I'm happy with KSP the way it is :)

[quasarrgames]

After fooling around and getting frustrated with some mods for the first time, i have to say that i am, for the most part, happy with KSP the way it is. There are lots of planets to explore, the creation system is absolutely BEAUTIFUL, most things are pretty well balanced in my books, it runs pretty well on my pc compared to other games, and there are so many things to do, many i haven't even tried!

That being said, there are some things that i'd like to have added (electric propeller, a little more optimization, more stars in the far future) but for the most part i'm very happy.

However, i'd appreciate and like any new feature Squad wanted to implement (aside from maybe reentry heat).

Does anyone else feel the same way, or am i all alone in this thinking?

[Vanamonde]

Even in its unfinished state, I've spent more time with KSP than any other game. But I'm not "happy" with it as-is in the sense that I want more of it!

[Francois424]

That's why most of us are mostly asking for 3 things :

- Optimisation/Bug Fixes

- x64

- A something else dear to us (Electric Prop, GP2, additional 'Stock' mods)

The game is pretty sturdy, plain fun, and the Replayabilty factor is quite high if you're the kind that loves sandboxes (the generic term, not the type of game in KSP)

[Xavven]

After fooling around and getting frustrated with some mods for the first time, i have to say that i am, for the most part, happy with KSP the way it is. There are lots of planets to explore, the creation system is absolutely BEAUTIFUL, most things are pretty well balanced in my books, it runs pretty well on my pc compared to other games, and there are so many things to do, many i haven't even tried!

That being said, there are some things that i'd like to have added (electric propeller, a little more optimization, more stars in the far future) but for the most part i'm very happy.

However, i'd appreciate and like any new feature Squad wanted to implement (aside from maybe reentry heat).

Does anyone else feel the same way, or am i all alone in this thinking?

I agree. The game is great even in its unfinished and unpolished state. That said, 1.0 will be even better.

[Foxster]

I went down the route of trying every popular mod out there and now I'm happier with stock. It lets you create share-able craft and they are more challenging and interesting to build. I mean, you can easily build anything that can do anything with enough mods. The game is also more stable without a bunch of mods.

That said, I do still use aid-only mods such as Engineer Redux, I just forego part and physics mods.

[Anister]

I agree. The game is great even in its unfinished and unpolished state. That said, 1.0 will be even better.

Nope, 1.1 will be the best. Why? It'll be the first version ported to Unity 5. They would've ported 1.0, but it was to far in dev.

[Melfice]

Nope, 1.1 will be the best. Why? It'll be the first version ported to Unity 5. They would've ported 1.0, but it was to far in dev.

Maybe. If it doesn't cause more problems than it would solve.

If it solves problems.

So, maybe.

[KerrMü]

Hey quasargames.

You're not alone. The editors are awesome, the game is mostly stable, and after 2 years of playing there are still interesting and challenging things I haven't done in the stock game.

There are great mods out there to play with, but after a little while I tend to not using them anymore, cause I enjoy solving problems with the limited variety of stock parts, rather than downloading mods that solve the problems for me. I'm a LEGO kid. (that's just my way of playing. Every other way to play the game is fine)

Don't get me wrong. There are a few mods that are constantly in my game-data folder, and I would love if those had analogues in stock.

Like KAX (for bigger landing gears, but those are coming with 1.0 anyway, and propellers)

or Hullcam (Ok, here I am a bit critical. Almost every probe or rover humans launch into space has cameras on board for obvious reasons.)

And EVE, because clouds are beautiful.

So after all, I agree with you. The game is great and gets better with every update.

Have fun

[Guest]

I'm happy with KSP the way it is

I'm not. It's by far one of the best ideas for a game I've ever encountered, and I've certainly gotten my.money's worth, but it falls far short of its potential. The career mechanics feel like they were slapped together in the hopes of having a coherent system, flight is entirely unrealistic (although many things are finally being fixed), and the solar system is just way too tiny (and could use another planet or three). I can understand a certain amount of abstraction for ease of play but I feel like KSP takes it way too far, obscuring a lot of interesting detail. Although it performs great as a modding platform under x64 Linux loading everything into memory causes the expected problems on other systems.

This game still probably needs another good year or two of work but the compromises will always result in it falling short. Thankfully there are mods to make it "Not KSP".

[Random Tank]

While I love the game, I could be happier with it. It's just far too buggy IMO, and (while there are some fun ones) there are too many annoying bugs... like the decoupler bug, or that awful RAM Leak. 0.90 is definitely the buggiest version I've played (started in 0.22), and I do hope this "1.0" can turn it around, but I'm doubtful.... The only thing I want for this game is for it to be stable, and run smoothly. It's not finished until it can do that, no matter how much people say it is.

