Feedback Requested: 1.0

[forenci]

Pretty much echoing what Sal and others have said, put in the features that have been slated for 1.0 and then fix all the nagging bugs. As much as I would LOVE new features, such as multiplayer, new systems, parts, etc I think having a clean game for release with everything slated for 1.0 is more important. The game with all that 1.0 has promised and that it currently has is a very deep game that will last a long time.

Finally, I think people need to get over the whole "1.0" stuff already. It's going to 1.0. Not .91, not .99, it's going to 1.0. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't affect what is being discussed here.

[Wiseman]

I'm a pretty firm believer in AGILE, so I'd say release the shiniest, most polished 1.0 you can. Releasing with proper aerodynamics, solid balance to funds, science, and contracts, and very few annoying bugs will set you guys up best to actually be able to continue working on new features in 1.1 and beyond.

[GusTurbo]

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

I agree with this 100%.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

First off - Let me say, thank you Max for posting this on the forums. You did listen to us, and responded with this.

Secondly - I think that bug fixes are 100% needed. Add features fix them. Fix all known bugs that everyone knows. Do all this, and then I think that KSP is ready

[Greenfire32]

For me, the aerodynamics absolutely need the most attention before the 1.0 update. Since 1.0 will be the first "official" update, you don't want new players coming in only to find out that the "released" game they just bought is going to undergo a huge game-changing fix that could potentially ruin everything they've built thus far.

So my priorities are this:

1. Fix aerodynamics

2. Fix bugs and stabilize KSP

3. Release 1.0

4. Work on new features (multiplayer!!!)

[2001kraft]

I would agree with some older posts.

Add all the features you guys have been promising us (ISRU..re-entry heat..aero overhaul), and then fix bugs related to them. Don't rush. Pls. Nobody's in a hurry. As Vechs says, "Take It Easy". Do a lot of testing to fix all the bugs. We will be patiently waiting for the update.

That's just my opinion.

[crackers]This will probably be ignored because it's an unpopular opinion. lol.[/crackers]

[Capt Snuggler]

Finally, I think people need to get over the whole "1.0" stuff already. It's going to 1.0. Not .91, not .99, it's going to 1.0. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't affect what is being discussed here.

I disagree. You may argue that 1.0 is just an arbitrary number but the use of v1.0 does imply *complete*. This number is significant enough to cause squad to try and cram in features at the expense of polish.

v1.0 also reads as "complete" to any potential reviewer or customer and will likely result in harsh reviews if it gets there full of bugs and holes. I believe KSP's sales peaked some time ago and I think this also explains squads seemingly desperate push to slap a "completed" badge on it.

Sadly I think its a case of: "the product is sold, the job is done, put a bow on it"

if I'm wrong then squad should prove it by releasing the next patch as v.91 the aero update followed by .92 resources and .93 bug hunt etc etc.

[tater]

If they are worried about going back on what they said they were going to do they could have a few "snapshots" as minecraft calls them. Utterly optional, with zero claim of compatibility (so modders need not bother with them at all) for us to beat up. Use a different scheme than 0.90, call it aero201503 or whatever.

[klgraham1013]

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

Quoted for accuracy.

I thought about praising Max for posting this on the official forums. Then, I realized this is the official forums where such behavior should be expected. At least it shows they listened to the criticism. I'll give them props for that.

[forenci]

I disagree. You may argue that 1.0 is just an arbitrary number but the use of v1.0 does imply *complete*. This number is significant enough to cause squad to try and cram in features at the expense of polish.

v1.0 also reads as "complete" to any potential reviewer or customer and will likely result in harsh reviews if it gets there full of bugs and holes. I believe KSP's sales peaked some time ago and I think this also explains squads seemingly desperate push to slap a "completed" badge on it.

Sadly I think its a case of: "the product is sold, the job is done, put a bow on it"

if I'm wrong then squad should prove it by releasing the next patch as v.91 the aero update followed by .92 resources and .93 bug hunt etc etc.

I think you're getting the wrong impression from me. I would love to see them do a couple beta patches prior to 1.0, I just think it's silly to argue this when Squad has pretty much said 1.0 is coming and they have not turned back. Also, my interpretation of what Max is asking is not saying that what they're working on now won't be polished/ready for release. Rather, it seemed as if he was asking whether or not that should devote the time they could spend introducing NEW features (i.e. new systems, parts, multiplayer, etc.) on additional bug squashing. My view is they should crush the bugs, then introduce new features/stuff after 1.0.

