(Why) Do you start a new save when a new KSP version comes out?

[Hotel26]

I have the impression that, not only do most people start over for a new KSP version, but possibly they think it is the only choice?  I could be wrong: hence the poll.

KSP upgrades older versions of craft files...  I can load a 1.3.1 craft into 1.4.5.  (Naturally, going in the other direction is not supported.)

You don't have to rebuild all your craft in order to keep them when you upgrade.  So why wouldn't people upgrade their saves, or at least, test that it works satisfactorily before upgrading?

There are probably good reasons, folks; I'd like to hear them!

Edited December 27, 2018 by Hotel26

[Superfluous J]

I start new KSP careers all the time. No career lasts more than a few months in general. I tend to make a goal, do it, and then move on.

So, I tend to start new careers when new versions come out because I was going to start a new career anyway.

[Gargamel]

I always start a new save when upgrading, because when I started playing this game, an update (which dropped every couple months it seemed) was guaranteed to break your save.    That plus the chore of waiting for all my mods to update, some might never, so I can move the save over is a pain.  

[bewing]

I always start a new save, but reuse all my craft files.

[Epicdreamer]

Here too. I always start a new save after an update...or well...when I'm done with my active game. Steam auto updates KSP and I can't be bothered to turn off the auto update function, because of several reasons. KSP is DRM-free, meaning you can have multiple copies of KSP on your system. KSP runs using the files in the (that particular) KSP folder exclusively. So after an update, I make a copy of that version somewhere else than in the steam folder. From there I build a new modded game. Every install I have has a different set of mods. Different part collections, different planetpacks, tech trees or gameplay alterations etc.

In that way a KSP install always works. The mods added to that particular install always work, even when that install is very much outdated.

I've got nearly every version of the vanilla game from 1.1.2. I think including the modded installs I've got between 20 and 25 installs of KSP. Takes a bit of hard drive, but then again, I can start a 1.2.2 modded KSP version I made a couple of years ago, and all works fine. "Why?" you may ask. Because for the fun of it!

I've skipped 1.4 and 1.5 completely. The 1.3.1 save I'm still playing for well over a year now is one of those epic saves. Started with the Outer Planet Mod, some parts collections and a few other bit and pieces. It has an extensive relay network spanning the whole system, Kerbonauts everywhere and as stable as I like it to be!

Once I really get bored of this save I'll start over again with the latest version available at that moment...

 

[Curveball Anders]

I do both 1 and 2.

But I do of course create a new install (or two actually, one that stays fully stock) and copy over the relevant save(s).

 

[Tonka Crash]

My current save has been active since 1.4.4 in June and is currently running on 1.6.0 with around a dozen out of a hundred mods that have updated.  Before each KSP version update and frequently for CKAN updates, I archive the entire KSP tree just in case I have problems. I never wait to try the new update, but the jump from 1.4.5 to 1.5.0 did seem to create problems for mods in my save, so stayed at 1.4.5 for a couple weeks for mods to catch up.

[Fearless Son]

I tend to start a new save anytime there is a major change to gameplay.  Now if it is just some quality of life tweaks or part updates, I generally persist.  But when a new mechanic is added, it's back to the beginning for me.

[Snark]

Moving to KSP Discussion, since this isn't about "how do I do ___?"

As for me, I can't vote because you haven't included enough options.  My answer is "finish my career, then upgrade."

Every game I play, I always start with a "story arc" in mind, including what the "goal" is, i.e. what does "done" look like.  The whole career is geared around achieving that goal.  Once I get there, I'm done, so it's time to start afresh.  It's how I keep KSP "fresh" for me, so that I don't get tired or bored with it.  Each career is different, because each one has a different goal and/or a different set of mods.

How long a career takes will vary, depending on how much free time I have and how ambitious the goal, but it usually works out to be around a couple of months or so.  Therefore, it's not too hard for me to arrange it around when a KSP update is likely to come out. 

 

[N_Danger]

 I do 2 and 3. 

I keep the steam copy fairly clean of mods because it updates and I keep a current game with my chosen mods in a separate folder.

I use the steam copy to see whats new and mess around sometimes. Like right now with the new DV read outs.

[razark]

I (usually¹) start a new save when I upgrade because that's when I tend to change my mod mix.

I also restart between saves when I add a new mod that majorly changes gameplay.

I don't play all the time, and large swaths of time will pass between playing, so I lose the thread in my mind of what's going on in the save.  This has a side effect that I rarely have any large, ongoing projects in a save that I feel compelled to continue.

 

Of course, I could ask the same question: why do some people feel that they have to keep the same save going, rather than restarting every so often?  It's just a couple of different playstyles that are possible in KSP.

 

 

¹However, I actually did keep my (latest) 1.5.1 save when I upgraded to 1.6.0.  I think that's the second time I've moved a save across versions, and the first time across a major update.

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, Snark said:

My answer is "finish my career, then upgrade."

Yes, this needed to be an option.   Hence why I'm still in 1.3.1.

[Superfluous J]

 

29 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

2 hours ago, Snark said:

My answer is "finish my career, then upgrade."

Yes, this needed to be an option.   Hence why I'm still in 1.3.1.

So am I weird for not assuming that "Don't upgrade" doesn't mean "don't ever upgrade, ever" but instead means "don't upgrade your career save"? The other 2 were talking about saves, so I just assumed.

[Provisional Name 12]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

 

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

3 hours ago, Snark said:

My answer is "finish my career, then upgrade."

Yes, this needed to be an option.   Hence why I'm still in 1.3.1. 

