KSP 2 will ruin the original

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

If the changes to the game from 1.9 to 2.0 are comparable to the changes between 1.8 and 1.9, then yes it is.

1.9 to 1.10 implies an iterative but significant change to a software version.

1.9 to 2.0 implies a massive change that means the software is essentially new.

And with KSP2 coming out, I'd go so far as to say it'd be tantamount to a lie.

Not necessarily, but okay.

1.9 to 2.0 just sounds better to me. Instead of a game going 1.9, 1.10, 1.11,..., 1.45,..., 1.99,... 1.100

[rmaine]

10 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Not necessarily, but okay.

1.9 to 2.0 just sounds better to me. Instead of a game going 1.9, 1.10, 1.11,..., 1.45,..., 1.99,... 1.100

Sounds like you are stuck on periods implying decimal points. They don't. In version numbers, they are just separators. I was about to quote a bunch of examples such as IP addresses where dots in numbers are separators rather than decimal points, but it occurred to me that KSP already has an example even more to the um... point. I'm looking at the KSP splash screen right now on my other computer. I use that Windows machine for games and this Mac (which is running OS X 10.13.6 - note the 13) for everything else. I see that KSP says it is 1.7.3.2594. That 2594 is pretty hard to interpret as a single decimal digit. But even if you ignore the 2594, what do you think 1.7.3 is doing with two decimal points? What it is doing is that those aren't decimal points. They just separate degrees of change, distinguishing between major changes, significant changes, and minor tweaks.

I'm reminded of the infamous Verizon math incident. If you never saw it, google "Verizon math" or "Verizon cents". That was also about decimal points, though the error was the other way. The Verizon rep (and even the supervisor) clearly had no idea what a decimal point was, or what units were, at least where money was involved. A period in an amount of money always was a separator between dollars and cents - never anything else. So ".002 cents" meant two tenths of a cent. Or something like that. The recording is downright hilarious. No it wasn't some Onion thing, much as it might have seemed so. It was a recording of an actual call to Verizon customer support.

[GoldForest]

Just now, rmaine said:

Sounds like you are stuck on periods implying decimal points. They don't. In version numbers, they are just separators. I was about to quote a bunch of examples such as IP addresses where dots in numbers are separators rather than decimal points, but it occurred to me that KSP already has an example even more to the um... point. I'm looking at the KSP splash screen right now on my other computer. I use that Windows machine for games and this Mac (which is running OS X 10.13.6 - note the 13) for everything else. I see that KSP says it is 1.7.3.2594. That 2594 is pretty hard to interpret as a single decimal digit. But even if you ignore the 2594, what do you think 1.7.3 is doing with two decimal points? What it is doing is that those aren't decimal points. They just separate degrees of change, distinguishing between major changes, significant changes, and minor tweaks.

I'm reminded of the infamous Verizon math incident. If you never saw it, google "Verizon math" or "Verizon cents". That was also about decimal points, though the error was the other way. The Verizon rep (and even the supervisor) clearly had no idea what a decimal point was, or what units were, at least where money was involved. A period in an amount of money always was a separator between dollars and cents - never anything else. So ".002 cents" meant two tenths of a cent. Or something like that. The recording is downright hilarious. No it wasn't some Onion thing, much as it might have seemed so. It was a recording of an actual call to Verizon customer support.

I do realize that are simply separators and not decimal points. I know how version numbers work, I'm just saying that I like 1.9 to 2.0 better than 1.9 to 1.10, because then you can end up with updates in numbers that are imo ridiculous. Take Factorio for instance. They're in update 17.66. That's kind of a bit much. And I get that Factorio isnt out of beta yet, but let's take this as an example. Ksp update 1.66 doesn't really sound that good imo. Even if it never reaches 1.66.1, it just doesn't sound good in my opinion to have 1.10 or 1.11 or 1.12. 

I guess it's just me, but having #.#.## is better than #.##.##. But again, that's just my opinion. 

