I won't pay a 50€ price tag on this game unless the single parent limitation is lifted

[Khesperus]

Quote

I can't share right now because I got so frustrated I've uninstalled the other day, but I can re-install if you can't reproduce it.

I guess this is the thing. Most of us who play with KSP enjoy messing with this kind of weird, unexpected build situations. If you don't enjoy it then I guess there are other games out there that might be more fun for you. Sorry to say, but I don't know about any of them.

[Marcus Aseth]

1 minute ago, Khesperus said:

I guess this is the thing. Most of us who play with KSP enjoy messing with this kind of weird, unexpected build situations. If you don't enjoy it then I guess there are other games out there that might be more fun for you. Sorry to say, but I don't know about any of them.

I have 200 hours on the game though, I enjoyed it as long as it let me do stuff I thought should work and if didn't work there was a logic explanation for it. For instance, had the hinge snapped in two under the weight of the fuel I would have been totally ok with that. Well, I would have hit the wall soon after realizing I couldn't use 2 hinges per leg to support more weight. Yup, since all my ideas now tend to converge to "put two of -piece_name-", I think ksp run out of fuel for me xD

So I really want a multiple parent system in KSP2 :):):)

[Okhin]

It's a game of engineering. And yes, there's a lot of frustration building up when engineering. But the kick it gives you when you finally succeed to do what you wanted, with all the constraints laid before you by the physics of the game (yes, only one parent possible. Well, works with that and find solution to build your stuff), is generally worth it.

It's a bit like bug hunting when you write software. Or prototyping in mechanical design. You spend a lot of time trying to find out what's happening, and why, getting down to the very bottom of things, until you find the one little thing that loveed everything up and find an elegant solution to your problem (or an ugly hack, because it's 2 am and you have no time for this excrements anymore). The satisfaction you get from solving the problem, is proportional to the energy invested in it, and to the frustration it generated.

I reckon that it might not be extremely sane (heck, I'm a burned out engineer myself), and there must be a frequencies at which the break through come or it's just accumulating frustration without venting it in satisfaction, ergo it build stress. This is where the line is, for me, between working in a company, and having fun (the stress is compensated by wages. or it should be). And I can totally accept that not everyone likes this kind of frustrating gameplay and frustration / satisfaction cycles, they can be exhausting.

But they're the reason I'm an engineer. And they're also what I like in KSP (more than doing space math) (even if space math is cool).

[Curveball Anders]

KSP2 == 10 beers at my local pub.

I'm quite sure that I'll get more fun over longer time than those beers.

 

[RizzoTheRat]

I've got through a damn site more than €50 worth of beer while playing KSP though, and the advantage is it's well under half the price of beer in bars

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Curveball Anders said:

KSP2 == 10 beers at my local pub.

I'm quite sure that I'll get more fun over longer time than those beers.

I don't see why we can't have both!!!

(not advisable on coding and using the Forums, however... )

[Superfluous J]

13 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Why is everyone just taking on assumption that Parent build model will stay?

Because you can't get angry otherwise.

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

I can't share right now because I got so frustrated I've uninstalled the other day, but I can re-install if you can't reproduce it.

Though first try this, it should reproduce it:

1) increase the weight. I had 2 "reliant" engines on the side and 3 "medium version" fuel storage of the same diameter of a reliant, one on the center and 2 symmetrical on the sides (the reliant too both on the sides. The leg mounted on the center piece.)

2) You should notice the crazy shaking as soon as you put this on the VAB launch platform, try increasing the spring strenght to make it jump even more (rather than less, as I had thought)

I think I also had a Science Jr., basically increase the weight until it starts dancing (rather than breaking the leg)

Yeah, now I understand!

I took that lander of mine, attached about 40 tons of fuel tanks on the top. And the thing started to bounce a bit, then the bouncing started to grow, and suddenly the thing had did a hell of a jump that destroyed the launchpad when the thing landed - but not parts got destroyed on this until the lander fell on its side, when then things started to explode (beyound the launch pad.

Then I tryed the same on the runway. Same thing, except that the runway didn't exploded.

Then I remembered something interesting - when I built that lander, I used a service bay on the bottom because it was the first thing on the format I wanted that was under my nose. The interesting thing of service bays is that the doors can be ejected, and so everything attached would be ejected too - ie, the legs.

So I just did it. Waited the thing to get a nice jump (fired the engines to help), then ejected the service bays door with the legs.

