Alpha_star

Well, I do not have time to play the new update, but I have played on 0.1.3.0 before. From what I see, the game is playable. My computer uses an Intel i7-8700k and an AMD Rx580, which is far below the minimum specs for KSP2. The average framerate was around 15 at launch and 25 in space with my starship replica and highest graphics with 2x anti-alising, which might be unplayable to some but good for me. Now I have only encountered three bugs in my two hour gameplay. The first one was the control surface invert issue, which is a bit visually uncomfortable but nothing too annoying. Other two bugs are the famous orbital decay and having my craft disassemble when igniting my engine. These two are a bit annoying, but the orbital decay issue was not that serious and the disassembly issue was solved by saving and reloading. None of them (to me) makes the game completely unplayable, but would make the game even better if fixed. (Just a quick note, I have not encountered the graphical glitches yet, nor did I had trouble with staging.) Another thing, the graphics is just AMAZING. Now people would argue this looks somewhat worse compared to highly modded KSP1, but I am getting better framerate in KSP2 than KSP1 with EVE-redux + Stock Volumetric Clouds, Parallax 2 and TUFX. Plus, the music is pretty good to me. Still, it was a bit more buggy at the time of my playing compared to KSP1, but all of this shows me that the game isn't up to no good.

Ok, thanks for the help! I’ll likely give LSR a try this weekend.

Might be a *few* days too late, but I want to share my opinions. 0.1.4 just came out yesterday (relative to my time zone), fixing 13 of the top 20 issues. Now I expected the number to be around 15, so it does not match my expectations perfectly. But from what I've seen in the patch notes and KERB updates, their progress is at a rate of about 3 major bugs per two weeks. If it stays out to be the same for the next several months or so, then by patch 5 we'll likely have around 18 of the major bugs squashed. Of course, as old ones are fixed and new ones popping up, the current list would be wildly different from what we'll have by the next update. All in all, my very own guess is that we'll have most of the major bugs gone two months from now, which is (based on community assumption) the targeted release time of the science update. Bug fixing is a one time labor. Simply put, if you have a bug fixed in an update, you do not have to re-write the entire fix in the next one. Putting this into account, patches after the science update would probably a fair bit smaller than compared to patches in version 0.1. It is likely that they would come out at a much faster pace and would focus on fixing new issues brought by the thermal and science update. My personal guess is around two patches every month or so. Still, I believe it's unlikely for the game to reach colonies, given that it needs to introduce an extremely complexed building/construction system. Adding all things up, I'd vote science and I believe that there's a slim chance for colonies to be implemented. I'm not talkin about anyone or anything specific, just a general idea.

From what I've seen, 13 bugs among the top 20 have been fixed, with the orbital decay bug half-fixed. Expected a bit more, but still, pretty impressive for a "minor patch". Always glad to see that some progress has been made!

Thanks! One more question though: how do I split an image in to multiple ones and adjust their position in order to combine them for use with one cloud layer? I've heard that this can improve the performance. P.S.: Are EVE and Scatterer effects our for your LSR? Keep up the great work!

(Continuing the last post) 2. Ground: In terms of terrain shaders, this is where modded KSP1 blow its sequel out of water. Specifically, what I'm talking about here is Parallax. Ground shaders in Parallax has depth masks, which means that it can simulate small terrain bumps with just the ground shader, decreasing the amount of ground tessellation needed for the same effect. Comparing to this, KSP2 ground shaders does not have the same function, making it look worse in my opinion. Of course, the shininess looks a bit weird, but nothing too bad. In the terms of object scattering, both are on the same level. I know that there are large boulders in KSP2 and crystal spikes in Parallax, these are all technically just different configurations. Thus, I believe it is a tie.

And as a plus, here's a general comparison between modded KSP1 and KSP2. Of course, since they are only MY points, it remains in the category of "for reference only". 1. Parts: If we're just comparing the stock/vanilla games here, I believe that most people would think that KSP2 parts look much better than in its prequal. However, as we are comparing stock KSP2 and modded KSP1, it would be natural to have some kind of part revamp mod into the earlier game. As far as I've seen, there are a total of three part revamp mods in KSP1, namely Ven's Revamp, Stock Replacement Assets (this one is a bit unpopular and incomplete) and Restock(+). Since the first two are pretty old and incomplete, I'd be comparing Restock and stock/vanilla KSP2. (Searches "restock".) The Restock art style is (to me) pretty close to the post-1.4 Squad revamps. They remain the cartoon-ish look of stock/vanilla KSP1 parts but adds realism on top of that. A look at the Restock album on Imgur will give you an Idea. KSP2 parts, however, is a different story. They have a different art style from Restock, even if mostly being made by one person. What I have noticed is that KSP2 parts have very detailed textures, even having the nails visible on most parts and complexed endcap models. Of course, like most other graphical stuff in KSP2, they look a little too shiny, but nothing inacceptable for me. It's also worth noting the plumes. KSP2 plumes have much more complexed textures compared to most default waterfall, which is not necessary good or bad for either of the games. On the good sides, the graphics are crispier (for me), but on the other hand they take up a lot of resources. In general, KSP2 parts look better than in KSP1 to my eyes.

