Aerindel

I've said my piece about the game in other places. At this point I've decided to just go back to playing Bloodborne until the next update and then come back and see how things stand. My obsession with KSP is probably unhealthy anyway. I've played it more than I think I've played any other game in my life..this is probably because I have wanted to build spaceships since I was a little kid. KSP lets me build them...it doesn't let my fly them they way they should fly but due to (probably a mental illness of some kind) my personality that is almost enough to make me happy....or at least it was...maybe I am so angry over 1.0 because I feel myself burning out on building ships and wanted something...anything...to keep this game relevant as a game and not just a building set. Thankfully, there are not as many pacifists in this forum as I feared so something good probably will come our way as long as the flame keeps burning. And no, not the flame of creativity that burns in every little kerbals heart...I mean the flame of the torch in the hand of the angry villager.

Honestly, off all the multitude of bad problems that 1.02 still has, the atmosphere is not one of them. I don't understand what people think it should be like. Wildly unrealistic SSTO still work, rockets still fly...what more do people want? It sounds like they wan unlimited speed, lift and no drag. Airplanes suck...thats why this isn't a flight sim, its something a loot better, a rocket sim.

This is true of 1.02 in 1.0 this is not true, pods barely slowed at all. Agree. 1.02 aero is perfectly good for a space program game.

I think its been this way since .90

Real life. If atomic engines require giant tanks of hydrogen that would boil away before you could use it and other engines have such low ISP that you would need monstrous tanks to move very small payloads it seems that there is no practical way to send much more than a couple of guys at time to another planet without a major break through in physics and the only reason LV-N's work is because their fuel source is unrealistic.

So the take away is that in reality there really is no practical way to accomplish interplanetary travel.

That is the issue, with no radiator parts there is no solution.

Well, I'll put it this way, I don't have any problem with nuke heat in 1.02 My ship runs out of fuel after a 40 minute burn without blowing up. It could be completely removed for all I care because with no way to manage heat it either builds up and destroys your ship or its balanced so it doesn't, in which case why have it at all? They completely removed the heat mechanic from ISRU and drills because it wasn't working, they should just do the same for nukes....and while there at it re-entry since heat doesn't really matter their either.

This has turned into a fantastic post. Its also depressing to remember that the spaceprogram was over before I was born.

I would prefer that too but I was trying to think of the laziest possible way for the devs to give us LV-N tanks.

Yep. The heat issue was fixed in 1.02, but the fuel tank issue is disappointing. All squad would have had to do is make bright yellow (or whatever) version of existing tanks and fill them with only LF but like a lot of 1.0, they didn't seem to think things through.

Here is a new theory. 1.0 was a deliberate troll by Squad. I mean...if you watch the release trailer they pretty much told us exactly what 1.0 was going to be like. Rockets that blow up on ascent and pods that can't safely land, followed by denial and finger pointing from mission control! It explains everything!

Wow...27 user reviews...more people than that probably work at squad. And how many game reviewers really have the time to truly understand KSP? or have clue one when it comes to realistic spaceflight? That means nothing. The measure of success is not how well you fool the ignorant but how you are viewed by your friends, and yes, thats what we are, only people who love(d) KSP would be here at all.

Well, must of the parts are based on 1960-1980's technology. Thats how I took it at least.

Just in case people don't understand why 1.0 was a problem, they should remember that WE were not the ones that defined what it should be. These are squads own words: If this is to believed that means the game we have now is the endgame. Its the goal they where looking for. No, that doesn't mean there won't be more bug fixes but it means that fundamentally, this is what they want us to have. So I ask you now, does anyone here feel that Kerbal is fundamentally finished? That it is a complete game that only needs some bug fixes? I don't think many do. I think that most people feel this is just another pre-release update. The difference between the camps seem to be wether that bothers people or not. Personally, when the Devs say something is done that means they are planing on walking away. Maybe not all at once but it means its basically over, they are happy, fix a few bugs and move on, and if this is where kerbal ends I find that really disappointing especially when just another month or so of community wide testing could probably fix all the gameplay issues. (nothing is ever going to fix all the bugs, the game is fundamentally unstable on my computer at least and always has been but I can live with that)/ Thats a great term. I really wish I could have been a fly on the wall at Squad HQ when they decided that this release was going to be 1.0, and that it wasn't going to have a beta.

That has yet to be determined. If squad sits back and says "we have your monies already, suck it" then it will indeed be pointless. If they fix these problems in 1.03 then it will have done its job. - - - Updated - - - That is my point, those issues where missed, they where not noticed, understood and then denied the way the crack O rings where on Challenger.

Well, this has been discussed extensively in several threads, and they did fix much of it in 1.02, but for those who are late to the party. Re-entry: Pods with heats shields where not stable and without SAS, they flipped over and orientated nose first, the exact opposite of how they should work and how they used to work. This was fatal to the missions. Parachutes where invincible and could be opened at any speed or temperature and even in their partially deployed state causes craft to almost instantly slow at even very high altitudes* This is contrary to how they worked in some previous version where they would be torn from the pods if deployed at too high of speeds. Atmosphere was very thin, allowing jets to hit mach speeds before the end of the runway and shortly after reach speeds so high they burned up and exploded. It should be noted that some airplane flyers thought this was a improvement, but this caused: Pods that did not deploy parachutes at high altitudes would not slow to terminal velocity before hitting the ground on most descents and would either burn up or still be traveling at very high speeds at low altitude and could only be saved by deploying parachutes at completely unrealistic speeds. None of these are what I would call bugs but rather fairly egregious gameplay failures given that every one of them could be (and was) discovered on a players very first suborbital flight. They all also represent a radical departure from .90, which we where told was the game with all major parts in place. Heating: 1.0 introduced heat as a new component to be managed. In theory this was a good thing but it was poorly implemented. The LV-N, the most important engine in the game once players begin to leave Kerbin's SOI overheated very rapidly with most builds and still fairly rapidly even when designed around. If this was just one random engine this wouldn't have been a big deal but as the only practical engine for interplanetary flight in the game this suddenly made the Kerbol system exploration very tedious as you now had to make all your transfer burns in very short bursts to avoid overheating. This was both unrealistic and un-fun. (Some people have tried to say that the game balances realism and fun and that is why everybody can't be happy but making things BOTH unrealistic and not fun is not the solution, if something is not fun it should be at least be realistic and vise versa) Unlike many other parts of KSP, this was not a challenge as there was no way to design around it as there are no heat management parts (unlike the mods with parts that need cooling) It was simply a big nerf back to the stone age. The ISRU mining system overheated very quickly, reducing its yield to almost zero. This was unrealistic and useless as a no matter the heat level a player could simply warp speed through the extraction, making the heat system irrelevant as anything but an irritation, much like the re-entry model. Numerous bugs and crashes which I will not mention as those are not really the heart of the matter except to say that gamers used to expect more out of a 1.0 release. My game does at least load much faster which makes recovering from a crash less of a chore than it used to be....so yay? 1.02 brought some fixes but also some new problems. LV-N's no longer overheat if properly mounted, but they only consume liquid fuel and so can now only be practically used with spaceplane fuel tanks, severely limiting the design freedom we once had, this is very odd because again, these are an extremely important engine in the game and should have had a whole new array of tank parts to go with them now that the way the work has changed. Mining heat has been completely removed....yay? or not depending on how you feel. One hand a problem is gone, on another a potentially interesting challenge was removed. The air is now thick enough for a realistic re-entry, and parachutes are destroyed by high speeds and heat...but, re-entry heating is such that now you don't need a heats shield or to really every worry about most parts overheating on re-enty as only a few small parts are really effected by heat, so again, what could have been an interesting mechanic was nerfed to oblivion instead of actually being fixed. As with everything else, this is something that careful testing should have been able to balance but which it seems was just thrown in as an emergency fix to a problem that shouldn't ever have existed. The following are cosmetic problems but which seem to be widely disliked by most players and have yet to be fixed or even addressed. Fairings explode in a confetti like cloud of parts that is unattractive and unrealistic. Functional Space planes, I am told, now look like hotdogs. (I don't personally care but some people are really upset about it) I'm sure their are other problems, and there are countless bugs, but these are the big gameplay decisions that it seems where never tested. Thats what we are trying to avoid. Moving on from a broken game would mean moving to a different game. We still want to play Kerbal, we just want to play the real Kerbal and not this broken beta thing we have right now.

