Feedback Requested: 1.0

[gmiddlemass]

It's a very minor thing but I'd like to see more uniformity in the quality and texturing of the parts with the v1.0 release. The quality of your latest parts is just leaps and bounds ahead of the older stuff (the new IVA'a spring to mind compared with the originals for example).

I've just tried Ven's excellent "Stock Part Revamp" for the first time and the quality of the parts in his mod really lifts the game up to a more finished level in my opinion.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92764-90-Stock-Part-Revamp-Update-1-7-2%21?highlight=1.7.2

Other than that I would echo the feelings of a few others here i.e.

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
   

[Wallygator]

Max and team,

Please scrap the entire kerbal skills coming from experience concept. It's about as real as the current aero model. Stop forcing players to bow to their subcontractors for funds to support exploration. Make the models a proportional size to a suited Kerbal.

And also meet your commitments that you have already communicated. Scrap your schedule and create a realistic dev plan that can deliver. Then derive an internal release date target. And stop setting expectations that you have no possibility of meeting.

[Starhawk]

Max seemed to indicate last night that delta-v display is the feature (one of the features?) that they are thinking of leaving out of 1.0. It seems to me that this thread would have a lot less fud and a lot more constructive feedback if that had been mentioned in the OP.

Max, if you really want feedback, please give us enough context to provide it.

Ditch the delta-v display. Balance, bugfix, polish, repeat.

Happy landings!

[Hanuman]

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?

You're not giving nearly enough information to make an informed decision in our feedback. You've got nearly 40 pages of people trying to guess what features your talking about and how it matters to them, interspersed with some panic over the number "1.0".

If this is all I get to go on, then I say slap a 1.0 sticker on it, clean up every single bug you can find in what you've got done now, and release it ASAP. That way I can stop reading the panic posts, and get a new version of the game to play with less bugs and whatever new things are ready.

[Wallygator]

You're not giving nearly enough information to make an informed decision in our feedback. You've got nearly 40 pages of people trying to guess what features your talking about and how it matters to them, interspersed with some panic over the number "1.0".

If this is all I get to go on, then I say slap a 1.0 sticker on it, clean up every single bug you can find in what you've got done now, and release it ASAP. That way I can stop reading the panic posts, and get a new version of the game to play with less bugs and whatever new things are ready.

Can't argue with that. Well said.

[Violent Jeb]

A 1.0 shouldn't have bugs. It should be balanced and playable.

Matter of fact, it should also include all the features that were promised, AND be balanced and playable.

So you'd better do all of that by 1.0, that is the release version you know - I know I didn't decide to make it 1.0, but that is the expectation.^

Edited March 22, 2015 by Violent Jeb
update

[kimiko]

Stability.

I haven't played KSP in months, and it is definitely not because the lack of content. Head over to the add-on forum and there is content enough for a lifetime. The reason I haven't played is because the game can't handle all the content in is current state. I.e. although there is content available, it cannot be used anyway.

I'd say focus on stability, and creating the proper foundation for add-on creators to create even more content. Then let the wonders of co-creation (read Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2006, 2008) and crowd development take care of the rest.

This game has always thrived on the user-created content, although the creators may not have noticed, and is probably the reason most people ended up playing this in the first place. At least, for me, if it weren't for Scott Manley I would not have even known its existence. There is a reason games like Skyrim is still being widely played today, four years after, and still having tons of content being created (e.g. mods, youtube videos etc.). VHS pushed out Betamax for the same reason. Smart-phone app market library is endless for the same reason. Linux, as a desktop environment, is still alive and usable. Minecraft. And also the reason people even want to buy a Raspberry Pi. The list of examples is endless.

KSP is a sandbox game, a "Lego" game if you like, and should be treated as such in every aspect - Which indecently coincidences perfectly with modern marketing theory and techniques.

You cannot build a house on poor foundation, and if you do you better not have people (players) living inside it. So I vote for stability. Doesn't matter how it's done: if that comes with Unity 5, tinkering, or a whole new engine, stability should be the end result.

Edited March 22, 2015 by kimiko
Language

[Kerbal01]

don't release until its ready. you should update to Unity 5 for stability and take the time to completely switch to the new eva animation now while its easier so it doesn't cause you significant problems in the future. take your time squad, make 1.0 worthy of the title.