[Mr. Scruffy]

I'm not. It's by far one of the best ideas for a game I've ever encountered, and I've certainly gotten my.money's worth, but it falls far short of its potential. The career mechanics feel like they were slapped together in the hopes of having a coherent system, flight is entirely unrealistic (although many things are finally being fixed), and the solar system is just way too tiny (and could use another planet or three). I can understand a certain amount of abstraction for ease of play but I feel like KSP takes it way too far, obscuring a lot of interesting detail. Although it performs great as a modding platform under x64 Linux loading everything into memory causes the expected problems on other systems.

This game still probably needs another good year or two of work but the compromises will always result in it falling short. Thankfully there are mods to make it "Not KSP".

On the same token, i wonder how some things can make it even into a 0.x release. The buildings upgrades - does it really take thousands of players to see how unbalanced they are? Same goes for the strategies. It´s like the numbers were the result of die rolls.

It was the same thing with experiments when they came in first - their repitive nature was so obvious, that i dont quite understand how it ever got released to the public in that state.

I, too, love the game, dont get me wrong. But it´s like before every release they stop just one step short, when it´s basically just about tweaking some numbers. I do understand, that this is sort of paid-beta and that i agreed to it, when i bought the game early (and hell, did i get my money worth out of it!). But a little bit of testing in-house (and i assume they do this) should iron out the easy to fix but heavy on gameplay things before another release is made official. I mean, on my first upgrading the launch pad, i was like ´wow - this is unbalanced!´ - which was like 2 hours into the game - and i play really slow. On my first time doing science (back when it was first introduced) i was thinking: ´uh - how grindy, maybe a bit too realistic, here?´... I have never implemented any strategy in my program, though i could use some extra funds over some REP or SCI, because by even just looking at it, i figured, they are, guess: inbalanced and simply not worth it.

So my guess for ORE is, it will either be too heavy to lift, too cheap to be worth it, or so valuable that you can upgrade your entire KSC after one go with it - something along these lines - on first release. Problem is (for the devs): If a new feature comes in a massively inbalanced state, as seems to be almost habitual at this point, you can hardly expect people to stick to vanilla for testing what is quite obviously flawed - and that for minor reasons, too, cause it cant be all that hard, after having gone through all the trouble of coding the feature, do get the numbers (parameters) for it at least roughly right.

Hey, but after such a harsh sounding post, i shall not miss to thank the devs none-the-less for one of my favorite games of all times (playing since 83).

[Wahgineer]

I'm not. It's by far one of the best ideas for a game I've ever encountered, and I've certainly gotten my.money's worth, but it falls far short of its potential. The career mechanics feel like they were slapped together in the hopes of having a coherent system, flight is entirely unrealistic (although many things are finally being fixed), and the solar system is just way too tiny (and could use another planet or three). I can understand a certain amount of abstraction for ease of play but I feel like KSP takes it way too far, obscuring a lot of interesting detail. Although it performs great as a modding platform under x64 Linux loading everything into memory causes the expected problems on other systems.

This game still probably needs another good year or two of work but the compromises will always result in it falling short. Thankfully there are mods to make it "Not KSP".

So, regex basically wants orbiter with custom built rockets.

Regex, if you don't like the game the way it is, mod the living daylights out of it and leave us alone. I personally find it annoying when ever I go on any thread related to Squad /game development, see a bunch of constructive and/or informative posts, then suddenly see 'Squad is stupid/lazy/unexperienced/unreliable!!! They MUST listen to me and my suggestions, so they can make the game the way I want to play.' If the game/developers upset you so, go make your own game. While yes, there are things missing and that need to be fixed, they can be addressed without outright attacking the devs.

[Lhathron the Elf]

Nope, 1.1 will be the best. Why? It'll be the first version ported to Unity 5. They would've ported 1.0, but it was to far in dev.

I have a feeling I've asked this question before, but what advantages will Unity 5 yield?

[Mr. Scruffy]

So, regex basically wants orbiter with custom built rockets.

Regex, if you don't like the game the way it is, mod the living daylights out of it and leave us alone. I personally find it annoying when ever I go on any thread related to Squad /game development, see a bunch of constructive and/or informative posts, then suddenly see 'Squad is stupid/lazy/unexperienced/unreliable!!! They MUST listen to me and my suggestions, so they can make the game the way I want to play.' If the game/developers upset you so, go make your own game. While yes, there are things missing and that need to be fixed, they can be addressed without outright attacking the devs.

And where did he do that? As far as i can read, he simply critizes the game. He does not even use the word ´dev´, or any placeholder for it. And he explitely states that he seeks his salvation in mods due to his dissatisfaction with the stock game.

Now, if there´s a thread titled ´hooray for KSP´ (or something like that) - and in his opinion there is still much to be improved, it is his good right to speak up. After all, he´s not the one telling others to scoot off.

EDIT (since no other post showed up, yet it´s a late edit):

I´d say i am happy with what i got for my money regarding KSP and i wouldnt be angry or anything, if they announced rather sooner than later, that they are done with the base game and everything beyond requires new funding. But i sure as hell want developement to continue, as i think there is still a lot of potential untapped. If i had to pay another 20 (it was less the first time, actually) to make them continue to work on it for another 2-3 years or so, at the same pace, i´d be fine with that. Cause i do think there is another 2-3 years of work to be had here.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Mr. Scruffy

[Vanamonde]

As always, guys, please talk about the other person's points rather than the other person's personality.

