Please, calm down!

[Dragorans]

 

In my opinion, KSP2 was indeed overly optimistic with the hardware requirements.  

But remember: This is the first public version of the game - if a game is released in early access, people should lower their expectations to avoid what happened in the last few days. KSP2 Early Access was very overhyped, but the true launch will hopefully be not. People expect early access like it's the full game... but it's not even close. Early Access exists to find bugs and give feedback to the devs, the whole community having access to the game is not really the goal right now. Maybe in the next updates the game will have the minimum requirements lowered to the minimum.

 

 

By the way, KSP2 for now has less content than KSP1 (remember there are no robotic parts) and it actually fries your PC so I don't recommend buying until at least the third update (Interstellar Travel) based on the roadmap.

 

Summary: If you expected Early Access to be an amazing, fully-featured game, you are wrong.

 

 

kthxbye

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Dragorans
removed text line that was not supposed to be here.

[Gargamel]

5 minutes ago, Dragorans said:

After the worst leak the KSP community has ever seen, I urge people to calm down.

What leak?    The embargo was lifted a few days before the release of the game, just like any other game for the past 20 years.  

[Dragorans]

Just now, Gargamel said:

What leak?    The embargo was lifted a few days before the release of the game, just like any other game for the past 20 years.  

forgot to delete that text strip, it wasn't supposed to be there, srry

[Jubilant Bulb]

My excitement remains unabated.  I don't expect a full game, but I'm excited to see everything that is new and begin learning a new playstyle for this new system.  I'm glad to see resources dedicated to things that will be of use to new players.  Like most members here I learned to play KSP by watching Scott Manley videos, and he is an absolute treasure, but a real game should not have to rely on outside Youtubers to teach fundamental skills.  From what I've seen KSP2 is in a great position to realize a lot of KSP's potential.

[Guest]

I mean, I was kind of hoping to not have to deal with all the KSP1 crap we've outgrown like floppy rockets but I don't see a reason to get all foamed up about that just yet. It's pretty clear this is an early access product though, not just a game released a little early, and I think for some people that was a big revelation. There's a ton of work left to do, clearly.

[mcwaffles2003]

I got baulders gate 3 at launch, i know what im getting into

Spoiler

 

 

[mystik]

I was promised a full game in 2019. I never wanted early access. I was promised all these features would be in the game. There is nothing here. And it costs 50 bucks. Bruh moment. I'm sitting this one out. I will let Hercules say it for me.

 

 

[GoldForest]

11 minutes ago, mystik said:

I was promised a full game in 2019. I never wanted early access. I was promised all these features would be in the game. There is nothing here. And it costs 50 bucks. Bruh moment. I'm sitting this one out. I will let Hercules say it for me.

You were never "promised" anything. They said they would release in 2019, then they delayed it a year, and then they delayed it again by a year, and then they delayed it indefinitely, then they said they were changing plans to release a full game to releasing in early access. Not once did they "Promise" us anything. 

Delays are good, most of the time. If they had released in 2019, I promise you, your disappointment would have been immeasurable.

"Nothing here." Mmhmm, sure. Just ignore all the improvements to graphics, new parts, all the FREE updates that will be coming. Not to mention the fact that stock KSP 2 is 100 times better than stock KSP 1. Even if they weren't going to give us colonies, interstelalar, etc. Just having a revamped KSP 1 is worth $50 alone. Because KSP 1 is held together by rubberbands and paperclips. It's literally unplayable for some. KSP 2, after it fixes it's issues, will be so much better than KSP 1. That and that alone, makes it worth $50 in my opinion. 

[K^2]

24 minutes ago, mystik said:

I was promised a full game in 2019.

The studio that promised to deliver it in 2019 no longer exists.

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, K^2 said:

The studio that promised to deliver it in 2019 no longer exists.

They didn't even promise anything, afaik. 

[mystik]

24 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Not to mention the fact that stock KSP 2 is 100 times better than stock KSP 1.

Unless you already have the game already I would say you're making it up. I've seen the videos. The stuttering, the absurd graphic requirements. Oh, unlike you I payed attention. Neither Scott or Matt were allowed to change the graphic settings. Looks to me like lack of transparency from the dev team.

It is astonishing to see so many people defending corporations, lol. Mydudes, it's fine to criticize a company for failure to deliver, what's with all the reactionary responses? You act like you're on their payroll. It's fine if you're payed to defend them, but if you're doing it for free, that's a bit cultish behavior, mydudes. Weird. I will rag on the state of the game as much as I see fit.

