Feedback Requested: 1.0

[Kiro]

Optimization and bug fixes. If you really want to be out of beta, that is what you need to concentrate on. If you release a game full of bugs and crashes, than you are poised for disaster.

[Caelib]

I already left a comment, but I feel it's necessary to add a bit more weight to my opinion earlier.

If you're leaving Beta to go to 1.0, this should NEVER happen again:

Until it does, you're just asking for trouble. This is an incredibly common 'minor' glitch.

I've been playing for a few years and I've NEVER seen this or heard from anyone else about it. More than likely, this is a problem with your video card or driver and not an issue with the game. Can you post the results of you running a dxdiag?

[AmpsterMan]

This game needs to be polished for a 1.0 release. Therefore: Completion of aerodynamics, decide whether reentry heating will be a thing, completion of all major parts, rebalance of ALL parts (Stupid_Cris' mod is a good start), completion of interiors, and BUG FIXES.

Otherwise i think it's good to go

[nismobg]

Unity 5 -> New Aero -> Other stuff -> Optimization

[LostOblivion]

Fix the decoupler problem! Also, the memory leak issues are not so much a problem with the stock game, however it crashes eventually here as well, but more when using mods. Would also like to see an end to the stutters happening in the editor with frequent intervals.

Additionally, I cannot stress enough how many players will likely start their new "main" campaign in 1.0, so making things not change much after this is kinda important. Not that it has been much of an issue with you, Squad, but you cannot hide behind the "but it's still in alpha, so we can change what we want!" argument any more.

Edited March 18, 2015 by LostOblivion

[Lundmunchkins]

I would like to see more aircraft parts, such as smaller jet engines and better looking nose ones, larger wings, 1 meter crew cabins, and new landing gear. This doesn't need to be in the game, but I would like side-mounted jet engines. They could be able to swivel and be used for VTOLs, like the engines on the Harrier. An art overhaul of the older C7 spaceplane parts to make them look better with Porkjet's parts would be cool too. This would go nicely with a better aerodynamics model. Also, it would be cool to have all of the command pods and cockpits to be able to have their windows light up.

Helicopter parts would be cool.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Lundmunchkins

[BagelRabbit]

I feel as if I should collect all of the stuff I've said into one grand post. Prepare to read a lot (tl;dr section at the bottom).

[ORIGINALLY POSTED ON 5 MARCH]

I really appreciate all of the effort SQUAD is putting in, but I think that 1.0 will be so immensely buggy that it will require one or more immediate patches.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think I'm being relatively realistic here. After all, it's happened with nearly all previous releases, and some of these introduced only a small fraction of what 1.0 is going to.

What SQUAD is trying to do is to not only fix all of the bugs introduced by the 0.90 update (I'm still surprised that there was no 0.90.1 patch to take care of some of this), but it also must introduce an enormous number of new features. All of these features must be less buggy than usual, and all of these features must be extensively tested. As much as I respect the QA testers, I simply think that this is too much for any small group of people to test in any reasonable amount of time.

So!

While some of the new features are really good, I actually cringe when I see them, because I think that they will have some really nasty bugs. I would hate for SQUAD's triumphant release of 1.0, covered by so many websites and embraced by so many people, to have a patch a week after its release because thousands of people's games are breaking in some way or another. I know that this is "just another update," but unlike all of the other updates, it's much more important for SQUAD to get it right the first time. And I don't think that will happen.

If you could release an '0.99' update, which would be identical to the 1.0 update but not be considered the actual release, then we could squish bugs by the dozens, and 1.0 could be better. There's no real reason not to.

...and I don't care in the slightest about Unity 5.

-Upsilon

[EDIT: ...and while I'm posting here, I should mention that water needs a significant overhaul, both aesthetically and functionally. It's difficult to believe that water has been less forgiving to land on than land in KSP since it was actually rendered as something that was not solid, back in 0.8 or 0.9. This is badly needed, SQUAD. Can you please make it happen?]

After some people were talking about implementing Unity 5, I had this to say:

I personally think that Unity 5 is something that SQUAD should pursue in its spare time.