[nikokespprfan]

yea, but to everyone who has learned to understand version numbers, there is a system to the abritrary choice that you don't really are to have an opinion about (I don't mean this nearly as harsh as it sounds BTW).

 

1.9  -> 1.9.1 implies a relatively small change within the current framework

1.9  -> 1.10 implies an iterative change of the current framework, like any old boring update of KSP1

1.9  -> 2.0 implies a radically redesigned framework, such as making KSP 2. 

Therefore I would not be surprised if any boring old updates of KSP 2 will start with KSP 2.1, and that KSP 2 is KSP v2.0 under the hood.

 

THere is a logic here that people have come to read into version numbers. There are expectations there, and that is what I meant with "you aren't to have an opinion about."

 

Now it might very well be that despite this, you point to an extreme example and use your dissapproval to criticise (this specific use of) this logic. In that case, point taken.

[Vanamonde]

Some comments have been removed from this thread. Please disagree with each other without mocking or insulting each other. 

[Nuke]

i dont buy this notion that somehow ksp will die because theres a ksp2. did quake die because quake2 came out? i just played a new quake mod 6 months ago. 

squad did a lot of things right with regards to making their work live on. the robust module loader, strong developer-community interaction the likest of which i haven't seen since the carmack days promoting a very strong modding community. ksp will never die so long as there are people who care about it. and who knows, ksp2 might actually be better.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Nuke

[ShawnPhillips]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Not really. 1.9 to 2.0 isn't far fetched. 

There was a huge debate about this in the Minecraft Community when the 1.9 update released, Whether the next update would be 2.0. It wasn't, it was 1.10 because that is how version numbering system in Software is typically handled. If KSP1 continues being updated beyond version 1.9 I'd expect it to be version 1.10.

[DStaal]

In general I'm pretty agostic on the v2 vs v1.10 issue - but I think it would be really confusing to have a KSP 1 v2.0.0 and a KSP 2 v1.1.0 (or whatever) at the same time.  Better to keep KSP 1 in the 1.X series, just to make it easier to keep track of.

[BuckleUpBones]

Nothing wrong with a relaunch if only to modernize graphics (which KSP2 has added me already!), though as a standalone v2.0 would transverse KSP into a classic, better and un-ruined.

[JoaquinJAR]

On 8/23/2019 at 9:53 PM, Thelizard said:

KSP 2

Making a second is a bad idea: 

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Im sorry but more Minecraft, when Microsoft acquired Mojang, they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do. Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update. Also, some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present. 

 

In my opinion "poor choice", but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

they did made a second version called "Bedrock edition", its almost the same but internally its different.
now the same is happening with KSP2, but in a bigger extent.

remember that great games like half-life had sequels that did well, and the community liked them. 

also, theres a limit of how much the game can be updated without having trouble with the "core flaws" or the game, and at some point the game would be completely rewrited, basically the same as KSP2 but in more time.

[ModZero]

...version numbering is whatever the author wants them to be, and if you want to speak like you're an expert at least know Semver - if major version change means anything "objectively" it's not "major changes that mean software is new," it means "backwards compatibility is broken" (whatever that might mean for the software), by which term KSP should be at approximately 15.4.3 by now. Not that it makes any sense for software with no published public API :-)

Edited August 25, 2019 by ModZero

[Bartybum]

10 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

It's just a matter of naming the product. Sure, use new stuff, make it modern, that's all good, but KSP v2.0 instead of KSP 2... that's a marketing move. It kind of makes no sense to make such division with a basically sandbox, openly creative game such as this one. Or Minecraft, for that matter.

But it is KSP 2. It isn't an update of the old code - it's an entirely new game made from scratch

9 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

I don't think I'm being understood here. I'm saying "make it all brand new and launch it under v.2.0". That's it.

Yes, I know it would kind of violate the whole software versioning thing, who cares?

This sounds to me like an argument stemming from not wanting pay for it...