Well... The thing hit the ground with the Spark engine and... BOUNCED.

On the second touch down the lander started to fall on one of its side, and just then the Spark blew.

I think we have two problems acting at the same time: a collider not doing it's job properly, and the code that handles the Springs.

[dave1904]

Please do not say its the price tag stopping you. Your argument is not the price but the single parent part issue. You should have made that the title. I get you want the attention but people will focus more on you then the issue because the title makes you sound cheap. If you would play the game if it only costs 20euro then you not only sound cheap but are cheap. 

16 hours ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

50 Dollars?

I guess I’ll have to wait for a steam sale or something 

 

I'm just going to eat dry bread and ketchup so I can afford it at launch. 

[Marcus Aseth]

32 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

 If you would play the game if it only costs 20euro then you not only sound cheap but are cheap.

Or maybe... I have standards. If you purchase everything at launch price and don't even care how much you pay what, just to prove (in your head) that you aren't cheap, that would be shooting yourself in the foot and also every other gamer as well, because you give developers a way to get away with less and less lowering the bar year after year. So yeah, my suggestion to you (given what I got by your association of "not paying full price == cheap player") would be to think harder before a purchase.

From what you say you don't look cheap, but also don't look like a smart buyer.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, Marcus Aseth said:

Or maybe... I have standards. If you purchase everything at launch price and don't even care how much you pay what, just to prove (in your head) that you aren't cheap, that would be shooting yourself in the foot and also every other gamer as well, because you give developers a way to get away with less and less lowering the bar year after year. So yeah, my suggestion to you (given what I got by your association of "not paying full price == cheap player") would be to think harder before a purchase.

From what you say you don't look cheap, but also don't look like a smart buyer.

what do you mean year after year? Its been 9 years since ksp1 came out. Compare 2011 ksp with 2019 ksp and tell me that its not a totally different game improved on in ever way. Most of that was free and the devs did not have to make a single update after 2016. The game was finished. They did that for free. In 4 years after release they have only added 2 dlc yet given us 8 major patches. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. They are adding loads of content in KSP2 and you complain about 1 thing. That is cheap simple as that. If KSP2 is a good game at release and promises are delivered I will gladly pay the full price because people should reap what they sow. If it is bad I will not give them a cent and boycott it. 

Speaking of standards.... Publishers that release game after game without improvements do not get a cent from me. I boycott them. I do not wait until they are cheaper for my own convenience. The only game I buy every year is formula1. 

BTW, its an entertainment product. If I want to be entertained I will not wait 6 months for it. I want to be entertained now. Its not a car. I do not need to be a smart buyer. If I will enjoy it I pay. 

[Khesperus]

Quote

Well... The thing hit the ground with the Spark engine and... BOUNCED. 

Sounds like a potentially new type of Kraken drive !

Anyhow, it occurs to me that the original post follows the basic form of all complaint posts, which basically come down to either:

a. The game is unplayable because it's too realistic

b. The game is unplayable because it's not realistic enough

In either case we can address it with a mod to try to find the balance which would make OP more comfortable.

 

Specifically, if we get rid of the somewhat combative title, I think we can look at this as a mod request. Here's my idea of the specification:

Create a mod which:

• Allows the hinges to be strengthened according to some rule when attached between two very large parts
• Render the hinge as multiple hinges, again governed by the size of the parts
• Allow the user to control the number and width, and to some extent, the strength, of the multiplied hinges

This would work within the single parent model, and potentially do something like what the OP wants to do.

 

The thing is though that it's almost certainly going to trigger new, interesting, explosive possibilities.

 

If you think about it though, that's the way space exploration works. Stuff which intuitively works, or works a bunch of times can suddenly cause a disaster. Anybody care to stir the oxygen tanks?

Edited January 16, 2020 by Khesperus

[JadeOfMaar]

On 1/15/2020 at 5:44 AM, Marcus Aseth said:

I was playing KSP 1, got 2 radial decouplers vertically lined up, attach a booster to them (thinking it would have enough stability with 2 anchor points) but because of ksp system of a single "parent" object, the booster was held only by 1 decoupler... after all this years, still this limitations...

It is (or should be) common knowledge to experienced players that KSP was made by inexperienced devs and was a learning exercise by which those devs became as great as they are today. Those of us who dive deep into KSP's workings (by making plugin mods) will know this. Of course, the numbers of bugs that still remain will anger and discourage us, but the fact that KSP is an epic game in spite of that, adds to our respect for its very existence.

