tstein

a VERY early access release.. like a 3 AM wake up call early type. The last one I saw this early was Kenshi.

No it doe snot. EA is a tradeoff.. we pay the developers early for something that is not ready.. in return they have to accept that we are going to WHINE . There is no reason for EA is people are to simply shut up. The time to be vocal is EXACTLY in EA. Anyone that pays for EA gets the right to voice their concerns!

That implies the game is creating a lot of memory swap very likely and running on a separate drive removes the I/O compettition on the SATA port. Yet it is ABSURD amount of memory usage in this game. It uses more memory than DCS !

What baffles me is how something as pathing can be a problem on a system with so few nodes? For god's sake, when I was at university in the late 80's I remember doing flow simulation (not a scale different from what a game like this need for the tanks) on sewage system of real cities with HUNDREDS of nodes with better performance and in a computer with 8 Mhz!

I wish there was an option to REMOVE completely all the useless stuff rendered at KSC, all trees, all but your launchpad, all details of buildings, all clouds etc... to make it playable. The content being rendered at KSC is not worth to tax even a LOW END CARD! KSP has worse performance than DSC in the middle of a massive combat with a dozen helicopters fighting over a city... that is no where even remotely starting to look as acceptable

So they "slayed" the kraken by feeding it with whey protein and anabolic drugs?

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but seems easier to report the features that are working ok. Some streamers had the whole KSC flips sidesway during launch

YEs and not. Each joint you add increases the computational cost. That is why a RIGID single large tank will have better performance than a stack of tanks. That is why procedural tanks and procedural structs can reduce the number of joints and improve performance. Even that said, Unity performance on this type of simulation is still sub par. Since the engine does not help, then it woudl be wise to help the engine and reduce the number of joints.. aka. make EVERYTHING you can procedural. No certainly it is not that. This is not the type of thing that requires even a fraction of a CPU capability. Play factorio for a while or Victoria 2 and you will see how much a production chain can be fast and complex (thousands of times larger than anything KSP 2 will ever require). Detecting collision is not that problematic because KSP agents are very predictable in their trajectory since they accelerate quite slowly. It is not hard to devise a forward cut list of what you CAN intercept in the next X time .. much easier than in a game there tons of projectiles bound in walls of a cave for example.

I have my suspect... I have seen several games recently in unity with a VERY BAD performance if they update GUI very fast. On those games when I remove all GUI, numbers words everytghing I usually get massive perfromance improvements. Since the day I saw KSP 2 interface I was expecting something like that to happen... I might be wrong but On this year alone I found 3 games that this exact behaviro happened (all unity)

Bought but will not install it to not get angry at the game. Will wait a few months at least.

No it is not the UP or down that control it.. it is the torque arm difference between the drag and the mass center. you cannot look at only one arm to solve the system minimally.

I am excited for a streamlined physics system that do not inherit the problems of KSP1.

I do the exact opposite for the same reasons with perfect success rate.. I will let as an exercise for you to figure out why that is how things are done in real world.. also REaction wheels cannot hold your rocket straight in KSP 2 anymore....

And WHEN did anyone manipulated the flow in any form other than use upper parts before lower ones? That is a non issue at all.

Removign the wobble can be made in a form that makes the game more realistic AND uses less CPU. Just merge all tanks stacked of same diameter into a single tank. OR GIVE US THE DAMN PROCEDURAL TANKS! One thing I find absurd in general is most of the CPU used in KSP is there to simulate something that is an ERROR of the early classic KSP, that is detrimental to the gameplay and then we need an external feature to cancel it. That is pure absurd.

Non rigid body simulations tend to be more CPU intensive unless you can create a very very simplified model based on a simple torque function. But it woudl create some strange things.

I will not be upgrading because this is the only game I am interested that my computer cannot handle well and upgrading the PC I work on is a huge hassle. Maybe in 1 or 2 years.

Mostly important.. the tutorial about usign the head of the kerbal against the tip of a mountain to reduce velocity and perform a litho capture.

India has more people speaking english than UK

Yes, but those 80% that do not speak english are in a large part. completely out of the market.. they do not even have computers at home. The important part of the population for the game is people that do buy games. I live in south america and I can tell you that easily half the gamers can understand spoken english (even if they cannot speak it properly) when the voice is CLEAN and moderately paced.. i.e.. talking to children. I bet they will eventually add a few more languages, but having a voice that more people can understand is a nice stop gap. I am in south america and worked for 30 years in tech industry with lots of people that have bad english language education. They constantly could only understand youtube tutorials for tech issues when the voices were clear and had very separated vowel sounds. For example for us here is nearly impossible to understand an Indian speaking, but this voice of the tutorial I can say that most people that have completed basic technical english class at university can understand (most of it at least). Whenever I had to assemble training material for the new employees I had to keep that in mind when finding good sources for them to learn from. I suffered a lot with it until a friend that was an english teacher here advised me to look for material with young female voices that are easier to understand for people that are native of latin based languages.

Spin off confirmed.. Kerbal Driving school!

No, but it it exactly in the EA that costumers should say "hey.. that is too high". EA is the right time to complain about things and ask them to be looked upon.

You fuse them up to a certain height. Real rockets are closer to simple rockets than to KSP in the way they behave regarding that. Engineers are not idiots to make a simple 4m tube bent at less than 1 G acceleration.

Not at all. THe contrary in fact. The game coudl for example REMOVE the joints from the simulation of any stack of fuel tanks that has less than X times the width. That means we would have some bending on larger rockets but none at all in compact rockets.

Not according to steam, that less than 5% of players can play in the recommended specs. Be sure of one thing.. the average market is ALWAYS ALWAYS less equiped than the average person that spends time on game forums. More or less, I got a back foot when Take 2 got this game back then because I had quite a few bad experiences with them (including dubbing Oblivion (they were the ones selling to South america and Africa) in spanish to Brazil market because (on their words responding to my complain "all latins speak spanish and minor communities do not matter" when Brazil market is larger than the whole rest of south america and we do not speak spanish at all...