[keeper]

so long as your making more versions after v1.0 (and you plan on) i dont think v1.0 will be the finished product.

/excitement.

So do whatever. Fix bugs. Balance the game. or Add more stuffs. Just dont stop!

[Francois424]

Was the "EVA Catapulting" fixed in the upcoming 1.0 ? I was playing my new game yesterday (lot's of EVAs for SCIENCE!) and I kept being thrown clear of the craft. If not I kept sliding down the ladder until I "let go" of it.

Pretty annoying bugs (not game breaking, but still).

[Commander Jebidiah]

Why is everyone so obsessed with clouds.

They may make the game look nicer but for some people ot isnt possoble to run and get descent fps.

Them people aka me.

If thay are added they'd better have an option to disable them. However they need to get rid of the white glow of the lpwer atmo and make it a light blue.

[Twreed87]

Matter of fact, it should also include all the features that were promised, AND be balanced and playable.

Well it'll definitely have all the features they promised. Which is, you know, none. Because they've always, always said their plans are subject to change and they reason they're so sparse with info about upcoming releases is that people like you take it as a promise and freak out if their plans change, like they owe you something.

The only thing they really need to worry about is bug fixes, which I'm sure they'll take care of. They have a dedicated testing team for that (two, actually).

[Madrias]

1.0 should focus on stability. I hate to say it, but new features have been what's proven the game is unstable in the past.

For me, 23.5 x64 was stupidly stable (more so than the x86 version, as it reduced the memory problems). 25 x64 was so unstable that I had to drop back to x86 and the memory leaks started to kick my butt. 90 added more stuff, and so I looked to -force-opengl to cut the memory costs before I felt comfortable playing.

Yes, I use mods. I can go back through my saved versions and notice with every update, I had a decrease in the size of my GameData folder.

So if I had to choose between Even Moar Features! and Let's Squish The Bugs! I'm going to say, Kill the bugs, plug the leaks, and release a clean game to the public.

Because, let's face it, you're going to get eaten alive by critics (never met a nice one, at least). It's better to be called out for having "Not enough features" than to be called out for having "Way too many bugs." Consider it this way: the Kraken may be our playful way of dealing with crashes, bugs, inexplicable savegame losses, and generally anything dealing with explosions. Critics won't have this in mind and they won't be laughing when their ship suddenly explodes, they get the Hell Kraken, and can't load their save.

If you want to release cool features for 1.0, then you need to release a 0.99.0 release full of bugfixes.

[SickSix]

From what i am reading Unity 5 is kind of a unicorn.

Unity 5 would most likely kill all old save files.

The Devs have stated their isn't enough time for Unity 5 conversion before their 1.0 deadline.

Do you really think a developer would release a patch after full retail release that would kill everyone's save games? Possibly months after release? That would be suicide.

[Merinsan]

Was the "EVA Catapulting" fixed in the upcoming 1.0 ? I was playing my new game yesterday (lot's of EVAs for SCIENCE!) and I kept being thrown clear of the craft. If not I kept sliding down the ladder until I "let go" of it.

Pretty annoying bugs (not game breaking, but still).

Had the same experience yesterday also. While not game breaking it could be. Imagine doing an EVA while on EVE in the ascent vehicle, and the kerbal lets go of the ladder. He'll fall to his death. That's more than just annoying.

There is also another annoying bug which needs to be fixed - the one where you can't create maneuver nodes after a while. To fix it, you need to go back to the space center, then back to the ship. You then lose your revert flight options, which will break the game for some people who use that.

Get enough annoying bugs, and the game is broken.

- - - Updated - - -

From what i am reading Unity 5 is kind of a unicorn.

Unity 5 would most likely kill all old save files.

The Devs have stated their isn't enough time for Unity 5 conversion before their 1.0 deadline.

Do you really think a developer would release a patch after full retail release that would kill everyone's save games? Possibly months after release? That would be suicide.

Not sure where you are getting the information from, but I doubt unity 5 will break saves. Saves simply contain information about where ships are - that shouldn't change, and if it does, should be easy to migrate.

[klgraham1013]

Why is everyone so obsessed with clouds.

They may make the game look nicer but for some people ot isnt possoble to run and get descent fps.

Them people aka me.

Graphic. Settings.

- - - Updated - - -

Was the "EVA Catapulting" fixed in the upcoming 1.0 ? I was playing my new game yesterday (lot's of EVAs for SCIENCE!) and I kept being thrown clear of the craft. If not I kept sliding down the ladder until I "let go" of it.