Finally, I think the whole "reviewers are going to kill this game" is overblown. If they spend the remaining time crushing bugs, I think this game will absolutely be great for someone reviewing it. Even with bugs, this game is GREAT. It has incredible depth, fantastic modding community (and community in general), and is the definition of what a great sandbox should be. Truthfully, I've never been a big fan of sandbox games because I've found that without some guidance or direction it can be difficult to think of new things to do. KSP (even with career mode) is an amazing sandbox game because it lines up for you so many accomplishments without really trying. For example, you start by getting into orbit, then the Mun, then Minmus, then other planets like Duna, Eve, etc. Then trying to land on those planets and return safely. Not to mention things like space stations, refueling stations, etc.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't KSP recently the top 10 most played game on Steam? I don't think sales are dying by any means.

[katateochi]

Why oh why must the next release be called v1.0?

its not done. its not nearly done. a blind man could see that pushing KSP to v1.0 was a bad idea.

make .91 and .92 and .93 if you have to.

with out the planned features, KSP is an incomplete game.

with the nasty bugs, KSP is an incomplete game.

you've created a great thing! you have a huge dedicated fan base. Your teaching people things, making people think. don't ruin everything you have built by slapping a *DONE* sticker on it and "shipping" KSP with massive gaping holes crawling with bugs.

get modders involved for art polish. many would live to have art assets included in stock.

• aero update v.91
  
• resource update v.92 (ISRU & life support)
  
• career and contract polish v.93
  
• art polish v.94 (replace crummy models & add detail to planets)
  
• bug fix v.95
  
• release v1.0
  
• second pass bug fix v1.1
  
• mutiplayer v1.2
  

I completely agree with this.

Calling the next release 1.0 really sends the wrong message to both veteran and new players. Yes it is an arbitrary line in the sand, but none-the-less it's a pretty significant one. I hear the argument that says 1.0 signifies KSP reaching a state where it has all that the original design set out, but I don't think that is reason enough when there are still major features to add and so many bugs to iron out.

I know that it has been said that once 1.0 comes out that development will continue as normal, but for new players and (more terrifyingly) critics, releasing as v1.0 but saying that it's still underdevelopment is going to be baffling and won't cast it in a good light. I also fear that it could change the mindset and enthusiasm of the dev team, I've seen that happen before in projects I've been involved with and it's been crippling.

[bigyihsuan]

Here's a list of things that I think you guys should do:

1. BUG FIXES: As a few people have said before, treat KSP as if 1.0 is the "as is" version that goes on to the CD, and can't be patched. Fix all of the bugs first. The reviewers will bring these bugs to light. Have a 0.99 first for bug fixes, then release 1.0 after the bug fixes.

2. OPTIMIZATION: Not all people are capable at running KSP at 60 frames per second with the settings all at max. Some people have a dedicated gaming rig. The people with the slower computers will always be at a disadvantage.

3. NEW FEATURES: New shiny things are fine.

4. UNITY 5: If you can do it, do it.

[Robotengineer]

If they are worried about going back on what they said they were going to do they could have a few "snapshots" as minecraft calls them. Utterly optional, with zero claim of compatibility (so modders need not bother with them at all) for us to beat up. Use a different scheme than 0.90, call it aero201503 or whatever.

I would agree with having snapshot releases for bug testing. That way the general Kommunity will not worry about it, while people who want to test but aren't a part of the Q&A/Experimentals team will be able to test it. Then the CM doesn't have to worry about managing the hype, release date issues, etc.

[tater]

Such snapshots could also specifically avoid "hype" stuff by not including them. New parts? Let QA deal with that. Valentina? Ditto. Have it be 0.90 but with any bug fixes, optimization, balancing, career/tech/science changes, etc in, and the part folders, etc just not in there.

[BagelRabbit]

I completely agree with this.

Calling the next release 1.0 really sends the wrong message to both veteran and new players. Yes it is an arbitrary line in the sand, but none-the-less it's a pretty significant one. I hear the argument that says 1.0 signifies KSP reaching a state where it has all that the original design set out, but I don't think that is reason enough when there are still major features to add and so many bugs to iron out.

I know that it has been said that once 1.0 comes out that development will continue as normal, but for new players and (more terrifyingly) critics, releasing as v1.0 but saying that it's still underdevelopment is going to be baffling and won't cast it in a good light. I also fear that it could change the mindset and enthusiasm of the dev team, I've seen that happen before in projects I've been involved with and it's been crippling.

