Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 think this is rather important for context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minmus Taster Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 T-4 days, all systems are online. Crew is go for launch. Preparing for liftoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 42 minutes ago, Serenity said: My fears were confirmed, except the UI which i really liked, all the rest are a downgrade from KSP1, good luck to anyone delving into this mess Downgrade? You're kidding right? The parts look better, the KSC looks better, the planets look way better. We got new parts. Where's the downgrade? I genuinely am baffled how you can call KSP 2 a downgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, GoldForest said: Downgrade? You're kidding right? The parts look better, the KSC looks better, the planets look way better. We got new parts. Where's the downgrade? I genuinely am baffled how you can call KSP 2 a downgrade. fps alpha--> beta transition graphics.. its a overall downgrade for 0.1.x unless there is DLSS or fsr, its almost not playable on a rtx 4080.. like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcAbaddon Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) Well, I for one was hoping to see at least a few more features we don't have in KSP 1. I wish the reviewers had focused a bit more on thinks like the thrust in time warp we are supposed to have. Game looks decent, but it struggling at a bit over 100 parts on that kind of machine is troubling. Looking at the example possibly it doesn't deal well with multiple engines running at the same time. That'd be a good thing, because it'd be more easily fixable than all around bad performance. Once of the most important things to test right now is whether performance degrades with engine count or part count. Loading seems snappy after the initial load screen. And there was a lot of clipping throughout. Main issue for me at the moment is that it doesn't really have any progress mechanics. It's just sandbox. Even something as simple as milestone-based part unlocking would have been nice to have in from the start. It's not just good for having to work for something, but it also helps newcomers not having to deal with that many parts at the start. Edited February 20, 2023 by MarcAbaddon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gussi111 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Danilo Coelho said: Look at how much the FPS dropped when launching a medium sized rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, Stephensan said: fps alpha--> beta transition graphics.. its a overall downgrade for 0.1.x unless there is DLSS or fsr, its almost not playable on a rtx 4080.. like Just now, gussi111 said: Look at how much the FPS dropped when launching a medium sized rocket. Yikes, I'm still on Matt Lowne's video and he has descent FPS... But still, FPS can't be considered a "Downgrade" for a game that's literally in Early Access. Yes, it's kind of worrying, but come on, really? It's literally the first version available to the public. KSP 1 went through FPS hardship too. Let's just hold our pitchforks and torches for now, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Please keep in mind that all of this happened few weeks ago and I bet with all the feedback they got most of these issues are either gone or on the way out soon. Speaking of that performance people are complaining about, everyone seemed to not notice that the problems completely stopped after detaching the srbs. I bet if he used methalox boosters instead, there wouldn't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royalswissarmyknife Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just remember ksp-1 early access and the 32-bit game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just now, The Aziz said: Please keep in mind that all of this happened few weeks ago and I bet with all the feedback they got most of these issues are either gone or on the way out soon. Speaking of that performance people are complaining about, everyone seemed to not notice that the problems completely stopped after detaching the srbs. I bet if he used methalox boosters instead, there wouldn't be a problem. I think he was using LRBs not SRBs, unless Intercept added modular SRBs or I misread the tank name as being a fuel tank. (Haven't seen Tim's video in full yet, just watched a 5 second clip of the rocket launch, so please excuse me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Royalswissarmyknife said: Just remember ksp-1 early access and the 32-bit game. where was this stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royalswissarmyknife Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just now, Stephensan said: where was this stated? not talking about ksp-2 talking about early ksp-1 Ksp-2 is not 32 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just now, Royalswissarmyknife said: not talking about ksp-2 talking about early ksp-1 Ksp-2 is not 32 bit man, if ksp 2 is in 64 bit. i mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danilo Coelho Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 So notes so far you NEED struts. SAS modules are way way weaker, and will not just lonely support the rocket. you need rcs, or more sas modules. (Reaction wheels) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, GoldForest said: I think he was using LRBs not SRBs, unless Intercept added modular SRBs or I misread the tank name as being a fuel tank. (Haven't seen Tim's video in full yet, just watched a 5 second clip of the rocket launch, so please excuse me) He used 8 liquid fuel LRB with 9 tank segments. With SRB it went well, but that is just 80 more parts, it was an physic issue not graphic as rocket looked the same and the KSC is the hard part to render at launch. One issue could be that the boosters was not strutted at top and wobbled a bit and this ate performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Btw, I can cross one thing from my feedback wishlist. I SAW GRASS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Stephensan said: So notes so far you