saxappeal89129

Figured I'd throw my $.02 in here... (Short because... I have a job) I actually like the For Science path for the game, it allows for progression and role playing which I think is fun in this scenario. I'm sure it will be fleshed out and bugs squashed etc. (I'm usually not an advocate for the devs or the game... usually a detractor) So yeah, I'm glad it's in the game, helps set goals, and keep progression moving along.

^^^This post (credit where credit is due)

I dunno the parts DO look SIMILAR if not identical in many instances... whenever you're dealing with the senses i.e. vision, smell, touch it's all subjective particularly since not everyone has the same level of acuity. Just sayin', I think you're wrong! :-) Wow, incredibly defensive... makes me think that there's even more here.

This is frightening... Would be interesting to get hands on meeting notes back back to Day 1... to find out at what level decisions were made.

"I do not have exact numbers up as I think that distracts from how it feels"... roflmao, so you don't like facts/science much eh? Post a YouTube vid, lets see how it "FEELS". LMAO #1 Hot Take of all time. That's not what Early Access means. Early Access means they're polishing it and getting it ready for launch.

Yes YOU DO have a very short memory. KSP1 performed a heck of a lot better in EA than KSP2. Slappy status achieved, your forum badge should be accessible in 4yrs, along with your "future tech" badge for the 6000 series GPUs that may actually be able to run this.

Still missing my point, so sad...it's about making judgements on the platform and foundation they've laid; not about the game in its current state or playabliity. Another great analogy would be a personal experience... this is why I bought an Indian Motorcycle and not a Harley. It's got a retro look with a modern engine = more reliable, water cooled so I don't have to pull over and let it cool on very hot SW days, easier to work on, more performance... longer heritage (debatable since Indian has been tossed around since just after WWII) I beta tested Diablo II (no not open beta) back in the day, that had horrible bugs (particularly multiplayer), also beta tested WoW; same thing, along with some clipping and and broken quests etc. But you could see the foundation was there, and performed relatively well. Go watch Tim Dodd's video, maybe you'll respect his opinion more; then again many people wrote off his review since he's not a "gamer"...

It has has nothing to do either, it has to do with realism...what can the Unity engine effectively render, can it utilize CPU/GPU/RAM resources in such a way to squeeze out every ounce of performance. From the start I think the devs had VERY lofty goals, almost "too good to be true" vision. They ran with that, and allowed for these expectations to develop. In all honesty...I really hope I'm wrong, in fact I'm hoping that I'm so incredibly wrong that within the next year or two I have to come on here and eat my words. Not to proud to do that, not to proud to come on a web-forum and say "you guys were right, glad you were".

[snip] 1) It's not about early access performance as a whole; it's about judgements made of the platform, just like judging a performance car platform and knowing if it's worthy of improvement for the track. 2) Not trying to take away your enjoyment, trying to point out the Delta between the ability of the platform to deliver the end results they claimed. (again see No Man's Sky) [snip]

A solid 60 for all scenarios, simple as that.

That analogy isn't accurate, a more accurate analogy would be... "Oh man, do you think that Wright Brothers contraption can get off the ground with 100 people, flight attendants, and meals for the trip from Vegas to Cleveland"? I don't... it didn't have the correct design/engineering from the start. *Edit: Will we be able to do the same things in KSP2 that we did in KSP1, yes I agree that will happen. If that's the argument you're making, then yeah I agree with that, but it's not what was pitched, promoted, and shown in marketing.

KSP2 looks to be starting out a little worse than KSP1 did; I was there at the very beginning for KSP1. This is why those of us who decided NOT to put on the 'rose colored glasses' are disappointed. If the dev team had just one goal (and they state it in a video) it was to kill the kraken and allow for large, if not enormous ships. I just don't think they can get there with Unity, something drastic would have to change. I'm old enough and wise enough to admit I could be wrong...I've seen this type of thing before, the lofty goals, promising the world, only to see projects fall flat. As a matter of fact I've only seen one project do a complete 180, No Mans Sky. I (personally) didn't want another revised KSP1, I was looking forward to what they pitched and claimed in their launch videos. Just look at how large some of those bases are, do we really think they'll improve performance to an extent were we can have several ships and a large base in one area, all the while in multiplayer? Using the transitive property and putting KSP1 side by side with KSP2, if KSP2 starts out more hindered by the Unity engine and coding, I just can't imagine it will turn out better or have the scope that we'd hoped for. *Sorry just got out of surgery, no lucid*

Hmmm... not sure what my house has to do with this but hey, if you're offering to buy at a nice price, maybe I'll sell; Christopher Communities / Vegas. Bwahahaha... again, it's the fact that a 3080 vanilla barely makes the upper echelon specs; I seriously doubt KSP2 will be utilized as a representation of how the 4000 series cards perform, or as a benchmarking tool at anytime in the future. *evil grin*

I remember you from before Master lmao... anyways moving on, you got my point, you disagree, I disagree with you; quite a different analogy than a gaming rig both in percentage of purchase, and in scope. lmao Keep rolling those dice though, you'll hit one of these days. What's objective to me, may not be to you, just because you want to defend it (your territory / the game) at all costs. Gotcha... again, I disagree with you as well. I'm being completely objective, by any modern standards for an early access game, it's both too expensive, and misses the mark as far as specs go. Now feel free to go scour the web for some unicorns to support your position; I'm happy to wait.

