Poll: KSP since 1.1.

[regex]

Third part of the poll is missing an answer:

Yes and no.

I always have the last version of RO/RSS installed because it is a large, interdependent mod pack and you never know when you'll want configs you've made for the previous version put into the latest.

I have no real issues with 1.1.x because the majority of the problem is not with the KSP code, it's with Unity.

[Renegrade]

19 minutes ago, regex said:

I have no real issues with 1.1.x because the majority of the problem is not with the KSP code, it's with Unity.

One of my Golden Rules of Programming is that for every hour saved by not writing from scratch, you spend two hours fixing bugs arising from the third party library selected.

 

[The_Rocketeer]

38 minutes ago, regex said:

Third part of the poll is missing an answer:

Yes and no.

I always have the last version of RO/RSS installed because it is a large, interdependent mod pack and you never know when you'll want configs you've made for the previous version put into the latest.

I have no real issues with 1.1.x because the majority of the problem is not with the KSP code, it's with Unity.

It's not a missing answer: it's not a logical answer. I did specify 'if no' in the 2nd part of the question, so 'if yes', that part just doesn't apply to you at all.

If you already have multiple installs, I'm not really interested in whether 1.1.x is changing that because I assume that you're already better placed than single install players to go on playing and enjoying KSP even if you are experiencing 1.1.x issues.

Edited May 31, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[cantab]

"I'm playing 1.1.x despite frequent bug-related issues and/or bugs affecting the way I play." Well, crashes for a start, though they don't have a huge impact really, I've been lucky. More significantly, the reputation of wheels and legs as buggy directly influenced my craft design. I like the result, but it's still the case that I'm not using functions the stock game offers because they're buggy.

"I knew, so no". I'd rather play a different game than suffer the dreadful performance of KSP 1.0.5, now that 1.1.x has proven it can be so much better.

Yes but I only really play the one I answered for in Question 1. I hoard most KSP installs. Right now I have one main install I'm playing, a backup of that before the last time I added or updated its mods, and a clean copy of the game that stays untouched and gets copied when I want a different install. I also have several 1.0.5.1028 installs still around, an install of the 1.0 demo, and a zip with installs from 1.0.4 and earlier.

 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, cantab said:

"I'm playing 1.1.x despite frequent bug-related issues and/or bugs affecting the way I play." Well, crashes for a start, though they don't have a huge impact really, I've been lucky. More significantly, the reputation of wheels and legs as buggy directly influenced my craft design. I like the result, but it's still the case that I'm not using functions the stock game offers because they're buggy.

"I knew, so no". I'd rather play a different game than suffer the dreadful performance of KSP 1.0.5, now that 1.1.x has proven it can be so much better.

Yes but I only really play the one I answered for in Question 1. I hoard most KSP installs. Right now I have one main install I'm playing, a backup of that before the last time I added or updated its mods, and a clean copy of the game that stays untouched and gets copied when I want a different install. I also have several 1.0.5.1028 installs still around, an install of the 1.0 demo, and a zip with installs from 1.0.4 and earlier.

All of this for me as well, except I don't really feel hampered by wheel bugs because I don't use planes. I've yet to have landing gear explode for any reason other than my poor play

Also, I of course don't have exactly the same old installs of the game. Though I do have somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen that I could just load at any time, and 3 that I'm likely to ever load (Main, mod-free, and a 1.0.5 install with all the mods I was using back then).

[The_Rocketeer]

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I don't really feel hampered by wheel bugs because I don't use planes. I've yet to have landing gear explode for any reason other than my poor play

Funny, @5thHorseman, I was going to say the same thing but the other way round (I mean, I don't feel hampered by landing gears because I haven't used them lately, but wheels is another story). I've made a dozen or so new aircraft since 1.1 came out using the stock gears. When they do misbehave, it's almost always because they're overloaded or under suspended, too close together, or because my aerodynamics or thrust is driving them into the ground - in other words, my own design flaws.

When it comes to rover wheels, even better! Finally we've got wheels that don't just dig in and flip the rover, wheels that actually get a little sideways when I corner too fast, or that even let me get a little fishtail on as I power out of the turns. I don't like the new 'wheel blocked so no wheels for you' thing very much, but I understand why that's in and frankly, it's kinda realistic and it's just another design issue.