NEED struts. SAS modules are way way weaker, and will not just lonely support the rocket. you need rcs, or more sas modules. (Reaction wheels) Good ole struts. Just now, The Aziz said: Btw, I can cross one thing from my feedback wishlist. I SAW GRASS Someone add a mod to make the grass flammable... for "Science" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatsEJstandfor Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 I'M GLAD TO BE HERE WITH ALL OF YOU AT THIS MOMENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Just now, GoldForest said: Good ole struts. Someone add a mod to make the grass flammable... for "Science" Pretend it's a Kerbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTay Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 Watched a couple videos, looks like even on the absolute beast of a computer they were playing on it was borderline unplayable with parts counts that are perfectly reasonable for average players to use in KSP1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, TLTay said: Watched a couple videos, looks like even on the absolute beast of a computer they were playing on it was borderline unplayable with parts counts that are perfectly reasonable for average players to use in KSP1. below avg... only to the mun? max with one to duna, and was seconds a frame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinkledash Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 So... don't right-click destroy. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 23 minutes ago, The Aziz said: Please keep in mind that all of this happened few weeks ago and I bet with all the feedback they got most of these issues are either gone or on the way out soon. Speaking of that performance people are complaining about, everyone seemed to not notice that the problems completely stopped after detaching the srbs. I bet if he used methalox boosters instead, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not one of those people who saw "concerns" everywhere, but I'm not 100% delighted right now either. For the story line of "we're doing EA because we want feedback before implementing features" (and implicitly: "not because we're rushing it out of the door"), I don't get a good feelin. No re-entry effects or even heating, things floating in water don't look good, etc. You can't give feedback on things that aren't there in the first place. Obviously the product is being rushed out of the door, pretending it isn't is costing a lot of goodwill. Having sad that, it's not the heaping mount of digested food that was predicted either. A lot of the new features look great, and it appears there's a lot of improvement on the UX side. Not just how it looks, but how it works. Looking to forward to try it put (if either my hardware supports it, or if it's supported on GFN). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow71 Posted February 20, 2023 Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) Watched the videos from both SZ and Manley. I've got a few thoughts on them. For starters, the screen is cluttered, isn't it? At least, it looks that way at first glance. I spent a decent amount of time watching the Manley video to get an idea of what was happening with the HUD areas so I could see what was where. And while I don't like some of the actual graphics (the nav-ball just looks ugly now), I can see why they moved things where they did. And once I got the hang of where stuff was, I was able to immediately move my eyes where they needed to go to find things. Stuff like staging sequences, dV calculations, altitude, direction, etc. All with just a bit of watching one video, which tells me that I won't be too long for getting the hang of where stuff is. The second thought I have is on the minimum requirements discussion that SZ pointed out. This particular graphic, as an example: Someone - not SZ - posted this online after the minimum requirements thing came out, and I love that someone took the time to put this together. That red line is where the minimum specs are at, while the blue line is where the recommended specs are. Now, taking this into account with the statement that performance will be mostly - and highly - dependent on the size and complexity of the craft being built, I am now 100% certain my rig will be more than capable of handling the game. All the hub-bub about the requirements really does come down to the information not being communicated in the best manner. This is something SZ points out in his video, and I agree with it (for whatever that is worth). Another thought I have is on the tutorials shown in Manley's video. I agree that it will get annoying being talked to by someone who sounds like a kindergartener, and I also agree that some of those tutorials are going to be far below the current skill set of a lot of players. However, like Manley, I also agree that some of those tutorials are going to be worth their weight in gold due to the changes in visuals, controls, etc., that we are going to see in the game. I for one will be more than happy to spend the first few hours going through them to familiarize myself not only with the game, but to re-learn how to do things that I am now really dependent on MechJeb to perform for me. Things like landing, maneuver generation for planetary transfers, docking...all of those things that I kind of grasped doing manually but now rely upon the machine to do for me. Without MechJeb, and without knowing whether or not the computer will do them for you in the stock game, the tutorials are going to be a boon and a half. At least to me. The one thing that really bothered me in the video was the rover driving. Specifically when it flipped over and the wheels clipped into the surface. This tells me that we are still going to see odd part clipping AND the potential of the wheels not really having friction. The friction thing is a current pain point in KSP1; to see that they may not have fixed it yet is...problematic. All told, I am psyched for this to come out on Friday. I simply cannot wait for this to be available. Edited February 20, 2023 by Scarecrow71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts