Periple
-
Posts
1,157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Periple
-
-
I can also confirm. "Wombat" and "Bandicoot" cause the problem.
I was also able to work around the problem by placing a decoupler between my command module and its engine, with the legs on the command module.
It appears that the bug triggers if the legs are on a stage that contains fuel. If they're on a fuel-less stage, no drain.
-
Same here. I've been trying to investigate it, no luck so far. It seems random -- for example, I test-fired a rocket in launch clamps without SRBs firing, no drain. Built the fairing, changed the staging so launch clamps detach and the SRBs fire, drain. Another time I got in the air without drain, but when I staged my sustainer, drain.
I'll try rebuilding the rocket from scratch from the top down to see if that helps.
Edit: it didn't. Weird
-
2 minutes ago, Virtualgenius said:
Do you think they will add the aircraft hangar back building in the VAB is janky and where are you supposed to park your aircraft I love the new layout of KSC but it would be better if it had an aircraft hangar
I don’t think so, they added the orientation button to the VAB so you can build horizontally or vertically there without having to switch.
I like it a lot, it’s nice to be able to build a rover and a rocket in the same workspace and then click them together.
-
They’ve confirmed this many times. See this video interview for example:
-
I want to kiss the sound designer. It’s just beautiful and brings the game alive in a whole new way.
Flying planes is SO MUCH BETTER than KSP1 I can hardly believe it! (Controller support when?)
I love how the parts cohere into craft. They don’t look cobbled together anymore and I can make some really pretty things. Works seamlessly with the color scheme.
Transparent windows! Parts in general — especially the subtle textures like rivets on the wings.
Procedural wings. They’re amazing. They look great, they work great, they’re easy to make.
I love how the terrain looks from orbit. It’s an actual planet now! Not a painted ball!
I like the flight UI especially the navball cluster.
Multiple subassemblies. SO liberating and so much less fussy!
I love the parts selector. I can actually find things now!
Most importantly I love that you (Intercept) are doing this and are taking us along for the ride. KSP2 is awesome. You’re awesome. And I can’t wait for the teething problems to be worked out and all the great stuff on the roadmap!
-
1 hour ago, VlonaldKerman said:
But, instead of paying QA testers, evidently, they're charging us to be QA testers. Not beta testers- there's a difference.
Bug reports from non-professional testers in an open beta are worse than useless. They will be badly written, a lot of them won’t even be bug reports but just venting about something at random, there will be dozens of duplicates, and it’ll be a lot of work to find the occasional good one in the lot.
It’s much cheaper to use a professional QA team than to try to filter the signal out of the noise. If there even is a public bug tracker it’s there for the players so they feel they’re contributing and to remind them that the game isn’t finished, not because it does anything useful for the team.
-
17 minutes ago, Vicis said:
This is a massive corporation offloading the risk of funding the game and the cost of play testing it to you, the consumer.
That’s not it. Early access is a really expensive way to do both.
For a corporation like TT, early access is mostly two things.
One, a way to gauge interest in the game. How many people bought it? How much spending in marketing did it take to get those numbers? This is valuable data that can be used to plan the actual release and decide on how much to invest in maintaining the game later.
Two, to build buzz and momentum. If done right, it can create a snowball of excitement and over time create a core community of players. This has worked really well for Larian — every time they release a bigger update for BG3 their numbers go up.
There are side benefits as well — getting some cash in early is nice, and field-testing features and solutions and getting telemetry on what people are actually doing can be useful — but a company the size of TT can afford to defer the launch, and playtesting is much faster, more efficient, and cheaper with a professional team of consultants doing that.
The downside is initial bad publicity especially if expectations are high. This can turn around quickly as the game comes together and players see issues being addressed, but it can do bad things to team morale. I hope Intercept is staying off the forums and not reading the Steam reviews, because they won’t help.
EA can also be a disaster if the game doesn’t improve relatively rapidly. That puts a lot of pressure on the team and if not managed well can become pretty awful.