Maybe we've just let the poor few who are having issues give this release a really bad press. Indeed, these polls really seem to suggest that 1.1.x isn't anything like as bad as you'd think from the number of complaints around here.

Edited May 31, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Tig]

On 5/30/2016 at 0:16 PM, The_Rocketeer said:

Cheap is relative.

How/when did you meet my relatives?  

[Redhotita1]

Except for the fact I can't take off with planes because they steer all the way to the right (Even stock one) running full pack Real Solar System just fine!

About the more than one install...

[Temeter]

Thanks for following up with another poll, this one is much more interesting!

I go for 1.1.2, every time. RSS/RO crashes with 1.0.5 many, many times more before you'd ever get issues in 1.1. Seems quite stable atm, actually.

Otherwise in Stock the VAB crashes are annoying when they happen, but all in all performance and the memory management is much better, and despites issues even more comfortable, than 1.0.5 to me.

Other bugs are more minor or very rare, and not really a cause for concern either.

[AbacusWizard]

I'm still using 1.0.5, because in my experience so far 1.1.x seems to have some major issues with wheels and legs, and since the ability to land and take off again makes up a large portion of my space program, I kinda need those. The inability to rename vessels from the tracking station is also a huge problem.

 

I do like a lot of the improvements (to interface and performance) in 1.1.x, but I'm not going to bother upgrading until the aforementioned issues are fixed... which, based on the latest devnotes, looks like probably 1.2.

 

(I also really dislike the fact that in 1.1.x I can't have the Resources window and the Info window open at the same time. I frequently run calculations based on numbers from both of those windows. Of course, if the Resources window also listed the vessel's current mass, that would fix most of the problem.)

[p1t1o]

Doesn't matter how you word it, you aren't going to get more people to say they experience untenable bug problems - fact is, it affects people differently, and more often than not, it is not a huge hindrance to enjoyment.

Thats not to diminish the problems associated with 1.1.2 at all, however.

[The_Rocketeer]

@p1t1o that's not in any way a goal of mine. Can you explain why you thought it was?

[p1t1o]

@The_Rocketeer Uh, how about your last poll, combined with this new one, combined with: "Are we *still* banging on about that state of 1.1.2?".

But in all honestly, I apologise if I came off too harsh, it was meant light heartedly and wasn't meant to be pointed at yourself specifically.

Peace!

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by p1t1o
added emphasis for clarity

[The_Rocketeer]

27 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

@The_Rocketeer Uh, how about your last poll, combined with this new one, combined with: "Are we *still* banging on about that state of 1.1.2?".

But in all honestly, I apologise if I came off too harsh, it was meant light heartedly and wasn't meant to be pointed at yourself specifically.

Peace!

 

I don't follow you. If these were polls about a new recipe for vanilla ice cream, would you take that as meaning that I thought the old recipe was better?

It's not a question of harshness, I just don't understand why people keep telling me that polls aren't going to change anybody's mind about things. I KNOW! How monumentally stupid would someone have to be to think that it would?

[supay]

On 05/30/2016 at 0:32 AM, NateDaBeast said:

For me I only get the VAB/SPH crash when running a lot of mods like 20+ or 30+. Now I only run about 15 with most of them not taking up that much on the memory.

The game should be able to handle lots of mods, more than you could run on 1.0.5 (atleast what I was told & read up on). Now I run less mods than the amount I had on 1.0.5.

It's interesting you say that. I am on a potato PC: 2007 quad core Intel CPU and a 2011 560Ti with 8GB RAM. In 1.0.5 and earlier I had a lot of mods, say 100-120 and the game ran surprisingly well. It was only when part count started rising or I tried building space stations that things got rough. I use Linux so had 64bit for ages.

I assumed that with the upgrade to Unity 5, improved and more efficient GUI and better multithreading I would see better performance but even at just 80 mods the game is unplayable. The space centre itself lags badly and loading into the VAB lets me go make a coffee and often just crashes.