Yes, KSP2 as it is now is a disappointing mess of an unfinished game for which the devs are asking full price. So all that "it's just work in progress, brah, they need time to finish the game" is all fine, but nobody seems to be talking about the fact that they are asking full price before the product is even delivered. If you're going to say that the full game will be more than 50 bucks, I have one reply: HAHA! Good luck with getting people to pay 50 bucks on KSP2 even when finished, let alone now, or daring to ask something absurd like 70-80-90 bucks when it is finished. Most KSP players still have potato laptops that play on minimal settings KSP. I doubt 50 bucks is something they are gonna dish out. The state of the game is bad and the devs should feel bad for putting this substandard version out for full price. Buyer Beware!

Edited February 22, 2023 by mystik

[Kubas_inko]

39 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You were never "promised" anything. They said they would release in 2019, then they delayed it a year, and then they delayed it again by a year, and then they delayed it indefinitely, then they said they were changing plans to release a full game to releasing in early access. Not once did they "Promise" us anything. 

Delays are good, most of the time. If they had released in 2019, I promise you, your disappointment would have been immeasurable.

"Nothing here." Mmhmm, sure. Just ignore all the improvements to graphics, new parts, all the FREE updates that will be coming. Not to mention the fact that stock KSP 2 is 100 times better than stock KSP 1. Even if they weren't going to give us colonies, interstelalar, etc. Just having a revamped KSP 1 is worth $50 alone. Because KSP 1 is held together by rubberbands and paperclips. It's literally unplayable for some. KSP 2, after it fixes it's issues, will be so much better than KSP 1. That and that alone, makes it worth $50 in my opinion. 

How much copium are you on? We don't have almost anything to go by other than a few cc videos and yet everything you are saying sounds like a fact.

KSP 1 is very much a playable game for 99% of people. And yes, it is cause it had a lot of time of development. But it is a working game. Don't act like it is a broken mess.

As for the delays on KSP 2, I don't really mind. But what we are getting right now does not seem like 5+ years of development (and I am willing to slide that under the table and say that the game had 2+ years of real development considering what happened to the team).

If KSP 2 will be "so much better than KSP 1" we have yet to see. So far what it has going for it are promises and graphics. But what we are getting right now, is not worth the 50 bucks for me. Once the game proves itself I am willing to give them whatever they ask for. But for now, 50 is way too much for what we are getting.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Kubas_inko
spacing

[MarcAbaddon]

I'd rather have the game late than having them released a buggy game. But blanket statements like 'delays are good' are seriously wrong.

A 4 year delay (until open access instead of a full release at that!) is not a sign of good planning and speaks toward severe management issues and a completely lack of understanding the scope of work. It's not the same as delaying by about 6 months to polish the game more. Of course, by now we know about those issues and can hope they got resolved, but that doesn't make the initial delay a good thing. 

And while it's easy to sympathize with the hard-working programmers who want to polish their game over the finance guys, the finance guys have a point too. Every year of added development time costs a lot of money. Which leads to every delay increasing the pressure on the Dev Team to release things, which isn't a good thing either.

If I look at some famously hugely delayed (counting multiple years here) a lot of them didn't turn out well in the end. There's a Ultima 9 as a famous example from the RPG genre. A delayed game can be good, but all in all a game getting delayed by multiple years isn't a good sign. I'd say it's mildly negative, in that it may still be good but has a slightly increase chance of being underwhelming.

There's this wild phenomena on the internet where games claim that delays are a proof of quality. But it's not justifiable with actual data. The delays are a sign of trouble and whether they are able to turn things around is a open bet.

EDIT: Also yes, I agree stating that KSP 2 is already better than KSP 1 is a wild claim. You haven't even played it yet. It's lacking a lot of KSP 1 features at the moment. Without trying it out it is really hard to say whether the new features make up for that. Just as an example, wheel physics seem to be as bad as ever. So we don't even have solid evidence for the broken parts of KSP 1 being fixed.

Edited February 22, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[K^2]

7 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

They didn't even promise anything, afaik. 

The original trailer actually said 2020 - I had to check, but same point. The date in the trailer was based on the roadmap presented to the marketing team by a studio that went defunct after they failed to reach an agreement with Private Division on how the game is to be developed. I don't want to oversimplify this into, "Star Theory got fired for not delivering on that exact promise," as I suspect it was way more complex than that, but it still seems weird to ask why the game wasn't developed based on that promise when the studio no longer exists.

