Alexoff
-
Posts
1,397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Alexoff
-
-
12 minutes ago, razark said:
The Roaring Twenties, with their violence, bootlegging, and wild hedonistic response to WWI.
This is called - life was in full swing!
13 minutes ago, razark said:the dark days of a video game that doesn't work the way I want it to
Computer games are escapism and help to escape into a beautiful imaginary world where you can conquer space with almost no restrictions. Escapism would not be needed if the lives of so many did not pass in boring jobs with not the highest pay and little free time in the evenings. But it turns out that this path of escapism can be completely broken.
-
2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:
The game is unplayable for you because of bugs. But not completely unplayable as in the software doesn't run.
Can you imagine, someone would tell us in the fall of 2019 that KSP2 will be released as early access only in February 2023 and in July 2023 fans will argue on the forum about degree of unplayability of the game turned out to be after three patches? A hundred years ago there were roaring twenties, in this century some grim dark twenties have turned out.
-
As I understand it, there are some discrepancies in the concept of "a little wobble". In my understanding, this is like real objects - skyscrapers and real rockets, a few percent of the length. Others have an understanding that the rocket should sway like a tree in the wind, but not like in KSP2, perhaps like in KSP1. And what Nate came up with traditionally no one knows and decoding is required.
55 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:Just about everyone including Nate
I understand that he came to this not during the development and testing of the game, but after getting acquainted with the reaction of the fans. So the fans can record themselves a small victory
-
18 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:
Can you point me to the earlier question about the pole which you present as ignored by me?
Sorry, I was going to write this, but then I deleted this question! My bad! So what are the poll results?
-
14 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:
And what 'most people' want can be read in the outcome of the pole in this thread, you want to misrepresent that as well?
For the second time I want to ask - what are the results of the poll? Once you ignored the question, will you ignore it now?
-
16 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:
It's still being discussed because Nate's argument is, and has been, and continues to be, that rocket wobble is both fun AND simply a part of the Kerbal experience
Surprisingly, Nate likes wobbling rockets. After all, he said that he had played more than 2000 hours in KSP1, but it seems to me that the instability of crafts should get boring during such a time.
-
Why do many people think that testing is not done? I'm sure the game is being tested. Then testers report that there are new bugs. But managers say that they promised a patch not on the last day of June, so they release what we have. What about a bug? Well, there are a thousand of them left, one more - one less ...
-
Well, we were promised early access last fall. What do we have here? Compact flight displays, a better system of maneuvers, easier game modding, more interesting planets, bringing in a fairly high quality game core, and much more. Guys, we've got it all, haven't we? But even patches are coming out for the game! Wow!
-
48 minutes ago, GradientOGames said:
perhaps Nate can only say things about design and some other person related can describe the technical side where Nate doesn't have much control on? What is your whole point here?
So it was about the fact that more than a thousand parts in an interview were not personally stated by Nate, but by another developer, and therefore this phrase became irrelevant. Which is completely wrong.
51 minutes ago, GradientOGames said:This would be incredibly unlikely, data miners across reddit have brought up the very large amount of content the ksp2 keeps disabled likely as the features aren't complete yet (colonies, interstellar, perhaps experimental optimisations).
The presence of some textures and codes does not say anything about the degree of readiness. The hl2 files also have a lot of cut content but we haven't got Borealis ship now
53 minutes ago, GradientOGames said:Whatever you heard is not only a plain lie, but I doubt others have even thought of the idea and you are bluffing.
This is a pretty popular idea if you've seen KSP2 gameplay videos from 2019. Since it is difficult to explain why the game has changed so little since then.
55 minutes ago, GradientOGames said:give us some sources
What source? I kind of wrote that it's not true. There is no source of falsehood, this is a newly born attempt to justify why the game, after 6 years of development, is still at the technical alpha stage. I think you should read what I write more carefully.
-
-
47 minutes ago, Master39 said:
And then proceeded to quote half of the question form the interviewer and half the reply from another person, very much not Nate Simpson.
Are you saying that an unknown person who had nothing to do with the development of KSP2 came into the room and answered the question instead of Nate? And Nate didn't even react to it? Can we then say that only Nate is authorized to answer questions about the game, and all other AMAs are unofficial and are not any promises or reliable information?
-
18 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:
We got the forum tone this community deserves.
The wrong community is the main problem of KSP2. Especially it became wrong with the release of the early access of the game.
-
18 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:
I highly doubt they had 3 years of polishing. Something happened in between.
Some say that the game was restarted from scratch. If this is so, then management has made very serious mistakes. By the way, where is this management now? But since the developers didn’t say anything like that and didn’t lie to us, it means that this didn’t happen.
-
14 minutes ago, Master39 said:
Nope, not even close, he pretty much evaded the question, just as I said.
This is very close to the situation with KSP2. After all, in the phrase about the car, it was about the game in general and its advertising from Nate, in which he always shied away from specifics. I don't know what fans can be happy about, what was made of murky promises? Tutorials and the release of the game at least in some form after three years of polishing? Better performance than the KSP1 is just one of many.