Unfortunately, there's really nothing that can change the fact that 1.0 is coming.

I would also personally love to see at least one update before 1.0 comes out, but the developers have said that they aren't doing that. Which is unfortunate, but apparently nothing will change their minds at this point.

That being said: Before 0.90 was released but after the devs had decided that it wasn't considered 0.26, I think that they made several statements about there being a fairly large number of 'beta' versions. As a matter of fact, they were seriously considering what to do when the counter ticked past 0.99. (I think that they decided that the next version would be 0.100.)

...and then, after 0.90 was released, they decided, somehow, that the next version would be 1.0. The official version. The one that will get heavily scrutinized and, for the first time, be considered a "completed game" in the public's minds.

I don't know why they did this. It seems as if there's more going on here than a mere "Okay, we've decided that KSP is good enough for sale." (Although I'm not going to go into conspiracy theories... they're not very becoming )

That does strike me as strange, though.

At any rate, I think that 1.0 could have all of the features that the devs desire... as long as there are a number of previous versions. If they decide to go straight into 1.0 (which they apparently have), then it might be best to restrict the changes to what I said on my earlier post.

Does anyone know why they seem to be rushing through the development process? (Sorry, some people might have covered this already, but I'm afflicted with a classic case of "I Should Be Writing a Paper Right Now, so I Don't Have the Time to Look.")

-Upsilon

[SickSix]

After reading some other threads, 1.0 needs to include new advanced gimbal rocket engines we can use to make real shuttles. Mk3 parts are not living up to potential due to lack of adequate engines.

Also why are there no 3m> 2.5m adapters? There are all kinds of 2.5m> 1.5m adapters but nothing to allow for a triple Main Sail on a 3m tank.(that looks good without lots of clipping)

And as i am sure others have stated: Some 2m SRBs!

[JimmyAgent007]

On Twitter

"Maxmaps - More analysis necessary. I'm sure our fans would be okay waiting for stuff if it meant more polish everywhere. Would love to hear from you."

So I think that maybe they are trying to gauge if our desire for a release is greater than our desire for all the 1.0 features they talked about. Personally I want ALL THE FEATURES

[Alshain]

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?

The way I see it you have 2 problems with a release.

1. Those of us who have been playing a while and want to see more new features. We dislike the bugs but have learned to put up with them.

2. Those who haven't bought the game which will be necessary to keep the company and the game afloat, because let's face it, we are no longer earning you money. Pure business there.

The problem here is that with 1.0 release, it needs to be flawless and fun at the same time. 1.0 means you are subjected to all the video game reviewers out there and if it doesn't work right without bugs you will be roasted to a crisp and may never recover. So, that said, in the interest of keeping the game going, bugs MUST be nearly gone before an official release and there definitely can not be any big ones. So, my opinion, work on the bugs, this thing has to be flawless or your going to be the next SimCity and nobody here wants that.

There is however one other scenario. There are a large number of people that buy games because they are pretty. Screenshots and videos for advertising prove this. While KSP is already very pretty, there is one proven way to make the screenshots infinitely more beautiful... CLOUDS! We need clouds. They have been proven by mods, for those with lower end computers you can have an option to not load the textures at startup, we need clouds. Nothing else, while I would like a lot more beautification I do not want to push it because of the above reasons and clouds will make the largest improvement.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Alshain

[Amihan]

Just returned from the Steam review pages. Most of the Not Recommended reviews I could find reference the same couple of things:

1. Steep learning curve, useless tutorials

2. Bugs

3. Crashes

4. The game running really slowly in general

I'd say those are the things that definitely need attention. It's basically what everyone has already been saying already, but existing reviews might be worth mentioning, I thought.

[Linear]

Just returned from the Steam review pages. Most of the Not Recommended reviews I could find reference the same couple of things:

1. Steep learning curve, useless tutorials

2. Bugs

3. Crashes

4. The game running really slowly in general

I'd say those are the things that definitely need attention. It's basically what everyone has already been saying already, but existing reviews might be worth mentioning, I thought.

1. Tutorials are poor, being worked on, it's rocket science.

2. I agree, more can be done here, Unity problems too

3. More can be done, Unity problems too

4. Pretty much Unity - i doubt they can get more than a couple percent better performance FPS wise

[Javster]

The game has all the features it needs. Now it needs to be playable by someone with no knowledge of the game, with as few bugs/"quirks" as possible

[TheSaint]

I know that this has been said dozens of times in this thread, but I'll just add my vote: The three things that you need to address before you release 1.0, in order of priority, are:

1. Bug fixes

2. Polish and atmosphere

3. Aerodynamic overhaul

Resources are, to me anyway, a complete non-issue. You could release those as DLC later as far as I'm concerned. Female Kerbals are good, and easily introduced, but by no means critical.