4 minutes ago, mystik said:

Unless you already have the game already I would say you're making it up. I've seen the videos. The stuttering, the absurd graphic requirements.

You should see how most AAA games look and play a few months before the release... This is not a finished game. You can wait and see how it turns out - nobody's saying you have to absolutely buy the game now or miss out. But telling people that an unfinished game runs poorly is not a useful comment, unless you have some constructive feedback on what can be improved that you think developers might not be aware of.

Just now, MarcAbaddon said:

A 4 year delay (until open access instead of a full release at that!) is not a sign of good planning and speaks toward severe management issues and a completely lack of understanding the scope of work.

The game that's going into early access now got started on in 2020, and it was expected to be done in late 2022. Early access is landing about 2-3 months later than the game's release was anticipated, and we have 6-8 months to go by the look of it. This isn't even a one year delay.

Again, the studio that worked on the game that was announced in 2019 is defunct. That project effectively died. Some talent and assets have been moved over to the new version of KSP2, but trust me, this game was started almost from scratch in 2020. No project can be simply resumed after such a migration. It was an almost clean reboot of the development process. And we can see it in everything, from the state of the game to the people the team was hiring at the time.

I don't like the fact that Take Two / Private Division tried to mask that, and make it look like a series of delays, but they were simply trying to avoid spooking the investors. Nobody had any intention of releasing KSP2 before late 2022.

Edited February 22, 2023 by K^2

[mystik]

Just now, Kubas_inko said:

But for now, 50 is way too much for what we are getting.

My man nailed it exactly. It's not that the game is garbage in the current state. If it was 5 bucks I'd throw it at the screen and be like, eh, it's a complete garbage but it's cheap garbage. You're not getting a game on the 24th. What you are getting is paying 50 bucks to the developers so that you get unwillingly hired as a game tester. Weird to me that some people want to do work AND pay for that. I was a game tester years back. It's not fun. It's frustrating. You don't enjoy playing. That's why they pay people to test the games. This "pay to work" is a new thing for me. Must be a western thing, where I'm from most people would face palm so hard they would cause injury.

[mystik]

16 minutes ago, K^2 said:

But telling people that an unfinished game runs poorly is not a useful comment, unless you have some constructive feedback on what can be improved that you think developers might not be aware of.

Lol. Why must I give constructive feedback? Why must I be "positive", "careful", "provide a safe space"? I have a criticism of the game and I won't be "constructive" about it simply because me and the devs are not relatives, they don't feed me, don't care about me. The folk doing this are doing it form money, behind a cold corporation with steel and glass windows, which don't care about mine or your sensitivities. I can be as unconstructive as I wish, I don't have to be "nice" to some strangers that mean nothing to me, I'm talking about a transaction here. If they want me to be constructive, and give them ideas on what they can do better they can pay me, I'm not giving my time out for free. If the game sucks I say the game sucks. If the game is good, I will say it is worth the money and buy it. You might like to hear that the "game is not optimal" or whatever word soup is on the "Current Year's" menu, but I like to express what I mean exactly the way I mean it. If I ain't breaking the rules I can say as I see fit. I won't waste time being "nice" to a faceless company. Tf? This is just weird, bro, ngl.

Edited February 22, 2023 by mystik

[Guest]

From where I'm standing KSP2 looks pretty good for an alpha. It's more or less what I'd expect to see given the time and resources that have actually been invested into the game. There's clearly an amazing game there waiting to be finished.

While I don't work for either of them (although I am in gamedev), I know people from TT and PD. KSP is PD's crown jewel. A lot of people at PD are hardcore KSP fans. They want this game to succeed. They've put a LOT of time, effort, and money into KSP2. This is not a fast cash grab. It will only pay itself back if it's a sustained, long-term success like KSP1. 

Finally: EA is an invitation to the sausage factory. It can be incredibly exciting to see a game take shape, but if you're turned off by the blood and guts and just want the sausages, wait for 1.0 (or beyond) and then make up your mind. I would not pay 50 bucks for KSP2 in its current state as a game, but I will pay 50 bucks to see how it gets from where it is now to what it promises to be.

[Kubas_inko]

5 minutes ago, mystik said:

I won't waste time being "nice" to a faceless company. Tf? This is just weird, bro, ngl.