I actually think that updating the engine might not be the best thing to do at this point, because 1.0 will be buggy enough without having to change the code up a bit for Unity 5. Not only would this transfer likely introduce some bugs, but Unity 5 itself is buggy, and needs some time to have the kinks worked out.

Also, it would be a terrible thing to do for modders: I think that a lot of people were quite happy with the relatively easy mod-ability of 1.0, and this would destroy any of that.

That being said, I still think that an 0.99 release should be absolutely essential.

Most people who don't want an 0.99 update seem to state, "What's in a name, anyway? There's no problem with calling this update 1.0, because it's really no more different than any previous update." I understand that. However, we inhabitants of the Kerbal Space Program forum know far more about KSP's development process than the average consumer, which is why these sorts of statements are being made (IMO).

There will be a huge surge of publicity as KSP "leaves beta," and people unfamiliar to the game will start treating (and reviewing) the game like it's at a finished, stable state. It's currently not, and it almost certainly won't be for 1.0. There are already a number of bugs and glitches, ranging from the mildly annoying to the game-breaking, and this number will likely increase with the release of 1.0. If this happens, KSP might get some bad press - and might not profit as much as it could.

So, it would be in everyone's best interest to get the game as stable and non-buggy as possible before the release of 1.0. The best way to do this is to create an 0.99 release. It would let thousands of people test out the new features, find out where they don't work, and send reams of data to SQUAD. There's simply no better way to do it.

Just my $0.02USD.

-Upsilon

[Yesterday, SQUAD said it wished to pursue 1.0, for whatever reason. Knowing this, I tried to recommend actions to take for 1.0:]

Okay. Time for a really long rant. Sorry...

I don't want 1.0 to be buggy.

Like, it's possibly the most important thing that SQUAD has to improve, IMO.

Every time an update to KSP comes out, in general, it's buggy. I don't mean any disrespect to SQUAD, and I'm really fine with the fact that new updates aren't quite as stable initially, and may require patches and hotfixes.

However, when 1.0 comes out, everyone will expect it to be stable. After all, this is the first really "official" release to the game. If it's as buggy as any of the previous updates, then people just joining KSP may be irritated at the problems that crop up. It's not only going to need to eliminate many bugs that KSP currently has, but it's also going to have to add in a number of features that are nearly completely bug-free.

In the past, it seems as if squashing bugs hasn't been a tremendous priority for SQUAD:

• The radial decoupling bug has been present and extremely damaging for the last several updates. While SQUAD thought they squashed it, it just appeared in a different form.
  
• Kerbals falling off External Command Seats and being considered debris has been a thing ever since command seats were introduced, back in 0.20.
  
• There have been significant problems with docking ports not docking or undocking that have persisted for several versions.
  
• The Claw has introduced a number of game-breaking bugs that have yet to be fixed.
  
• You often can't set up maneuver nodes whilst on hyperbolic paths, which has persisted since maneuver nodes were introduced.
  
• Craft occasionally "collide with buildings" several kilometers away from the KSC; this has been a rare but known issue for several versions, and it hasn't yet been fixed.
  
• Occasionally, the VAB/SPH won't allow you to click on the buttons in the top right, so you can't launch or really do anything else.
  
• Kerbals climbing ladders still generates a phantom force, as it has since ladders were introduced.
  
• Many people have trouble even loading the game, for various reasons caused by bugs.
  

...and there are many, many more significant issues with the game as it is now, that haven't ever been addressed.

So, what should be done about this?

I would say that if KSP 1.0 absolutely needs:

• Immense amounts of bug-squashing. As mentioned above.
  
• Retexturing parts. The parts in KSP are of a variety of different quality levels, and they often don't "work" together aesthetically. This should definitely be fixed before 1.0, and it adds no bugs.
  
• Rebalancing parts. Some parts are ridiculously overpowered, while others quite underpowered. This does need to be fixed, and it shouldn't add any bugs either.
  
• Renaming parts. The descriptions of the new wing bits, for example, are placeholders. This should probably be fixed before 1.0.
  
• An aerodynamics overhaul. As worried as I am about this introducing new bugs, it most certainly needs to be done before the game can be considered finished.
  
