Everything hinges on the first update. Fingers crossed! [discussion]

[Grimmas]

32 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

I have a high end machine too and for what's it worth I had major issues on all my missions.

Honestly, same here. Top-end gaming PC but many, many bugs. Some issues I personally experienced were minor annoyances (like the fairing oscillating wildly while designing it, making it impossible to close, or decouplers not decoupling, forcing me to land the whole craft instead) while others were showstoppers that required a complete restart of the game (including total inability to launch anything from VAB, save games disappearing, RUD upon loading quicksaves, elements of UI stuck on unrelated screens obscuring the view, game camera not following the vessel making visual flight impossible, total loss of vessel control after a revert or quickload, etc). I have faith they'll fix it eventually but for now I could only put KSP2 on hold as its currently too unstable for my palate. TBH I was expecting a patch in days given the current state but that turned out to be too optimistic. 

[linuxgurugamer]

44 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Mission 4: another Mun mission, experienced AP/PE shifting a lot without net forces (thust). TBH I hate this one the worst, because it seems that even basic orbital mechanics are bugged.

I've seen that, both on my playthrough and others, I believe you can fix that by saving and reloading

[linuxgurugamer]

53 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

decouplers not decoupling

I saw that also, problem is, I think, related to the fact that you have an engine (probably) in the same stage as the decoupler.  What it appears to me is that the engine is holding onto the deoupler.  The fix is to just put decouplers in their own stages, which is, IMHO, a good practice to follow regardless of the bugs.

22 hours ago, Dakota said:

I would highly suggest not theorizing about when updates are coming based upon the Steam branches. The team is working on multiple builds at once and each branch (dev1-6+) contains new changes siloed so the team can work on multiple different features at once.

See our latest comms about the first patch here, which includes the major issues we're looking at:

 

Not everyone uses Twitter, could you post the notes here, please?

[Mantarochen]

Just me and my take, but them stating that they will collect bug fixes bundling  them into "big updates" is the wrong take in my opinion.

The player numbers are already vanishing, with only the most hardcore fans left, and with every video I see, save game I start and hour I play, I am more and more annoyed by absolutely ridiculous bugs that should honestly be hot fixed right away instead of gulped up into a big patch. And with every bug that gets ever more dumb, I'm closer to  uninstalling the game all together.

 

Bugs like the game saves breaking, Crafts breaking up when loading a quick save, the wobbling of the rockets or the KSC teleporting in front of you mid-flight should be things that are patched within a day or two. Not WEEKS. These are literally game breaking bugs. 

 

I can see why bundling up performance improvements and gameplay changes might prove to be better, but bugs that break the game? I don't think that's the way to go....

I just don't think they can allow themself to keep bugs like these in the game for longer periods. They probably already made half of the people who bought the game refund on the spot by releasing the game in the state it is in, judging by the steam reviews and player numbers. 

That other half is a) annoyed by the bugs and leave over time, or b) hardcore fans that just don't care and play anyway.

 

Hardcore fans won't make the numbers of the sales tho. Without the "general" playerbase I don't see this game being a success to be honest. And I don't see take2 keeping the lights on for too long sadly.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Mantarochen

[LoSBoL]

Actually, KSP2 at this moment does not need a big player base, it's the hardcore players that give enough feedback and bug reports to get the game fixed. There is a big 'buyer beware' flag right now, and that actually is a good thing for this moment. 

Somewhere some dev mentioned that they rather have updates and bug fixes tested thoroughly instead of quick and dirty bandages. There is something to say doing it like that. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Somewhere some dev mentioned that they rather have updates and bug fixes tested thoroughly instead of quick and dirty bandages. There is something to say doing it like that. 

Absolutely. Also, having longer cycles also allows internal QA to do their job with more confidence. Naturally you don't want this cycle to be too long, there's a balance to be reached, but having time between releases makes things less frantic and thus less stressful, which results in better code.

[Grimmas]

32 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I saw that also, problem is, I think, related to the fact that you have an engine (probably) in the same stage as the decoupler.  What it appears to me is that the engine is holding onto the deoupler.  The fix is to just put decouplers in their own stages, which is, IMHO, a good practice to follow regardless of the bugs.

I also saw from YouTube and Discord that this fix worked for many players. Sadly, my decoupler (or more accurately it was a stack separator attached from below to an engine plate) was already in a separate stage to begin with. I tried out many solutions, including reloads and restarts, and eventually just landed together with the transfer stage (it was a Duna lander mission and I had overengineered the transfer stage to the point that I had enough dV to spare for this lol). 

[linuxgurugamer]

10 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

I also saw from YouTube and Discord that this fix worked for many players. Sadly, my decoupler (or more accurately it was a stack separator attached from below to an engine plate) was already in a separate stage to begin with. I tried out many solutions, including reloads and restarts, and eventually just landed together with the transfer stage (it was a Duna lander mission and I had overengineered the transfer stage to the point that I had enough dV to spare for this lol). 

That's interesting.

