What Annoys You Most About KSP

[Demordrah]

How unstable and unoptimized the Enhanced Edition on consoles is.  Of the 114 games in my PS4 library, KSP is the only one guaranteed to crash every single time I play it.  In fact, crashes with other games are so few and far between that it's barely worth mentioning.  KSP is king of that hill by a long shot, and reigns supreme as the only PS4 game I have ever had corrupting save data (which has been an ongoing problem for years with this game).

I back up my PS4 saves to the Plus cloud as a matter of routine, but this is the only game where I have ever needed to download one of those backups.  Funny thing is, you never really know if the file being backed up is already corrupted (I had that bite me in the backside recently).

I would gladly volunteer my free time to play test the console patches if it meant we could actually have a stable and unbroken game for a change.  I mean, that is what we expect as paying customers after all.

[Xavven]

On 7/9/2020 at 10:00 AM, SJC_Hacker said:

 

1. Probes do not require constant electrical drain,. as long as they are in hibernation mode.    Probes were plenty enough viable for me early in the game, without solar panels.  Batteries are cheap and don't weight much in any case.  The bigger problem for me, was the lack of SAS on Stayputnick.   My rocket designs would therefore have to be stable enough to be flown manually.   Or else, I would overengineer to compensate for a horrible ascent.  A few times I was able to salvage missions despite my rocket doing a summersaults once I hit about 10k, due to poor aerodynamics.  To me, that was part of the fun of the game. 

2.3 You don't need the wider fuel tanks to use the Skipper engine.  In fact, there is some advantage to using the narrow tanks, if you use side boosters and place them just above the Skipper shroud.  When you detach, the shroud becomes a pivot point, and they fall off beautifully (assuming your angle of attack is not too low), without risking a strike to the .engine or rest of the upper stage.

2.4  Yes you can stack them and its almost the same.  However there is a small mass advantage to one larger tank vs two shorter ones. 

2.5 You don't need the exact decoupler size to use the spark engine.  You can use the smaller Oscar tanks attach ti radially to a larger fuel tanks or other central ship part, and use radially decoupling, or much simpler and cheaper, use a single decouple on your larger fuel tank. .

Not having exactly all the right parts, exactly when you need them, and being forced to make rocket designs which compromise and kind-of-sort-of work, but have some drawbacks to me is what makes the game fun to me.  

 

I'll start by saying all of that is perfectly valid, but the wonky things that make the game fun to you, make them not fun to me. I want my rockets to look aerodynamic. I don't want my decoupler on my spark to look like its fairing is floating in mid air. I want it to look:

 

like this	not like this

I get that I the game will allow you to do whatever you want, but what annoys me is that it makes no sense. This looks bad to me (no offense) because of the extreme drag the ledge at the bottom should cause. Nobody should build something like this:

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Xavven

[Pipcard]

When you're in a low orbit around a small moon and the orbit's periapsis and apoapsis keep fluctuating randomly. And you have to dock two ships so they keep drifting apart.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Pipcard

[cfds]

On 7/7/2020 at 4:20 PM, Lord Aurelius said:

The most annoying thing to me about KSP is the overall lack of game cohesiveness. There's lots of half-baked systems that don't really mesh well together, especially with career mode.

I know this is a result of KSP1's development process (most of the time it felt like the original devs didn't really have a plan and were just adding random stuff until they decided to madly rush towards 1.0) and is more than likely going to be resolved in KSP2.

Exactly. Career and science mode feel like they were the exact minimum they were told to add by the corporate lawyer to make the description text ("Create and Manage Your Own Space Program") on their main page not a clear cut case of false advertising. There is barely and aspect of managing a space program in the game, they should have been honest and call it "Kerbal Lolplosion Simulator".

And don't get me started on the mostly pointless chained rigid body system and all the tacked on "solutions" to prevent it from glitching crafts apart...

[catloaf]

The scale, if the stock system is not 1/4 real scale I will be dissapointed. If course to help noobs system scale should be a difficulty setting. Easy is 0.8x stock scale with 2/3 stock atm thickness (height is scaled accordingly.) This way noobs can learn the basics in a more forgiving environment. Normal is stock scale. Moderate is 1.8x system scale 100% atm thickness. And hard is 2.7x stock scale with 110% atm thickness.

Edited July 17, 2020 by catloaf

[Firecowbruh]

When you have a lot of mods, ksp takes so many time to start.. My ksp rss ro takes nearly 30 minutes to load...