• A water overhaul. Water in KSP is currently really ugly and more dangerous to land on than terra firma. Changing the water might introduce new bugs, but it wouldn't be that difficult to handle (I think).
  
• A sound overhaul. The sound in KSP isn't all that great, and it could easily be made better, from rocket noises to music to that really nasty bird-chirping noise while you're viewing the space center.
  
• A visual overhaul. KSP isn't a bad-looking game, but it would look even better with improved rocket flames, clouds, different ground textures for different biomes, and the like. Just as long as it's not too hard on your CPU.
  
• Keep the female Kerbals! It's good to make people of both genders feel empowered and welcome.
  
• Update tutorials. It's not that difficult to do, and the current tutorials seem limited and often have grammatical errors.
  
• Maybe other stuff. I wouldn't do it if I were you though. No ISRU, please. It's really not needed, it's buggy, and it distracts y'all from more important stuff.
  

You can add other stuff, but I personally wouldn't. There's no real reason to, in my opinion. It's better to have a strong foundation going into 1.0 than it is to build a bunch of fancy stuff onto a weak base.

And that's my two cents.

By the way, thank you for seeking our opinions on this matter! I really appreciate that you're trying to make a connection with us and seeing what we want.

-Upsilon

tl;dr: I'm still not sure why SQUAD isn't comfortable with releasing more beta versions. They could have a 1.0 that was not only "feature complete" but also bug-free. Or, they could pursue their current path and sacrifice one or the other for no readily apparent reason. The community doesn't like this, new players and reviewers won't like this, and it puts arbitrary strain on SQUAD. The choice is crystal clear, for me at least.

SQUAD should ensure that 1.0 isn't buggy. That's their biggest priority. In addition, they should probably overhaul all of the "placeholders" that have been added to the game over the years. If they can do this, I feel as if KSP will be ready for an incomplete, but still playable, 1.0. If they try for the current feature list, the game probably won't work very well. And no one wants a nonfunctional "first official release" version.

Sorry for the incredibly long post. I just want to re-iterate my opinions on this matter.

If you give this post and others like it some serious thought, SQUAD and Maxmaps, I will send a hand-written letter thanking you profusely. And I hate sending hand-written letters.

Edited March 18, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace

[John FX]

Add me to the optimisation and bugfix crowd.

Until recently memory crashes were not a thing for me, then lots of stock content was added and now having the memory footprint go up every scene change crashes my game regularly.

Yes it is because of mods but mods make the game for me.

My vote would be for bug fixes so that if the game runs on boot, it continues to be stable even after many scene changes.

Also, making stock every one of Claws Stock Bug Fixes.

(Also fix the NASA claw part, it's a bit... unpredictable)

One big thing though is to replace all the placeholders with the things that are supposed to replace them, like the insta-chutes being replaced with chris's realchutes for example. To my mind the game is not ready to release if it is chock full of placeholders...

Edited March 18, 2015 by John FX

[JimmyAgent007]

Finally it has been revealed why there is this apparent rush to 1.0: there is a deadline, and it can not be moved.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2zeeuv/devnote_tuesday_experimenting_and_researching/cpi6ppw

There is this.

[sarbian]

From MaxMaps and Harv replies on reddit (at least we had a post here too this time) they seems to be dead set on 1.0 as the next release.

One problem with that feedback request is that we don't really know the current state of the features and what was fixed. The dev update give us a glimpse but far from the full picture. From what I understand the new aero is done and only need QA and bug fixing, but what is the state of the other features and what was fixed ? I don't see the point in expressing my view that X should wait for 1.1 if X is already 100% done and tested.

[Van Disaster]

Suggestion thread or not, that comparison is staggering! (though in not so keen on ether of those sky boxes).

almost every youtuber uses EVE mod. why squad have not implemented these kinds of visual enhancements in stock is a mystery to me.

Possibly one of those things that was on the "nice things to do once we've freed some memory for it" list, or maybe it was a style decision at one point. There seems to have been at least two schools of art thought anyway, what with the realism/cutesy clash of the game, but the planet surfaces at least look rather like placeholders rather than "planet cute".