Ok now. The team from what I can tell actually cares. The question is if their higher-ups will let them care.

But I understand that as it is no longer a small studio but a subsidiary of a giant company that people can feel this way. And I don't have anything against it. After all, it's your decision.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, mystik said:

Unless you already have the game already I would say you're making it up. I've seen the videos. The stuttering, the absurd graphic requirements. Oh, unlike you I payed attention. Neither Scott or Matt were allowed to change the graphic settings. Looks to me like lack of transparency from the dev team.

It is astonishing to see so many people defending corporations, lol. Mydudes, it's fine to criticize a company for failure to deliver, what's with all the reactionary responses? You act like you're on their payroll. It's fine if you're payed to defend them, but if you're doing it for free, that's a bit cultish behavior, mydudes. Weird. I will rag on the state of the game as much as I see fit.

Yes, KSP2 as it is now is a disappointing mess of an unfinished game for which the devs are asking full price. So all that "it's just work in progress, brah, they need time to finish the game" is all fine, but nobody seems to be talking about the fact that they are asking full price before the product is even delivered. If you're going to say that the full game will be more than 50 bucks, I have one reply: HAHA! Good luck with getting people to pay 50 bucks on KSP2 even when finished, let alone now, or daring to ask something absurd like 70-80-90 bucks when it is finished. Most KSP players still have potato laptops that play on minimal settings KSP. I doubt 50 bucks is something they are gonna dish out. The state of the game is bad and the devs should feel bad for putting this substandard version out for full price. Buyer Beware!

You missed one major part of my comment. Later on in my comment, I add this:

33 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

KSP 2, after it fixes it's issues, will be so much better than KSP 1. That and that alone, makes it worth $50 in my opinion. 

I change my comment later on to be "After it is fixed." You either missed it, or purposely didn't include it. Idk which, so I won't comment on it missing.

The settings weren't allowed to be changed, yes, but if you go watch SWDennis' video, he shows the graphical settings. Everyone was playing on ULTRA settings. Now, I will admit, a 4080 not being able to handle ultra settings when they said a 3080 would be needed to handle "High" settings is a bit alarming, but this is early access. Very early access. Bugs and poor performance are expected. People are freaking out, for nothing! KSP 1 literally went through the same woes. I remember a few performance shattering updates, that were patched within days to weeks.

They aren't "Failing to deliver." Is this a 1.0 release? No? Then they haven't "delivered" the product yet. It's early access. Meaning open beta, meaning the game is NOT released yet. People treating this like this is the actual release of the game is kind of ridiculous. Things will improve and get better. 

Cultish behavior? No. No it's not. I'm not defending their poor performance. I'm pointing out the fact that KSP 2 is objectively better than KSP 1. Even with its poor performance, which will improve as EA goes on. 

You're free to 'rag' on the game but do so in a critical way. Don't just go, "Performance bad. Game bad. No buy. Worse sequel ever." Because that's what I'm getting from your comment.

I agree that $50 bucks is a little high, but then again, the game has a lot more than KSP 1 has, imo, even with the missing features. On top of that, you're going to get free updates that will literally take the game and increase it's size 10-fold. Literally in some aspects. Is that worth a $50 premium? You have to decide that for yourself. I for one, do think it's worth it, because the game will get improvements and updates in the future. And yes, the price will increase after EA is over. It's been confirmed, and with how games are moving from $60 bucks to $70 bucks, I'm assuming it will be $70. Which some people will be willing to pay, because if the game is worth it, it's worth it. 

You can't say people won't pay $70 dollars, you aren't everyone.

The state of the game is bad, yes, but it will improve. That's what Early Access is for. The devs shouldn't feel bad. They know they're releasing an unfinished game, but they're doing so with the intent to make it better. 

2 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

How much copium are you on? We don't have almost anything to go by other than a few cc videos and yet everything you are saying sounds like a fact.
KSP 1 is very much a playable game for 99% of people. And yes, it is cause it had a lot of time of development. But it is a working game. Don't act like it is a broken mess.
As for the delays on KSP 2, I don't really mind. But what we are getting right now does not seem like 5+ years of development (and I am willing to slide that under the table and say that the game had 2+ years of real development considering what happened to the team).
If KSP 2 will be "so much better than KSP 1" we have yet to see. So far what it has going for it are promises and graphics. But what we are getting right now, is not worth the 50 bucks for me. Once the game proves itself I am willing to give them whatever they ask for. But for now, 50 is way too much for what we are getting.

