Feedback Requested: 1.0

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Focus on bugfixing and optimization, this is one of the most horribly optimized games I've ever played, and it really needs it.

[InterCity]

I vote for the aero overhaul and debugging. With the awesome mod API you've made, you can (I think) just leave the content to the community, or come up with more later. If you could tweak performance as well, it would be great (I'm playing on a wooden pc :/).

[sumghai]

Highest priority for 1.0 should be optimization (as much as Unity 4 permits) and some form of Load On Demand of assets.

Other than that, I'm happy with anything else SQUAD likes or can fit into this upcoming release.

[Brotoro]

It seems like you are asking us if we want:

Option 1 - fewer features with better polish...or

Option 2 - more features with continued bugginess.

Much as I will be sad to see certain announced features delayed, it seems to me that the only professional choice for something called "Version 1.0" is Option 1.

Apparently my preferred choice of Option 3 (Take more time...to do more features, all debugged and polished...by popping out a couple intermediate updates, before you annoint it "1.0") is off the table.

If you decide to go with Option 1, you could lessen the pain by letting us know as soon as possible which items will be delayed until "1.1".

[magnemoe]

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

Yes or at least with falling trust, this should probably be easier to hack with the new engine performance system where atmosphere pressure reduce trust to an setting where SRB trust at burnout is say 50-60% of starting trust.

[Musil]

I think the features for 1.0 are good enough! Obviously, as most people have pointed out, polish is needed, but it seems you are aware of that, and what's necessary is being done. We would like for moar features being added endlessly, but it's clear the game needs a release eventually and I guess you are seeing a bigger picture than we are.

The only thing that worries me about release is that, specially with new features being added, the game will be very unbalanced in career. I think that, buying the game, most people will want to try out career (it seems like it's the main game mode), and some things just don't make sense; for example, the tech tree, or the insane costs of upgrading buildings, as well as the costs of some parts. I would propose a 0.91 release just to let the community test the balance of the game, that's all, and maybe discover any lingering bugs.

If someone wants more features, it's a well known fact how good the mods are for KSP.

That aside, full (main)sail ahead!

EDIT: oh, and awesome job. I got into the game in 0.24 and you devs have never disappointed me. KSP is great, and I thank you for the opportunity to play it.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Musil

[Corw]

If you want to call it 1.0 it has to be complete, rounded up game.

No placeholders, no crashes, no beta feel. So that would mean you have to finish and polish all things already in like aero and re-entry, those are obvious placeholders and need to be complete. There are missing IVA-s and decoupler bugs, memory hogging... Polish the science and tech tree, career progression...

Other stuff that has been talked about like warp to Ap and resources are usability and bling and can be left out for now. Again, what is in must feel finished on its own, without obvious missing or broken parts and systems.

[rant]I've said it before, you've bitten too much for single update and if you have to ask this question it is clear you know that too by now. It really feel you need at least one more beta update, you are changing too much at once to make it work from the first time.[/rant]

[Rfmeijboom]

For 1.0 I say aero overhaul, bugfixing and balance first.

New features can be added later, but for a 1.0 release the basic game should be fun, stable and well-balanced.

[cicatrix]

Optimization:

Optimize memory usage. Optimize for lo-end graphic cards and low memory CPU. Reduce loading time.

Balance:

Make the parts have plausible mass / temp / drag / cost. Make it CONSISTENT!

Features:

Everything you can think of + at least one more planet with an atmosphere.

Altitude meter should display radar altitude (real alt above surface, not above some abstract 'zero' level).

External command seat should be made possible to occupy in VAB/SPH

Make the kerbanaut job/scecialization be seen in flight without going to astronaut center.

Temperature / Barometric / Gravity scans should not have reduced science for transmitting.

Goo/Materials should return even less science if transmitted

HINGES!, we really need them

Add prograde indicators to the probe cores - make their up and down distinguishable.

Nuclear reactors for moar power

Rework contract system to make them consistent too, combine several contracts into programs.

Rejecting a contract should be bad for your rep

[Corw]

Altitude meter should display radar altitude (real alt above surface, not above some abstract 'zero' level).p

"Abstract 'zero' level" is called sea level and, surprise, it is rather common thing in real world

[cicatrix]

"Abstract 'zero' level" is called sea level and, surprise, it is rather common thing in real world

'Real world' means aircrafts and barometers. How do you determine 'sea level' in Mun's (Moon's) orbit?

Even airplanes use 2 instruments - radar altimeter and barometric altimeter. In space you only have 1 option.

[Tweety]

Personally I would only really want buffering on the new parts to make sure it's of the same standard I'm accustomed to from you guys and maybe some optimisation so we can have shinier prettier textures and stuffs.

If if in doubt do you're own thing I'm never disappointed but seriously just the aero will be fine.

Tweety

[Hannu]

In my opinion you should debug, polish, balance and optimize. It is better to have less properties and things which work flawlessly.