I am not terribly fond of my custom skybox either, but I don't dislike it enough to swap it out and the top one is the default which was rather the point...

[Merinsan]

There is this.

I saw that too. Honestly, it makes me wonder why they even asked for feedback, as Harvester himself has said the only option is to focus on quality.

I'm glad this is their focus, and I don't know what else to say.

[tater]

Here's my recommendations for prioritizing features for 1.0. Let form follow function, as they always say.

4. Early Career Mode needs to be more forgiving for new players

I'm honestly unsure as to how that could possibly happen since it's already pretty easy, you'd have to actively try to fail, IMO (I started in August, and while my first game was in "science" mode, I was landing on the Mun my first evening of play).

[monstah]

I also want to point out that, like some other people here have said, I'm in no rush to see 1.0. I'm not doing the "0.91 pleeease" routine, I'm just saying i think you should take your time, and release it when it's done.

[michaelhester07]

Nice to have:

Career mode: need to re balance the profit margins on contracts. The part testing contracts all have such low margins that I can barely break even on them while the satellite launch, space station and base launches all have a nearly 5-1 profit margin (on normal settings). The satellite one is an even higher margin when I can use the same satellite for more than one contract.

[klgraham1013]

I saw that too. Honestly, it makes me wonder why they even asked for feedback, as Harvester himself has said the only option is to focus on quality.

I'm glad this is their focus, and I don't know what else to say.

Yet Maxmap contradicted this.

I think I've got myself a new signature.

[damerell]

Finally, I think the whole "reviewers are going to kill this game" is overblown.

Quite. KSP is a million miles away from the traditional situation where the game came out and you read an actual print magazine to find out if it was bobbins; it's quite a long way away from a triple-A game today where it comes out and then you watch Youtube videos ditto. From an extensive survey of games review sites (er, one) - Rock, Paper, Shotgun first mentions KSP in July 2011, frequently thereafter, generally positively. Even if they do hate 1.0, it's hardly going to have the same impact on the readership as if that was the first mention of it.

KSP seems to me much more akin to a game like Dwarf Fortress where people are already reasonably well aware of what's on the table, whether or not they've ever tried it; there's a wealth of Let's Plays and the like to show what it's like; and any given version is never going to be taken as all that special, to be singled out as What This Game Is Like.

That said I'd quite like the memory leaks addressed, ahem, and I think it would be terrible if Valentina got pushed back.

[r4pt0r]

hey at least the Superman 64 Devs hit their deadline

hey at least the Master Chief Collection Devs hit their deadline

hey at least the Sims 4 Devs hit their deadline

Max on reddit-

Maybe it's best for some stuff to wait til 1.1.

This philosophy is incomprehensible to me.

"Well I want to have this painting done by this Monday, I'll just paint in these clouds, call it finished, and then I'll finish painting the trees in on Tuesday, Splendid"

"But that means it wasn't finished on Monday"

"Sure it was, because I said it was. I'll just have more work to do later on still"

[Jarin]

Quite. KSP is a million miles away from the traditional situation where the game came out and you read an actual print magazine to find out if it was bobbins; it's quite a long way away from a triple-A game today where it comes out and then you watch Youtube videos ditto.

Well, it's not an entirely unjustified fear. Games like Planetary Annihilation were raked over the coals for early releases, even though they'd been in open testing for a long time and the state of the game was no secret. And the fact that Minecraft is the only early-access game I've seen actually continue full development after release (while seeing countless others stall and eventually just stop) certainly makes me nervous.

Also

I think every KSP player would much prefer that art/animation talent being focused on producing and polishing in-game content rather than 30second clips that we will watch once if that.

[CptRichardson]

Quite. KSP is a million miles away from the traditional situation where the game came out and you read an actual print magazine to find out if it was bobbins; it's quite a long way away from a triple-A game today where it comes out and then you watch Youtube videos ditto. From an extensive survey of games review sites (er, one) - Rock, Paper, Shotgun first mentions KSP in July 2011, frequently thereafter, generally positively. Even if they do hate 1.0, it's hardly going to have the same impact on the readership as if that was the first mention of it.