I am not on any "copium". KSP 2 is objectively better than KSP 1. Sure it has poor performance, but that's all that's bad with it. If you look at everything else, KSP 2 is better than KSP 1. Don't tunnel vision on the bad performance and miss everything that's new and improved.

KSP 1 is not 'very much playable for 99% of people.' Where's your source? Because the fact is quite the opposite. It IS a broken mess. Go looking around the forums. You'll find dozens of new complaints every day about how people have crashes or have to restart KSP because something broke. 

Just now, K^2 said:

The original trailer actually said 2020 - I had to check, but same point. The date in the trailer was based on the roadmap presented to the marketing team by a studio that went defunct after they failed to reach an agreement with Private Division on how the game is to be developed. I don't want to oversimplify this into, "Star Theory got fired for not delivering on that exact promise," as I suspect it was way more complex than that, but it still seems weird to ask why the game wasn't developed based on that promise when the studio no longer exists.

You should see how most AAA games look and play a few months before the release... This is not a finished game. You can wait and see how it turns out - nobody's saying you have to absolutely buy the game now or miss out. But telling people that an unfinished game runs poorly is not a useful comment, unless you have some constructive feedback on what can be improved that you think developers might not be aware of.

Release dates aren't really promises though, because as we've seen with KSP 2, they change all the time. 

Exactly my point. Early Access. I've played several EA games now, and some of them had super poor performance until a major update or two. 

29 minutes ago, mystik said:

My man nailed it exactly. It's not that the game is garbage in the current state. If it was 5 bucks I'd throw it at the screen and be like, eh, it's a complete garbage but it's cheap garbage. You're not getting a game on the 24th. What you are getting is paying 50 bucks to the developers so that you get unwillingly hired as a game tester. Weird to me that some people want to do work AND pay for that. I was a game tester years back. It's not fun. It's frustrating. You don't enjoy playing. That's why they pay people to test the games. This "pay to work" is a new thing for me. Must be a western thing, where I'm from most people would face palm so hard they would cause injury.

Garbage? No. It's not. Objectively, it is not. Garbage would be if nothing worked. You are tunnel visioning on the bad performance and ignoring all the improvments. But, go right ahead and call it garbage. You're opionion.

15 minutes ago, mystik said:

Lol. Why must I give constructive feedback? Why must I be "positive", "careful", "provide a safe space"? I have a criticism of the game and I won't be "constructive" about it simply because me and the devs are not relatives, they don't feed me, don't care about me. The folk doing this are doing it form money, behind a cold corporation with steel and glass windows, which don't care about mine or your sensitivities. I can be as unconstructive as I wish, I don't have to be "nice" to some strangers that mean nothing to me, I'm talking about a transaction here. If they want me to be constructive, and give them ideas on what they can do better they can pay me, I'm not giving my time out for free. If the game sucks I say the game sucks. If the game is good, I will say it is worth the money and buy it. You might like to hear that the "game is not optimal" or whatever word soup is on the "Current Year's" menu, but I like to express what I mean exactly the way I mean it. If I ain't breaking the rules I can say as I see fit. I won't waste time being "nice" to a faceless company. Tf? This is just weird, bro, ngl.

Because constructive criticisim is better than what you're giving out. Opinions that mean nothing, that ignore everything the game has just because of bad FPS. It's EA, poor performance is expected. If you're going to complain about the game, do so in a constructive and critical way, otherwise you're just wasting your energy on a post no one will take seriously. You don't have to be nice to a 'faceless company.' to be constructive and critical. 

[Kubas_inko]

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I am not on any "copium". KSP 2 is objectively better than KSP 1. Sure it has poor performance, but that's all that's bad with it. If you look at everything else, KSP 2 is better than KSP 1. Don't tunnel vision on the bad performance and miss everything that's new and improved.

Seems like you are the one with tunnel vision. Right now, KSP 2 is nowhere close to KSP 1. So much less content, and so much worse performance. Once again, the only thing going for it right now are visuals.  That is, right now, the only thing where it is better than KSP 1. (And tutorials. Tutorials were a pain in the original.) If you want to compare KSP 2 vs KSP 1 in early development, sure, KSP 2 wins hands down. But with KSP 1 being now a complete game, KSP 2 still has a lot of catching up.