So am I weird for not assuming that "Don't upgrade" doesn't mean "don't ever upgrade, ever" but instead means "don't upgrade your career save"? The other 2 were talking about saves, so I just assumed.

I will upgrade from 1.3.1, just as soon as all my mods will line up with my install and/or I have sufficiently colonized the entire solar system. That or a good version of RO comes out, I could see myself running paralell installs.

[Hotel26]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

So am I weird for not assuming that "Don't upgrade" doesn't mean "don't ever upgrade, ever" but instead means "don't upgrade your career save"?

Thank you for stating this, 5thHorseman!  I would answer you, "brilliant; not weird".

We are considering two, apparently independent variables:

1. when you start a new world ["save"]
2. when you upgrade

I see them as fundamentally independent.  More than half the population seem to view them as tightly correlated.  This poll is about how and why that second view exists.  (Light is being shed and information is being gleaned, let me assure you!)

So, "in response to a new KSP version": "does not upgrade" means "does not upgrade in immediate response to the stimulus".  It doesn't mean that you won't upgrade later for other cogent reasons.

Because this is a poll and statistical, there is a margin of error which the talented statistician will account for and filter.  Thus, when @Snark responded as he did, I consciously marked him as "does not [respond with an immediate] upgrade", anyway.  Confident that that was a decent statistical trade-off.    (Reports are being compiled.)

Edited December 28, 2018 by Hotel26

[FleshJeb]

I play sandbox, because career is a joke. In 5000 hours, I have maybe 20 hours into career and science modes.

I only upgrade when I’m sure it’s acceptably stable and patched. In fact, I went straight from 0.25 to 1.3.1. I tested out the other versions but they weren’t very good.

Currently on 1.5.1, but that’s because I wanted to share craft with a buddy. My gameplay has devolved into spending 10-40 hours engineering and testing for a mission, and then not actually doing it. I don’t even quicksave any more, because I revert everything to the editor. I have several saves that are perpetually stuck on Day 1.

[The Aziz]

The one and only update that actually broke my career was 1.0. Introduced so many changes to gameplay that most of my ongoing missions would basically burn in flames if I tried to continue them. So I started new one, and kept it through many versions to end it at the release of 1.2. Then after the whole commnet thing, I had to either build a web of commsats in the middle of career, or start a new one. So I did the latter, and had that one save for many months, but it was the lack of time that forced me to drop it, not save-breaking update.

So yeah, there is my two cents.

[maceemiller]

Every time! Why not? If KSP was a "single release game" I'd stick with until I out-played it.

With most updates there's always something new to play with....makes doing what we've done before a little different, sometimes better...keeps it "fresh-er"....Not many things In real life can do that.....nor do we have a chance to...

[Cavscout74]

I start a fresh career with each new update, but there are a couple reasons, not just the update:

1) Excuse to start fresh.  Mid-career tends to be the most fun for me, when I can do just about anything, but I have to work at it with what tech is available, so a new update is a chance to do that again.

2) Excuse to experiment with different mods.  Even if I end up going back to my "old standbys,"  a fresh career is a chance to try out new & different mods without breaking anything in an existing save.

3) I tend to stay on the "old" version for a few weeks before updating anyway, so it gives me a chance to get bored with my old career while giving my favorite mods a chance to get updated if needed.

Last, my sandbox save actually gets copied over to each new version, as it has just 6 active ships - 3 RA-2 relays at 500 km around kerbin & 3 RA-100 relays at the edge of Kerbin SoI, with all stock parts.   That's where I usually go to test my favorite craft in each version before a fresh career. 

[Xurkitree]

I keep updating my Career every update - my Career target is always a landing on each and every body, so its takes time. My first Career did it by a Grand Tour, the current Career is running OPM+Ascelpius and Life Support, so I'm not really investing in landings at the moment. Infact, Kerbals of my Career have landed on only 4 bodies outside Kerbin - Eve, Duna,Ike and Ascelpius. All the remaining missions are probes. So yeah, I'm just waiting for Kopernicus for 1.6 to drop so that I can finally ditch 1.5.1, which is about as laggy as my old laptop after a while.

[Hotel26]

OK, so here is a question to stir the pot: are there any colonizers out there?  E.g. (but not limited to), users of MKS?

What do you do when you've invested hundreds (or thousands?!) of hours into a world and a new version of KSP presents itself?

Edited December 29, 2018 by Hotel26

[l0kki]

When going from 1.3.1 to 1.4 i had to start over but ever since that i have not needed to do that aside from removing some files from missing history because the mods i use still work on 1.6. Fun thing most of my mods are 1.4.X

 

[Raptor42]

I stay with my old save because, you know, mod compatibility

[klond]

 It's nice to start with an empty craft folder so I don't have to wait 30 seconds every time I hit Open.  I keep too many versions of everything.

[Hotel26]

4 hours ago, klond said:

 It's nice to start with an empty craft folder

I know what you're speaking of!!

For that reason, I run the excellent Craft Manager mod and I keep an Archive save for no other reason than to store craft that I rarely or are not currently using.  CM is able to load from another save (e.g. from Archive into Orbit[*], which makes this convenient.  Of course, doing that load from a library save has a penalty due to the likely large number of craft stored within it, but that's not often.

* 'Orbit' is my "production" save.  As well as it and Archive, I also have a 'Lab' save which is where I build & test new craft.

                                                                                                                                                 

It's a good time to point out in this topic that, in the time that I have been playing KSP, since Dec 2014, I have maintained just 2 'production' saves [Orbit].  That is, I have only once started afresh.  (That was forced by incompatible changes in KSP 1.2 and 1.3.)

Edited January 3, 2019 by Hotel26