I did notice that the engine plates didn't seem to also include a decoupler, have you seen that as well?

[Grimmas]

12 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

That's interesting.

I did notice that the engine plates didn't seem to also include a decoupler, have you seen that as well?

Engine plates in KSP2 do indeed not have a built-in decoupler, it seems to be by design. Maybe they'll add it later (or we'll have to mod it in).

[SoulCandy]

"Everything hinges on the 1st update" - you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Their team has to triage/prioritize, and some of the fixes may not involve your experience at all. So long as they stay focused and work on long-term improvements, I'll be happy.  

[LameLefty]

The stuck-staging bug was fixed for me by putting decouplers into their own stages. 

But there’s a probably-related staging bug where after staging, your active stage shows no propellant quantities and 0 dV. Sometimes quickly “jiggling” the throttle up and back down quickly will get things working but sometimes I have to press the space bar or click the green button to get things sorted. And hope I quicksaved before it all, because if I accidentally double-click, I’ve just staged away a full set of tanks and engines … 

Edited March 2, 2023 by LameLefty

[Homer_S]

On 2/28/2023 at 1:50 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Nope!  Last night was an Apollo style mission.  Only real issue was the driver (ie: me) making a mistake on the lander.

Again, I'm not saying it's perfect.  But it's not the s--thole that some people are claiming it is

Not to sidetrack but...

 

@linuxgurugamer On your Apollo style mission, did you stack your CM atop your LM for launch? If so, how did you do it? KSP1 let docking ports be staged. I'm struggling to get mine stacked without a bunch of decouplers that will fly all over the place.

 

Homer

[EngineerinSquid]

9 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

I don't do discussions with people who want to use logical fallacies as an argument to why bugs aren't happening. multiple times now you have dismissed people expressing concern because "oh these bugs aren't happening to me so they must be lying about them happening 

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, EngineerinSquid said:

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

 

I don't do discussions with people who want to use logical fallacies as an argument to why bugs aren't happening. multiple times now you have dismissed people expressing concern because "oh these bugs aren't happening to me so they must be lying about them happening 

I assume you were attempting to quote this?

10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You are free to join me when I stream on Twitch and engage in a discussion.  I'd be happy to try to replicate these issues, but IMHO, they aren't as prevalent as you are implying.  For example, last night I streamed a mission for about 4-5 hours, a complete development of a rover and flying it to Minmus, landing it and then driving around for a bit.  There were minor issues, but not a single game-breaking issue.  It was a very nice stream.  You are free to watch the VOD, as well as countless other people who are happily streaming it for all to see.

Have YOU experienced all of these issues you are describing yourself, or are you just repeating things you've heard over the 'net?   

I don't see any logically fallacious arguments here.

I can attest to their experience as well. A few bugs here and there like the Mission Control announcer popping in when I'm in the VAB if I don't go to the KSC before entering it, or a vessel giving itself a landed state while in the air (not as gamebreaking here as this was in KSP 1 where it shut timewarp off), but nothing that's enough to end a mission.

[EngineerinSquid]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

 

I don't see any logically fallacious arguments here.

it would be under the anecdotal fallacy, that just because something doesnt happen to him then it doesnt happen at all. some people are lucky that they havent had any major game breaking bugs, but many are having them constantly. I still cant use docking ports because as soon as i click undock, the two new vessels suddenly clip into each other and blow up. or even if they dont ill get the crash drum beat sound and the pop up that the vessel crashed when i can still see my two perfectly fine vessels

[linuxgurugamer]

18 hours ago, EngineerinSquid said:

I don't do discussions with people who want to use logical fallacies as an argument to why bugs aren't happening. multiple times now you have dismissed people expressing concern because "oh these bugs aren't happening to me so they must be lying about them happening 

You _do_ like to ignore everything I've said, don't you?  Not going to repeat myself, but if you read back [snip] you will see that I have acknowledged the problems many times, including those I've experienced myself.

16 hours ago, EngineerinSquid said:

it would be under the anecdotal fallacy, that just because something doesnt happen to him then it doesnt happen at all. some people are lucky that they havent had any major game breaking bugs, but many are having them constantly. I still cant use docking ports because as soon as i click undock, the two new vessels suddenly clip into each other and blow up. or even if they dont ill get the crash drum beat sound and the pop up that the vessel crashed when i can still see my two perfectly fine vessels

But I didn't say that.  I acknowledged problems, I've experienced them myself.  Read what I said before saying things that aren't true.

 

19 hours ago, Homer_S said:

Not to sidetrack but...

 

@linuxgurugamer On your Apollo style mission, did you stack your CM atop your LM for launch? If so, how did you do it? KSP1 let docking ports be staged. I'm struggling to get mine stacked without a bunch of decouplers that will fly all over the place.

 

Homer

Yes I did, but I used decouplers.  I didn't use the docking ports as decoupler replacements, so there was a stack separator on top of the docking port of the lander

Edited March 3, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Vl3d]

22 hours ago, Grimmas said:

Engine plates in KSP2 do indeed not have a built-in decoupler, it seems to be by design. Maybe they'll add it later (or we'll have to mod it in).