Because if a person were happy to pay for it, then at that point it makes no difference whether it's separate or an iteration of 1.x.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Bartybum

[jpinard]

On 8/23/2019 at 8:53 PM, Thelizard said:

KSP 2

Making a second is a bad idea: 

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Im sorry but more Minecraft, when Microsoft acquired Mojang, they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do. Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update. Also, some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present. 

 

In my opinion "poor choice", but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

Thank God you're not a game developer otherwise gaming would be stuck in the toilet.  Let me point out a few things that may have already been mentioned.

#1 - KSP 1 has major MAJOR problems.  If you played much with mods and additional content, and moved far into a campaign with many entities on or circling other plants, then you'd know, building ANYTHING, or trying to do anything is a nightmare.  Performance is abysmal and sucks the fun out of the game.

#2 - Do mods change Minecraft to the level of KSP?  Does Minecraft have even 5% of the cpu demand of KSP?  Are the graphic demands of Minecraft remotely close to what KSP demands?  The answer to all of these questions is a NO.  There is literally no comparison between the two.  It's like trying to say a car is the same as a lego block.  Sure both can be modded, but one is a discreeet and complex entity.  The other is a block.  Because we can mod cars, do you think automakers should never make new versions of them and stick with originals like lego did with its original blocks?

#3 - I'm going to refer back to #2.  Do you have any clue what a mess the KSP 1 code base is?  The entire career is a few ideas patched together instead of being a cohesive design.  Does Minecraft have a career?  No.  Does Minecraft have complex physics?  No.  Does Minceraft have a hundred bajillion distinct parts you put together in a building?  No.  Minecraft is a super basic lego set.  That's all it is.  At its core it is basic as heck.  And when you have basic building blocks and a few rules, your imagination can invent some neat things to do with it.  But Kerbal Space Program is ASTROPHYSICS.  I'm simply mindboggled someone could equate the two games.  The only similarity is that they both have mods.  But then, you'd be saying NO game that has mods should ever have new versions.

 

It's fine you're scared that people may move on to KSP 2, but man.  Don't crap all over the greatest thing ever from getting off the ground.  And if you're going to make an argument, try and add some actual arguments that are relevant to it.

Edited August 25, 2019 by jpinard

[Clockwork13]

On 8/23/2019 at 5:53 PM, Thelizard said:

Ksp Is like Minecraft, there should never be a sequel, it is an open ended creative game, 

 

By making a sequel we effectively admit that the first had core flaws that couldn't be fixed with an update. 

Im sorry but more Minecraft, when Microsoft acquired Mojang, they didn't make Minecraft 2, they instead took the amazing community and built upon it, they did things we never would've thought they could do. Most of the features in KSP 2 that we know of,  can be incorporated in an update. Also, some of the parts in KSP 2 seem a little too far from the present. 

 

In my opinion "poor choice", but I'll still play it (KSP 2 ) anyway

Minecraft and KSP are two different games. KSP, in my opinion, desperately needs a sequel because of how badly optimized it is, as well as the fact that KSP 1 isn't written to support things like interstellar travel, and only colonization to a fairly limited degree. I'm still skeptical about KSP2 because it's being written in Unity as well and the first released gameplay footage isn't promising as far as performance is concerned, but we'll see

[GoldForest]

18 minutes ago, Clockwork13 said:

Minecraft and KSP are two different games. KSP, in my opinion, desperately needs a sequel because of how badly optimized it is, as well as the fact that KSP 1 isn't written to support things like interstellar travel, and only colonization to a fairly limited degree. I'm still skeptical about KSP2 because it's being written in Unity as well and the first released gameplay footage isn't promising as far as performance is concerned, but we'll see

Unity is a powerful engine when the game is coded properly and uses a fairly good graphics API like DX11/12 or Vulken. 
Performance comes down to coding, model optimization, and several other things. 
As for as the gameplay footage goes, yeah, it's not that great, but again, it's pre-alpha. 

[Talavar]

I'm not sure how building a whole new game will ruin the original, but lets look at whats being improved here....

