Feedback Requested: 1.0

[Maxmaps]

Hey guys. Basically looking at the current feature list we need to look at our work in general and consider working on polish, bugfixing and balance in certain areas of the game instead of some of the new features we're working in. Going specific instead of going wide. We don't plan on stopping work at 1.0 at all, so we're maybe better off leaving some stuff for 1.1 and getting to work on the specifics of what can make the existing stuff in the game truly shine.

We've decided that the next release will be 1.0 because it accomplishes the goals we've set up with the development of KSP from the very beginning, my question to you is whether you'd prefer we try and add more features, or focus more on things like the aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance?

[Mr Tiddles]

I'd probably like a bit of 60%-40%

Add the stuff you want to add first, and then fix it up. But thats just me. Do what ever you guys see fit!

[stibbons]

Work on what you've got now. You're right, the game doesn't need any new features pre-1.0.

[Kozak]

Multiplayer is a must!! Id love to see the aerodynamics improved though

[mythbusters844]

It'd be great to improve SRBs a bit kinda like how it's been discussed in this thread, with variable thrust curves, etc.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Fix the memory leaks! New features are great, especially the aero, but there are bugs that need to be fixed before this goes "official 1.0 ready for the world etc. etc. etc."

[Scotius]

More content or stable® game? Both would be appreciated But if we have to chose, i vote for improving the under-the-hood features. While i would love to have new places to go and stuff to do, frequent crashes and Kraken attacks tend to ruin the fun as it is.

[AbhChallenger]

1.1 Should be mostly reserved for making use of Unity 5 in my opinion. And possibly the return of the 64 bit client if Unity 5 permits it.

For 1.0 balance and the aero overhaul is a must. You don't want to have to do that at the same time as the complicated process of switching to the newer engine.

Then again that is IF Unity 5 is ready for KSP. Is it not ready?

[Tw1]

While there are certainly things to improve, and really think that the original goals should have been reviewed at some point (*cough* sceince *cough* ground exploration *cough*) it probably makes more sense to polish up stuff.

Unless you work on important optimisations, like on demand loading, multi-thread physics, etc, but that stuff sounds like it would take a while.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Tw1

[SpenSpaceCorp]

I would have to agree with Tw1 in that science could be worked on in some way (whether that be the addition of new parts or tests, etc), or even mapping technology (for elevations, depths, possibly magnetic fields, etc. Although it isn't quite necessary, it would be pretty sweet!

[Azimech]

Optimization and bug fixing. If optimization is useless because of the coming of Unity5, then focus on Unity5.

[pincushionman]

It depends on your planned release date, Max.

If it's next month...all bugfixes. Please.

If it's...say...July 15 (40th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz docking and handshake and official end of the Space Race *nudge nudge*)...well, that's another thing entirely. To have an opinion we need to know how much time you can afford to devote to anything in particular.

But that said, if there's anything that we can afford to wait on, it's ISRU. Bug fixes and balancing is a MUST HAVE. And a sizable fraction of the community feels that as the aero system is admitted to be a placeholder system, it falls into the category of "bug." That, and any balancing is meaningless until the new system is in place, since it has a disproportionate effect on your ability to launch. Heating could probably come later, but I don't know how closely related those systems will be.

Oh, and I'd recommend you put this as a poll; it would allow for quicker "big picture" view of the opinions; plus, that would give us a better idea of what categories of things you folks think can be feasibly separated from one another. That and with the latest release cycle being closed, it's tough to keep track of which systems you've been working on without reading through a bunch of older information.

And one more thing...Thank you for asking this on your forum. We all appreciate that very much here.

Edited March 17, 2015 by pincushionman

[Rocket Farmer]

Personally I play totally stock and I see very few bugs. I think many of the bugs are mod issues so adding content that replaces mods will probably make for on average a more stable play.

Also the thing with bugs is that you can squish them now but as soon as you start incorporating other new content they will pop up again requiring more squishing. This will probably be especially true if you guys go up to Unity 5.

