Doom posting

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Here: an actual helpful suggestion:

There should always TWO official builds of KSP. :The Official Stable Build, and the Official Pre-Release build. 

That way Squad can still use those of us who are willing as beta testers. AND those of us who value stability over new features can have that. 

Yes I know that old builds are available, but me guessing which one to use (and being in the old copy) is not the same.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[regex]

1 minute ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

Yes I know that old builds are available

And there's your answer.  Just load the previous version if the new one doesn't work for you.  Plenty of people are doing this and those versions are available.

[DChurchill]

3 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

Here: an actual helpful suggestion:

There should always TWO official builds of KSP. :The Official Stable Build, and the Official Pre-Release build. 

That way Squad can still use those of us who are willing as beta testers. AND those of us who value stability over new features can have that. 

Yes I know that old builds are available, but me guessing which one to use (and being in the old copy) is not the same.

1.0.5 is not official?

[regex]

2 minutes ago, DChurchill said:

1.0.5 is not official?

It's not the "OFFICIAL STABLE BUILD", apparently.  If it's not marked as such, it's not the last stable version that worked.

[DChurchill]

Just now, regex said:

It's not the "OFFICIAL STABLE BUILD", apparently.  If it's not marked as such, it's not the last stable version that worked.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the difference is?

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Right. we're at 1.1.2 and its taken us this long to realize that 1.05 was actually the most stable of the last THREE builds. 

But if there current-plus-one release then A, we wouldn't have to figure that out and B, no one would be angry!

 

There are lots of other programs (esp open source) that do it this way.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[regex]

Just now, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

Right. we're at 1.1.2 and its taken us this long to realize that 1.05 was actually the most stable of the last THREE builds. 

1.1.2 is the most stable version I have, at least as stable as 1.0.5, not sure what you're talking about...

Just now, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

But if there current-plus-one release then A, we wouldn't have to figure that out and B, no one would be angry!

Are you sure about that?

Listen, if the latest version isn't stable for you Squad has provided earlier versions, and has done so for quite some time AFAIK.  I'm not entirely sure about Steam but one would hope Squad would include 1.0.5 as the "previous version" rather than 1.1 since 1.1.2 is an incremental build.

[p1t1o]

 

52 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

@Snark not that I disagree with your whole post - much good advice - but the 'KSP Since 1.1' poll I conducted (which I think is the only one that directly tackled the 'how often are you experiencing bugs' question) actually only showed a very small majority (<55%) having 'infrequent' bug problems, and a very large minority (>35%) having frequent bug problems. To dismiss these complaints out of hand for lack of evidence, or even suggest that such evidence doesn't exist, is a bit unfair.

I'd be careful leaning on the stats too heavily, they are indicative only.

That and your 55 figure comes from the only "positive" question and the 35 comes from lumping the answers from about 6 "negative" statements.

Its closer to 52 vs 25 from the figures, a different picture than "very small majority" vs "very large minority". 

See how easily they can be manipulated?

[The_Rocketeer]

8 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

 

I'd be careful leaning on the stats too heavily, they are indicative only.

That and your 55 figure comes from the only "positive" question and the 35 comes from lumping the answers from about 6 "negative" statements.

Its closer to 52 vs 25 from the figures, a different picture than "very small majority" vs "very large minority". 

See how easily they can be manipulated?

@Malich @severedsolo @p1t1o

I'm not 'leaning on the stats' at all, I just bunged them in from memory as a sort of sea-anchor to make the point. Tho for what it's worth, I do think a quarter still qualifies as a large minority, and barely over half only just qualifies as a majority. Heck, even 10% is a more-than-significant proportion of the community.

All that aside, I've said all along I'm not planning to extrapolate any sort of official conclusions from the polls. Nonetheless, the polls I've seen have shown that 'bugs', as a subjective term, are affecting a pretty hefty and certainly-in-no-sense-tiny chunk of the community to a greater or lesser extent, and that for some the game is unplayable, again subjectively, as a result. I'm not on any particular side of this argument, but there is qualitative evidence that bugs are both widespread and in many cases severe.

Edited June 6, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

14 minutes ago, regex said:

1.1.2 is the most stable version I have, at least as stable as 1.0.5, not sure what you're talking about...

OK well I've been wondering about this: What is your (for lack of a better word) play-style?

I'm crashing about 3 times an hour. But I have 100 concurrent flights my ships are huge and  and I switch ships about every 5 minutes. Most of the crashes happen on changing scenes (going from VAB to lauchpad, or switching ships) EDIT and this is a career game I started in 1.05

If you play the "Time-warp-through-one-mission-at-a-time" method, or are one of the people who spend all their time in the SPH making jets, or driving trains on the surface of Kerbin, then that may explain why some people are having a better experience.

How do YOU play? and how much do you crash?

Edited June 6, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[DChurchill]

1 minute ago, The_Rocketeer said:

there is qualitative evidence that bugs are both widespread and in many cases severe.

Yeah, I think we've decided that's true.

[p1t1o]

16 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'm not 'leaning on the stats' at all...

Perhaps not, but others might, reading what you say. Which can be thought of as the same thing.

16 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

...10% is a more-than-significant proportion of the community.

In polls like these, even that is extremely uncertain.

 

Ugh, stats are evil.

[DChurchill]

11 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

OK well I've been wondering about this: What is your (for lack of a better word) play-style?

I'm crashing about 3 times an hour. But I have 100 concurrent flights my ships are huge and  and I switch ships about every 5 minutes. Most of the crashes happen on changing scenes (going from VAB to lauchpad, or switching ships) EDIT and this is a career game I started in 1.05

If you play the "Time-warp-through-one-mission-at-a-time" method, or are one of the people who spend all their time in the SPH making jets, or driving trains on the surface of Kerbin, then that may explain why some people are having a better experience.

