ColourOfFire
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ColourOfFire
-
-
KSP 1.0.4 is finally stable on my Mac.
I dual boot OSX / Linux (Ubuntu), and on Linux is even stabler, but it has some issues with mouses and key shortcuts.
I've played KSP on Linux for a while, since the 1.0.2 was literally unplayable on my machine (MPB Retina early 2013, with 16 Gb ram).
However, on OSX KSP runs more smoothly than on Linux, 'cos drivers are better optimized. I'm so looking forward to be able to run KSP at 64 bits on Mac!
It's very weird that the newer macbooks seem to have more issues. Maybe it's because my old one can't handle fancy graphics anyway, so I turn them down quite a bit. Even mods don't hurt stability on mine, only several huge packs like KW Rocketry and B9 running together runs into problems.
-
It isn't stable for some people there is no overall bug. My macbook 2011 runs it perfectly and I can't even remember if I have had a crash to desktop, i run 10.10.3, even with mods (not visual ones or big parts packs). You may see an FPS increase because of using Directx 9 with Windows which seems faster than OpenGL
Same here, no issues on a 2011 macbook pro.
My 0.25 did crash/glitch every once in a while, but that had a ridiculous amount of mods on it.
-
I'm terribly sorry, but if this is unforgivable you're going to have a hard time living in 2015. It's unnecessary and useless but come on, not unforgivable.
Btw, if you're so offended by this, do you realise you just posted it uncensored on a forum kids might be watching?
-
Wait, 1.0.3 is out? It's still 1.0.2 for me.
Yes of course there's a an update with nobody on the forum talking about it and absolutely no devblog or changelog.
-
You know what really disrupts my immersion?* When I pull into range of a station and parts of the station collide with parts they're attached to and blow up, or the station suddenly teleports 7km, or just disappears altogether. Do you think the multi-core physics would help with that?
*That is definitely going into my lexicon as a synonym for "frosts my muffins," "burns my biscuits," "harshes my mellow," and so on.
No.
It does not change the physics calculations, it just unlocks the ability to use different threads to do it, so it can use more of your computers memory. It's not going to help gazillion part spaceships, it's not going to make miracles happen.
Of course, more memory to play with and the updated physics engine might mean there will be improvements, but purely changing from 32 to 64 bit will only makes certain things run a little faster.
-
Meh, I said what I wanted to say. I'm not the one who started this thread, I'm just contributing my opinion. I really don't care.
And people pointed out factual errors in that opinion, no need to get so defensive. You were the one that came in here trying to vindicate an old post of yours...
-
Haha I find this quite funny because I said they would integrate a bunch of modder stuff 8 months ago:
Mind you I was one version off, but still happened like I said it would. I wouldn't call it stealing though. I would call it: Squad sitting back and playing their game and making 3d animated movie clips and twitch videos of themselves playing KSP while the community of modders is hard at work making features for their game which they will implement in a future release if people like it.
Well of course re-entry heat and working aerodynamics are very weird and unique features to implement in a game about space flight... Until there's code that shows they copied stuff this line of thought is completely ridiculous. AFAIK the implementation of aero in 1.0 differs a lot from the way FAR used to handle it with pre 1.0 stock...
-
Ah, I see, but hopefully it will be Soon!
In addition, I read (I believe in one of the devnotes) that even though 64 bit might happen, we shouldn't expect huge part counts to be suddenly a lot smoother, as single ships will still need to be in one thread. It will still be faster as other loads can be spread, but don't get overhyped.
-
AH! Thank you ever so much!
Why is that silly thing missing from the ingame settings? Oh well, back to exploding ships on the pad!
Probably because erasing/storing debris with the save game loaded and active is not a great idea
-
THIS. CKAN is absolutely amazing. It makes installing and removing mods so easy.
Unless you're on a mac...
I much prefer the unzip in gamedata way.
-
I never drop them, usually they are on a dockable stage that stays in orbit, gets refueled and goes for more missions.
-
Can't remember if it was .21 or .22. Steam kept recommending this weird game to me, it was on sale and I was in a good mood, so I bought it. No regrets
-
It's fun. Why else would you be playing it.
At times when I think it's not fun, I do something else. That's the whole point of videogames IMHO.