So my vote is to add new content and worry about most of the bugs later (just please fix the asymmetrical burnout of jets, I know you guys have been working on it).

[WOODY01]

For me bug fixes, balance, polish the existing features and graphics and aero would make me happy

Then focus on switching engines if performance improvements can be gained by doing so. Not supporting 64x is the biggest limiting factor for me, holding me back when designing what I really want to because I do not want too high of part counts.

[genbrien]

I think aero, tutorials and bug fixes are a must for 1.0

Having the game shipped with the old aero model than some weeks/ months later putting the new one might/will confuse new players.

After you can finish ressources and other things.

IMHO

[Rocket Farmer]

It depends on your planned release date, Max.

If it's next month...all bugfixes. Please.

If it's...say...July 15 (40th anniversary of the Apollo-Soyuz docking and handshake and official end of the Space Race *nudge nudge*)...well, that's another thing entirely. To have an opinion we need to know how much time you can afford to devote to anything in particular.

But that said, if there's anything that we can afford to wait on, it's ISRU. Bug fixes and balancing is a MUST HAVE. And a sizable fraction of the community feels that as the aero system is admitted to be a placeholder system, it falls into the category of "bug." That, and any balancing is meaningless until the new system is in place, since it has a disproportionate effect on your ability to launch. Heating could probably come later, but I don't know how closely related those systems will be.

Oh, and I'd recommend you put this as a poll; it would allow for quicker "big picture" view of the opinions; plus, that would give us a better idea of what categories of things you folks think can be feasibly separated from one another. That and with the latest release cycle being closed, it's tough to keep track of which systems you've been working on without reading through a bunch of older information.

And one more thing...Thank you for asking this on your forum. We all appreciate that very much here.

Very valid comment. Personally I also so take your time and release when the content is in and the major bugs are squished.

[NWDogg]

While I think that the aero overhaul and bugfixing are necessary for 1.0, I honestly think you should consider pushing the balancing back to 1.1. There are going to be plenty of out-there scenarios and situations that won't get covered in testing, inevitably, so there very well could still be balance issues after 1.0. The same goes for bugs too, but it's best to squash as many of those as possible at every opportunity.

As for the feature set...I dunno, of course it is your call but you will get bugs introduced with these new features no matter what. You will need to fix bugs after 1.0, and if you hold back features until 1.1, you will need to fix bugs after 1.1 as well. Plus, again with the balancing, once you introduce new features you will need to re-evaluate the balance of parts again.

To me, it seems like pulling off a Band-Aid. Do it all at once and get the pain out of the way, or do it slowly and feel the pain the whole time. I would tear it off quickly, if it were up to me. (I also guarantee I'm the only one of this opinion, so you should probably go with what everyone else says.)

[AbhChallenger]

Remember that 1.0 will be the version reviewers get their hands on. It really does need all the stuff they had originally announced for it. Even if it means it will take another month or two for it to happen.

1.1 REallllllllllllly needs to be about Unity 5. Personally I doubt another Unity game needed to switch to 5 as badly as KSP. If that is the plan do you want them to have the distraction of trying to play feature catchup at the same time?

[Taleric]

If you do it right bug fixing and balancing can have the appearance of additional features. Anything that requires new assets or mechanics should be kept to one an update at the most.

[helaeon]

1.0 needs to look and run like it's finished. That will give a better foundation to build on for 1.1 as well.

Aero should be done and working well. If this could extend to water landings not being extremely dangerous for multi-part objects that would be awesome.

All known bugs need to be squershed... as well as those memory leaks. An optimization pass would be excellent.

Promised new features should be polished up and done. Personally what's already been announced is more than enough. Though... I think clouds as stock goes a long way to things looking "done" (kind of goes with aero).

Clean, polish, clean, polish, polish. It will pay off when trying to add stuff later on.

