forenci

I used to do it all manually, but now that I'm using multiple installs of KSP I have found CKAN to be quite good at keeping track what is installed and isn't. A pet peeve of mine is mods that have GameData folders that don't actually have the name of the mod as the folder name. Makes it quite challenging when going through multiple installs and having to see what mods you do and do not have installed.

Yeah that's fantastic. I really think once this game has a functional multiplayer it's popularity is even going to sky rocket (pun intended?) even more. It seems like it's been sold well over a million times, which in it's own right is incredible. I think once you add a quality multiplayer it will start to be played even more by people and will receive Minecraft type exposure.

A good point as well. I almost exclusively play from my various copies that does not register on Steam. Despite that, it's still a significantly played game on Steam.

I'd be curious to know that myself. It may be way over a million players too when you factor in the many people who bought it before it was released onto Steam. It's a pretty darn impressive number either way. Steam Workshop integration in the future would be fantastic. It would be incredible for a game like this to be able to put up .craft files and have them seamlessly integrated within the game. I'm really hopeful for features like this after 1.0, as well as perhaps some official mod support integration tool (probably after/if 64 bit is working). Although I suspect this is unlikely to happen.

Someone actually just posted something about this one the KSP reddit. Here's the link if you're interested. If that's even close to accurate, that is incredibly impressive. Hopefully should subdue the fears of some people thinking 1.0 will somehow ruin the prospects of KSP. It's already incredibly popular regardless of what happens with 1.0. It also tends to be one of the more played games on Steam, for what that's worth! http://steamspy.com/app/220200

Couldn't agree more. I thought the graffiti comparison was quite interesting as if people are FORCED to view this thread. Honestly, it really hasn't been bad at all (outside of the initial couple pages) and occasional post. I really don't see the issue with an occasional thread that demonstrates the pure joy and excitement people have toward something that has been long in the making. It's part of the human experience. People get excited about things! I agree, in addition to your other post, about 1.0. The whole "they should have done one more beta release" is quite old. It's clearly not happening, so why dwell on it? Also, if I'm not mistaken, there was a post on Reddit noting that KSP has hit the 1 million sales mark. I find it hard to believe having a release that is a little buggy would somehow ruin KSP's long-term success. It has already been EXTREMELY successful for what is supposedly a "niche" game. That and the game software model has drastically changed. Plenty of games that were far buggier than KSP even prior to the 1.0 bug squashing-fest, have been released an been ultra-successful. BRING ON THE HYPE! I can't wait to test out the aerodynamics of the game! That and see how much the re-entry mechanics impact gameplay. Can't wait!

For me, it's in the 10+. I have four different installs for KSP though (default/heavily modded KSP, Youtube Series, mod testing, realism overhaul). Between those, I generally have 2-3 saves a piece.

More than likely just lots of testing with aerodynamics and the re-entry mechanics. Gotta see how necessary it will be to add retrorockets to slow down before re-entering the atmosphere and such. Should be fun. Really looking forward to it. It's going to be odd to not need FAR installed.

Honestly, I find that by building aesthetically pleasing launch vehicles they tend to turn out quite efficient. That's usually because any rocket I build tends to model real rockets (which, not surprisingly, tend to be designed for efficiency). In the beginning I use to be all about asparagus designs that promoted efficiency, but somewhere along the way I began to really value a realistic looking rocket. They presented more design and engineering challenges to solve. I will admit, I use clipping to make more aesthetic looking launch vehicles though (i.e. hiding batteries inside the command module).

Yes but game development has become quite different from the traditional software release model. It's no longer a release-and-then-done model. Games frequently add new features to the game well after initial release. Again, I'll use Payday as an example. The release of Payday 2 was pretty dry by all accounts. And very buggy. Nonetheless, it's become an extremely popular and well thought of game.

Yeah, I honestly don't know. The whole situation just seems weird. My feeling (again, this is my own personal feeling) but they have pushed back things in alpha plenty, so why wouldn't they do so here if they didn't have a hard deadline to meet? I think people are just freaking out because they think 1.0 is going to get terrible reviews and somehow this will impact the game. For starters, it's one of the most played games on Steam as we speak (if I'm not mistaken). Second, we're all a bit jaded because we've played the game so much as it is. For someone just starting out, this game is pretty damn good with tons of depth. Yes, it has bugs, but honestly not even close to a bad as other games I've played upon release. Games have been getting buggier and buggier as time has passed. And honestly, games can be buggy on release and still be fantastic. Look at Payday 2 for example. Super buggy on release, and still is even somewhat buggy today and even despite some of the initial reviews being so-so, it's become a hit game. Game development is far more fluid these days. A buggy release is not a game killer by any means.