-
Steam says 234, but that's mostly my very first save and the current one I just started to play stock career. Most of my time was spent on heavily modded copies outside steam. I think the total will be somewhere between 750 and 1000 hours.
-
Squad let us believe that the community was an important part of development. Everyone here signed up to help test the early access software. We were excited to help alpha test and beta test. Then Squad took a change in direction and decided to add lots of features without letting us beta test it before the 1.0 release.
We desperately wanted to be involved, but Squad rejected us saying "trust us".
Well, now we are venting. Not that venting will accomplish anything. If Squad decides to listen again, then the community will still be involved with balancing and fixing 1.0.
Eventually 1.0.x or 1.1 will be the "1.0" we were all hoping to help create.
But it's a ridiculous assumption to be involved. The community has been involved in a lot of features, priorities and other stuff, but in the end when it comes to business decisions like releasing a version as a certain number it's totally up to the developer. The developer has a company to run and has different things on it's mind than a bunch of people who just want a game to be awesome and want their features in it and their pet peeves fixed. They have no obligation towards the community, if they want to be nice guys, awesome, if they decide it's time to do things their way, no hard feelings.
It's not like they pulled a Spacebase DF-9 on us, we're not going to be stuck with this version, they felt it was important to lose the early access stamp. If you look at some more early access developers you see more of them that feel that the early access hinders your work and income by stigmas caused by some notable failures and bad publicity.
As much as the community has been helpful in development, at the same time it has cost extra time to keep every version playable and enjoyable. They have always done their best to keep save files compatible and keep stock craft functional at the cost of development speed. If they had released a 0.95 the opinions about the new aero would be as divided as they are now, to get everyone happy about a 1.0 could take ages...
-
If anything this and the previous thread show that it is impossible to express any kind of valid criticism on this forum without being charged by the assembled army of white knights with shields raised high, who made defending squad from any kind of negative feedback their holy purpose.
The visual and audio quality is bad even for a indie game. -> "Get over it they are placeholders, we are in alpha".
The game is released and it is still bad -> "Get over it the Gameplay is great".
The update removed any kind of difficulty introduced by the new aerodynamics -> "Install FAR"
The game crashes because of the heat overlays -> "Well you can turn them off..."
The contract system is barely fleshed out -> "Go play science/sandbox mode"
The game is 40€ and is practically released without sound effects -> "Install chaterer"
repeat ad nauseum.
I get it that the great gameplay excuses many flaws, but it is no excuse to not even try - especially after an early access phase where you sold upwards of two million units.
I think these are valid criticisms, they are of course subjective, but hey, that's why it's a forum, and a discussion place.
I do however think it's ridiculous that there are people asking/demanding apologies from Squad for releasing this version as 1.0. That is something completely different than saying this version is fine or that I have no point that I'd like to see addressed. We all love this game, otherwise we wouldn't be here, but by no means are we entitled to anything. Early access does not mean the production process suddenly becomes democratic. This is Squad's game, they have the right to release it how they want. 1.0 is not perfect, but business wise it was a very successful move for Squad and whether we like it or not, they are a business. For all we know this 1.0 was a necessity to keep development going, but even if it wasn't, I can't for the life of me understand what would warrant an apology. Pointing out flaws is perfectly fine, continuously complaining about a version number and demanding apologies is ridiculous IMHO.
-
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.
Dude, what are you talking about? The measure of success is if you can make your dream reality without going bankrupt. In that respect the 'ignorant' as you like to call them are just as important as 'your friends'. Some people here seem to forget that this is Squad's game, not yours. The fact that you threw in a couple of bucks for early access doesn't entitle you to anything, nor does it make you more or less part of things than anyone who bought it at launch. Squad saw fit to launch 1.0, Squad got rave reviews, Squad sold a lot of Harvester's dream product, seems Squad did very well. And in the process provided many people with a game they put a crazy amount of hours in. The fact that a few disgruntled forum members seem to disagree doesn't matter much. If you have specific issues with the game there's more than enough room for discussion and criticism, but continuous complaining about a version number is just sad.
Also, they said development is not going to stop, there will be some more features, this was announced multiple times. The announcement states that this is what they envisioned 4 years ago, not that it ends here.