[Merinsan]

I would prefer you get more features into the game before 1.0, for a few reasons.

1. I'm personally tired of restarting saves, to experience the new features.

2. This is the version that will be judged/reviewed. If the game is released without all your planned features, or you introduce new features later that break a save game, it wont be nice for players (who are not into early access). When I say "break save", I mean new features that would require you to start a new career mode to experience them. If for example re-entry heat comes in in 1.1, this would break saves, because people planning a re-entry without the appropriate heat shielding would not be able to continue. Even adding new parts, to some extent breaks things, because you don't get get to structure your career to take this node in the tree into account.

Having said all that, if you are going to persist with the idea of adding features later, then definitely do optimizations and bug fixes for 1.0. My son was not able to play KSP .90 simply because his computer didn't have enough RAM (4GB) on 32 bit architecture. I've since got him a new computer, but that was a good computer (with an old OS), and should have run the game.

[sherkaner]

I'd rather see you focus on getting both the features and refinement, even if it meant significantly pushing off the release timeframe for 1.0. As wonderful as KSP is, I keep looking forward to it really being a "finished" game that has both the breadth and depth to invest time in in career mode and not have it feel somewhat less than totally satisfying because it's "not all there" yet.

That said, since you guys clearly have a nearer-term 1.0 release goal that's forcing some compromises, I'd absolutely be more excited about getting the features you have really worked out than adding a lot of new features. I think for a general audience coming into the game for the first time at 1.0 that would be the better choice as well. Better to have the the game feel very worked out for the features there currently and then add more breadth later. Particularly if you're talking about things like bug fixing, aero, tech tree/parts balancing, and well thought-out career contracts, I think those are exactly the things that you need to take KSP from a game that's "very good for a pre-release" to something that could, in some sense, be considered "done". Honestly, I'd even extend that into getting the graphics looking generally less prototype-ish looking.

It will probably make more work for later, as I imagine some of the "feature additions" may drive another big round of game balancing and refinement, but I still think you'd be better served going that way.

Edited March 17, 2015 by sherkaner

[tntristan12]

Bug fixes are important, but I think even moreso is getting the entire experience to gel better than it does. Currently KSP exists as a bunch of disparate features with little to no connective tissue between them (Asteroids and Science being some of the best examples). Pilots still feel extraneous, unmanned probes should be encouraged more (starting off the tech tree with unmanned pods would help this a bit). Kerbal experience seems tacked on. Et cetera, et cetera.

Ultimately I think more features should be added, but the real priority should be in making the existing features fit together better than they currently do. Of course, squashing bugs is also important. However, in my mind, the experience should come first. You can squash bugs as the opportunities to do so arise.

P.S. For the record, I still think you guys are jumping the gun a bit on calling this next update 1.0. If you feel like the team has bitten off more than it can chew, there is absolutely no shame whatsoever in calling this next update 0.91, and saving the "final" release for when you have squashed all the bugs, and implemented all the features that are currently on your list.

Edited March 17, 2015 by tntristan12

[Xavven]

If I were to prioritize the main changes you have planned for 1.0, I would do this:

High Priority

1. New Aerodynamic Model
   
2. Fairings
   
3. Tech Tree Rebalance
   
4. Part balancing / General game balance
   
5. ISP affects thrust instead of fuel consumption
   

Medium Priority

1. Re-entry Heat
   
2. Deep Space Refueling (ISRU)
   

Low Priority

1. Female Kerbals
   
2. Delta-V Readings
   
3. Design Concerns in the VAB/SPH
   
4. Warp to point in orbit
   

[Unabled]

Implement Aero overhaul and everything that goes along with that, reentry heating, fairings and whatever else. If you are set on making the next update 1.0, then most of the focus should be polishing. Hit all those things left unfinished, or that need attention. Things like the placeholder terrain scatter you can phase through should not be in a 1.0. Everything should get at least some polish before 1.0.

Take your time, you only get one chance...