Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

[Lisias]

7 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

At some point, if there's not a sequel coming (which I think there is), they're going to need to drop the "old PC" excuse.  This is 2019, not 2011 (early access), or even 2015 (release).  It's been a long time since the first minimum specs were set.

The age of the setup is irrelevant. What really matters is the market share of similar machines. A lot of "new" machines performs similarly to the top notch rigs of 2011, and if you want a slice of that cake, you need to keep the entry point low enough.

The Gaming is, now, a harsh and disputed Market. You earn money "up there" or "down there", but if you are on the middle, you will be squashed.

 

7 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Back in my day, if you wanted to play a game and your computer couldn't handle it, you paid the money and upgraded.  That's life.  We can't all be catered for.  If KSP really wants to be a game as a service and last a decade, at some point it's going to need to make that leap forward in the specs department.  It already looked dated visually in 2011.  The art revamp is a step in the right direction.  I think it's time we rethink the "will it run on my 10 year old potato" excuse.

Back on our day, there were more people willing to upgrade because we were used to do the upgrade ourselves. We were used to build our own rigs from scratch, and even the ones that bought it ready to use, were buying products assembled using similar components we were used to find in the shelves, so it could be upgraded.

Nowadays? Notebooks are not upgradeable. Macs are not upgradeable. Most PCs are not upgradeable (Intel NUC anyone?). And they are still useful to day-to-day tasks, so there's not a need to fully replace the whole thing, so people just don't.

That's life. We need to cope.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Lisias
uh… semantic dyslexia, as it appears...

[sturmhauke]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Most PCs are not upgradeable (Intel NUC anyone?).

I don't know about that. I've been building PCs for a couple decades now. I haven't done one in the last few years, but 30 seconds on Amazon tells me it's all there waiting for me to pick stuff. I could throw together a decent rig for around $1200 probably.

The real issue is that consoles have gotten way more powerful, and are close to parity with PCs while being significantly cheaper. PC gaming isn't going away, but game makers have had to learn to make different kinds of games on different platforms.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

I could throw together a decent rig for around $1200 probably.

Half that price.  Oh, wait.  I forgot about the inflated GPU costs.

[Apollo11nasa]

I have been playing this game for awhile now and one thing I think absolutely needs to be added to PC and console's is clouds. Sometimes when flying missions over kerban it feels empty and the fact that there is no clouds takes me out of the immersion of the game. Clouds would be a lovely visual add on. It could also add more of challenge like if it's to cloudy or to rainy you would have to wait till the clouds pass to do a launch. You could also add in New parts to help observe the weather so you can set launch dates and ect. I really hope development see's this and considers it. Im curious to other people's idea's involving clouds.

[Gargamel]

Overlapping threads have been merged

[mannscla]

On 3/29/2019 at 6:23 AM, klgraham1013 said:

At some point, if there's not a sequel coming (which I think there is), they're going to need to drop the "old PC" excuse.  This is 2019, not 2011 (early access), or even 2015 (release).  It's been a long time since the first minimum specs were set.

Back in my day, if you wanted to play a game and your computer couldn't handle it, you paid the money and upgraded.  That's life.  We can't all be catered for.  If KSP really wants to be a game as a service and last a decade, at some point it's going to need to make that leap forward in the specs department.  It already looked dated visually in 2011.  The art revamp is a step in the right direction.  I think it's time we rethink the "will it run on my 10 year old potato" excuse.

I understand this, but here's my problem: I am a young person and the only money I get is a $30/month allowance. to get a PC that will meet my requirements, I will need at least $1000. That is not cheap for me. I don't care about the dated graphics. In fact, all I care about is that the game runs at all. Usually increasing the max graphics increases the min graphics, and my computer barely works as it is.

[A Random Kerbonaut]

I don't think we need clouds now, squad has better things to do.

[klgraham1013]

On 4/2/2019 at 8:45 AM, mannscla said:

I am a young person and the only money I get is a $30/month allowance.

Yeah.  Being a kid tends to mean you're poor.  I started working at 14 to alleviate this.

[sturmhauke]

6 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Yeah.  Being a kid tends to mean you're poor.  I started working at 14 to alleviate this.

Right? I sympathize, but also that's life. I missed out on lots of classic games because I couldn't afford them while I was in high school and college. I've got plenty now though.

[322997am]

Imo squad should focus on stuff that mods cannot adequately provide. Clouds look great on EVE

[Lisias]

On 4/6/2019 at 5:38 AM, klgraham1013 said:

Yeah.  Being a kid tends to mean you're poor.  I started working at 14 to alleviate this.

Things change. You hire an underage kid around here, you are heavily fined and risk prison.

[HansonKerman]

Meeeehhhhh... Clouds are nice looking, but personally, I don't have a preference. Since it's true that all the current mods are

On 3/6/2019 at 8:15 PM, seyss said:

crappy and slow,

I just play without EVE and stuff.

But I would like some nice scattering.

[Atomic_ball]

Yes I agree with you because clouds and ooo and there should be wether if we're adding clouds and also parts to make a wether station ooh I love it

[pandaman]

For me clouds are a great addition, that's why one of my few mods is SVE.

