Every new version of KSP.... driving me mad

[fisfis]

Hello Kermans,




I am sorry I am writting this, but I am really disapointed more and more with every new version of KSP.


But first of all, as this is my first post, let me do some compliments on Squad team. KSP is great game, the idea behind it is also great, the work you did is awsome!

I am playing KSP since 0.22 and I am really enjoying it. With some exceptions.

Every new version you release brings a lot of new stuff, fixes a lot of bugs, but also driving me mad. Why you can't just follow some standard software releasing schemas? Why every new version, now I mean MINOR version releases, behaves completely differently so my ships I have built does not work anymore? Also, I have to re-download all plugins (mods) I have installed as you probably completely change API (or at least something in it) and plugins for older versions does not work. This is usually problem as releasing of mods is delayed.


Also, the patcher does not work for ages (maybe since 0.24, I don't remember exactly) so it means I have to re-download completely whole game as I am not Steam user and patching is not done automatically. If I don't check there was something bad in the build (as in 1.05 1024) I have to go to forums and check everything on my own as there is no any notification in the game itself (as i am not using launcher since patcher does not work I am not looking to announcements - you can say my bad, but guys, please make it work for us who supported you before official release with hope you will get more money without any intention of Steam).I have to work, take care of my family, friends and when I finally find some time to play I have to sink into forum and look for everything while I just to have some fun and just play.



Please take a think about releases. I know you are trying to bring us the best you can, but it is really annoying to be waiting and looking for new release and in the end just to play old version full of bugs just because I have a lot of stuff in the campaign already and simply, both versions are not compatible together (at least my stuff is not compatible, because you decide to change drag stuff, update engine, whatever). It is really pity it works in this way and if it will not change somehow, I have to stop to play it, because I have just limited time and I don't want to start new campaign with every new version you release or at least rework all my stuff.

From my perspective it would be much better to fix bugs we are experiencing since 0.22 (i.e. firing kerbal to opposite side of space when I am just trying to leave or board the module) or make better user interface in the map - I would appreciate to know how much fuel I have even when I am switched in the space map. Also it would be great see how AP/PE/ASC/DESC is changing when I am planning maneuver - without additional necessary mooving of the cursor above these points. Also I would appreciate adding of some HUDs to normal game window - it is really hard to make an orbit without knowing basic things as AP, PE (its easy now when I played tenths of hours already, I can somehow estimate it, but when I want to establish exact orbit I have to switch to map and back to check fuel, orbital points...) - I know I can use mods, but guys, every rocket in the world has this indicators inside of the ship... What is really bad is complete loose of control over the ship when I am switching to space map... Until I open nav, I don't know what is going on and I can't control the ship. The staging is sometimes also not ideal, please take a look on it. And if you include possibility to modify custom action in the space I will be the most happy guy in the world. From real perspective, this can be done much easier from inside of the ship than changing of staging.


This type of changes could be included in some minor version as it usually will not affect any already working and tuned ship or most of available mods. If you add or change anything affecting ships and flight properties, if you add new parts or do a big changes affecting mods this should be released in some major release, but still, you should consider supporting of older versions, especially in bugfixing. Believe or not, it takes hours to fine tune the ship to go smoothly to its destination/back and work properly for the whole time. I don't want to do this again and again with every new release. It is not funny anymore.

I hope you catched my idea and you will change approach to new releases a little bit as this is really bad at this time. I could excuse it till 1.0, but now it is really driving me mad.

Besides that I am still Squad and KSP fan :)



Franta

[Hobbes Novakoff]

There is no "standard software releasing schema." Most of the bugs you mention aren't actually SQUAD's fault. It's a natural consequence of having a physics-based game like this. Not to mention, it's frankly useless for them to do any major bugfixes as they are currently updating to a whole new game engine. However, on the improvements you speak of, I see your point on the viewing-fuel-in-map thing. But I don't know what you're talking about when you say "I can't control the ship in map view." Click the arrow on the bottom of the screen, that will bring up the navball, you can control.

[SpacedCowboy]

Was it an "Arnold" movie when he said,,,"Stop whining!" It sounds like your'e kissin' Squads a** and complaining about everything they do all at once. Some of the things you point out are spot on but,,, wow, surely you don't expect them to fix all of that at once?!

[fisfis]

I know there is nothing like this, thats the reason why I am asking for that :) Also I think it is Squad fault as they are modyfying basic parameters of parts or physical engine with every new release. This simply can't be because they changed engine to newer version. I am not sure you are right when you say it does not make sense to fix bugs while they are updating - not just engine, but whole game. That bug with kerbal flying over whole space while he is trying to grab ladder is here since early versions of KSP. As the behaviour is still the same it leads me to think that the physical engine didn't change so much, but the game (or parameters) which is actually using it changed a lot multiple times.