[sta7ic_matt]

I could stand without the NaN Kraken. It strikes my interplanetary ships about half the time

[Hannu]

I have a feeling I've asked this question before, but what advantages will Unity 5 yield?

People expect that it makes 64 bit Windows version stable. That would be a huge benefit for mod users but not much or stock gamers. Problem is that nobody knows yet is it really stable or does it break something else. SQUAD will (maybe) test it after releasing 1.0 and decide if they port the game to new Unity or not.

[Bloodbunny]

People expect that it makes 64 bit Windows version stable. That would be a huge benefit for mod users but not much or stock gamers. Problem is that nobody knows yet is it really stable or does it break something else. SQUAD will (maybe) test it after releasing 1.0 and decide if they port the game to new Unity or not.

See Cities Skylines, its on Unity, it's 64 bit only, and rock solid stable. It is NOT on Unity 5, but on Unity 4, ergo, we were being lied to...Unity IS stable in 64 bit, it always was... the instability is a KSP problem. The whole "we can't make KSP stable in 64 bit because Unity is unstable" just inadvertently got shot full of holes by Paradox.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Bloodbunny

[DunaRocketeer]

I'm very happy with KSP too. What isn't in stock I get from mods, and when 1.0 comes out, I might not need even those (certainly fewer mods). I haven't finished trying everything yet, and even if I did it wouldn't matter because flying around in kerbal spaceships is fun anyway.

Great, great game.

[Mr. Scruffy]

See Cities Skylines, its on Unity, it's 64 bit only, and rock solid stable. It is NOT on Unity 5, but on Unity 4, ergo, we were being lied to...Unity IS stable in 64 bit, it always was... the instability is a KSP problem.

Maybe Unity4 -64 is not stable with a game like KSP, but fine with C:S? Maybe it´s something like big spheres causing problems under 64bit resolution due to a higher number of long non-integers, which simply does not occur in a game like C:S? I am merely speculating, but i´d kindly ask you to consider such posibilties before calling anyone a liar, which you seem to strongly imply here.

[Bloodbunny]

They should have stated the reason then, rather than make a blanket statement about the Unity engine. When I heard that Skylines was going to be on Unity 4, I cringed at first, based on my experiences with KSP...but come to find out, it is very stable. Granted, Skylines isn't calculating physics on every little building piece, but it does have true water physics, etc.

I know I'm likely just being cynical, but the whole Spaceport debacle, combined with the fact that Workshop hasn't been added (or even mentioned) in the 2 years that KSP has been on Steam makes me wonder if Squad really supports the mod community or would rather us just accept their vision of the game.

[Guest]

They should have stated the reason then, rather than make a blanket statement about the Unity engine. When I heard that Skylines was going to be on Unity 4, I cringed at first, based on my experiences with KSP...but come to find out, it is very stable. Granted, Skylines isn't calculating physics on every little building piece, but it does have true water physics, etc.

I know I'm likely just being cynical, but the whole Spaceport debacle, combined with the fact that Workshop hasn't been added (or even mentioned) in the 2 years that KSP has been on Steam makes me wonder if Squad really supports the mod community or would rather us just accept their vision of the game.

It's a pretty silly to say squad doesn't support the modding community, making their code more moddable/accessible is a large priority and the fact that they work with the mod creators themselevs to help the stock game...yeah.

Also, i'm pretty sure (may be wrong) Skylines uses Unity 5.

[Asharad]

They should have stated the reason then, rather than make a blanket statement about the Unity engine. When I heard that Skylines was going to be on Unity 4, I cringed at first, based on my experiences with KSP...but come to find out, it is very stable. Granted, Skylines isn't calculating physics on every little building piece

Why do you need a specific explanation as to their issues with Unity 4? How can you claim they don't support mods? I'd prefer they finish the game before adding the Workshop, and I'd prefer they don't waste time detailing their coding issues with the public.

[pxi]

Cities: Skylines uses Unity 5.

From: http://unity3d.com/showcase/case-stories/cities-skylines

The team turned to Unity because of its previous success in developing Cities in Motion 2 with the platform. “Unity's flexibility provided us a robust and powerful framework/engine to build upon,†says Hallikainen. To get the most of its software, the team at Colossal Order switched over to Unity 5 at a late date in the beta phaseâ€â€and has never looked back. “The changes to Unity 5 from 4.x are obviously bigger than they would be in a minor release, but Unity's API migration tools made this step a walk in the park,†says Hallikainen. “Unity's profiler has been one of the more useful tools, and we also very much appreciated the added 64bit editor support.â€Â

[Melfice]

At this time, there are no plans for Workshop.

It's in the FAQ on the Steam boards for KSP.

The main reason being that Steam doesn't allow .dll files in the Workshop. Many mods rely on .dll files, or Plug-ins.