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

KSP 1 is not 'very much playable for 99% of people.' Where's your source? Because the fact is quite the opposite. It IS a broken mess. Go looking around the forums. You'll find dozens of new complaints every day about how people have crashes or have to restart KSP because something broke. 

Bugs are a thing, all games have bugs, and that's just how it was, is, and will be. KSP 1 is however a completely playable game. It is far from being a broken mess. By your own logic, every single game that has ever crashed is a broken mess... Also that "dozens of people" does sound like that 1%.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[K^2]

22 minutes ago, mystik said:

Why must I be "positive", "careful", "provide a safe space"?

Because otherwise people decide that you're unwelcome. "Safe space," is kind of a big part of Community Guidelines. This is, in general, how communities work.

If you have constructive criticism about the game, this is the right place for it. If you're just here to tell people that you won't be participating in this community, then the polite and civilized thing is to not.

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

Seems like you are the one with tunnel vision. Right now, KSP 2 is nowhere close to KSP 1. So much less content, and so much worse performance. Once again, the only thing going for it right now are visuals.  That is, right now, the only thing where it is better than KSP 1. If you want to compare KSP 2 vs KSP 1 in early development, sure, KSP 2 wins hands down. But with KSP 1 being now a complete game, KSP 2 still has a lot of catching up.

Bugs are a thing, all games have bugs, and that's just how it was, is, and will be. KSP 1 is however a completely playable game. It is far from being a broken mess. By your own logic, every single game that has ever crashed is a broken mess... Also that "dozens of people" does sound like that 1%.

I'm not disputing that, but from what I can tell, the only real parts missing are the DLC parts that, from what I can tell, hardly anyone uses because mods do it so much better. So, can they really be called "Missing" if no one uses them? It's not just visuals right now. We have new parts, new UI, new mechanics.

Map view, objectively better in KSP 2.
UI, objectively better in KSP 2.
New parts, which offsets the missing parts, imo at least.
Better coding under the hood, 1000 times objectively better than KSP 1. KSP 1 was literally held together by broken code. The fact that it worked is a miracle. Ask any vet of the game, I'm 100% sure they will tell you the same thing. 

All these improvements and you're stuck on "Bad performance." and "Missing DLC parts" in an early access game. Yeah, I don't have tunnel vision. 

Yes, bugs are a thing. Game breaking bugs in a "Complete" game shouldn't be. No, KSP is not completely playable if I have to restart the game every 30 mins. It is a broken mess, because it crashes every 30 mins, you need mods to fix issues, there's literally an entire mod dedicated to trying to fix most if not all issues in KSP 1. That's the literal definition of "broken mess." 

[K^2]

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I'm not disputing that, but from what I can tell, the only real parts missing are the DLC parts that, from what I can tell, hardly anyone uses because mods do it so much better. So, can they really be called "Missing" if no one uses them?

Well, to be fair, the robotic parts really feel like they're missing. I know not everyone's using them, but they actually change how the game can be played, rather than simply fill in some gaps like the Making History parts do.

[GoldForest]

Just now, K^2 said:

Well, to be fair, the robotic parts really feel like they're missing. I know not everyone's using them, but they actually change how the game can be played, rather than simply fill in some gaps like the Making History parts do.

True, but at the same time... people said they prefer Infernal Robotics. So, again, mods did it better. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by GoldForest

[mystik]

43 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Because constructive criticisim is better than what you're giving out. Opinions that mean nothing, that ignore everything the game has just because of bad FPS. 

- No Campaign

- No Science

- No Colonies

- No Interstellar

- No new system

- No Multiplayer

- bad FPS goes here

- super buggy (Matt talks about the engine sounds disappearing and such)

- no tree collision (my dudes, the Parallax mod for KSP has collision with objects, and that mod is made by like one or a few guys, not a full payed game dev team, he did it for free, lol)

I'm sure I missed a lot of the issues. So no, GoldForrest, it's not just the FPS, you're the one focusing on that alone

When modders can do things better for free and your payed dev team can't even get basic stuff done right, it deserves EVERY BIT of criticism. EVERY BIT. The Parallax mod did not cause any fps issues for me. How can that mod work just fine and add so much to the game and not require a 3080 card?

Keep defending, your "acceptance" of the failures of the dev team to provide a good product by this date is just giving them more rope to hang themselves with when the brown stuff hits the maxed out GPU fan. I am not impressed. I expected more. I expected better.

Edited February 22, 2023 by mystik