[Bej Kerman]

UI, endless parts list, Squad's lack of original ideas for updates.

8 hours ago, catloaf said:

The scale, if the stock system is not 1/4 real scale I will be dissapointed. If course to help noobs system scale should be a difficulty setting. Easy is 0.8x stock scale with 2/3 stock atm thickness (height is scaled accordingly.) This way noobs can learn the basics in a more forgiving environment. Normal is stock scale. Moderate is 1.8x system scale 100% atm thickness. And hard is 2.7x stock scale with 110% atm thickness.

#RSSmasterrace

#NonRSSusersaren00bs

Imagine the hashtags this guy makes

[kmMango]

The maneuver node system. The recent changes have made it somewhat more workable, but it can still be something of a pain. Besides that, the general bugginess of the game is also a drawback, although it has improved greatly from past years.

[Goufalite]

Kerbal specialization difference between Career and Science/Sandbox mode (by default)

A whole thread (and a mod fixing this) can be found here. In fact when you play Science/Sandbox mode with the default difficulty settings, all kerbals have full SAS and can repack chutes, but scientists still keep their "reset experiment" ability for themselves.

I started with a science mode run, but when I switched to career and realized that SAS was a particular ability I thought "wow it's like I cheated during my science run".

I don't like this because youtubers and players go "Hey I'll send Bob the scientist because he can do a lot of stuff!", while other players strugle in career to bring probes or pilots for stability assist. Furthermore what is the use of the pilot and engineer traits if they can both do the same stuff in science/sandbox? (yes pilots can do maneuver nodes but with a big  antenna in sandbox you can reach the KSC from anywhere).

Squad is aware of this. They fixed probes having full SAS in 1.6, there should be a setting for kerbals too...

[DunaManiac]

On 7/17/2020 at 1:12 AM, catloaf said:

The scale, if the stock system is not 1/4 real scale I will be dissapointed. If course to help noobs system scale should be a difficulty setting. Easy is 0.8x stock scale with 2/3 stock atm thickness (height is scaled accordingly.) This way noobs can learn the basics in a more forgiving environment. Normal is stock scale. Moderate is 1.8x system scale 100% atm thickness. And hard is 2.7x stock scale with 110% atm thickness.

Actually, I think an even better idea would be an option to randomly generate a few parameters for maybe a few planets, that way KSP would have a element of randomness.

For example, in one save KSP would be 2* the size, in another, the system would be 0.75* times  the size.

Of course, it would be able to turned off.

Edited July 18, 2020 by DunaManiac

[catloaf]

6 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Actually, I think an even better idea would be an option to randomly generate a few parameters for maybe a few planets, that way KSP would have a element of randomness.

For example, in one save KSP would be 2* the size, in another, the system would be 0.75* times  the size.

Of course, it would be able to turned off.

I think that system scale should be a fixed setting but I do like the idea of minor variations in the planets. For example, the planets mass could fluctuate between different values in a range that could be chosen, with a separate range for various different types of objects (homeworld, small moon, medium moon, large moon, rocky planet, gas giant.) Density would also fluctuate, with different values for different objects. It would do this with its composition, considering what materials it's made of and it's temperature and mass. So an object in the outer solar system could have a larger radius and lower density than an identical mass object in the inner solar system due to higher water content. The differences in composition and density would have to be small of course, to make the surface textures make sense, but some randomization would be possible. Also, atm density and composition could be determined in much the same way as planet density and composition. So in a save you may get a system with a 10% bigger Kerbol (larger system) a bigger Moho, massive Eve and Kerbin, Duna sized Mün, Tiny Minmus, Small Duna, Neptune sized Jool and big Eeloo. What this randomization would do is force players to use increased probes to pave the way for crewed flight (or abuse quicksaves, but that's lame even for a quicksave abuser like me.) So exploration could be like this: Step 1, Small cheap orbiter to learn basic facts like planet atm height, the precise orbits of moons, planet radius, and surface gravity and atm composition. Step 2 (you may have to repeat step 1 of you end up sacrificing your orbiter.) Larger orbiter and surface probe, to learn about radiation, magnetosphere, and presence of useful resources. Step 3, big drill to try and find rarer resources like uranium (may be optional.) Step 4 start creating resource collection checkpoints (optional for easier destinations.) Step 5, first crewed mission (can be done after Step 6.) Step 6, complete step 4 if you have not already. Build base with Kerbals or robots. Step 7, use kerbals to make base self sufficient and able to produce rockets. This meaningful player driven progression will definitely exist. But having fixed planet parameters will make it very risky to skip to step 5.