No, Apollo 13 was a minor defect that resulted in a disaster that nobody could have predicted. I was watching a documentary last night on the US space program and I couldn't help but think this is more like the Challenger disaster where you had many people reporting a problem and issues warnings that where ignored by the people in charge who where more concerned with deadlines and budgets than with stopping and listening to what people where saying. I'd say more, I was actually just about to start a thread just like this, but I've said what I wanted to say many times in the other thread and I'm burning out on this so I will just say besides replacing the apollo 13 analogy with challenger, I agree with everything r4ptor said.

That is the best way. I build the entire refinery on wheels and roll it up to the craft and refine fuel directly into the ship to be refueled.

Its totally possible. Your stuck with it blowing into confetti but you can place it anywhere you want, just wait until the text turns blue to lock it onto the next section of your rocket. If you have wobble problems just add internal struts inside your fairing section to stiffen it up.

True enough. KSP was the "next best thing" that made me drop minecraft after years of playing. Actually, it was Simple Rockets on my iPad that started it all, I got obsessed with that game and it had an ad for KSP right in the main menu.

Meh. This thread is probably not going anywhere. It seems clear that we aren't going to get through. I'm already losing interest in KSP anyway. After who knows how many hundreds of hours playing I'm tired of being an alpha tester, I was hyped for 1.0 because I really wanted to stop messing around and start a real campaign, one saved game with everything in it, a game that would go on for years and just get better and better over time. But its clear that 1.0 was just another beta...and that we are still in beta and still waiting for this to be a finished game.

Yep, "saying stop being mean to the testers" is just a distracting tactic by the apologists. Standard straw man strategy of shifting the discussion away from a valid problem to an invalid one that is easier to defend. "Stop blaming our poor unpaid defenseless testers" sounds a lot better than "Stop blaming our multi-million dollar company for its complete failure at a 1.0 launch" And the vitriol argument? You don't know what vitriol is. I haven't seen anything here that is more than mild annoyance. We are saving the actual vitriol in case 1.03 has the same problems. I don't know what the community was like before the 1.0 fiasco but if you think this is vitriol then the community must have been extremely forgiving in the past. Of course, that is part of the point. Until 1.0 KSP was a bugged filled crash-o-thon, but because it was just an alpha nobody expected it to be otherwise so it wouldn't have been fair to ream out the devs. Its the difference between unfinished and broken. We would also be forgiving if the 1.0 problems where just bugs or crashes. That stuff happens, its just part of PC gaming, there inherently unstable, we respect that. Kerbal has crashed a dozen times on my computer this week, its usually how ever play session ends. Do I complain about that? No, thats just what you get for playing a complicated game on a two year old computer. But fundamentally flawed and untested gameplay families in a 1.0 release is unacceptable and its disgusting to hear people trying to tell us that its all okay, or that "No true Kerbal" would dare be angry about major gameplay problems. Is that really what being a KSP fan is all about? Sitting down and shutting up? or only working with "the system" when that system has obviously and publicly failed?

For some things it would make a lot of sense, more than the current tech tree at least which is totally bonkers.

Not at all, I don't even play career mode as its just a grind with no actual reward. If it had a story mode or something it would be fun but as it is the challenges that I come up with for myself are for more interesting. I always start off in science mode as it gives you something to do that rewards you with points (even if they become useless after a few hours) but your not stuck flying missions you don't want to fly just to make some money. I find mining massively useful as it allows you to have non disposable ships that you can fly many missions with and become expert at, and its much more fun to fly a medium sized ship that you can refuel at your destination than to always be launching massive Goliath's that must carry all the fuel for the trip back, or tiny little probes that hardly need any fuel. I just wish we had some bigger asteroids, or places with denser asteroids all traveling within a few thousand Kms and a hundred M/s of each other.