metalmouth7

It's chipset dependent - many chipsets are not capable of using the newer Crimson drivers (which have significant issues on Linux systems on newer chipsets as well, leaving them a subpar choice anyway,) RadeonSI lacks support for a number of fglrx chipsets, as does AMDGPU.

AMD Users on Linux cannot play the game using official drivers. Users of non-US keyboard configs cannot bind many keys. Render layer bugs resulting in most/all of the UI vanishing. It's one thing for, say, spacecraft landed on the second KSC on the other side of the planet to prevent you from launching from your KSC. It's another for half of the users on one of your three supported OS families to be unable to run the game on official drivers.

You miss the point of this issue. KSP is not a finished game. Numerous bugs dating as far back as 0.19 (many of them extremely serious,) have sat unresolved since being reported nearly 4 years ago. Major features introduced in 0.90, and others dating from long before, introduced only in placeholder format have been left unfinished for well over a year while the game has been announced as being "finished." It's not a matter of it being stupid because the content is available from mods, or because it's a bunch of simple-to-make assets that the community has almost certainly implemented in a better fashion. It's a matter of it being stupid because Squad has no business making a cash grab like this when they have yet to finish the game itself. This is anti-consumer and shows a serious lack of honesty regarding the state of the "complete" game they've been selling to people for years now. Even more so when the funding they were collecting during Early Access was being funneled to projects other than KSP itself, while the game was developed on a shoestring budget, if the accounts of the former team members that have come forward are to be believed.

Ah yes, DLC that adds nothing but new mod-level content while the game itself still isn't finished, and there's still serious bugs in the public tracker dating back to 2013. Yes, DLC is definitely what this unfinished game needs.

One employee, who was speaking anonymously. For some reason, I'd sooner take stock in the past devs that outed themselves and publicly corroborated what was said. It's a fact that bad press kills sales. Attempting to say otherwise is dishonest. If the case is that Squad was overworking employees, and firing competent staff that they overworked to the point of exhaustion, that means that they were overworking for a sub-par product. Does that mean I uninstall the game? No. It means that I mention to everybody that you shouldn't support the console release which will see Squad's unethical choices rewarded. It means I encourage everybody who shares the same stance as myself to do the same. Does that mean my voice on it's own will do anything? No. But if a number of people are willing to say something, and don't allow themselves to be distracted by the shiny keys Squad are trying to dangle with that press release, there stands a chance that buyers will avoid rewarding poor employment practices.

I've heard some mention that it actually shares an office with a firm that specializes in creating shell corporations for tax purposes, and just happens to have staff on retainer for assisting Spanish-speaking clients.

The impression I get is that's all of these things - they're all related. Poor working conditions are gonna result in people not being able to turn out their best work. That being the case, you're going to see more bad decisions get made, and more bugs slip through. It's all interconnected. I suppose a more suitable title might be "Ramifications of former Squad staff claims," or something to that effect.

I totally get you. I just think that calling it a massive success is entirely inappropriate. That's akin to saying an Uwe Boll film is a massive success for cinema in contrast to Kubrick's Napoleon film, simply because the Uwe Boll's movies were released.

I'd hardly call a game that "released" after a single buggy beta release, with a bunch of bugs dating back years, and placeholder art still in place a "Massive Success" for Early Access, and more of a cautionary tale - if *this* is what Early Access success looks like, and people are so happy with a release in that state, that's very concerning.

No. They probably paid around 30% of what they earned on Steam as fees. Taxes are a little trickier. Since KSP isn't actually owned by Squad, but by Deported B.V., a Dutch Company, it's unclear if they actually pay in *any* taxes on their earnings, thanks to the tax shelter laws in the Netherlands.

While they've remained pretty tight-lipped, they (seemingly accidentally, if their rush to have the information taken down is any indication,) revealed that they had sold over 4 million copies earlier this year. Their gross profits are well over $40 million dollars U.S.

He actually comments on this in his Youtube video - he's a retired veteran, so it was really nothing more than a supplemental cheque to go along with his disability payments. He was doing the job out of love for the KSP community, and the game itself.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but r4m0n, in a response to the top comment, has some anonymous response from *current* Squad staff that corroborate what PDTV was saying on 4chan. Say what you will about 4chan as a source for accurate info, I'd not quickly accuse r4m0n of fabricating this kind of stuff.

I love this. It's nice to be able to play the game without dealing with the abysmal loading times in the middle of a mission, just because I forgot to add an objective. However, you may want to make a note suggesting to players who frequently hit the memory limit to not use this mod for the time being. Because of the way Unity handles loading and unloading of resources, the scene changes de-allocate the memory used to store assets and other such things. Due to the memory leaks in the present version of the game, staying with your spacecraft for an extended period of time may result in crashes that otherwise wouldn't have happened - a good amount of the leaked memory that would be freed up by the scene change will no longer get freed up.

So... you only do .cfg edits then? That's not modding, that's giving a print of the Mona Lisa a mustache and claiming it as your own because you "changed it to match the style you wanted." If you really want to make mods, learn how to model or code, and actually produce your own content. Don't just collect the work of others and change it enough to call it your own. Even if the licence permits it, that's hardly an honest thing to do, and nobody is going to want to download a simple parts pack.