KSP seems to me much more akin to a game like Dwarf Fortress where people are already reasonably well aware of what's on the table, whether or not they've ever tried it; there's a wealth of Let's Plays and the like to show what it's like; and any given version is never going to be taken as all that special, to be singled out as What This Game Is Like.

That said I'd quite like the memory leaks addressed, ahem, and I think it would be terrible if Valentina got pushed back.

From the looks of things, Valentina is one of the done things according to the devblogs. I'd rather see resources pushed back.

[Tw1]

Reading between the lines, it really looks like Squad doesn't know what to do with what they have. It's like they swerved the car off the road and now that it's plummeting into the ravine, they're turning around and asking us for opinions on how to make it better.

Personally, I thought this moment was coming ages ago when they began developing career, and revealed science to be designed as a point scoring mechanism, rather than something designed to bring the experience of exploring another planet to life.

One problem is, they've made grinding the key way to achieve in a game about space exploration.

Plus, where they could have made career's focus about managing and running a space program. Giving you tools for tracking your budget and planning trajectories, and challenges like making sure you don't let kerbalnauts starve, doing enough interesting things to keep the population interested and funding you, and keeping your ) they instead made it about unlocking things. Things you need to go space exploring.

It's not that running a space center type things aren't there, they just seem to play second fiddle to the goal of unlocking things. New buildings, or new parts in the list are big and obvious, whereas your achievements in science are buried away as a fairly non-descript list.

Plus, it is rather backwards. The purpose of your space exploration is to unlock better tools for space exploration? And once your space center is fully operational, you've finished the game?

Off course, you could go land on all the planets, but there's not a lot to do, land, click on science, fly away not needing to return.

I don't think they've re-thought the plan a great deal since the game was just a rocket builder. Contracts do go some way to filling in the gaps, but only carrying out tasks that other companies have requested of you doesn't give you a great sense of ownership over your space activities.

[ajburges]

1.0 means you will be reviewed.

They will rip you a new one if some of the game-breaking bugs are still not addressed. Prioritize that. After that change the aero model to something less silly and rebalance parts/contracts/resources/tech tree. Then look at new features, but be careful introducing new stuff in 1.0. You want any issues to be things that can be corrected via patch in 48 hours.

The game has a good, solid feature set to work from currently. Polish that before review.

[forenci]

This is extremely valid. As a professional software developer, I would never be thinking about adding big features in the run up to 'live' day. Either features were there for the 'final' beta test, or they're happening after it goes live, or the deadline is pushed back and another beta round happens. The only thing that happens between the actual last beta and the first live release are simple bugfixes that can be internally verified.

...you should kinda know this, Squad.

That said, it is clear that this community will gladly offer their time to test the begeebus out of what has been implemented thus far, and Squad, I really think you should consider taking them up on that offer. That is a remarkable show of loyalty and interest; with most games, people would just want the thing to launch so's they could start a new save, but this community wants it to launch well, even if that means launching later than they'd like and continuing to play careers that they know will be deleted in the great purge of 1.0.

Please make use of the massive testing resource this community is offering!

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).

[BrainiacBlue]

Whislt I beleive that the goal list should *cough* have been reviewed *cough* at some point in the last few years *cough* I think you should only do one additional feature: finish the Kerbol System to add those gas giants and asteroid belt that you said you would a few months ago back when we were still in Alpha.

Other than that just add all of the polish. And please do your best to stop the textures from flickering when they cross - its quite annoying when building.

[r4pt0r]

-snip 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.

well actually....

The next release will be 1.0, it's a milestone we (as a team) are holding ourselves towards. Even if we don't have a publisher, even if we can set our deadlines to whenever we please, to do so just to make sure we can add every cool feature we think about is irresponsible and a bad practice for our development in general.

To use a metaphor, they are moving the finish line closer(by prematurely calling it 1.0), but claim they are still going to go the whole distance(by actually continuing development and finishing the game)

So calling it 1.0 doesn't matter, because the feature complete version of the game will be 1.1 or ,much likely, higher. So why call it 1.0 now when its still undone?