AlamoVampire

so my question is, given what looks to have been said on july 8 by valizockt above this post, my question is: do proc fairings work for 1.10 or are in need of either mod patch or a dev change revert in ksp itself? 222907232020

@AntINFINAIt since your poll lacks a “not going to use multiplayer” option i cannot vote. I honestly cannot wrap my head around combat in ksp. Personally I think space should be used for universal benefit and not militaristic pursuits, even in a game. That said, I also cannot fathom how they will make multiplayer work or how it will be implemented, so a guess to anything cannot be ventured by me. 020707232020

Well for me, I much prefer the game coming to a stop and my universe vanishing into the ether when I am not on ksp. Its peace of mind for me. Having a life away from ksp by definition means ksp will get left untouched for days or months or for me for a while nearly 19 months as I just could not bring myself to play. In that time if your game is soldiering on without you what can go wrong? What WILL go wrong? Is losing kerbals or entire missions to persistent going worth it? No. This isn't even touching multiplayer, which I wont cover again (done it enough over the years). 210207212020 210407212020

@Incarnation of Chaos 1.xxxx is most likely, but if jeb has any say it may be curious 004907212020

It is both not a new game and a new game. Not a new game: 1. Major iteration of an existing property. 2. Not a fundamentally new idea. New Game: 1. New design house making it. 2. Sequel to an existing intellectual property. I think its fair to say its both a new game and not a new game for the reasons above listed. 233407192020

@catloaf it is an OPTIONAL feature that is wanted by less than 45% of people according to that poll. If TTi wishes as you suggest to not burn goodwill they will not divert resources from CRITICAL NON OPTIONAL features and instead keep polishing things that are required for gameplay. I never have and never will say it should never come. I am saying, have said, still say: not now during run up to launch. 1. All things equal multimonitor support is a 100% factually optional non critical feature. 2. Please reread the post by linuxgurugamer where he explains eloquently why right now is a bad time for it. 3. Critical non optional features > optional features. Period. I am tired of going in circles. Im walking away. 035207152020 035207152020 035407152020

@Gargamel my apologies, i incorrectly assumed a reply direct was warranted. 174707142020

This right here. Said with so much finesse. This is what I was driving at. This is why I keep saying an OPTIONAL feature fails the priority time test at this stage of KSP2’s life. Thank you @linuxgurugamer for putting clearly what I keep trying to drive home. Thank you so much for this. @Gargamel I hope that the devs are well and hope they will someday soon share more details with us. 155407142020

absolutely agree sir. i wish soo much that someone could ask the devs directly about this, but from what I can recall <please correct me if I am wrong> this sorta thing is either forum rule forbidden or more likely NDA locked? Its also why I am just going to go ahead and bow out from this erm discussion and see what time delivers us. 004107142020

@pandaman I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself. Less than 45% of respondents in the poll that has been linked what, 4 or 5 times now state they use multiple monitors. I am sorry Pandaman, but, the fact remains that multiple monitor support is an OPTION. Regardless of how I feel or how you feel when you strip it down to base facts, it is an OPTION. Right now, right now as the game is being built, especially right now in the middle of a world wide pandemic when time is even more limited, and given that companies have the nasty habit of demanding more and more and then demand that more and more even faster and faster the fact remains corners get cut. It cannot be helped. It is a fact of life. When corners get cut to save a few minutes or hours or a day of work to meet that deadline the company suddenly thinks it can demand more in less time, which mandates MORE corner cutting. Right now, right now, the fact remains that multiple monitor support just is NOT a mandatory feature, it is an optional feature, and as such it should needs must be considered down the road and not right now. I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself. 001407142020

@DunaManiac I cant see it justifying diverting developmental time and resources away from critical features to support an optional feature. Especially during runup to release. Im sorry but thats just how it is. Yes some want it but given that less than 45% of respondents use it according to that poll, it just does not seem reasonable right now. Docking as in your example is a bad example. It is a critical game function. At some point a player will need to dock. That is unavaiodable. Dumping a map view to a second monitor does NOT a critical feature make. It is, realistically speaking a 100% OPTIONAL function that would be best added post launch after the game stabilizes. With that said, I have nothing, 100% nothing left I feel I can contribute to this discussion. 183407132020 185007132020