I din't say I can't control ship. I said I lose control of it. At least for a while until I click the arrow (what takes some time and during atmospheric flight it can cause crash or other unexpected behavior of the craft - happened to me many times the ship started rotating just because I lost control over it for 1 second. But anyway, I don't have overview about fuel in current stage, I can't even stage the ship...

But mainly what I would like to say, when I invest 40 to 100 hours to play the career even with bugs that driving me sometimes mad (and because of these bugs I lost kerbals or I have to restart the mission) I am looking for every new version where these bugs will be fixed while I am expecting I will be able to use ships I have previously designed and continue the career without that bugs I experienced previously.

But besides all, I think guys are doing well and the game is cool.

[GoSlash27]

The only thing constant in KSP is change.
Rather than complaining about it, I look at each new release as a learning experience. Figuring out the new wrinkles is a big part of the fun for me.
Best,
-Slashy

[fisfis]

[quote name='SpacedCowboy']complaining about everything they do all at once.[/QUOTE]
This is excatly what I am doing here. But much worse, I am blaming them I can't continue playing my career when they finally fix bugs which many times were leading to need of restarting game, game crash, impossibility to do some things (i.e warp bug), kerbal death, need of restarting whole mission... I like to have new parts and all that stuff added (I am mod hater in this case and I prefer to use just stock parts). But on other hand, I was able to play and enjoy the game even without it an I would wait two three versions for if at price bugs will be fixed. I know it is hard, I know it is boring, but it is neccessary.
[quote name='SpacedCowboy'][COLOR=#333333]wow, surely you don't expect them to fix all of that at once?![/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=#333333]
I don't expect anything. It is their game, it is their decision how they will proceed. But if it will be like this I will not play it anymore as it will be a lost time for me. And as it is also going to be difficult (1.0.4 was on the edge of playbility and 1.0.5 if far away behind it) it is not that funny and playable anymore. You can maybe say it is dificult to build rocket in the real world. Sure, but real life is not a game. And game should be at least funny an playable.[/COLOR]

[SpacedCowboy]

[quote name='GoSlash27']The only thing constant in KSP is change.
Rather than complaining about it, I look at each new release as a learning experience. Figuring out the new wrinkles is a big part of the fun for me.
Best,
-Slashy[/QUOTE]

Spot on Slashy (Thank God they fixed the kerbal and ladder thing)

[fisfis]

[quote name='GoSlash27']The only thing constant in KSP is change.
Rather than complaining about it, I look at each new release as a learning experience. Figuring out the new wrinkles is a big part of the fun for me.
Best,
-Slashy[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=#333333]Good, but if you have to rework everything to be able to continue your career (which is almost impossible with latest version), what do you do then?[/COLOR]

[Dizzle]

To be honest, it is kind of messed up that game-breaking changes are still happening after version 1.0.

[fisfis]

[quote name='Dizzle']To be honest, it is kind of messed up that game-breaking changes are still happening after version 1.0.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with it. If it will be in a separate fork. Because in this way it is not supporting modders, players, nobody.

[Van Disaster]

I haven't started a full game in a year ( when did 0.90 come out? that is about a year at least ) and I'm not going to start one until probably 1.1.2 - I just hope 1.2 won't break *that* one. There is a point where you get fatigued of starting over.

[fisfis]

[quote name='Van Disaster']I haven't started a full game in a year ( when did 0.90 come out? that is about a year at least ) and I'm not going to start one until probably 1.1.2 - I just hope 1.2 won't break *that* one. There is a point where you get fatigued of starting over.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. And I am almost in this point. How much of work would be necessary to create a career with all that stuff inside, right? And in the end, nobody will play it as with new version it will be broken all the time.

[Kerbart]

I stepped in around 0.22. I've always built my rockets as if they were real life rockets, and I always ran my missions as if they were real life missions. Sure, pancake designs were more efficient, but I just preferred my rockets to be tall and slender, just like the real thing. Sure, you could enter the atmosphere at an 85° angle at 4000m/s, deploy chutes at 65km and land just fine... But silly me preferred "real" reentries with shallow angles and with relative low velocities.

Sure, you could gain a lot by abusing the simple-minded model the game used, but what's the fun of that when you want something that looks fairly real (despite flying with little green bug-eyed men)?

Funny thing is, I haven't had the need to change a single thing while playing. My designs haven't changed significantly, and re-entry has as of yet not posed a problem to me. The way I see it is that the game now rewards me more for "trying to keep it real." I'm not complaining.