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by catloaf

[catloaf]

On 7/17/2020 at 6:20 AM, Firecowbruh said:

When you have a lot of mods, ksp takes so many time to start.. My ksp rss ro takes nearly 30 minutes to load...

This issue ruined my heavily modded JNSQ save.

[Firecowbruh]

And also, I play stock ksp with i7, gtx 1080 and 16gb of ram and I can't exceed 40fps... I though I could play with scatterer while I bought my config but no..

[catloaf]

15 minutes ago, Firecowbruh said:

And also, I play stock ksp with i7, gtx 1080 and 16gb of ram and I can't exceed 40fps... I though I could play with scatterer while I bought my config but no..

The quality of the pc you play ksp on gives diminishing returns very quickly. My portable computer, an ancient laptop that can't be worth more than 200$ now runs ksp at 30 fps, but my 1500$ main rig never exceeds 50 fps. However, because ksp does not use the gpu very much having a better gpu does make visual mods have a lower fps impact. Luckily a well optimized ksp like game can make great strides in performance. I cite simple rockets 2, which gets 130 fps on max graphics settings, has ridiculous load times, and can handle 2000 part ships without stuttering, plus it has beautiful surface detail.

Edited July 18, 2020 by catloaf

[Firecowbruh]

41 minutes ago, catloaf said:

The quality of the pc you play ksp on gives diminishing returns very quickly. My portable computer, an ancient laptop that can't be worth more than 200$ now runs ksp at 30 fps, but my 1500$ main rig never exceeds 50 fps. However, because ksp does not use the gpu very much having a better gpu does make visual mods have a lower fps impact. Luckily a well optimized ksp like game can make great strides in performance. I cite simple rockets 2, which gets 130 fps on max graphics settings, has ridiculous load times, and can handle 2000 part ships without stuttering, plus it has beautiful surface detail.

Yep but that's sad that a 2011 game still cant run smoothly with a 2017 config...

[catloaf]

On 7/17/2020 at 6:37 AM, Bej Kerman said:

UI, endless parts list, Squad's lack of original ideas for updates.

#RSSmasterrace

#NonRSSusersaren00bs

Imagine the hashtags this guy makes

1. I don't like RSS. It needs so many mods to be fun that you can't get above 20 fps. JNSQ is a good substitute because it adds realism but is still fun without any other mods.

2. I was a once a noob too, I understand how frustrating learning this game can be. That is why I only want it as a setting, not shoved down everyone's throat. I have been playing ksp for 5 years and would have hated JNSQ, RSS, or any realism/challenge mod up until a year ago.

3. When I said noobs I meant new player, not loser which is how you seem to have interpreted it.

4. There are a wide variety of ksp play styles. A feature you think is trash may me somone else's dream. This is why potentially controversial changes should be made options if possible. And possibly scrapped if not.

4 minutes ago, Firecowbruh said:

Yep but that's sad that a 2011 game still cant run smoothly with a 2017 config...

I think this is largely because ksp cannot use many features that modern pc's have. A lot (alot) of ksp's problems with performance come from it not being future proof. I don't care about the extra bells and whistles. As long as ksp2 is more modable, has better performance, and the ability to use modern pc hardware I will be happy to buy it. Mods will take care of the rest.

Edited July 18, 2020 by catloaf

[Firecowbruh]

I think ksp need a deep refurbishment, I'd like the 1.11 to be a huge rewrite of the game, because he is the least optimised game I've ever seen.. And that's suck because ksp is a great game... With more than 1000hours of game, I think I've spend more than 50 hours on load screen; Why Ksp take so long to load? Big AAA games with much more things to load load 10x faster

Edited July 18, 2020 by Firecowbruh

[catloaf]

8 minutes ago, Firecowbruh said:

I think ksp need a deep refurbishment, I'd like the 1.11 to be a huge rewrite of the game, because he is the least optimised game I've ever seen.. And that's suck because ksp is a great game... With more than 1000hours of game, I think I past 50 hours on load screen; Why Ksp take so long to load? Big AAA games with much more things to load load 10x faster

Ksp has a very severe case of IGTMSTATCB-EA (Indie Game That was More Successful Than Anyone Thought it Could Be Early Access) syndrome. Squad has made great strides. But getting the game any better than it is no will require a complete rewrite (ksp2.) I will reiterate though. I think Star Theory/Intercept Games/Take Two have made a big mistake with the interstellar tech and multiplayer when they should focus on quality of life and performance and modability. I wish we had gotten ksp1 2.0 not ksp2.

