Chilkoot

One of my own biggest beefs has been performance with celestial body terrain in-frame, and that is now (for the first time) noticeably better in 1.4. On Minmus with a rover, I'm seeing about an 80% performance increase over initial release. The (monumentally) inconsistent UI and lack of scaling, however, is still a major sticking point and nonsense like this: and this: ... and this: Are just not acceptable >6 months into public release (screens at 1440p native). After the 1.4 patch, the game still feels fundamentally unpolished and clunky to me, so I would say that there is meaningful improvement, but not enough to justify re-installing and certainly not enough to warrant purchasing the game if you have not yet.

Sadly, both are pretty debatable at this point.

Technically not a bug, but I'm wondering if there is any timeline yet for the new terrain rendering system? My biggest gripe since day one has been planet-side performance, and it's essentially still the same (i.e. really bad) as it was in the first EA release. I'm just looking for a ray of hope here...

On the topic of science... has there been any indication of when the Science Mode patch will land? Seems like PD has been uncommonly mum lately, or perhaps I've just missed an announcement.

Could be a difference in output resolution as well. I didn't watch the video, but if he's recording while he's benchmarking that will have an impact - and potentially a very significant one if he's doing something stupid like software-based encoding.

I can only guess you maybe didn't play the 0.1.0 release as it was riddled with serious game-breaking bugs. There were far fewer serious bugs in 0.1.1 and 0.1.2 appears to have squashed most of the remaining game-breakers. Rendering performance on/near a planet is still really, really poor, unfortunately. I don't think there's going to be much progress on that particular front until Intercept moves away from PQS, which may be months away.

Right?! Those jerks under-promising and then over-delivering. That really grinds my gears!

Yes, that's abysmal for a title on Steam. Unequivocally.

The bulk (not all) of the critical game-breakers were fixed in 0.1.1. At least based on the survey from just after release, the community's next big priority is performance, so I'm hoping this is where the primary focus has been for this patch. I have my doubts as the switch from PQS is a big job, and Intercept likely doesn't want to spend time fixing a planet system they're abandoning. For people with 3080/4070ti or better, performance hasn't really been an issue, though that's only a small percent of players according to the steam survey. I very strongly suspect the abysmal performance is why the previous head of engineering was let go right after release. Reviews are still abysmal, and that's very unlikely to change while 97% of players are below the spec that can run KSP 2 as smoothly as other current titles on Steam.

Many people romantically dream of traveling to far-off planets thanks in part to sci-fi making them look so appealing. Even freezing, desolate, dark Mars, people are lining up, willing to sell their homes and everything they have to travel there and colonize. I was the same: absolutely enamored with the thought of space travel until I got my hands on a good "walk on Mars" VR experience. It uses photogrammetry and real footage to recreate a patch of the surface for you to explore, with a fully rendered sky, horizon, etc. Let me just say that the moment I put on that headset and looked out over the vast, yawning lifeless void that is the surface of Mars I realized how foolish I was to romanticize a trip like this. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - to break the endless sea of dust and rock. No cove of shelter or respite, just the emptiness. I can see the appeal for a geologist or perhaps an exobiologist, but otherwise, it's an unwelcoming, barren hellscape. It's a bit like that old saying "never meet your childhood heroes" (which I also had the chance to do). Dreams can be shattered in an instant when you are exposed to the reality behind them. My interest in other *lifeless planets is purely scientific now and decidedly unemotional.

He's like a high-school kid that was thrown a bone, and he did as well as anyone in that situation would have. I've seen much shakier interviews from people with much more experience.

Good for this kid, and kudos to Nate for giving him a huge boost. This is exactly how these things go down. I used to work in the entertainment industry, and it's essentially the same thing. You carve out some "gimmie" time for the odd nobody that wants an interview or a photo op. You pick a few from the pile, pre-vet them, and then line something up with one of them (Intercept/PD likely insisted on final approval of w/e was aired). These are win/win events just like celeb. charity appearances.

I think it's OK to still be on the hype train even if you (like many/most) don't feel the current release really qualifies as "EA" material. I've always hated sandbox mode, but here I am, butt firmly planted on the 1.0 Hype Train

I have a question that will likely be disallowed for obvious reasons, but in the spirit of AMA: When Intercept took over development from Star Theory, was the work-in-progress code base brought over or did you need need/elect to start entirely from scratch? Were the significant, rolling release delays related to deep rewrites and/or recreation? If code was brought over after the move, did you decide over time to rewrite code from the 2017-2019 timeframe or is that early code driving the initial release trailer still in KSP 2? There is a ton of emotionally-charged speculation surrounding this on Steam, Reddit, Discord and this forum. If the info isn't legally disallowed, it would be a good show of transparency and engagement to set the record straight for fans, especially those who have elected to show their support for your team by picking up the EA release in good faith.

That's b/c people knee-jerk react based on anecdotal evidence. Careful like-for-like testing and actually recording frame rates is what tells the real story.

I'm seeing moderate improvements in CPU-intensive situations involving large ships, multiple engines drawing from the same tank, etc - exactly as expected given the patch notes. NO improvement when FPS is limited by the terrain rendering problems, esp. on bodies exhibiting the Z-fighting problem, like Eve. I did some specific testing with a few different save points on non-Kerbin planet surfaces, and there was 0% change - at least none that was measurable.

Your dV is going down b/c you are more than doubling the mass of your entire ship when you add those extra NERVs at the bottom - that also affects TWR scaling, as you are not just adding thrust, but also adding significant weight.

Quick Mun landing today with the new patch (0.1.1.0). Literally no serious bugs - from launch pad to flag planted in ~20 mins. No reloads, no reverts... really smooth sailing. The new maneuver tool and patched conics were perfect, and the Grumble seat collision problem is fixed, too. Performance still needs a *lot* of work. No real noticeable change in FPS this patch, at least not while on or near a celestial body.

Thanks Mike - I don't like to be the guy spreading apocrypha.

That will be re-enabled in Patch 3 according to a post in Discord earlier. EDIT: See Mike's answer below.

Was just typing out the same. Also, use solid fuel boosters in conjunction with a single methalox central booster stage to get to orbit. After you dump the solids, you'll still have tons left in your primary liquid booster to establish orbit and even set your intercept with Jool or Duna or w/e.

Broken? Looks more like Jeb be BREAKIN'

Give lollipop now.

If you're currently 74 that may be a bit of a stretch, but it could also explain some of the urgency

Definitely some thematic similarities with the horn fanfares and the staccato string quasi counterpoint thing in there plus some tympani punctuation (no snare in Skylines and no prevalent winds in this KSP snippet, though). There are some sections in the Skylines theme with a progression that's *close* (arguably). More of a style thing than a motif thing though - like you'd never see Valtonen file a copyright suit over it, however I've seen this comment at least 4 times now in different places so the similarity certainly "strikes a chord" with people