Sometimes, bugs will happen to you alone and to nobody else because that's how old and novice code is. Sometime back when KSP 1.1 was the latest I had a couple versions of KSP installed, and some of them became really buggy or completely unusable (I think my PC even crashed the moment I launched them but the 1 good usuable version that I didn't want still worked and my PC seemed quite fine the rest of the time). I fixed that problem.......by reinstalling Windows. That was a pretty extreme fix but it was required, and I sailed happily after and continued enjoying the particular version(s) of KSP that I had focused on.

On 1/15/2020 at 5:44 AM, Marcus Aseth said:

the reason why I won't pay a 50€ price tag on  this game

KSP very frequently drops its price and by quite a lot, which will cause the more aware of us to ponder how Squad hasn't bankrupted. KSP's replay value is beyond measure (I'm sure there are still people around who have played KSP 0.9 or even 0.25), meanwhile you'll likely spend a lot more for a game that demands top performance hardware (not just 1 CPU core like KSP, but all of them, and your GPU, and several, several gigabytes of hard drive space)...and then after a few days or weeks you reach the definite end, grow bored, and want to buy something else, and the next game likely costs just as much.

Too many people don't see that they get far more gameplay value for quite less $$ in KSP versus other games, and don't acknowledge the fact that KSP was made to be modded, and most of the DLC is the freely available mods themselves, and so these people become quick to cry about the price tag for KSP itself or the paid DLC, and they tend to feel entitled, as was seen in the storm when the DLCs were first coming out and it was announced that everyone who bought KSP before a certain date would get those for free. So many people even demanded free DLC and thus showed no respect for the fact that KSP goes on discount at least half the time so there's always an opportunity to grab these for even less.

I'm in a state where I have a pretty low-paying job, but still I would save up, little by little, and show my appreciation and buy KSP 1 (or 2), whatever the price, when the time is right.

So have a heart, my dude.

[Marcus Aseth]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

I think we have two problems acting at the same time: a collider not doing it's job properly, and the code that handles the Springs.

I actually tried to report this when I first discovered it, but didn't found where to :\

Edited January 16, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[Lisias]

17 minutes ago, Marcus Aseth said:

I actually tried to report this when I first discovered it, but didn't found where to :\

https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com

But make a search for some keywords about the problem to check if it's not reported yet. Note, however, that filling a bug and seeing it being worked out are two different things, but a bug not filed is a bug that will not be fixed for sure so odds are better by filling it.

[SpaceFace545]

21 hours ago, Marcus Aseth said:

if I'm getting ksp 1 but in a "nicer dress", I'll wait for a 7 - 15€ sale, depending on how good it is.

if this remove those limitations mentioned previously, and the "nice dress" (graphics) is the icing on the cake, then I'll pay around 25 - 30€

if the previous case but also mining, unlocking components and missions are so masterfully thought out and crafted that the player is costantly challenged and engaged to push forward, having a concrete purpose and never 100% sandbox (without clear goals), if it can reach that addictive gameplay level, then I would be willing to pay full price. (that would be a title getting 9/10 in most online reviews)

you may have to wait a few years for that

[Guest]

There would be a fairly simple fix to this which wouldn't require abandoning the tree structure (which has huge advantages for ease of building): "invisible struts" or "manually placed autostruts" that you can place by selecting the parts you want to connect. The OP's two-hinge issue would be solved simply by selecting the secondary hinge and the part that's supposed to be connected to it, which would invisibly strut the centre of the hinge and the centre of the part it touches together. 

The main issue with manual struts as they currently exist is that they're hard to place if you want to strut parts that are very close together or actually touching, and they can be rather ugly.

[mcwaffles2003]

24 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

There would be a fairly simple fix to this which wouldn't require abandoning the tree structure (which has huge advantages for ease of building): "invisible struts" or "manually placed autostruts" that you can place by selecting the parts you want to connect. The OP's two-hinge issue would be solved simply by selecting the secondary hinge and the part that's supposed to be connected to it, which would invisibly strut the centre of the hinge and the centre of the part it touches together. 

The main issue with manual struts as they currently exist is that they're hard to place if you want to strut parts that are very close together or actually touching, and they can be rather ugly.

If we can make struts which join branches then why even require them for doing so though and not make this native to decouplers/docking ports as well?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

There would be a fairly simple fix to this which wouldn't require abandoning the tree structure (which has huge advantages for ease of building): "invisible struts" or "manually placed autostruts" that you can place by selecting the parts you want to connect. The OP's two-hinge issue would be solved simply by selecting the secondary hinge and the part that's supposed to be connected to it, which would invisibly strut the centre of the hinge and the centre of the part it touches together. 