Didn't they also say they had a deadline that was not movable? Don't you think if they were an independent team they could just push it back if it pleased them? Everything they have done (not doing another beta patch, potentially not including features to meet a deadline) tells me that they are being forced to meet a certain deadline.

But as a software developer you must also know that this is not always possible. Even though we like to think of Squad as independent, they have a CEO and someone who may very well be setting deadlines for them, similar to how a publisher would be. As a result, we often get buggy software and games because it is a constant battle to implement the features of a game or software and keep it bug free. And moreso, you must know the cycle can be endless. Fixing bugs often creates new bugs. At some point you just have to put the features in, squash as many bugs as you can, and release it. I'd like to see more beta patches, but it may not be in Harvester and other's control (which it sort of sounds like it based on what they have said).

I think you're getting the wrong impression from me. I would love to see them do a couple beta patches prior to 1.0, I just think it's silly to argue this when Squad has pretty much said 1.0 is coming and they have not turned back. Also, my interpretation of what Max is asking is not saying that what they're working on now won't be polished/ready for release. Rather, it seemed as if he was asking whether or not that should devote the time they could spend introducing NEW features (i.e. new systems, parts, multiplayer, etc.) on additional bug squashing. My view is they should crush the bugs, then introduce new features/stuff after 1.0. Finally, I think the whole "reviewers are going to kill this game" is overblown. If they spend the remaining time crushing bugs, I think this game will absolutely be great for someone reviewing it. Even with bugs, this game is GREAT. It has incredible depth, fantastic modding community (and community in general), and is the definition of what a great sandbox should be. Truthfully, I've never been a big fan of sandbox games because I've found that without some guidance or direction it can be difficult to think of new things to do. KSP (even with career mode) is an amazing sandbox game because it lines up for you so many accomplishments without really trying. For example, you start by getting into orbit, then the Mun, then Minmus, then other planets like Duna, Eve, etc. Then trying to land on those planets and return safely. Not to mention things like space stations, refueling stations, etc. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't KSP recently the top 10 most played game on Steam? I don't think sales are dying by any means.

Pretty much echoing what Sal and others have said, put in the features that have been slated for 1.0 and then fix all the nagging bugs. As much as I would LOVE new features, such as multiplayer, new systems, parts, etc I think having a clean game for release with everything slated for 1.0 is more important. The game with all that 1.0 has promised and that it currently has is a very deep game that will last a long time. Finally, I think people need to get over the whole "1.0" stuff already. It's going to 1.0. Not .91, not .99, it's going to 1.0. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't affect what is being discussed here.

Failure is the greatest learning opportunity of all. Without trial and error, we limit are ability to problem-solve and create new and innovative solutions for our future.

It's easier to an extent, but it requires more planning and thought during launches. For example, sometimes pulling a gravity turn too early results in the rocket flipping. In addition, ensuring you have fairings and that your parts fit well within the fairings is crucial too. That and space planes are quite a challenge with FAR/DRE. I think the new re-entry mechanics will be a huge issue for a lot of new players. People are so use to just slamming their craft through the atmosphere. Now it will be necessary to bring more fuel to slow a descent through the atmosphere, as as some more creative solutions perhaps.

My biggest apprehension about using RSS has been time. Launches take a long time. Landings take a long time. I do like how you have to be more creative and intuitive about building space craft, but when you have a fairly limited amount of time to play as it is the additional time to do things can be quite a hindrance to getting anything done.

I usually do a mix of fun Kerbal-themed (K before everything, like the Kelta IV Heavy) or, as I am an English teacher, I enjoy giving them names of authors or characters from books. One of my favorites was Bartleby Munar Rocket. The rocket definitely lived up to its name (if you have ever read the story, you would certainly relate, haha).

Nailing a landing attempt on the first try and not having to quick save as a result. Also, designing a new rocket and having all the staging work perfectly on the first attempt (almost never happens). Or is that just me?

"Looks like I'll need to send a rescue mission..." - Said everyone who ever played Kerbal.

Ah man. I totally forgot about that. That was such a struggle. Fortunately, I shouldn't have any finals this year at that time (graduating, in internship).

Hmm, are they getting close to release? Looking at the summary of what they are adding, it seems like a lot of those things have been done or soon will be. Presumably there will be a lot of QA testing and bug squishing too, but it looks like we're starting to have a lot of those features in or close to being in the game. Any chance we see the update before the end of March?

This is true. Poor Kerbals.

When you have conversations with your girlfriend and she knows when you talk about "Jeb" it's really talking about a little green Kerbal instead of a real person.