[Temstar]

My career save from 1.04 worked just fine after copying it into my 1.05 game folder. But yes for big version changes some save game migration tool would help ease the pain. Should be fairly easy to release an official migration tool that transfers:

1. Universe time
2. Orbital positions of on rail celestial objects
3. Contract progress
4. Fund
5. Available Kerbonauts

To a save game for a later version. Then if no sweeping changes to the game it could also attempt to migrate:

6. Saved ship designs
7. In flight craft stat
8. Science and tech tree progress

Into a new save game version. If not possible then just remove all existing crafts and refund their value. Place in flight Kerbonauts back at KSC and reset tech tree progress and refund all science points. Mod part migration can still be "use at your own risk".

[Tourist]

Words or phrases which have lost all meaning No. 102

Game-breaking

[problemecium]

Thank you, OP.
I still consider complaint threads to be generally unproductive, but you're the first person in quite a while who has a complain about the latest version, whatever number it happens to be, and doesn't title their thread "Goodbye KSP, patch made it unplayable."
Instead you titled it based on what the real problem was - that it was frustrating you - and posted a paragraph actually related to the thread topic. I appreciate that ;)

[fisfis]

[quote name='Kerbart']I stepped in around 0.22. I've always built my rockets as if they were real life rockets, and I always ran my missions as if they were real life missions. Sure, pancake designs were more efficient, but I just preferred my rockets to be tall and slender, just like the real thing. Sure, you could enter the atmosphere at an 85° angle at 4000m/s, deploy chutes at 65km and land just fine... But silly me preferred "real" reentries with shallow angles and with relative low velocities.

Sure, you could gain a lot by abusing the simple-minded model the game used, but what's the fun of that when you want something that looks fairly real (despite flying with little green bug-eyed men)?

Funny thing is, I haven't had the need to change a single thing while playing. My designs haven't changed significantly, and re-entry has as of yet not posed a problem to me. The way I see it is that the game now rewards me more for "trying to keep it real." I'm not complaining.[/QUOTE]

You are so lucky and possibly better rocket designer than me.

But I would like to know how you design rockets for some special missions related to career contracts. I.E. outposts... As there is no real possibility to join everything anywhere (i.e. on duna or much worse on eve), you have to bring it there completed as much as possible - far away from reality. Also, almost every rocket is far away from reality, except simple ones. And if I can reach orbit within one version and I can't in other as physical model changed (and ideal paths as well) it is really pain indias. Reentry is the same case. What if I have a ship at Moho and I need to return home with it? It was designed 10 releases ago when no shields were available and now it is impossible to get back. From my perspective, what you said, is not possible or you have just simple rockets or you update them in a time what is not for a while as usually staging is ....ed up, after disassembling the rocket what leads to necessary finetuning which could take even 10 hours within really complex ships. Since 1.0.5 does not matter how good the ship is build. Everytime something blows up on it during reentry. At least RCS thrusters! Also, reentry under 40% angle with my Shuttle is not anymore and I am loosing control of it bellow 40k. Was not problem before. Why?

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='parameciumkid']Thank you, OP.
I still consider complaint threads to be generally unproductive, but you're the first person in quite a while who has a complain about the latest version, whatever number it happens to be, and doesn't title their thread "Goodbye KSP, patch made it unplayable."
Instead you titled it based on what the real problem was - that it was frustrating you - and posted a paragraph actually related to the thread topic. I appreciate that ;)[/QUOTE]

I don't want to complain or blame somebody. I want to point out what is wrong with KSP. I hope it will help to it. I love it. But I really don't want to start a new career with every new version. And anything else than career mode is boring after while and does not make sense to me to play it. SQUAD, PLEASE, DO SOMETHING WITH IT! Edited November 17, 2015 by fisfis

[fisfis]

[quote name='Temstar']My career save from 1.04 worked just fine after copying it into my 1.05 game folder. But yes for big version changes some save game migration tool would help ease the pain. Should be fairly easy to release an official migration tool that transfers:

1. Universe time
2. Orbital positions of on rail celestial objects
3. Contract progress
4. Fund
5. Available Kerbonauts

To a save game for a later version. Then if no sweeping changes to the game it could also attempt to migrate:

6. Saved ship designs
7. In flight craft stat
8. Science and tech tree progress

Into a new save game version. If not possible then just remove all existing crafts and refund their value. Place in flight Kerbonauts back at KSC and reset tech tree progress and refund all science points. Mod part migration can still be "use at your own risk".[/QUOTE]

I have no proble with anything you have mentioned. This works les or more well. But ships does not work as designed and expected in changed environment.

[fireblade274]

I understand its not wise to fix all the bugs since the new engine is in the works. But i am growing VERY tired of having to re-do all my ships once an update comes out, in perticular 1.05. we are past version 1.0. Please stop changing physics. When my kerbals are being sent up into space, I am not accounting for the laws of virtual physics to change before i can bring them home.

