What is your biggest issue with ksp 1 that you want to see fixed in ksp 2?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Loading a saved game or returning to a previous site and finding your landed probes and stations no longer work or have zero mass and just float around over the surface waiting for a Kerbal to bump them into space.

[magnemoe]

I say overall physic on ground, its buggy, yes its fine that kerbals are bouncy, might even be because of airbags in the spacesuits. 

But how landing legs tend to act as catapults after time warp, this is always true if mining so the craft mass changes, weird collision with ground and lots of similar. 
And you have the fun factor that jet engines works underwater  who I discovered by accident  
Had an tail sitter plane design to land on water, it tipped over because of kerbal on ladder pushed it over, another bug, so no my nose pointed into the water, I though I might be able to lift it with some trust for the engines, instead the plane dived, I did an loop and shot up from the water and was able to fly back  

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

But how landing legs tend to act as catapults after time warp, this is always true if mining so the craft mass changes, weird collision with ground and lots of similar. 

Oh yeah.

Pretty much every change made to landing gears after they were first implemented just made them worse. They were fine as rigid parts with a massive crash tolerance, but Squad completely broke them by hamfisting suspension physics into the game.

[Ahres]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh yeah.

Pretty much every change made to landing gears after they were first implemented just made them worse. They were fine as rigid parts with a massive crash tolerance, but Squad completely broke them by hamfisting suspension physics into the game.

This.

Not to mention friction between landing gear and ground surface is... wacky. Maybe on Val if I'm not landed on a perfectly level surface should my craft start sliding downhill, otherwise, that sucker best be still sitting where it first landed.

[Kerbart]

Waiting ten years for the sequel.

[Bej Kerman]

22 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Waiting ten years for the sequel.

*Three

[gussi111]

kerbals and parts floating slightly above the ground ,  landing legs sliding on a small slope as if the rocket weighs 5kg,

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Waiting ten years for the sequel.

If anything that's a good thing.

Unless it's a story driven or GDR game there's no reason to release a ton of sequels using the same tech instead of working on updates and expansion. We're having a sequel after 10 years, right, but it's a meaningful upgrade in tech and a rewrite of the code.

Not "waiting 10 years" would have meant something like KSP finishing with 1.0 in 2015 and 1.7.3 releasing as "KSP2" a year or two earlier (2017 or 2018 instead of 2019).

People hate the Paradox model, but the alternative is not having the DLC content for free, the alternative is all the updates and DLCs of a given year being packed into a "new game" like it happens with sport titles.

 

In my view long term support and the monetization necessary to support that model are more than welcome.

[MrLivion]

Losing a encounter for no fter timewarp because orbits changed for no reason at all

Edited September 24, 2022 by MrLivion
Grammar is hard.

[Sesshaku]

This should be a no brainer:

THE LOADING TIMES WHEN YOU OPEN A GAME WITH MODS. They're insane. Even on a m.2 drive it can take more than I would call acceptable for modern games.

[magnemoe]

On 9/22/2022 at 10:00 AM, Master39 said:

If anything that's a good thing.

Unless it's a story driven or GDR game there's no reason to release a ton of sequels using the same tech instead of working on updates and expansion. We're having a sequel after 10 years, right, but it's a meaningful upgrade in tech and a rewrite of the code.

Not "waiting 10 years" would have meant something like KSP finishing with 1.0 in 2015 and 1.7.3 releasing as "KSP2" a year or two earlier (2017 or 2018 instead of 2019).

People hate the Paradox model, but the alternative is not having the DLC content for free, the alternative is all the updates and DLCs of a given year being packed into a "new game" like it happens with sport titles.

In my view long term support and the monetization necessary to support that model are more than welcome.

Here I agree with you, no point of releasing the same game again.  Better to add expansions / dlc. 
Now you can make another game with the same tech, kind of like Fallout 3 was build on the base of Elder scroll oblivion but it was an very different game. 

[Hotel26]

Crew transfer.  (And inability to unlock reserve batteries.)

[panzer1b]

Really the one and ONLY thing that will determine if im getting this game is whether they fix the performance issues. 

Visually with the right mods KSP1 is actually quite amazing (scatterer+EVE+parallax) and doesnt run much worse then stock tbh, but the main issue which just plain sucks and seriously limits what i can and cant do in teh game is performance with any vessel or ground base that is in excess of 500 parts (a single ship thats under 500 doesnt have any lag isues really). 