This is normally the case, but thanks to the way Unity loads things, this isn't allowed to happen in a lot of circumstances. Since Unity unloads all assets at scene change, the "leaky" code is unloaded and ignored by the game - this means that in a lot of circumstances the leaky code is unloaded and RAM freed before the game simply crashes from reaching it's memory limit. As well, you're referring to simply one type of "leak." Memory leaks can also simply be when the software eats up a small amount of memory whenever it does a task, and then never frees it again - this can be demonstrated by simply watching KSP's RAM usage whilst opening tweakable menus in the editor. However, the type you refer to, a constant leak, can also be found in KSP - simply sitting on the runway at the KSC will result in the game continuously increasing it's RAM usage over time, and flying off into space won't free a chunk of that RAM back up (it's rather noticeable when you leave it for around a half hour.) However, returning to the Space Center through the pause menu will free the RAM back up - this strongly suggests that this is a memory leak, and not an intended feature.

The problem is you're focusing on the equator. If you look at the real Apollo missions, they also had issues finding a suitably flat region of the lunar surface to land on. Whilst the inclination of our moon actually assisted them in this, saving them some dV, they still had to go outside their normal "comfort zone" when it came to their orbital inclination. You're best to do the same with your missions, pushing your landing zone parameters a little further out. While this will somewhat complicate later resupply missions and such (unless you carefully schedule your launches,) you'll have a lot more room to safely pick a suitable landing site.

Might want to jump back a couple more pages - you'll find that NathanKell mentioned 4chan as one of the places that tends to get news long before the forums.

It's more the other way around, but yes. It's not an overwhelmingly positive place, but there is plenty of discussion about KSP and such.

Unfortunately, yes. I tend to play all-stock these days to avoid crashes, and only with the 32-bit executable, and I still deal with an absurd amount of instability within KSP. Between random loading crashes (many of which don't bother to output any error logs,) Career still being a nigh-unplayable mess due to contract bugs, problems with many parts of the editor (up to and including tweakables being the source of a memory leak,) and the new save-corruption bug that's managed to make me re-install KSP four times now? I'm pretty well done with the game for now, and have been advising people to stay away from the game until Squad puts in some serious bugfixing time.

That really only applies to x64 support. All of those other concerns are all tied to things Squad could fix themselves (for example, Tweakables causing memory leaks, and poor file management causing far longer than necessary load times and RAM usage.) This all has everything to do with Squad.

Yes, and unless they completely toss those models out and start from scratch, we won't see much "improvement." At that point, I'd argue that they're wasting time on something that KSP doesn't really need, especially when the current buildings still need a fair bit of work to stand up to final tier buildings. Great. However, KSP wouldn't be the game it is without it's "simulation" components. It seems people here can't seem to understand the concept of things complimenting each other - the simulation features should compliment the game-y features, in such a way to make the game fun. If that means making things more realistic (as they're doing with aerodynamics, for example,) it should definitely be their goal. Regardless, this isn't the topic at hand, is it? You clearly don't see where I'm coming from, then. The "comical" nature of Kerbals, as previously mentioned by the developers, is tempered by their technical skills - they clearly know how to build things properly, but simply have less concern about safety than human beings. To that end, Barns don't make any sense. Perhaps if they were launching small test articles akin to that launched in the 1930's, it'd make some sense, but that isn't the case. Instead, Squad is treating them like Orks from Warhammer: 40,000, and it's a rather noticeable incongruity. Everything from the basic concept, to the logic of it doesn't make any sense. It's not relatively small. It's either replacing one of the previously modeled tiers (which indicates that Squad wasted their time re-modelling it, and could have been putting effort and manhours into a larger "aspect of the game,") or it's adding another tier, which means it will have a massive effect on the balancing of the game, something that's already know to be absolute rubbish at best. If I don't like it, I'm not going to stop playing the game. If these forums exist for the reason they're claimed to, I'm more than allowed to offer my input on why the Kerbal Trailer Park should stay dead. The insistence of people in these forums on toeing the official line is another huge issue, and really needs to be fixed.

How does it fit the style of the game? Put aside your love for the (rather mediocre,) models, and look at it from a design and realism standpoint. You have Mercury-era spacecraft being wheeled out of a barn, and being launched from what is little more than a grade-schooler's sandbox. That doesn't fit at all, from both a visual and a logical standpoint. As well, although realism is a taboo way of justifying things here (thanks in no small part to the way the concept of realism has been demonized by both the developers and much of the fanbase as "unfun,") one doesn't really want to be handing highly toxic rocket fuels in a simple wooden barn.

On various sites, Max had really been playing this feature up as a huge deal, and had been encouraging the hype train to nearly derail he had it chugging along that fast. And that's no way to develop a game. At this point, it really looks like Squad is blundering about in the dark, trying to just hit us with as many shiny features as possible whilst abandoning numerous things along the way. If we could actually see a development roadmap, with all of their main goals laid out, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to hop on their case. At this point, however, I feel more like Squad is purely a marketing team with their careful control of information, and attempts to make silly little features seem like huge deals.

At this point in time, I can only see this as being a negative thing. It's no fun to have to set back your own play experience because something went wrong with the game. Ensuring the physics engine was far more functional is arguably far more important than adding this feature. With the instabilities that come with building planes, this only compounds the issue. Games should not punish the player for the game being buggy. I didn't say anything to the contrary. However, perhaps working on suitable replacements to the rather poor models created by Hugo for the last release, a better looking design for the newly added building, additional science systems, or even some finished IVA models would have been a better use of time, currently.