The main issue with manual struts as they currently exist is that they're hard to place if you want to strut parts that are very close together or actually touching, and they can be rather ugly.

Or OP could use KJR next which would automatically place invisible struts per part, and increases the rigidity of craft markedly. Seriously i was playing stock a couple days back and realized how much KJR next helps.

Your solution would be cool as a stock option though.

[The Aziz]

All things considered, the title of this topic is a bit misleading. Can it be changed to something like "I hope the single parent vessel structure isn't going to be a thing in ksp2"?

[Marcus Aseth]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

All things considered, the title of this topic is a bit misleading. Can it be changed to something like "I hope the single parent vessel structure isn't going to be a thing in ksp2"?

I'm simply putting forward the consequence before the required change, I don't see what's misleading about it. If I put the required change first as you suggest it could be interpreted as a feedback from the title, without even further need to open the topic and read it and not even conveying the consequence of not changing that, that would be misleading. The way I present it cannot be interpreted as a full message unless you open the topic. This way if a dev happen to read it knows the stake first and can then decide if he cares enough to know the reason and do something about.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[Superfluous J]

11 minutes ago, Marcus Aseth said:

If I put the required change first as you suggest it could be interpreted as a feedback from the title, without even further need to open the topic and read it and not even conveying the consequence of not changing that, that would be misleading.

So it's not feedback, you're just complaining.

Even with the title I was mislead. Thanks for straightening me out.

[Marcus Aseth]

14 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

So it's not feedback, you're just complaining.

I don't know, I think we are arguing english syntax here which is not even my first language, so you can call it what you want.

What I am saying is that the title suggested by Aziz it is half message and it could be interpreted as full message still. My title is half message and it can only be interpreted as half message, so there is no room for misunderstanding.

But since this title cause so much confusion, I changed it to "I won't pay a 50€ price tag on this game unless the single parent limitation is lifted" so 100% information is on the title and cannot be misunderstood even without opening it.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Marcus Aseth

[Khesperus]

Quote

 This way if a dev happen to read it knows the stake first and can then decide if he cares enough to know the reason and do something about.

I think I know what my decision would be.

[Kerbart]

On 1/16/2020 at 1:00 AM, Marcus Aseth said:

I get your sarcasm, but boring wasn't really what I was going for. My problem with it is frustration, imagine if multiple designs you create fail all in a row, and because of non-obvious reasons

I will give you this: "non-obvious" is a subjective measure, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way. For years I worked for a marketing department not having the faintest clue what these people were talking about, until they dumped me like a dead raccoon in the gutter. But I digress.

Having written software for longer than most of the fine folks of this forum haven been alive (with the exception of wise old @linuxgurugamer). the topology of a ship being a tree structure  seems like a reasonable choice to me. Surely there are limitations, but changing that *now* would require a tremendous amount of rewriting that's probably not worth the effort. Besides the consequence of of wobbly sub-assemblies is easily fixed with struts, something I personally don't think of as a big deal but as someone who suffers from borderline OCD I can totally appreciate that others don't like them.

The way I look at it is like inertia, or like gravity; it's not really relevant if you like it or not; it's there; deal with it. Software is always a compromise between cost, requirements and performance. You will always run into things it cannot do. Personally I wish you could build "complex" mechanics like the Apollo or SpaceX landing gear, but as a consequence of how parts are organized, you can't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think KSP — and presumably KSP2, if it lives up to even half of what's promised — has too much to offer to dismiss the game. At $50, even if this is in the price range of AAA games, gameplay is going to be measured in hundreds, if not thousands, of hours, as opposed to the maybe 20 hours you'll get out of your average AAA title. It won't hurt me, or anyone else, if you dismiss the game for missing certain features about designing the game; I do think that the one that will be hurting most about it, is yourself. KSP is a fantastic game. It does have its shortcomings, but that doesn't take away that when it comes to stimulating creativity and inventiveness it's out there on a lonely top, together with Lego and Meccano and maybe Minecraft. Not on top of Mount Everest, but on top of Olympus Mons.

Again, not for the sake of KSP2 — it will do fine without you — but for the sake of yourself, I ask you to reconsider. The game might not be perfect for what you want, but you'll be challenged to find anything that does it better.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Kerbart