You have to squash the bugs. We've all been putting up with them because we've all been aware that the game is in development. Once you call it 1.0 you're saying, "This game isn't in development anymore." Look at how many releases from major game developers have been savaged in the press because they were buggy on release. Why does Squad think that this won't happen to them?

Same with the graphics. A lot of the graphics in the stock game look like placeholders. Again, we've all been putting up with that because the game is in development. Reviewers and buyers aren't going to put up with that from a game that isn't in development anymore. Dress up your textures and make them consistent. IVAs for everything. Fix the water. Add some clouds. Maybe even add some weather. I might even point out that nobody is going to believe that Kerbals developed spaceflight without ever building a single structure on their planet except for their space center. I can't really speak to the sound quality, since I'm mostly deaf, but I'm sure the comments others have made are spot on.

And the aerodynamics (including reentry effects). Right now, they're just embarrassing. You're fixing them, and that's good. However, you somehow imagine that you're going to get them 100% right, final release quality, zero bugs, on the first try, with no beta testing. It's a bit cheeky, don't you think? I really think you guys need a 0.91 release.

My $0.02, take it for what it's worth.

Edited March 17, 2015 by TheSaint
Added some thoughts.

[Taki117]

I will say this about 1.0. Don't make a game, make a legacy. 1.0 should be the last version you put out. It should be the end, the finally. Fix all the bugs, (This Includes placeholders) Add only what needs to be added (New landing gear and whatnot), Give everything an art pass, and release new features as a separate update (ISRU I'm lookin' at you!) With 1.0, assume the entire team is going to drop dead immediately after.

[rcp27]

A lot of people have covered the basic ideas. To summarise my view on the matter, I would say:

Features I think need to be in 1.0:

1) bug fixes and polish. There are plenty of bugs in 0.90 that need sorting out, and things like tutorials and IVAs still missing. I would include balancing existing parts and the tech tree in this.

2) aerodynamics. This change will make a big difference to gameplay, and will likely make craft that work today not work in future. It is important to make sure that craft that work in 1.0 continue to work in 1.x.

3) re-entry. A core function of spaceflight, and something that if introduced later risks breaking people's save games, not something we want to see after 1.0.

Features discussed for 1.0 that can safely be pushed back:

1) in situ resource mining. The core game is building and flying space missions. Resource mining is a great idea, but isn't essential to the core game, and would work well as a new feature for a future update. I imagine the mechanics associated with this feature risk bringing in lots of bugs and will need a fair degree of QA and testing. Perhaps better to leave it for a future update

2) delta V and engineering reports. Sure, it would be nice to have this information, and to have a "checklist" when you build your spacecraft, but to be honest the game as it works now is "good enough", and I would have no great upset if we had to wait for this polish.

The radical suggestion:

If you want to remove scope from 1.0, I suggest you entirely pull the Mk3 spaceplane parts from the game. Perhaps have a "custom" option to "use experimental parts" or something so that you can use them as they are in 0.90. Here's why:

Mk3 parts as they are need a lot of attention. The fuel tanks are not balanced. The cockpit and crew tanks need IVAs. The current wing sections and undercarriage are undersized and very difficult to use with these parts. The current jet engines are really too small, and you need 6 or 8 engines to get them to work. This is really kludgy. To make Mk3 parts useful in the way that Mk2 parts are, we need bigger wing sections, bigger undercarriage, better engine and air intake options, perhaps re-worked fuel flow mechanics, ideally wet-wings or other more radical parts (like thick wing sections that can incorporate engines and intakes in the leading and trailing edge segments to mimic engines burried in the wing root). Realistically to get Mk3 sized spaceplanes to work with the degree of intuitive construction and ease of flight. I think the whole Mk3 space plane building experience is at a level below that of other aspects of the game. Having a dedicated 1.x release of "new bigger planes", with these parts done well, with the full range of functionality would probably lead to a better 1.0 experience than having the current somewhat incomplete state of affairs.

Edited March 17, 2015 by rcp27
typos

[Paul Kingtiger]

Polish is more important than wide scope.

Players and reviewers are going to jump over bugs, so a smaller feature set which is well polished will make a better impression than incomplete features.

These can be left for 1.1