Sorry for anyone who thinks that I'm white knighting the game. To be clear, I am not praising or saying bad words about anyone or anything. This is just MY opinion. For me, KSP2 clouds actually look better in some cases. Now, KSP2 clouds uses a custom volumetric clouds implementation, so there's (almost) no point in comparing KSP2 with EVE-redux in terms of technical details. Most people say that EVE-redux looks better because they are more "cloud-alike" and are not flat-bottomed like clouds on Kerbin in KSP2. Flowmaps, godrays and a custom particle system makes it look even crispier. Well, people are allowed to have their own opinions, so I'm not trying to persuade them for this. Indeed, I think EVE-redux clouds are better, especially on Jool and Eve (the planet) in most cases. However, I believe that in some cases, KSP2 does better. Take Kerbin for example. As shown with many videos and images, KSP2's clouds have some huge VARIATION IN CLOUD HEIGHTS, which is something not so commonly seen in EVE-redux. I know the existence of anvil clouds, but they are a bit rare. Apart from that, volumetric cloud layers in EVE-redux seems a bit too flat with almost no protruding visible. They also look a bit off when viewed from space. As a conclusion, it's a bit hard to have this "cloud mountain" effect in EVE-redux, something that I believe KSP2 is doing pretty great. KSP2 is also (to me) somewhat better on Eve. The clouds are just EXTREMELY whispy. This means that, with the correct configuration and cover map, they could be realistic cirrus clouds-something that EVE-redux has yet to do. Still, I don't like flat-bottomed clouds, and I believe that there could be a way to combine the good of both, such as using standard unity volumetric clouds as the bottom of the cloud and use KSP2's volumetric clouds on top of that. Again, just my very own opinion.

(Wow, this thread has drawn a lot more attention than my expectation!) Let me explain my thoughts further. Here on Earth, most big space agencies (NASA, CNSA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS etc.) have one or two main flagship mission(s) of upmost importance. They often get more funding and resources than other non-flagship missions, like NASA's Artemis program. In terms of realism, it is (for me) better than doing a lot of grand-scale missions at once. The way limited part supply affects the space program may look a lot like this. Now, large-scale missions often require large ship(s) and thus needs literally TONS of parts. If only a limited amount of parts can be produced in a given amount of time, it would be much more efficient to let a large-scale project to use a lot of them to produce more science rather than distributing them to multiple smaller missions that can only produce a tiny amount of science each. In case this isn't clear enough, let me give you an example. Say I can choose between a Jool-5 or several Mun missions. The Jool-5 would let me harvest more than 4000 science points, while each Mun mission can only give me 300 or so (both in KSP1 standards and without biome hops). Normally, a Jool-5 costs around 2 million-ish funds for me and 300k-ish funds for each Mun mission (KSP1 standards, might be different from KSP2). The Jool-5 is better even if we just consider about getting more science with less money/resources, let alone the experience gains. This post isn't about persuading someone. It's just my own opinion.

Yeah……Again, a great idea for science, but I'd personally like it to be in the difficulty settings as this allows us users to adjust and tweak things. One possible but unlikely idea is to have the image quality to slowly drop as the communication to Kerbin gets weaker. However, this does create some problems as the inabilities to visually monitor the craft's in-flight state, maybe add additional camera parts all over the ship?

This idea is generally pretty neat to me, but I'd prefer an in-game minigame as others have (sort of) pointed out. For example, it could be that science collection is about landing in certain "sweet spots" as real-life missions.

Hello everyone! As you might have known, I want to get into modding KSP1. Specifically, what I want to do is to create a low-performance impact visual pack like panzer1b's ASTOUNDING Sci-Fi VE, adding clouds and planet glows to the game using the EVE-redux mod by blackrack. Now, the thing I don't understand about EVE config files is the difference between Maintex and Detailtex. I also want to know what the variable "MaxTranslation" does. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Further more, it would be great if someone could tell me how to do optimization! I'd also like someone to introduce ways to create cloudmaps so I don't need that much time to draw cover maps. I won/t have much time for modding next month.