-
Well, I'm sure they're thankful for your warning, of course this 1.0 doubling the amount of players and getting rave reviews is an absolute disaster.
Seriously, development is going to continue, business wise it's a good thing they got rid of the early access stamp and the game has massively improved. There have been slight mistakes, but no major errors. There's very few actual bugs, most of the things that people see as a problem are very subjective.
-
I think the whole process is being changed due to the ease of updating an application. Not too long ago it was just plain arrogant to assume your customers to have constant internet access, and patches were not as frequent, hotfixes only released when functionality was at stake. Now it's very easy to adapt to consumer input and release patches quite quickly. I think the positive of this is that there's more consumer input and a quicker reaction to this input, but the downside is that you get sloppier releases under the motto 'we can patch it if turns out to be broken'. Include publisher pressure (not an issue with Squad, but it is for a lot of other developers) and you get buggy releases and hasty patches.
I notice this even in my own work, I build interactive installations and when I have the time to work and test on location before the opening I tend to make code that just works and figure out the details on site. If I can't be present, there's no on site time to test or the hardware is made by an external party I am way more minute in ruling out any potential problems in the code as it's not as easy and quick to fix it.
-
I don't think you understand. The new aero is utterly and completely crap in that it really doesn't meet the quality standards I've come to expect from Squad. It's totally unrealistic. You can come straight in from the Mun for a re-entry, without a heatshield, and nothing will break. Shuttle-style aircraft with small wings land so slowly you could almost catch them with a scooter (I'm talking about the motorized kind). You can pull a bazillion gees at Mach 4 and, again, no structural failures whatsoever.
E: That is not to say that the 0.90 aero is better, which is isn't, but seriously, Squad? You really need to tweak things a bit. More re-entry heating, less lift, stronger aerodynamic stresses.
I agree that the new aero is by no means perfect, and I expect that further tweaks will happen. As for the realism, Squad announced very early on that a fully realistic aerodynamics system is not going to happen in stock, but as far as I understand they did make it possible for modders to disable stock aero so stuff like FAR can implement more realistic models easier. Constructive criticism is not what I am agitating against, if people have suggestions or grievances it's nice to read and I'm pretty sure Squad also reads those. Just ranting on about the new aero being "unbearable" or "not fun" without pointing out particular issues or problems isn't helping anyone and the amount of threads made just complaining about nothing other than "my stuff doesn't fly like it used to" is getting very tiresome. Especially since an overwhelming majority of people seem to agree that whatever we have now is a lot better than what we had in stock before.
-
So, given the nature of this game, i assumed that posters of this forum would be more mature than the likes of blizzard forums, but i may have been mistaken.
In response to one of the replies, at the time i posted my message with regards to aerodynamics, i didn't spot another thread about on the front page. And if there's already been numerous posts about this, all i can say is: good! Hopefully squad will notice and address this.
The game didn't feel ready for 1.0.
Address what? In the poll on this same forum 50% of voters said 1.0 aero is better, over 40% voted for 1.0.2 (which technically isn't a change in the 1.0 aero, but drag values etc on parts). Only about 29 people (about 8%) voted for 'old' aerodynamics. It's a shame you don't think it's fun, but for the vast majority of players the new aerodynamic model is an improvement after some getting used to.
-
Could you keep your crusade against some minor changes located in one thread please? I think you have made your point and it would be nice to see something else than aerorage on the front page.
-
The whining about the new aerodynamics is unbearable. It's not perfect, but come on the thousand threads by people who just can't sit down for 5 minutes to deal with something new have made this forum from a place for interesting info and fun new ideas to a negative dump of people blabbing on about every little negative detail they can find.
-
Went to space on the second flight, achieved orbit on the third. Got money to burn on building upgrades. Took about an hour of playing. And I'm far from a brilliant player. There's a lot of contracts I will not bother with, but it's by no means 'too hard'.
Can i make/upload a modpack (with the associated moder's permission)?
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted · Edited by ColourOfFire
To add on the CKAN thing, don't know the current status, but when I tried a while back it was such a pain in the ass on OSX I just installed the mods manually. I'm not going through the whole homebrew install process only to find out it doesn't want to recognize my KSP install just to get some stuff I can just download and unzip...