IMO engine plates should not have built-in decouplers. That's not their function.

[Grimmas]

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

IMO engine plates should not have built-in decouplers. That's not their function.

That's fair, but the counterargument would be that it helps reduce part count. Every extra part in KSP makes the physics simulation more complex and less stable. 

[Guest]

Just now, Grimmas said:

That's fair, but the counterargument would be that it helps reduce part count. Every extra part in KSP makes the physics simulation more complex and less stable. 

They'll have to figure out how to make much larger ships than in KSP1 work. Can't do interstellar without that. Trying to reduce part counts by combining functions is a dead end, you'll get at best, like, 10% improvement, when you actually need an order of magnitude improvement. 

If by the time KSP2 gets to interstellar it's not possible to fly a 1000-part ship on minimum hardware, the game just won't work. Which is why I'm sure they'll figure it out.

[SimonTheSkink]

14 hours ago, EngineerinSquid said:

I don't do discussions with people who want to use logical fallacies as an argument to why bugs aren't happening. multiple times now you have dismissed people expressing concern because "oh these bugs aren't happening to me so they must be lying about them happening 

I don't know about you but @linuxgurugamer is a very valued member of this community who has been extremely helpful and kind over many years. They have helped me many times on this forum with mods I've had issues with and have kept the lights on for a number of classic mods. Please relax and stop putting words in their mouth.

[Vl3d]

8 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

Every extra part in KSP makes the physics simulation more complex and less stable. 

Then why don't we have procedural by length tanks and trusses?

[Grimmas]

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Then why don't we have procedural by length tanks and trusses?

We do, there are some mods for that. And in KSP2 we have native procedural wings and later procedural radiators and perhaps even solar panels. 

8 minutes ago, Periple said:

They'll have to figure out how to make much larger ships than in KSP1 work. Can't do interstellar without that. Trying to reduce part counts by combining functions is a dead end, you'll get at best, like, 10% improvement, when you actually need an order of magnitude improvement. 

It should be much more expensive actually, I think that every loaded part needs to interact with every other loaded part so that sounds like exponential cost (O(n^2) ie pretty much as bad as it could get) but I'll let someone who is more familiar with KSP physics answer that as I might be wrong. 

[Moons]

23 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

Actually, KSP2 at this moment does not need a big player base, it's the hardcore players that give enough feedback and bug reports to get the game fixed. There is a big 'buyer beware' flag right now, and that actually is a good thing for this moment. 

Somewhere some dev mentioned that they rather have updates and bug fixes tested thoroughly instead of quick and dirty bandages. There is something to say doing it like that. 

 

Doubt that - if that was the problem they could have simply handpicked beta testers and give them access to the game like many other games do. Also lots of the bugs seem to be pretty obvious.

The main problem is that all the bad press and bad reviews wont go away magically and they can be enough to scare away future buyers. A release at this point at this price was a mistake - in my opinion - no matter how you look at it.

I also dont think patches etc. need to be perfect at th is state - until it is feature complete new bugs will appear and re-appear all the time if you invest to much time into bugfixing now you will just slow down everything - the only important thing should be more content and fixing the most basic mechanics that will be used by future features.

Edited March 3, 2023 by Moons

[linuxgurugamer]

26 minutes ago, Grimmas said:

It should be much more expensive actually, I think that every loaded part needs to interact with every other loaded part so that sounds like exponential cost (O(n^2) ie pretty much as bad as it could get) but I'll let someone who is more familiar with KSP physics answer that as I might be wrong. 

Well, that's the state of KSP 1, and apparently from some comments made, is the state of KSP 2.  Not quite as bad as what you think.

The big issue is fuel tanks. Parts only need to interact with parts they are attached to, but fuel tanks (and anything with resources) are the big issue.

For example, let's say you have a vessel with 4 fuel tanks, feeding 1 engine.  There will be one calculation for each fuel tank each time tic (tic) to calculate the fuel used, giving a total of 4 calculations per tick.

Now, add 3 more engines, so that you have 4 fuel tanks feeding 4 engines.  Now you will have 4 * 4 = 16 calcs per tic.  Not exponential, but multiplicative.   So if you add one more tank, now is 5 * 4 = 20 calcs per tic.

Many of us have vessels with tens  to dozens or more of tanks and engines, and this is where the game engines (both KSP1 and KSP 2) get bogged down.  There are ways to fix this, and I had thought they would have done that before the initial release, since this is a well known problem in KSP 1.  But they were obviously concentrating on other issues, I'm sure this will get resolved over time

[LoSBoL]

16 minutes ago, Moons said:

Doubt that - if that was the problem they could have simply handpicked beta testers and give them access to the game like many other games do. Also lots of the bugs seem to be pretty obvious.

You might have misinterpreted, I didn't post a reason as to why KSP2 was released now or in its current state.