New animated tutorials, improved UI, and fully revamped assembly and flight instructions

Next-generation engines, parts, fuel, and "much more"

Interstellar travel, featuring a solar system with a ringed super earth with "relentless" gravity, and one with a binary pair called Rusk and Rask "locked in a dance of death", another with "Charr", a heat-blasted world of iron, and "many more to reward exploration"

Colonies, "dependent" on resource gathering. You can build "structures, space stations, habitations, and unique fuel types". Eventually (once it gets big enough I assume) you will be able to build rockets directly from these colonies.

Multiplayer (not clear whether it will be cross-platform). More details on this coming later

Modding capability. Modders have "unprecedented capability" that they did not have in KSP 1. More details on this are coming later

Axial Tilt - Some planets will now be spinning on a tilted axis.

"Lighter" physics calculations for processing speed: we put a lot of thought in to optimising the way that we’re calculating rigid body physics, working with ideas like basically a LOD system for those physics calculations.

overhauled the map view and map system to allow you to plan a continuous acceleration trajectory.

added a couple more levels of time zoom because many of these voyages take years.

overhaul of the terrain system with procedural textures so no two locations look the same.

new surface mesh scatter system, so there’s a lot more small scale detail on terrains as well.

"we’ve overhauled the way engine plates work so that mutli-nozzle engines like the Mammoth are no longer really necessary, because you can attach four vectors to a 3.75 metre tank and get a similar result.We kind of want people to be able to mix-and-match engines"

"in a more recent version of Unity, we get a lot of the benefits of using physically-based rendering, which includes reflection modes, plus new shaders and materials."

"We have a planet shine system now, which means that at night on the surface of Kerbin there’s Mun light and that’s surprisingly beautiful."

" ‘will there be more exotic DeltaV challenges?’ The answer to that is yes. We’re developing the new celestial bodies with a specific view to making sure that we’re continuing to challenge players as they get deeper into the game."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, something interesting brought up by Scott Manley... You cant have a binary system with the KSP Railed, patched conic system. Yet, one is in the game..... What's going on here? (Real N-body physics?!))

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Talavar

[Guest]

On 8/25/2019 at 5:56 PM, GoldForest said:

Not really. 1.9 to 2.0 isn't far fetched. 

Nowadays most software uses semantic versioning. Going from 1.9 to 2.0 implies a backward-compatibility break (of savegames and craft). 

There's no law about it of course but yeah, it would feel wrong. KSP 2 OTOH would be a genuine 2.0. And yes it makes complete sense for them to market it as a new product; the devs have to live and getting us to pay for it all over again is one of the less offensive ways of managing that.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Guest

[karolus10]

I believe that making KSP2 is a great idea, obviously it is not going to be as original and fresh as first KSP but it has a massive potential to be designed better than the original.

KSP started a small passion project and it grew in small increments, with every new concept layered on top of an existing prototype. New title have a chance to design and implement most of the core features as one, elegant system in a way that is not possible with current game.

I do love KSP more than any other game I ever played but we all know that this game is held back by it's core design, I don't think that it could be done much better at that point in time but hindsight is 20/20. 

[Chilkoot]

10 minutes ago, karolus10 said:

I believe that making KSP2 is a great idea, obviously it is not going to be as original and fresh as first KSP but it has a massive potential to be designed better than the original.

Couldn't agree more.  KSP laid some great groundwork, but there's tons - tons - of room for improvement in the core mechanics and esp. in the gameplay elements.

From what's been revealed so far, Star Theory appears to be doing a superb job of keeping what's important and adding what's needed.  Can't wait for liftoff!

[Arugela]

On 8/24/2019 at 8:33 AM, SpartanJack17 said:

Yeah, because KSP does have core flaws that can't be fixed with an update.  I don't understand how it's a bad thing to admit that, since not admitting it would just mean we'd never get a version of KSP with major new gameplay.