[hazard-ish]

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

Multiplayer should only be added once everything else is absolutely finished and polished up nicely.

Obviously, this isn't going to change SQUAD's minds, but I honestly think that there should be one more beta release to add features before 1.0 so they can be fixed and feedback received on those, but that's just me

[ShadowZone]

Hey Maxmaps, thanks for asking us for input. Here's mine:

I would very much advise a 0.99 update before going to 1.0 - I am working in software development as product owner and believe me: no matter how good the team is, there is always something they miss --> and it would get the community on your side and they would more easily jump to defend your product should reviewers

1. First and foremost: Get the performance snappy! Memory leaks etc. Make >1000 parts craft a thing not only for demonstration purposes but so you could actually build an orbital colony or something like that that really has a purpose. If that is only possible with Unity 5... well I would be willing to wait until that is included. Hell, I would even be willing to pay again (yes, again!) if need be, if you need more funding.

2. General gameplay / immersion: That clouds mod (Environmental Visual Enhancements / Astronomer's Visual Pack / etc.) does so much for immersion it is not even funny that clouds / weather has not yet been a feature of the game. Also: IVA on all crew capable containers/pods! And there should be something space stations are actually useful for.

3. Aerodynamics / re-entry heat: Looking very much forward to that and I do say that it should make its way into 1.0 (including new fairings)

4. Contracts: Make them more worthwile! "Put satellite in orbit x" gets tedious and boring. "Do mission x to unlock mission y so you can get reward z" would be a concept that would keep players more engaged. At the moment I rather stick to science mode than career.

5. Mining resources: Honestly? Put that on hold until the update after 1.0 - unless it is already increadibly reliable and fits smoothly into the game. Postponing it would also be an added bonus for people starting new with KSP who see "awesome, I get a cool new feature just a few weeks/months after 1.0!"

6. UI/UX: The Interface looks like something from the late 90s/early 2000s. To many "pseudo 3D" button effects and that green on grey...

TL;DR: Fix performance. Include new aero/fairings. Improve Contracts. Everything else: later!

[DunaRocketeer]

Just bug fixes and optimisation would be fine by me, except for one thing: Clouds!! I'm very confused by the lack of discussion about clouds. They are such a fundamental element to the look of planets with atmospheres, I would have added them in ages ago

[magnemoe]

Bug fixes & balance. This will be under a pretty damned harsh light by reviewers, and this is the "first impression" that you never get to improve. You don't want KSP forever left as "that 6/10 game" or "that buggy crap like Assassin's Creed"

If it feels/looks rushed/buggy/imbalanced, it'll be tortured like an ant under a magnifying glass.

Cosmetics are important. Crappy/missing IVA views will dragged into the sunlight. The problems with radial decouplers and Kerbals that fly off on EVA will be screamed about. People will already yell about how EVA is difficult and unrealistic.

I love KSP and I understand the situation, but 1.0 will bring lots of newb people that don't. So even if it means leaving "kewl noo stuffs" out, the remaining game should have good tutorials and be well balanced with costs & propulsion schemes.

Personally, I would have done another pre-1.0 release cycle for balance purposes, but then I'm cautious and slow.

I remember when Linux went from 0.99pl13 to 1.0 - just because of the release number change, there was hell to pay. It was a totally new ball game.

I agree however lots of the bugs we experienced players run into is performance issues then we push the game to the limit, revierers are unlike to aerobrake a 1000 ton, 1000 parts, 100 meter long ship at Laythe.

Does not affect all bugs.

The kerbal flying off the MK1 pod is very serious especially for new players, eva take time to master and many will run out of eva fuel before getting back in,

[WWEdeadman]

Since this is 1.0 I think it would be silly to not focus on bug fixing and balance. A full release is expected to work, without annoying bugs, and with well balanced gameplay. I'm still not a friend of jumping from beta directly to release, but since you will do that, I think delivering the best possible game in therms of performance and gameplay balance should be ranked higher than new features.

[Corw]

'Real world' means aircrafts and barometers. How do you determine 'sea level' in Mun's (Moon's) orbit?

Even airplanes use 2 instruments - radar altimeter and barometric altimeter. In space you only have 1 option.

I agree that we need both instruments, but just because one is missing the other one is not less viable

[EladDv]

'Real world' means aircrafts and barometers. How do you determine 'sea level' in Mun's (Moon's) orbit?

Even airplanes use 2 instruments - radar altimeter and barometric altimeter. In space you only have 1 option.

i would reference to the video of MinutePhysics

,and on the moon it's the average distance from the center (although i will agree that "sea level" is a confusing term for height) . plus in game the height of a surface i determined by the surface atlas which over it you stretch a texture- where the atlas is 0 the height is the sea level height.