Quite disappointing as I am now far more restricted in playing the game. I think I'll have to downgrade to 1.0.5 and stay with that till the latest build improves or I upgrade my PC, hopefully later this year.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The only problem I have with this poll is the non-playing options. Those that are not playing are more likely to not even read the forum so they won't answer the poll obviously. So we'll get a bias there.

I just happen to pass by and decided to log in after who knows how long and answer just for the sake of completion, last version I played was 0.90.

[Basto]

1 hour ago, Rosco P. Coltrane said:

The only problem I have with this poll is the non-playing options. Those that are not playing are more likely to not even read the forum so they won't answer the poll obviously. So we'll get a bias there.

I just happen to pass by and decided to log in after who knows how long and answer just for the sake of completion, last version I played was 0.90.

It's the reason forum polls are meaningless. A small percentage of people who play a game actually frequent the forums for that game. 

[The_Rocketeer]

1 minute ago, Basto said:

It's the reason forum polls are meaningless. A small percentage of people who play a game actually frequent the forums for that game. 

Which is yet another reason why people getting hot under the collar about these polls are really wasting their energy.

Edited June 1, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[razark]

24 minutes ago, Basto said:

A small percentage of people who play a game actually frequent the forums for that game.

There's going to be some traffic from the people that come to the forums looking for answers to why the game isn't working for them, which only ends up skewing the results further.

[m4v]

4 hours ago, Rosco P. Coltrane said:

The only problem I have with this poll is the non-playing options. Those that are not playing are more likely to not even read the forum so they won't answer the poll obviously. So we'll get a bias there.

I just happen to pass by and decided to log in after who knows how long and answer just for the sake of completion, last version I played was 0.90.

Not really. Since I can't play KSP I'm now posting more often.

[The_Rocketeer]

Let me try to explain it like this:

My polls are coin sorters, and u are all coins.

If you don't fit into my coin sorter, that's fine.
If you don't happen to be around while I'm sorting coins, that's also fine - you just won't get sorted today.
If you're a really old dinked and dented penny, it doesn't matter when or how you got your dinks and dents, you still fit in the penny slot.
In fact, occasionally the penny slot will even pick up a few of you that really aren't pennies, but happen to be the same size and shape and weight as pennies at the moment. That's also fine, because I'm not even planning to count my money or bank my coins, I'm just curious what proportion of pennies I have compared with ducats and groats.

Do you see what I mean? It's really not that critical!

Edited June 2, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[CaelumEtAstra]

My primary save is a heavily modded 1.0.4 save, with a secondary 1.0.5 save with a few mods, mostly utilities.

Then there's the 1.1.2 save, which I attempt to build an aircraft for a half hour, it spins out on the runway, then the game crashes and I swear like a sailor. Then go over to the 1.0.5 save to build it there.

[metl]

You know what cracks me up about the whole "frequent bugs" issue? Is the amount of people that probably voted saying they hardly ever experience bugs, yet will admit their game crashes two to three times on average in any given day.

... What? Those are frequent bugs! Just because you choose to continue playing through the constant crashes doesn't mean they don't exist!

I miss the stability of 0.90, but it sucks giving up all the benefits of 1.1. 

Maybe I'm just disheartened by the notice of yet another dev (HarvesteR, who is a little more than just another dev, the freaking father of this project!) leaving , but it seems that since 1.0 launched, things have continually went down hill. I don't hold out much hope in KSP receiving too many more updates. At this point, I just hope they fix the wheels and the majority of the crashes.

[Laie]

I was a bit torn on the "frequent" thing. Linux user here, and I have a high probability that the game will crash on start. Like, immediately. It often takes me five attempts to get it running. But once started, it's quite alright and likely to last until I quit anyway.

Technically I have "frequent" crashes; in my perception I don't.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, metl said:

You know what cracks me up about the whole "frequent bugs" issue? Is the amount of people that probably voted saying they hardly ever experience bugs, yet will admit their game crashes two to three times on average in any given day.

Funny, I was wondering the opposite. How many people report "frequent bugs" and mean that their ship is wobbly on liftoff.

For the record I've had a single CTD since 1.1.2 came out, in many hours of play, lots of it in a row.

Edited June 2, 2016 by 5thHorseman