(Note — small self-funded independent studios are different, they may actually need the cash, and they may actually use EA for playtesting. For that to work the community must be small enough that it builds personal relationships with the developers. KSP1 was like that in its early days. KSP2 isn’t.)
-
I have a similarly powerful rig (i5 12600KF, RTX3080). I've been running it at 1440p and while I haven't been actively staring at frame rates, performance has been very good.
I think it has some specific bottlenecks, like the fuel flow system they mentioned. So far I've just been making simple single-engine rockets with maybe a few SRBs strapped on. If the fuel flow is tanking the frame rates, it wouldn't manifest on craft like that.
-
I tried a Mun mission and got cheerfully dismembered by the kraken.
Timewarping in low Mun orbit summoned it big time. First my orbits would decay, then when I recovered and tried again, I exited timewarp spinning so hard I RUDded.
The decoupler joints are extremely flexy. I think that creates all kinds of resonances that summon the Great Cosmic Octopus.
Also I can't make head or tail of the maneuver planner. I can see the SOI exit and entry just fine but not the trajectory between them, which makes planning really hard. I think that must be a bug.
I was also missing per-stage dV and TWR readings in the VAB, made me overengineer the rocket big time.
So anyway, that part needs work. The fundamentals are there but it's a pretty rough ride at this time -- I am looking forward to updates that will get this under control. Planes worked much better.
I am still having a great time and will try again tomorrow. With a few struts, maybe?
-
There are other ways obviously, but F1 didn't seem to do anything, or if it did I couldn't find the screenshots. Am I missing something?
-
I've built three subassemblies (lifter, transfer vessel, lander). They're in the same workspace. Anybody know how I can combine them into a launch assembly and get on my way?
-
First impressions:
- The way the parts cohere into craft is just beautiful. No more Jeb's junkyard but in a good way
- I tried flying a plane. Flying is just SO MUCH BETTER I can hardly believe it. Controller support when?
- I tried flying into orbit. Screwed up deployments settings for a parachute and Bill made a crater. Worked the second time.
- The new UIs are great, so much more coherent and intuitive than before. Same for the VAB.
- The sound design is just pure art, from the ambience to the music to the engine sounds and clanks and crashes.
Obviously there's a LOT that needs work, polish, tightening up but it's already so much better than KSP1 in core areas than I expected.
I won't put the "needs work" list here because there's no news to anyone there. But this is looking really good! I can't wait to see how it shapes up in the coming weeks and months.
-
I built a little plane and did some perfectly safe flying around the KSC.
OH MY GOD flying is so much better than KSP1 I can't believe it.
Can't wait for controller support though, that'll be HEAVEN
-
Launched my first rocket, just to get my feet wet. Basic orbit and back affair. Only glitch was that the parachute failed to deploy and put Bill into a hole in the ground.
I really like the new VAB and the terrain looks gorgeous. Lots of work to do clearly but when it gets there this will be one for the ages.
Good work Intercept, I’m really looking forward to the updates… and in the meantime I have a Mun mission to plan!
-
30 minutes ago, Tweeker said:
The problem comes in when they start using simulants of real world engines, that are visually and thematically designed to look like an equivalent of a real world engine . It's very easy to look at a Vector, or any other HydroLox burning engine, and know it's burning the wrong fuel. And knowing that it's wrong detracts from the game.
I don't doubt that it does that for you, and perhaps some other players as well.
However, making it burn the right fuel has an impact on gameplay. If the designers have determined that they believe that the impact is negative, then it becomes a judgment call: which is more important, burning the right fuel for the right-looking model, or avoiding the negative gameplay impact? From my point of view, for a game like KSP, it's easy -- gameplay comes first.
Of course there would be another way to avoid that: change the model and the name so it doesn't reference the RS-25 anymore. However, that also has a negative impact -- you're no longer able to build a Space Shuttle that looks like a Space Shuttle.