Pretty annoying bugs (not game breaking, but still).

I actually do consider this game breaking for a 1.0 release. These things should not happen.

[Gargamel]

First off, it's nice to see Squad asking here, instead of other forums. This is the official forum. I understand the marketing angle of reddit and whatnot, but shouldn't most conversations happen here?

Fix the bugs, there will always be bugs, but get the game as smooth as possible, and then add content.

But bugs apply to content as well. Take a look at the mods, see what people are using to change the way the game plays in fundamental ways. Example, the science mod better than starting manned is a cry from the players that they think the science tree is designed wrong.

But any way it goes, thanks Squad for a great game!

[Rithsom]

There is also another annoying bug which needs to be fixed - the one where you can't create maneuver nodes after a while. To fix it, you need to go back to the space center, then back to the ship. You then lose your revert flight options, which will break the game for some people who use that.

Maneuver nodes in general need to be fixed. They are too finicky in my opinion, sometimes cannot be placed while on an escape trajectory, and automatically close if you zoom out too far.

[delder92663]

I've never been able to get too far in .90 career mode without starting over because of bugs. I'd like to really be able to do some major building out of my program but stability is a major obstacle.

[Eric S]

Was the "EVA Catapulting" fixed in the upcoming 1.0 ? I was playing my new game yesterday (lot's of EVAs for SCIENCE!) and I kept being thrown clear of the craft. If not I kept sliding down the ladder until I "let go" of it.

Pretty annoying bugs (not game breaking, but still).

I'm annoyed with it enough to stop playing for a while, so I asked about it during one of the prior squadcasts, and the impression they gave was that the climbing code that lets kerbals climb on top of something that only has a ladder on the side may fix this. We'll see.

[-Velocity-]

I'd prefer a mix. There are some features that are sorely missing, though. I donno if it's planned or not, but not having any clouds on Kerbin, Laythe, Eve, and Duna feels very wrong. For me, it strongly kills my immersion into the game to see these bodies without clouds. No other visual effect is needed as badly as clouds.

Another change that might be nice, except for flag-planting, there is very little contract rewards for landing Kerbals on the surface of bodies. You don't even have to bring them back. IMO, there needs to be a "land and return Kerbal(s) from the surface of _____" contract! That was the driving "contract" for NASA in the 1960s!

Additionally, an "occupation" contract might be nice, like, "have Kerbal(s) continuously on the surface (or at least, suborbital) of body ____ for time span ____".

[Sidereus]

Bugfixing and optimization really should be your priorities. The memory leaks in particular need to be tracked down and bludgeoned. Everything else is gravy.

[Blaf]

According to my (therefore very subjective) preference, i would say some form of life support and "robotics" features are mandatory for 1.0, since the game feels somewhat incomplete without them.

On the other hand some small bugs here and there can be expected on the release, but ofc no game-breakers should occure.

[Random Tank]

Wanna know what would get me the most hyped for 1.0 (as my Hype levels are currently hovering around 0%)? A nice big list saying this:

The Decoupler Bug - FIXED

Crafts sometimes sticking to the launchpad - FIXED

Crafts randomly colliding with a launchpad/runway while travelling in space - FIXED

The Decoupler Bug - FIXED

Pol's Surface actually being a random amount of km's above where it looks like it is - FIXED

Chutes disappearing when you quickload - FIXED

Planes veering wildly off the runway when their Landing Gear is <1 degrees off perpendicular to the ground - FIXED

The Tier 1 runway actually being MORE bumpy than the terrain around it - FIXED

The Decoupler bug - FIXED

Buildings being destroyed when you land a 100t rocket on them at 0.5m/s - FIXED

Kerbals being ejected from the Mk1 Command pod when going on EVA - FIXED

THAT STUPID RAM LEAK - FIXED

The Claw randomly disassembling craft upon vessel unpack - FIXED

The Decoupler bug - FIXED

Kerbals that fall out of a command seat becoming debris - FIXED

Kerbals rag-dolling when they bump their head lightly - FIXED

Being able to Inifiniglide - FIXED

I could go on but I think my point has been made....

[monstah]

I believe infiniglide is already fixed, but yeah, I agree with that.

The head-bump-insta-ragdoll infuriates me.