Why?..

Firstly, for me at least, it looks 'Right' somehow and better than it did without them.

Secondly, even though they have no effect other than visually 'Just being there' it does affect game play.  Like, trying to find a landing spot on dry land on Laythe is much harder when the surface is obscured by clouds.

Should they be in stock?  IMO absolutely, yes.  But only with options and settings to satisfy hardware restrictions and personal preferences.

As for weather effects I am less convinced.  Visual representation of rain and snow etc would look great, and would have similar sight blocking effects to clouds, and storms could interfere with launch schedules etc.  But to implement the physical effects of wind etc (performance issues aside) may take a lot more effort to achieve for the gains in gameplay.  A 'roleplay' style approach to weather effects may work though, such as a random chance that launching during, or flying through a storm, incurs a random risk of sustaining damage, then the player can choose whether to risk it or not.

[Alexoff]

NEED MOAR PLANETS!

[Superfluous J]

36 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

NEED MOAR things to do on the PLANETS!

Fixed that for you

[Lisias]

11 hours ago, Alexoff said:

NEED MOAR PLANETS [FULL OF MOAR THINGS TO DO!]

10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Fixed that for you

Here, I fixed the fix for you.  

(in brackets and italics)

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Lisias
Just a small remark to avoid confusion. :)

[seyss]

After 4 pages of ppl commenting on this issue, Squad didn't even reply to this post! Great motivation you give us!

[Gargamel]

45 minutes ago, seyss said:

After 4 pages of ppl commenting on this issue, Squad didn't even reply to this post! Great motivation you give us!

Take a look at pretty much every other suggestion thread.   Count how many times Squad or a dev or a CM has replied.    Still don't need a second hand yet, right?  It pretty much standard the Devs will not comment in these types of threads.  If they did, some would construe that as a promise a feature will be delivered at some point.   They can't be doing that, it would upset too many people.   So they remain silent, and people will only upset themselves.  

Now, The devs and CM's read these threads.  They listen, but they won't normally respond.  If you want updates on what Squad is doing, take a look at the Announcements and Daily Kerbal forums.     This is where they provide pretty frequent insight into their plans.  So don't expect any feedback other than some gratuitous discussion on the topic. 

[KosmoNot79]

I feel like pc players don't need updates that have clouds or visual enhancers because of the plethora of mods out there. Even updates that add a more realistic drag model, make the game more realistic in other ways (real parts, real solar system, life support, etc.) or have quality of life features are available for pc players in the form of mods. Updates on pc should be focused on two things (more or less in order): 1. Bug fixes - the game has a ridiculous amount of bugs. It would be way more enjoyable if they were gone 2. More parts - this one isn't as important since you can download mods that give you more parts to choose from but it would make the game that bit more fun to play with because of variety and push add new limits to stock crafts. The people that would truly benefit from these realism or quality of life updates are console players. As one, I know that the game would be a lot more fun if we had a delta-v calc or a precise maneuver node. Even visual enhancers or clouds would be greatly appreciated on console. Honestly, if squad wants to add things on console that aren't available on pc it should be things that EVE, FAREM (FAROM?), or restock adds to pc.

TL;DR: PC updates should focus on bugs; console is the platform that needs the quality of life and visual updates.

[Kerbart]

42 minutes ago, KosmoNot79 said:

TL;DR: PC updates should focus on bugs; console is the platform that needs the quality of life and visual updates.

I expect both of them to run on the same base engine of the game, if you’re adding clouds to the console you’re adding them to the PC game.

And to be honest, I don’t mind seeing the PC game upgraded to a point where clouds are not bolted on, (at, what I assume, a far higher cpu cost) but integrated into the base rendering in the game. It’s one of those features that has a huge impact on how the graphics in the game look, much bigger than, say, scatterer.

Nobody expects graphics to look ultra realistic, but that’s not a reason to not upgrade anything at all.

[klgraham1013]

14 hours ago, seyss said:

After 4 pages of ppl commenting on this issue, Squad didn't even reply to this post!

You must be new here.

[Superfluous J]

15 hours ago, seyss said:

After 4 pages of ppl commenting on this issue, Squad didn't even reply to this post! Great motivation you give us!

 

29 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

You must be new here.

...to expect the developers to even read a post with such a click-bait title.

Edited May 12, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

...to expect the developers to even read a post with such a click-bait title.

I believe they do, and place bets on the contents. At least, it's what I would do. Someone needs to baby-sitter the continuous integration services, and bets was how we decide these things at my time.

Mail servers are particularly vicious. :-P

[Dr. Boo]

AGAIN,  I say the same thing... make the program in general work better. Better memory and cpu management.  Make mods better and easier to integrate . The MODDER is best thing this program has going for it. This program would be worth $50 if it work correctly all the time, and had a better look and feel. Compare it to other titles that run on PC and it is on the low end of performance, and on the high end on memory usage. I am using like 40gb of ram, of course I use a few mods. There is something wrong when a program like this takes 40gb of ram, and you have programs like EVE that take up a third.