Software doesn't work that way. Physical object may have that problem like a ship hull or other items that would need to be scrapped, but a program can always be fixed.

I'm not sure honestly why they wanted to make a second game when they could just overhaul the original. Not sure how adding things everyone wanted in the first place would liquid people off. In fact they need to do that to start with. It doesn't bring confidence in the new game if the old one is left unfinished. Especially not in this day and age. They could just leave access to retro code if desired to boot. In game instead of steam based or other access to old version wouldn't hurt. Probably wouldn't take up much HDD space either. Not if it's done well potentially.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Arugela

[DStaal]

Just now, Arugela said:

Software doesn't work that way. Physical object may have that problem like a ship hull or other items that would need to be scrapped, but a program can always be fixed.

If it's core design choices that need to be fixed, that may mean rewriting most of the program.  If that's the case - *admitting* that helps.

And if you're making core design changes in game, things like savefiles, mods, etc will likely be affected.  Best to put out a new version so people can specify which they're referring to.

[Arugela]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

If it's core design choices that need to be fixed, that may mean rewriting most of the program.  If that's the case - *admitting* that helps.

And if you're making core design changes in game, things like savefiles, mods, etc will likely be affected.  Best to put out a new version so people can specify which they're referring to.

They already make changes that effect those things. None of that matters. And like I said they can leave a retro version for old stuff and make a ship translator if possible. Or maybe a schematic room where you can look at the old parts to make a new one in the new game from the old ship file manually. It's a program. The possibilities are literally endless.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Arugela

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Arugela said:

Software doesn't work that way. Physical object may have that problem like a ship hull or other items that would need to be scrapped, but a program can always be fixed.

Software totally works this way.

Especially patchwork software that evolves in the years without a clear direction and a set scope.

[Arugela]

That is what redesigning software is for. It's not like we have modern tools that simplify this even more. They aren't writing in low level code and doing it all themselves. If they did it would run better and they would not complain about rewriting it as they would already know how.

If they can't do that much they don't know what they are doing. They are making KSP for cash flushes more than likely. Not because of any difficulty in potential coding. If they don't know how that is a much deeper problem. In which case knowing what you are doing on that level leads to a lot of efficiency.

You realize people used to know how to code beyond the productivity tools they hide behind today.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Arugela

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Arugela said:

Software doesn't work that way.

Yes it does.

16 minutes ago, Arugela said:

That is what redesigning software is for.

When you want to make major changes to a codebase, you're always faced with a choice: refactor or rewrite. The right choice is not always obvious, but I assure you that there are times when refactoring is much more expensive than rewriting. Especially if you're working on an evolving platform. KSP is written on Unity, which has evolved a lot since 2012, as has KSP itself. The dev team has also changed. Unless they have been continuously and expertly refactoring it, there will be a whole bunch of fundamental assumptions that were valid in 2012 but no longer are. There were also likely fundamental design faults that are due to misconceptions on how the platform works or what the product is supposed to do. It's also likely that the codebase has grown a lot of hair from patches, bugfixes, additions, people working on other people's code with an incomplete understanding of it, and so on and so forth. 

Note that this has very little to do with the competence of the programmers, or even the team. Actively maintained software tends to become more entropic over time, and circumstances that permit the required amount of work to continuously stave off this entropy are rare: you need a stable platform, a stable and competent team, and sufficient time and money to do "unproductive" work -- meaning, work on the codebase that neither fixes bugs, nor implements new features, nor makes it run faster or more stably.

Not having seen the code I obviously have no way to tell how hairy it is, but I do know this much: rewrites are a hard sell to management, and if Private Division decided to pay for a full rewrite, somebody made a pretty convincing case to them.

16 minutes ago, Arugela said:

You realize people used to know how to code beyond the productivity tools they hide behind today.

"Every program becomes first rococo, and then rubble." That was Alan J. Perlis, likely before you were born. It was like that then, and it's like that now, even though nowadays we have productivity tools that make it much easier to stave off eventual heat death much longer than before.