[S1gmoid]

Heya.

Let me add some thoughts. So yea. Welcome to the world of modern day software development. You are flipping out because KSP behaves differently between versions... Well some people's whole job consists of making sure Windows 'security updates' don't crash the entire Intranet of the company they work for.

The sort of stability you are looking for has never really existed outside nuclear facilities and the like. The stability of the 'good old days' was mostly due to lack of active continued development, and not better planning. Duke Nukem 3d was released, and that was it. Deathmatch maps and playing styles created for the first version continued to work as there never was another version. Then Quake came out and nothing worked.

I'd suggest sticking with older versions if you don't want game balance and mechanics changes. It's quite clear that Squad's business model is not to release KSP and then disappear for 2 years while they build KSP2. Continuously evolving software is pretty much the global norm by now for various reasons. Get used to it.

- a software engineer

[fisfis]

[quote name='S1gmoid']Heya.

Let me add some thoughts. So yea. Welcome to the world of modern day software development. You are flipping out because KSP behaves differently between versions... Well some people's whole job consists of making sure Windows 'security updates' don't crash the entire Intranet of the company they work for.

The sort of stability you are looking for has never really existed outside nuclear facilities and the like. The stability of the 'good old days' was mostly due to lack of active continued development, and not better planning. Duke Nukem 3d was released, and that was it. Deathmatch maps and playing styles created for the first version continued to work as there never was another version. Then Quake came out and nothing worked.

I'd suggest sticking with older versions if you don't want game balance and mechanics changes. It's quite clear that Squad's business model is not to release KSP and then disappear for 2 years while they build KSP2. Continuously evolving software is pretty much the global norm by now for various reasons. Get used to it.

- a software engineer[/QUOTE]

Man, this, what you describe, is not modern style, this is garage style. I rather don't want to see products you release.

Normally, even if there is a new version under development, fixes for older versions are released. I rememember plenty of updates (fixes) for plenty of released games. And all new stuff was usually in a paid addon / next version of the game. This is how it usually works. You get game and some updates (usually bug fixes) for single price, addons and extensions in some expansion pack (other paid package), completely new features in new versions. Its like a windows, you get plenty of security and functional fixes during the product lifecycle, even if new version is under development.

You are right, I don't want ballances. I want bug fixes! I don't need new stuf. I am fine with old one. But it must be working properly. And if I want it I need to go for newer version where... we are in circle right?


By the way, I don't remember any critical bug in DN3D. And I don't know what Quake has to do with it. Quake was from iD while DN3D was from 3D realms. I didn't play Quake or Q3A so I can't say if there were any updates/patches, but I would bet for it. Edited November 17, 2015 by fisfis

[selfish_meme]

You should always stay on same version until you finish whatever it is you want to achieve, your looking for the best of both worlds and are sure to be disappointed. There are an average number of bugs in any software code you can't test for all of them, sometimes some bugs are not found for years. Also with this type of simulator/game there are sure to be physics changes as new systems are introduced and flaws are fixed. If you don't want that there is always quake.

Also this was the biggest bug fix release ever.

By the way best pun in a thread today "[COLOR=#333333]pain indias"[/COLOR]

[fisfis]

Hard to stay on 1.0.4 with the warp bug...

[S1gmoid]

[quote name='fisfis']Man, this, what you describe, is not modern style, this is garage style. I rather don't want to see products you release.[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand. This is not [I]my preference.[/I] It is reality.

Look at it this way: [I]MICROSOFT[/I] is doing it, and getting away with it just fine. [I]GOOGLE[/I] has been doing it since day one. From a producer's perspective, risk is minimalized, as they get immediate user feedback, plus development is cheap and relatively frictionless when you don't need to marry your decisions for life.

This is how consumer (and quite some enterprise) software is developed today. Garage seems to be pretty efficient.

[quote name='fisfis'][COLOR=#333333]I want bug fixes! I don't need new stuf. I am fine with old one. But it must be working properly[/COLOR][/QUOTE][COLOR=#333333]
...you ARE aware that there are companies who are paying ~$3000 per month [I]per processor[/I] to get this sort of thing?

Your expectations are unrealistic, and somewhat unfair to the developers.[/COLOR] Edited November 17, 2015 by S1gmoid

[GoSlash27]

[quote name='fisfis'][COLOR=#333333]Good, but if you have to rework everything to be able to continue your career (which is almost impossible with latest version), what do you do then?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Me personally... I never continue careers through major updates. I start a new career from a clean slate so I can see how the changes affect career progression.
If I'm in the middle of something when a new version drops, I finish it before updating.

Best,
-Slashy