@Master39 It just is not that widely asked for. Again 44% of respondents use multimonitor. That being said, you are right, this is a AA title, which means that the company will be pushing HARD on deadlines, which increases technical debt exponentially. Please watch that video I linked from shadowzone, he explains this far better than I can. I am not implying that your desire for this feature is invalid, I am clearly stating that it is not a feature that is game critical right NOW. I am sorry if this upsets you sir, but, the bottom line is, KSP2 is a product being designed to make Take Two money, and that means they will push their contracted sub designhouse to finish KSP2 as fast as they can. This will invariably lead to technical debt. Adding a feature to appease less than 45% of players at this point is ludicrous at best. Would it be nice to see AFTER the game is stable, polished, functioning nicely for ALL users in all the correct and intended ways? Absolutely sure. Is it a good idea to take what limited time the developers have RIGHT NOW to push a feature that again, LESS THAN 45% of respondents in the now 4 times linked poll consider using? NO, absolutely not, its absolutely inconsiderate. Its asking that the rest of us accept a lesser job on core features just to again appease less than 45% of people. No. I am by no means a programmer and even I can see the handwriting on the wall of just how impractical it would be. I get that you think its a good idea, I respect that you think that, its just that sadly, right now, youre wrong. I am sorry if I upset you, but, multimonitor support is not now, nor will it likely EVER be a CRITICAL feature needed to make the game work for 100% of its users. It just sadly isnt. Please do not assert that players who do not have a want or a need or the ability to make use of the feature be forced to accept the idea that there is a better than likely chance core feature developmental time will suffer at such a behest. I have absolutely nothing left to say on this. 044907132020

@Master39 Nice idea but thats more devtime away from critical things being dumped into fluffy extraneous extras. Id say your idea would be nice 4-5 years post launch, but not right now. Right now critical game play items and systems trump by far the lists of “would be nice options”. 040507132020 040607132020

@pandaman fair enough. I would imagine in 3-4 maybe 5 years time that ratio will swap. For now, on the road to release its a feature best left ignored. I say they should get the game made, ensure stability, reasonable performance first. Then a year or two or three after launch, then try to integrate it. I would say such a plan is more ideal. My opinion. 034307132020

@pandaman LESS than 44% of respondents. That is less than half. I am sorry but, I would MUCH prefer to see development time go into vital critical game assets than a feature that according to that poll is used by less than 50% of users. Sorry, but, things like optimization, proper physics calculations, making sure automation of supply chains, making sure the game is more stable than KSP1, making sure any number of vital aspects that will be used by all players regardless <just using the scheme of KSP1> of sandbox or science or career is vastly, unimaginably more important than whether or not users can use a second or third or fourth or 300th monitor. I hope @ShadowZone approves of me using his video on technical debt in this argument. If sir, you disapprove please pm me and I will remove the link. Why not consider providing it? 1. Less than 44% of respondents in the poll that has now been linked 3 times state they use multiple monitors. That is not a majority demand. 2. Game development is a business, and with that comes deadlines. Deadlines mean that features do not always see a full finish and instead get a slapdash finish on them to meet the deadline. This causes the next deadline cycle to get accelerated and cause more corner cutting. In the video by Shadowzone this is called technical debt. Technical debt is worrisome even to me with my limited experience coding. 3. Core features and functions should take priority and have the lions share of time devoted to them. There is only so much time in a work day or work week to get work done. I again would rather, much much rather and highly prefer as a future end user of KSP2 to know that the time of the developers was devoted to features 100% or near 100% of the users will be using instead of something for less than half of them. 4. I am not saying that technical debt is the ONLY reason to not include it. I AM saying that technical debt adds to the impracticality of trying to support a feature desired by less than 45% of users in that poll. I am also saying that taking time from other needed work on features that are game critical is an added cost factored into said impracticality. I am not trying to be snobbish or anti-multi monitor support. I am however being pragmatic about it. I as an end user cannot see as a potential customer a justification for them putting what is already limited time into the feature. I truly get that players want <not most, just some> this feature, but, again, I cannot see a positive cost/benefit of it for the whole of us. I just cannot see it. I try to see, but, I cannot. I hope you understand, but, for me, I have said all that I can say on this. I feel any more will be retreading already covered ground. 024207132020

@Draco T stand-up guy its not about what i alone want or do not want. I refer you back to that pc gamer poll that has now been linked twice into this thread. Once by me and once by @Bej Kerman . The numbers do not lie. Do people enjoy using 2+ monitors? Yes. Is there a majority demand for it in games? Using that poll as a guide: NO. You are asking for a feature wanted by under 44% of users to added in, adding more work for a dev team that has an already enormous job. That added work has a not insignificant chance of increasing technical debt as short cuts get taken on genuinely critical gameplay aspects just to meet the deadlines. Is this worth benefitting less than 44% of users? The answer again is no. 223407122020