They could certainly have made a category of hydrolox engines, but they chose not to, because they felt it would negatively impact gameplay. I think many players would have been upset if they had gone and replaced all the engines based on hydrolox-burning counterparts with purely imaginary ones. Either way I don't think it's an obvious call at all. -
I thought the Engine Archetypes developer insights essay was very interesting. It goes in-depth into why they made the decisions they did.
In my opinion their reasoning makes perfect game design sense. It's not the only possible design of course, and where you land depends a lot on where you want to strike the balance between realism and approachability.
I think I would personally have started by matching fuel types with engine families -- booster, sustainer, orbital are methalox, deep space is hydrolox, nuclear is hydrogen only -- but I've no doubt they thought about that and eventually decided it didn't work for the gameplay as well as omitting hydrolox altogether and keeping hydrogen for nuclear engines only. Who knows, after enough iteration maybe I would have ended up there too.
But I do think it's important to remember that these decisions are based primarily on gameplay: they won't make something more realistic if they feel it detracts from the gameplay.
-
Overall I’m most excited about proper base building and multiplayer.
For EA, I’m most excited about the sound design, music, and pretty planets.
-
Hello! I'm a long-time lurker and KSP fan. I decided to join now for KSP2. I'm especially excited about base-building in KSP2 because I always liked to do that in KSP1, but there was never much to actually do apart from build the base and extract fuel.
I work in the game industry and I'm based in France but like to move around a lot. I'm too old and not rich enough to ever go to space so KSP is the next best thing!
-
28 minutes ago, Tweeker said:
The example of someone suggesting Scott Manley as a voice actor, but the studio choosing not to ignore that suggestion is a perfectly clear example of ignoring the community. Making all the engines run on MethaLox is another. Not re-balancing the engines is another. And it's not as if these are things that just popped up, many of these suggestions have been around for quite a few years.
Soliciting feedback and listening to suggestions does not mean automatically implementing and incorporating the feedback and suggestions, doubly so when the feedback and suggestions aren't unanimous.
They went into a quite a bit of detail about why they picked the fuel types they did, how they rebalanced the engines, and why they rebalanced them that way. You may legitimately disagree with where they eventually landed, but just from that it's very clear that they did listen to feedback and suggestions and take them very seriously indeed.
-
8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:
As to why they didn't accept it, probably could have been that they already contracted the voice actor/actress that we've heard in the videos.
Or perhaps they felt that the voice actress they chose was more in tune with the general light-heartedness of the game.
One thing I like about KSP2 so far is the general aesthetics. It's fun and a little silly while at the same time capturing the majesty of spaceflight. The silliness and big explosions take some of the sting out of failing while the majestic rocket sounds, the music, the beautiful planets, and the way space looks makes successes rewarding.
Scott Manley is amazing but I can see how you'd feel that his gravelly Scots accent is at odds with backwards-Spanish countdowns and little green creatures smashing buttons in a panic when things are starting go haywire.
-
From where I'm standing KSP2 looks pretty good for an alpha. It's more or less what I'd expect to see given the time and resources that have actually been invested into the game. There's clearly an amazing game there waiting to be finished.
While I don't work for either of them (although I am in gamedev), I know people from TT and PD. KSP is PD's crown jewel. A lot of people at PD are hardcore KSP fans. They want this game to succeed. They've put a LOT of time, effort, and money into KSP2. This is not a fast cash grab. It will only pay itself back if it's a sustained, long-term success like KSP1.Finally: EA is an invitation to the sausage factory. It can be incredibly exciting to see a game take shape, but if you're turned off by the blood and guts and just want the sausages, wait for 1.0 (or beyond) and then make up your mind. I would not pay 50 bucks for KSP2 in its current state as a game, but I will pay 50 bucks to see how it gets from where it is now to what it promises to be.
Crew transfer? Resource transfer?
in KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
I haven't been able to figure out how to transfer crew between modules (other than EVA), nor how to transfer fuel between tanks. Am I missing something or is it just not implemented yet?