more passion for playing the game than for talking about it.
  4. Wow you added a lot tot the conversation with that comment.
  5. Ok having now watched the interview I have a few more comments. I appreciate both Matt for asking some tough questions and Nate for his straightforward responses. I’d like to affirm his comment that the negativity and worry was directed at the game and not at any individual, at least from me. And if science does the show part of show don’t tell I’m fairly confident they’ll win back most of the community. My one little gripe is that it was said EA was chosen for player feedback. This still doesn’t make sense to me, I really feel they had to know how broken the game was at launch (heck the previews weren’t early access keys to the game but come here and play on these very powerful and known spec computers) but if science is good I can leave that in the past. My feedback would be if you really want EA for feedback please start taking some universal requests and also communicate a bit more before updates. The wobbly conversation I think has been directed by feedback and I appreciate that. And I like the parts manager, but please please bring back opening a specific part by right clicking. That I think is as near a universal request as exists. And it’s much easier to steer development in line with feedback if the feedback is open before all the programming is done. By this I mean if you want feedback on colonies start telling us how colonies work sometime before it launches. That said, I see how until this point there hasn’t been as much to have feedback on, and if balancing and ideas bounced off the community after science is released are impactful on development this gripe will mostly go away. Thanks for this more open communication, thanks even more for going “underpromise overdeliver” as we approach the delivery part. I’m excited to play For Science! (Gotta respect the ! Lol) If it’s good I hope to be one of the critical voices that you all have won over.
  6. I haven’t had a chance to watch Matt Lownes interview yet but I fully agree the space creator presentation was worth a watch and very appreciated. There have been some toxic comments for sure, but I really appreciated the admittance that the trust breakdown came from the discrepancy of promised features and the current state. Some comments from IG made it seem (unintentionally I’m sure) like they thought the negative views some had for the game were unreasonable. Acknowledging that they were not unreasonable and how they (unintentionally) contributed to those views being formed was very appreciated. Pairing that with delivering a date for content being added was wonderful news. Now I’m still going to wait for the release for final judgement, but if science is performant and low on bugs I’ll be very happy and ready to edit my steam review and start enjoying the game. Because, as I’m glad they clearly see, the majority of negative feedback came from the lack of progress. Fix that, and you’ll see, I believe, a majority come around. And then they can talk as much or as little as they want because even tho the communication occasionally led to gripes, those gripes wouldn’t exist if the game was fun. That’s the fundamental issue, not communication strategy, and when that’s fixed things will get a lot more cheery I think.
  7. Yeah to be clear I like it as a stop gap over the noodles we have right now, but I don’t want it to stay permanently.
  8. @PDCWolf I was talking about the argument in general. We both fully agree wobble has to go, I’m happy with autostrut as a stop gap but would rather full rigid body. I just see a lot of people saying that they game has to have wobble for the engineering restraints of building. I’m pointing out that you can get that without wobble. I think I’d rank my preferred solutions as 1. Rigid body with stress limits. High for vertical stack of same size, medium for size changes, and low for horizontal attachments. This makes it not just a building step of adding a part but affects how rockets and planes are flown. (If you try to take a 6g turn with wings that are too long they shear off type of thing) With some ui indicator so the player knows when a joint is over stressed and soon to break. 2. Rigid body no stress limits 3. Auto strut. So you’d but 2 above 1, but on the big debate on wobble I think we’re pretty close. I think presenting 1 as a compromise to those who don’t want to give up the engineering challenges wobble presents is a way to increase the odds Intercept actually fully removes wobble.
  9. People say this but I really would rather have bad designs punished by breaking instead of wobbling. plenty of bridge building games have a ui effect showing which joints are over stressed by adding an heat map to the joints and displaying critical points to the player. I don’t know why ksp can’t just have a view like that that player can toggle when their rocket keeps exploding and they don’t know why.
  10. This is what I’ve been able to find after digging Space Creator Day KSP2
  11. I think that’s fair and where I’m at too. They already got me to buy in to hope and be disappointed. That said if the update is as described I think it’ll finally take KSP2 past KSP1, and I’ll board the hype train then. But keeping my hope low until I can actually play it.
  12. Hey this is nice. December is quicker than the majority of expectations, if this is good this can start to change the tide of public opinion. Excited to redownload and give it a spin.
  13. Im not really too active on the forums right now. But I missed something here, what’s SA?
  14. @Carraux We as the community have given them a lot of time to right the ship. I believed them at launch, and was even a pretty happy customer until they put it on sale before making any progress. Actions speak louder than words, there’s no reason to believe what they say when they haven’t delivered anything yet.
  15. It’s like they picked the worst of both worlds. Talking a lot at times but only about insubstantial stuff (amas with softball questions, dev insights into features that were supposed to come a brief window after launch) And then trying to change to a “under promise over deliver strategy” without acknowledging or wrapping up the loose ends of everything they’ve already discussed (reentry heat video was supposedly supposed to come out 11 days ago, has since then not been even acknowledged) all the while not actually delivering everything. It’s like they keep flip flopping on how much to talk thinking that’s the reason the player base is grumpy when, if the game was making progress, they could talk a lot or not at all and many would be happier. Because the communication style isn’t the reason for the backlash, the state of the game is the reason.
  • Create New...