-
2 hours ago, Master39 said:
The car releases, it has 3 doors, the community is mad because it can't fly.
Shortly before the release of the car, the developers announced that the product is not yet ready and will be released in early access. The roadmap states that the doors will be added first (while the car will drive without doors), then the fourth wheel will be added, the third step will be the addition of headlights and parking lights. In the fourth step, the developers will add comfortable seats, and at the very end, the gas tank will be increased from 20 liters to 150 liters, which will allow the driver to drive much further. In the future, the developers plan to release a car for trips out of town. This is more like the real situation.
2 hours ago, Master39 said:I'm still not saying that it's the case here, I'm more than open to receive a definitive piece of evidence, a recording or post from Nate saying "100000+ parts", but weirdly enough while everyone seems to agree that that was promised, the only examples are 2 interviews in which the devs clearly evade the question and are very careful at not committing to anything.
Adding more zeros in an attempt to reduce to absurdity doesn't help much. In interview to Shadowzone, Nate made it very clear that they are aiming for an acceptable frame rate for ships of more than a thousand parts.
-
4 minutes ago, Master39 said:
The misquote is a mesh between a statement from the interviewer (speaking the part up until "good time", and the start of a reply from Paul Furio (not that matters but definitely not Nate), who changes topic immediately to speak about performance in general and relative to the background simulation of multiple ships/colonies, not committing nor repeating any actual part count.
I think as part of increasing transparency, developers should finally announce some kind of performance targets. For example, for an equivalent PS5 computer, 30 fps per 1000 parts. Although, with such evasions from answers, it is somewhat naive to expect this.
-
4 hours ago, Master39 said:
TLDR: In the famous promise Nate said they were working on allowing the player to build as big as the things shown in trailers. The "thing" shown in trailers was barely 524 parts, and that counting the spam of solar panels, with procedural solar panels you could easily cut another 150 parts from there (or just put a single nuclear reactor and cut all of the solar panels).
If it was about the fact that for players 500 parts is the limit and more is not necessary, then the developers should have said this directly. I think the reaction of the fans would not be too happy. After all, that interview was in 2019, KSP2 was supposed to be released on the last generation consoles with not the highest performance. In general, it would be better if the developers spoke directly more often so that later we would not be engaged in a long decoding of what they actually said.
-
1 minute ago, Vanamonde said:
You seem to be forgetting the big fights over MechJeb, the Curse partnership, the Barn, DLCs, etc., all of which happened when there only was one version of the game.
I didn't know about these dramas, I just played KSP and sometimes came here to download some latest mod. And from the point of view of solipsism, it means that this did not happen and everything was ok
-
Disputes will immediately stop when two versions of the same game have the same popularity and quality.
-
2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:
Mortoc mentioned that there will be some terrain optimizations coming in the next few patches.
With the addition of the grid fins, the developers have no specific timelines, although it was shown in May. Although it would seem that this is a matter of several days. And there seem to be a million such shortcomings and expected additions, it's hard to say how and when this is done. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
2 hours ago, GradientOGames said:
The devs new terrain system which will be implemented within the next few months (I forgor the name) is documented to significantly improve terrain quality and framerates.
Really? It seems that the developers did not promise anything of the kind in the coming months, much of what was said in the spring has unclear deadlines for implementation.
-
Just now, Rosten said:
Macrotransactions confiirmed.
Battlepass and seasonpass!
-
7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
you’ve created another problem: you’ve removed a key visual cue to players about the nature of the failure. Was my staging off? Is it a bug? Was it aerodynamic stress overload? Who knows! Because there was no visible cue to the player to understand “this rocket is too spindly or poorly designed to be stable.”
This can be solved in a bunch of ways. For example, to give the opportunity to see the destruction of the rocket in the slowmo after the fail. How it happens in real life. Or make normal damage reports. This is certainly more difficult than just adding a few zeros to the game parameters, much less solving the anti-aliasing problem, but it seems to me that it is still better than watching steel cylinders wobble with flammable fuel over and over again.
1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:however certain the devs do have an understanding that facilitating players in wanting to play in KSP2 what can be done in KSP1 and they'll come up with a solution.
I'm just wondering - can the developers do something that you wouldn't approve of?
-
4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
I wasn't trying to imply the rocket survived, only that they can bend and don't just instantly sheer.
The rocket practically did not bend, its fairing broke from overloads.
How should rockets flex?
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Would this year be enough to make 1.0 or would we get early access with few bugs and maybe science and one star system? Plus, a lot of things that were in KSP1 are not ready. Yet we have no idea how ready the other steps of the roadmap are. Science and multiplayer what we saw is a couple of screenshots, a couple of animations in the editor and that's it. In general, players usually think that if they get the game later, then it will be better, more time and effort has been invested in it. And it would turn out that the game was postponed for 4 years, but there is still not much in it.