How do YOU play? and how much do you crash?

I have about 50 - 60 concurrent flights, most of which I never touch again. But anything in the "active" list gets hit several times. I don't time warp through a mission before starting another one. Some of my stuff is 750 tons at launch. I have a station at Kerbin, Mun and Minmus, have one each scheduled for Duna and Eve. I've got one long term mission that hit Moho and Eve and is almost out of fuel, stuck at Eve, and waiting for the fuel truck I sent to it.

It's crashed twice. Both times when I alt-tabbed out.

[The_Rocketeer]

@Brainlord Mesomorph don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that you're expecting a lot from the game if you're carrying forward such an large-scale save from 1.0.5 to 1.1.2. I mean, I accept that backwards compatibility for saves is desirable, even intended, but given that we know there are problems, and given that parts have been tweaked, altered or downright replaced, it seems obvious to me that you're gonna have a lot of inviting issues trying to do this.

Personally, I've not carried forward any saves from 1.0.5 or earlier, I've just started over. Career and Sandbox both, I've had fewer CTDs in 50+ hours than I can count on 1 hand, and the issues with wheels and legs have proved generally pretty manageable as long as I was willing to adjust my expectations.

Have you tried starting a new game just for 1.1? How did that go?

@p1t1o the polls are still there on the forum for people to draw their own conclusions, they don't need to rely on my post. I guess I have to suck my own eggs for being inaccurate, but then again the polls are also still live, so the proportions are potentially changeable from moment to moment - I can't link a direct update/report AFAIK!

Edited June 6, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[severedsolo]

25 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

How do YOU play? and how much do you crash?

I'll field this one. So I play a very multi ship game, my current save has 11 ships of various sizes on their way to duna, plus a good few satellites (rt) in the kerbin system, plus a healthy smattering of debris. I switch ships fairly regularly, and build various sizes. I have over 50 mods installed, including some very memory heavy visual mods.

My game has not crashed once since I got my hands on 1.1 in the pre release.

What I do get (and it's getting worse as my save becomes more bloated) is a bit of slowdown, especially on scene changes, as the old memory leak pushes my game past 4gb (according to gcmonitor). I know what that is though, I'm running out of physical memory. A restart fixes it right up. Now as I said, these restarts are getting more frequent, because my save us getting bloated. I'm sure if I took some time to delete some unused craft it would improve. I got the same in 1.0.5 only it was worse.

Edit: Actually I (inadvertently) lied. It crashed once. When my PC went to sleep while I was away from my desk. Not many games handle that well tbh.

Edited June 6, 2016 by severedsolo

[regex]

33 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

OK well I've been wondering about this: What is your (for lack of a better word) play-style?

How I play is completely irrelevant in the context of "latest stable version" labelling versus Squad's current method of providing earlier versions.  If the latest version is stable for me and others, but not you, clearly the answer for you is to use the previous version.  However, given that a majority of users seem to be experiencing little difficulty on the latest version there is no real reason to label it "unstable", regardless of what bugfixes are needed for the minority.

Edited June 6, 2016 by regex

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

10 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Have you tried starting a new game just for 1.1? How did that go?

I started this game so it would be stable in 1.0.

I'm at year 2 day 40 and I haven't gotten to Duna yet, how often do I need to start over??

 

There's an idea for a poll, When did you start you current save and how often do you crash?

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I started this game so it would be stable in 1.0.

I'm at year 2 day 40 and I haven't gotten to Duna yet, how often do I need to start over??

 

There's an idea for a poll, When did you start you current save and how often do you crash?

I have one from .21 or earlier- no problems here.

[DChurchill]

13 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I started this game so it would be stable in 1.0.

I'm at year 2 day 40 and I haven't gotten to Duna yet, how often do I need to start over??

 

There's an idea for a poll, When did you start you current save and how often do you crash?

TBH, I wouldn't get too attached to saves, for as long as Squad is actively developing the game. Unless you're willing to keep a version around for that game.

[ZooNamedGames]

Also I have a feeling this thread won't last long- just calling it early.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

26 minutes ago, regex said:

How I play is completely irrelevant in the context of "latest stable version"

I'm just grasping at straw trying to find a reason that some people have more crashing than others, beyond the usual suspects of RAM, OS and video card manufacturer. 

[DChurchill]

2 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I'm just grasping at straw trying to find a reason that some people have more crashing than others, beyond the usual suspects of RAM, OS and video card manufacturer. 

I think that horse has had enuff of a beatin. Not sure we, meaning the playerbase, is going to solve that one.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

I'm just grasping at straw trying to find a reason that some people have more crashing than others, beyond the usual suspects of RAM, OS and video card manufacturer. 

There are likely back-end issues with Unity 5, stuff that Squad can't directly fix.  AFAIK they've already corrected some serious game-breaking crashes during the pre-release.

Rest assured that Squad is doing their best to fix what they can.

[DChurchill]

Just now, regex said:

There are likely back-end issues with Unity 5, stuff that Squad can't directly fix.  AFAIK they've already corrected some serious game-breaking crashes during the pre-release.

Rest assured that Squad is doing their best to fix what they can.

Didn't I read that the Unity version with KSP is a couple of versions old anyway and that they're planning on updating that? Or am I FOS?

[regex]

3 minutes ago, DChurchill said:

Didn't I read that the Unity version with KSP is a couple of versions old anyway and that they're planning on updating that? Or am I FOS?

No, you're correct.  KSP is behind a minor version or two and Squad is waiting on Unity to provide wheel implementation fixes.  Not sure about anything else though.

Edited June 6, 2016 by regex