@Draco T stand-up guy 1. Unneeded or unused code or programs is bloat. there really is no denying it or sidestepping it. 2. No. It is not a logic failure. I do not see games touting multiple monitor support as a buy me feature. I rarely if ever EVER see it. I am following the development of FS2020 very very closely and not even it as far as I have seen mentions it. 3. Dude. My computer is built with a very very specific game in mind. It was built to EXCEED by a significant margin the technical requirements to handle it. A game called Digital Combat Simulator World. This machine exceeds its VR recommended specs by a good ways. I am not trying to brag, just re-enforce the point that my machine is more than capable of a 2 monitor setup. with that said, I will conclude my point: Less than 50% of users in that poll I linked above use multimonitor, and less than 50% even with a better graphics card will not use it. I assert and will maintain that it is very likely to be a very unnecessary feature that will not benefit a good portion of players. I would rather as an end user see that development time put towards making sure game critical aspects like orbital mechanics, atmospherics, supply chains and so on. Again this is my opinion and frankly I feel like I am starting to repeat myself. I wish you well Draco. 000507122020

fair enough, but, id like to toss this out here for all to see. its a poll conducted by PC Gamer, and while it has less than 500 respondents it still is rather telling. Over 50% of respondents do not use multiple monitors, and again, when it asks those who said no if a better and faster graphics card would encourage it, they again over 50% responded no. I would say that in my opinion it would not be practical. I for one have room on my desk <its a desk I have had since around 7th grade, and I am class 2001 if that tells you just how old this desk is> for a single monitor. Even if I had a more open space financially for me, it is not practical. Yes, my computer is more than capable of it, I just have no need. I would imagine that others are of a similar mind in terms of viability or practicality. Just my opinion of course. 223607112020

@Draco T stand-up guy 1. Gargamel has made the claim as well. 2. Bej Kerman as well agrees. 3. It is not a widely touted feature indicating its a subset of users want it. 4. Given the fact a majority will make 0 use of it by definition makes it bloat code. Windowing a game is one thing, adding a second window running continuous updated game data is a new beast. That extra code if unused is bloat and the perfect roost for technical debt. Not worth it. 211607112020

I would hope they do NOT have this feature. As Gargamel said a SMALL SUBSET of players will make use of this. That means to appease such a small number of players they would force: 1. Bloat code that the majority of users will never use. 2. Increased technical debt which is never ever a good or welcome thing. Those two things are not worth it. Not by a long shot. While this is my opinion I can see some users that agree with my opinion. I truly hope they do not do this. 191307112020

Im a DIAMOND HARD pass. I dont find life support to be beneficial to me. I dont use any mod version and will never do so. I dont need that added tedium in my life. 020307112020

I dont see this adding anything to the game beyond more room for technical debt. Its just more complexity and more code to maintain. Not only that, for users like me who dont use multiple monitors youd be forcing bloated code on us. How much idk. My opinion ofc. 223107102020

I dont know. i use mechjeb, chatterer, planetary base systems, kis/kas, proc fairings, reentry given we will be able to build ground bases, planetary base systems or its function may be stock, if so, then im good. given the point i just made, kis/kas functionality may be in game stock. If so, im good. will we have as stock mechjebs functions? If yes, im good. proc fairings type functionality (not the stock attempt ksp1 has) as stock? If so, im good. will we have radio chatter? If so im good. plasma on entry? If so im good. will need to play or see real gameplay of these aspects/lack there of to know. 001307102020

@jimmymcgoochie fwiw, I find eva w/out KIS/KAS to be beyond dull. I play sandbox, because frankly, career and science are just too poorly implemented for my taste. tech tree makes 0 logical sense. sorry, but, probes MUST come before manned missions not the other way around <yes, I know, theres a mod for that, but that does not account for the other issue: > and the other issue is there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING to keep me invested in career. there is no story. there is no motivation for why anything is happening. yea, sure, kerbals explore and are near manically driven towards it, but, that's not enough for me. As for planetary bases, the complete lack of dedicated ground modules in KSP did not bother me at first, but, when I got interested in doing things on the ground, the lack of decent ground modules started to irk me. hence my list 045307092020