Edited July 18, 2020 by catloaf

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, catloaf said:

Ksp has a very severe case of IGTMSTATCB-EA (Indie Game That was More Successful Than Anyone Thought it Could Be Early Access) syndrome. Squad has made great strides. But getting the game any better than it is no will require a complete rewrite (ksp2.) I will reiterate though. I think Star Theory/Intercept Games/Take Two have made a big mistake with the interstellar tech and multiplayer when they should focus on quality of life and performance and modability. I wish we had gotten ksp1 2.0 not ksp2.

A lot of the performance issues is related to the basic design of the game, and can’t be fixed without a total rewrite.

That being the case, keep in mind that they expect and need to make money with the new game.  Just doing a rewrite without updating the genre, storyline (what there is of it) and aiming it at current players will not suffice.  However, the game has a solid core of players who most likely will buy the next version sight unseen.  This gives them a target audience of purchasers.  New game price will be $ 60, while DLC is $15.  
Frankly, I want them to make lots of money on it, because that will improve the chances of the KSP franchise being continued in the future

[catloaf]

 

On 7/17/2020 at 11:56 AM, kmMango said:

The maneuver node system. The recent changes have made it somewhat more workable, but it can still be something of a pain. Besides that, the general bugginess of the game is also a drawback, although it has improved greatly from past years.

My main gripe with the maneuver nodes is that they close sometimes, and the visual interface that ends up making you do the wrong thing. It would like be no nice to have a maneuver mode app (like resources in the top left corner) that would open up an interface like this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maneuver minimum dV change 0.1 m\s

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maneuver #1

Maneuver in t+ 0d, 4h, 30m | -/+ |

Burn time 5 seco nds

Start burn t+ 0d, 2h, 12m |  50% | -/+ | 

Total dV: 157 m/s

dV Prograde 123 m/s | -/+ |

dV Radial -12 m/s | -/+ | 

dV Normal -22 m/s | -/+ |

Maneuver #2...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it's probably missing information but it shows my idea. Most numbers that should be edited could be, and you could access it without having to click on a maneuver node. All of the -/+ widgets could be clicked or dragged or clicked, where clicking them would change the time by 1 minute or change the dV by the value in maneuver minimum dV change and dragging them would be like the current maneuver nodes. This system is in my opinion superior to the current one because it's all in one place and does not require that you zoom out in the map view. Clicking on a maneuver will bring up the interface and it could be dragged around the screen.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by catloaf

[Mikenike]

On 7/6/2020 at 5:03 PM, Xavven said:

For me it's the tech tree. It's not buggy, it just doesn't make sense from either a balance/gameplay perspective or a common-sense/realism perspective.

HOW DO WE HAVE manned modules before unmanned, where you can only control the launch button.

[pmborg]

 

On 7/18/2020 at 11:31 PM, Firecowbruh said:

I think ksp need a deep refurbishment, I'd like the 1.11 to be a huge rewrite of the game, because he is the least optimised game I've ever seen.. And that's suck because ksp is a great game... With more than 1000hours of game, I think I've spend more than 50 hours on load screen; Why Ksp take so long to load? Big AAA games with much more things to load load 10x faster

50 hours on load screen! it's something!

I will share a video that I have done, with benchmark of KSP loading/launching on KSP1.10: 0:54s, just with ShowFPS mod from @linuxgurugamer

 

COMPUTER SPECS:

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/30792802#GRAPHICS_CARD

• BOARD: Asus MAXIMUS IX CODE
• CPU:  Intel Core i7-7700K
• RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 4000 C18 2x8GB
• KSP DISK: SSD GIGABYTE AORUS 1TB M.2 Gen4 NVMe PCI-e 4.0
• GPU: Gigabyte GeForce® RTX 2080 TI Gaming OC 11GB GD6

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by pmborg

[Astrionix]

I don't find much annoying about KSP, just minor things such as wobbly rockets (which is what KJR is for).

Other than that, it would probably be getting my ship destroyed or something bad happening and then realizing I didn't save earlier. Not really the game's fault but definitely an annoyance,

Edited July 21, 2020 by Astrion

[Little Kerbonaut!]

One thing I forgot to mention was when I am trying to get a encounter with something and a bunch of random pop ups of the names of everything shows up and blocks the maneuver markers.

[VoidSquid]

Huge memory consumption and memory leaks, my modded KSP starts with 13 GB and within 2h goes to 20 GB.