OK, your point makes sense, but my whole point is to give the space program history. if you have multiple big contracts to work at once, the supply system would make you stop working on everything and focus on several or one contract to finish. If contracts in KSP2 have their expire dates, then this system makes you think twice before accepting every single one of them provided that you have a top tier mission control. Still, your argument is pretty good, and I don't want to start another fight over KSP2.

Let me explain. The idea in my mind is, by some measures, close to what we have in mods for KSP1 such as Kerbal Construction Time. Basically, a supplier can only produce a limited amount of parts in a given period of time, thus forcing the KSC to wait or help the supplier build more production lines in order to get more parts in the same amount of time if the KSC has used up all the parts in stock. Of course, the main idea is to give the space program some history instead of finishing every contract on day1. This is, by some means, an implementation of KCT or some other mods of the same type into the base game. I'd support it, because this whole "amount in stock" idea adds in even more realism into our gameplay.

I’m trying to stay away from fights over KSP2, not only because that it is toxic, but also because that same arguments have been repeated again and again, as stressed by others before. Again, some major bug fixing progress has been made since 0.1.3, but no feature updates in the next patch. I’m leaving the judging to others, since I do not want to hint my opinion about the game in my comments. Sorry for being way too personal. I want this thread to stay on-topic.

So, to answer the OP’s question, the UI blurry and SOI bugs have been smashed since 0.1.3 came out. After that, there were a few KERB bug report posts, but almost no information regarding the release of thermal and science updates. 0.1.4 is currently set for “early this week” and will come out in a few days. Edit: 0.1.4.0 will come out tomorrow, so that's some news.

Ok, since I am fairly™️ new to the community, there are obvious a lot of things that I do not know clearly. What I have seen so far is that no matter it’s here on the forums, reddit or discord, general discussions about ksp2 has been a place for both the “white knights” and the “haters” to shout the same opinions and rants over and over again. Still, please be civil!

From what I see, the first group rarely post in the discussions because they probably do not have a clear opinion themselves.

Might be a bit too personal, but from what I have observed, the community has divided in to three groups. The first one is the normal players/ community members without a very clear opinion. I’d say that they like to post mission reports and wacky creations. From my observation, most members of the KSP2 community belongs to this group. The second group is what I call the “haters”. Now this might be somewhat impolite but please don’t attack me for this. They are often focused on the game’s slow progress and how buggy/unoptimized it is without acknowledging the fact that some progress has been made. People belonging to this group are often overly pessimistic and love attacking others in-person, especially the developers. Now the third group is what I call the “ white knights”. People of this group defends the game from anything, even constructive critism. Apart from being completely different, people of this group are similar to the “haters” in many ways.

I have watched quite a few videos made in the early days of KSP1 and noticed that there was a variable in the part info tab named "amount in stock". As it was removed later in the updates introducing science and career, I started to ponder whether this was an abandoned idea for ksp1 career mode. Now since I don't live in a parallel world, there's no way for me to know how it would be implemented. But in my head, the general concept looks like this: Step one: The KSC pay the supplier a research fee Step two: The supplier completes the research, then build up production lines Step three: Each production line produces a given amount of parts of the same time Step four: The KSC buys the parts, but they can't buy more than has been produced by the production lines Personally, I am a fan of this Idea, since this IS how production works here on Earth. Besides that, I also believe that it would be great if the KSC has to pay a fee to let the supplier build up more production lines, or the rate of production could be in the difficulty settings.

I don't know much, but perhaps you could an andurino and a screen to display your status. Of course, this requires a huge amount of work and if what you want is just a cinematic, it probably isn't worth the cost. A (hopefully) better approach would use mods like KER, which reduces the complexity but needs some post-clipping to work. Note that clipping would effectively be the same as zooming in, so you might want to set your FOV a bit wider.

Great work!! When are you releasing it? Can't wait to see it in ACTION!!!

Reported Version: v0.1.3 | Mods: SORRY and Lux's flames | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel i7-8700k | GPU: AMD Radeon RX 580 | RAM: 16GB I was flying on a collision course to the Mun directly from Kerbin. The height was about 10000m above "sea level" and I was at 5x time warp. I disengaged time warp and ignited my "Labradoodle" engine at 2% of the thurst, then re-engaging time warp, shortly after which my craft suddenly disassembled into pieces and was destroyed.

Great! Might have it a try.

OK, thanks for mentioning! Still, school starts in several days, and I won't have too much time for learning. Edit: I'm a huge fan of your work! Please keep on going!