Hey Maxmaps, thanks for asking us for input. Here's mine:

I would very much advise a 0.99 update before going to 1.0 - I am working in software development as product owner and believe me: no matter how good the team is, there is always something they miss --> and it would get the community on your side and they would more easily jump to defend your product should reviewers

1. First and foremost: Get the performance snappy! Memory leaks etc. Make >1000 parts craft a thing not only for demonstration purposes but so you could actually build an orbital colony or something like that that really has a purpose. If that is only possible with Unity 5... well I would be willing to wait until that is included. Hell, I would even be willing to pay again (yes, again!) if need be, if you need more funding.

2. General gameplay / immersion: That clouds mod (Environmental Visual Enhancements / Astronomer's Visual Pack / etc.) does so much for immersion it is not even funny that clouds / weather has not yet been a feature of the game. Also: IVA on all crew capable containers/pods! And there should be something space stations are actually useful for.

3. Aerodynamics / re-entry heat: Looking very much forward to that and I do say that it should make its way into 1.0 (including new fairings)

4. Contracts: Make them more worthwile! "Put satellite in orbit x" gets tedious and boring. "Do mission x to unlock mission y so you can get reward z" would be a concept that would keep players more engaged. At the moment I rather stick to science mode than career.

5. Mining resources: Honestly? Put that on hold until the update after 1.0 - unless it is already increadibly reliable and fits smoothly into the game. Postponing it would also be an added bonus for people starting new with KSP who see "awesome, I get a cool new feature just a few weeks/months after 1.0!"

6. UI/UX: The Interface looks like something from the late 90s/early 2000s. To many "pseudo 3D" button effects and that green on grey...

TL;DR: Fix performance. Include new aero/fairings. Improve Contracts. Everything else: later!

100% agree- if we are to jump to 1.0 from 0.90 it could be a mess.

Take into consideration you will not be judged by your fans and community but by reviewers and players that are not necessarily into KSP you'll need a lot of bug fixing and optimizations to ensure the game runs smoothly at reasonable part counts and situations today most computers at 250+ parts start to slow down we need it to rise to at least 500 and preferred 700+ also clouds and such- yeah it would help and you should include it but it could be as simple as just having those mods shipped with the game and just having them in the bug fixing and QA portion of development.

i honestly think you need to reevaluate you schedule as there are no second chances the game isn't necessarily finished when you think it's finished by your starting goals- it's when it's bug free and has the best single player experience you can give all the newbies as we forgive you but they might not. as a lot of people have offered here so am i- you may want to stick to beta not for the features but for the bugs and optimizations that would improve the reception of the game out in the world of full releases

Edited March 17, 2015 by EladDv

[Karriz]

Aerodynamics, reentry heat, fairings and heat shields would be the most important features for me personally. They're needed to make the game feel "complete".

Deep space refueling is sort of a extra feature, so that can wait.

[TonyC]

I would personally think it is best to fix as many bugs as possible, because the main objective here is to please the reviewers.

If they dislike KSP, no one buys it, and the game is just already destroyed.

After 1.1, you could move onto adding more features.

Hail Squad !

[BudgetHedgehog]

Jesus, this thread..

Anyway, focus on bugfixing, balance and optimisation (if applicable). Chucking more features into an already buggy game that can barely support its own weight is ridiculous. If however, you chuck them into a smooth running game that has room for them, the whole experience will be less stressful as you can get a full and complete look at it and how it supposed to fit in with the rest of the game without being disturbed by bugs and out-of-balance things. Not to mention that, if the next update is KSP going live as it were, it'll be met with reviewers and critics that forgive missing content if the game actually works well without bugs more than the other way round.

Or, since you want the next version to be 1.0 because it contains everything you planned from the start, you chuck in every applicable feature, call it 1.0 but don't leave Early Access. Then for 1.1, you fix and rebalance etc and only then should you leave Early Access.

My point is: don't leave Early Access with a buggy and unoptimised product.

[Azimech]

Nowadays, it seems, that's not the case. With the fact that we can so quickly and easily download patches and hotfixes, etc. that game-makers feel like they can be lax on existing problems, instead pushing for flash and features to boost sales.

I've seen the evolution of games since 1983. You can't compare this age with the age of the game in the box. Compared to that era, we're in the Matrix.

[Flef]

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?

Moar boosters!

Option 2 for me : focus on what's already working in order to get a release. Then you can make free update to sell more. xD

otherwise:

1-better memory management would be great but I fear it involves a lot of refactoring.

2-Some parts for the Space part of the game would be great. I'm still roaming with an hitchhiker pod since 2 years now while the game is turning itself towards Kerbal SSTO Program with plenty cockpits, cabins, cargo bays. There is more plane cockpits than space pods. A bit of justice with some cargo bays and crew accommodations for rockets and Space ships would be great.

3-a "time mechanic" like the one introduced by KCT in the career is also something that add a bit of taste to this particular mode.

From the outside, I think you could do a bit of graphical polishing in order to help your game to be sold (sadly it is important). Some clouds as optional features could be a good thing. It is not that much memory heavy. An atmospheric planet without clouds is like a mojito without ice and mint.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Flef