I get that this is what they're "saying"... but there's that critical thinker in me that says "hmmm...would I like my brand new car black... or black. Please tell me more Mr. Ford".

Yeah don't wanna argue... couldn't disagree more. Specs are quite outlandish for a non-AAA title, so is the POS (point of sale) $49.00 for a beta test. Anyways... moving on. Maybe some multi-threading for my X299 i79800x with 64 lanes would be wise... or hey maybe my Z690 with Raptor Lake will pick up some pieces for the coding... psssssst. Again, moving on. Also never said I was upgrading my PC, I insinuated that I'd upgrade my lowly 3080 12gig *eyes rolling*

I hear what you're saying, I just think it's interesting how people think the "price of entry" is just $49.00. It's really not... it's the price of the hardware as well; I'm pushing a 3080 12gig but I have a feeling I'm going to find some desire to upgrade after I test the game on Friday. Price of entry is going to be about $1,050... when all is said and done.

Just curious... how is it "more than everything you've hoped for" as an unfinished product that is currently less than what KSP1 offers? I only ask as an "objective" question and opinion... at Early Access launch KSP2 will be little more than a reskin of KSP1. Sure there will be a few more bells and whistles for "quality of life" improvements at launch (KSP2) but most of those are mods that could be used to bring KSP1 into close comparison. My point is, that your "hopes and dreams" are based upon faith of the development team to deliver in coming months, rather than what's actually being released during the point of sale this coming Friday. I dig the optimism, but you're also over exaggerating what's going to be released. As I see it thus far, the dev team is already going to have their hands full with a backlash for casual fans/gamers... one of the reasons I think it's best to set expectations low (especially for a $49.00 price tag).

A "market" based argument... couldn't agree with you more. So you are or aren't a software guy? Didn't you previously proclaim your vast knowledge in the development area? I'm confused... I'm actually partially blind, absolutely hate it, astigmatism sucks, causes halos around lights; don't be like me. :-) Regardless, I just think they're requirements were borderline outlandish, (I reread your post, so you're working behind the scenes with them on this?)

Nope, just trying to point out processes in project management that I would think would be self evident in this case, which was the dev team being tone def regarding COVID-19 supply chain issues with hardware and how that correlates to their proclamation of delays on the software development side; in summary, being able to understand and accommodate your target audience. Sounds like you're a software guy? So you took my comments personally? Didn't mean it that way my friend... didn't even know you were/are a software guy.

Or a sales pitch... :-) ROFLMAO this has got to be one of the best memes in history!

Just know that the "4070" in the labtop is not equivalent to a desktop 4070...

Well... if quite a few people are disappointed, and/or seeking new hardware. Sounds like the dev team missed their mark. With all of the talk about COVID19 and extra time the team needed to finish their early access push... ya mean they didn't think about COVID19 and hardware constraints?! *head scratcher*

Buy what before I do what? I didn't buy my rig just to play Kerbal... if that's what people are doing well, that's sounds just a little nutty to me. Spending thousands just to play one game? Again, back to the Porsche analogy, a lot of great fun can happen on a track with a lowly STi (actually more fun, because you're not worried about minor damage..)

I'd disagree with this, and the other posts saying that an RTX 3080 is a "mid-tier" rig hahaha. I bought my 3080 (12gig) and my 12900KS, with a Unify-X, and 32gig of RAM just 10-months ago. Minus the Raptor Lake that's sitting on the shelf now, this is still a premium machine per any normal/sane person who's an enthusiast; in fact would be labeled 2nd only to a 3090 rig just 4 months ago before the 4000 series hit. So to hear it's just barely above a mid-tier machine from Kerbal specs is a little on the outlandish side. Akin to saying that in order to have fun on a track I need a 998 Turbo-S or similar car to enjoy auto-crossing rather than a Subaru STi (or similar vehicle). Brute force being necessary for the game, brings a LOT of questions...do I need a "WOPR" computer? lol I'm more inclined to hit the king and get a whopper after the bad taste the specs left in my mouth. I more than meet them, but it's not a good look for the dev team.