The lag/slowdown is somewhat bearable up to around 1K parts, but try bringing 2 fully fitted out cruisers (with full load of ammo and 1-2 of the simplest fighters i can make onboard its easily 800+ parts per ship) into loading range (and then trying to go broadside with their firework turrets) is just rediculous (for purely screenshots its fine, but doing an actual legit battle with anything but long range torpedoes is just painful with how laggy it gets (even in 100% stock its still sluggish).  Same issue with my larger stations, docking anything more then a frigate is going to be painful especially if the ship has weak RCS capability.

So yeah, if KSP2 at least improves the performance (im not asking for 5K part ships, i understand that anything resembling proper physics interaction between multiple connected parts is going to take a good CPU, but id love to see some optimization, perhaps even something as simple as treating a single ship as a solid object unless it comes within a certain distance of something it could collide with so that a ship thats just sitting there 500m away from the enemy isnt even doing any physics calcs).  As for any other changes, they are minor (ohh and plz fix the kraken bugs like the wobbling which happens alot with radially attached fuel tanks to girders/ibeams (that require a crapload of struts to fix).

[poopslayer78]

1. "Ice Skating" wheels and landing legs on the ground
2. Steering/alignment for wheels.  I always end up launching a rover, guessing and checking the settings for forward/reverse drive and steering for each wheel, then saving.  It would be nice to define a "forward" vector in the VAB and have that vector optionally drawn in a similar way to center of thrust.  Wheels would then drive/steer relative to that vector.
3. Performance - specifically wasting cycles simulating wobbly rockets when I just over-strut them anyway
4. Memory leaks - I've noticed the game tends to slowly build up more and more allocated RAM over time.  This seems to be related to entering/exiting the VAB.  Performance also slows as more RAM is consumed.  Restarting the game fixes this issue.
5. Numerical stability
   1. During time warp - For example maneuver nodes moving when entering/exiting time warp
   2. When loading a save - Landed craft exploding after loading
   3. When far away from a simulated craft - If an EVA kerbal walks far away from a landed craft, the landed craft will jitter more and sometimes spontaneously explode
6. Improved reliability for alarms - When defining alarms in terms of maneuvers, the alarms don't always work.  I always end up manually creating the alarm based on the remaining time until a maneuver.
7. Streamlined science experiment management (these may be moot depending on how KSP2 actually implements science... if science exists at all)
   1. Research labs should transmit science and consume data automatically even when the ship is not being simulated.
   2. Viewing stored science should show a mini-spreadsheet instead of a "click through each experiment message one by one" interface
   3. Biome management - After sufficiently scanning a planet, biomes should be visible as an overlay similar to ore concentrations.
8. Less tedious fuel transfer management.  It would be nice to define "fuel groups" so that when two or more craft dock, they can be selected as separate craft for the purpose of fuel transfers.  There could also be action groups defined for fuel in/out transfers.

Luckily the KSP2 teams has directly acknowledge many of these issues and promised improvements.  For the ones not directly mentioned, the KSP2 team has still mentioned improvements in a similar area or they may become non-issues if the associated game mechanics are changed.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, poopslayer78 said:

When far away from a simulated craft - If an EVA kerbal walks far away from a landed craft, the landed craft will jitter more and sometimes spontaneously explode

Eh?

That sounds more like a bug than an inherent limitation of the game.

[t_v]

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Eh?

That sounds more like a bug than an inherent limitation of the game.

I think it is both - there was some code that was creating these effects, but the underlying cause is the problems with numerical stability in the way KSP handles all of its coordinates and other vectors. Whether it is a big or a core issue, I agree that it would be good to fix it. 

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

  (And inability to unlock reserve batteries.)

Im curious, whats the application?

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

I think it is both - there was some code that was creating these effects, but the underlying cause is the problems with numerical stability in the way KSP handles all of its coordinates and other vectors. Whether it is a big or a core issue, I agree that it would be good to fix it. 

I should say here that I have no idea what you're talking about, because I've never had landers destroy themselves just because I walked a few hundred meters away. My question to "poopslayer" is how they got so far from a lander for instabilities to occur while still being inside the physics range.

If their landers are exploding because they're entering the physics range and the game is suddenly applying physics, then that's a different issue.