How should rockets flex?

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

I don't get why this still needs to be discussed. Players complained about this day one.

I consider myself fairly experienced in KSP1, and maybe I got to launch a wet noodle in 1% of the cases.

In KSP2 this is more than half of the time.

 

If Nate's argument is that "you're building it wrong" and "if you git good with building it won't flex", then what happened to one of the main pillars of KSP2 where it was supposed to be more inviting to new users (even new ones to the franchise)?

I have played KSP1 and I still had to spend much more time strutting than I did in KSP1.

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

I don't get why this still needs to be discussed. Players complained about this day one.

I consider myself fairly experienced in KSP1, and maybe I got to launch a wet noodle in 1% of the cases.

In KSP2 this is more than half of the time.

 

If Nate's argument is that "you're building it wrong" and "if you git good with building it won't flex", then what happened to one of the main pillars of KSP2 where it was supposed to be more inviting to new users (even new ones to the franchise)?

I have played KSP1 and I still had to spend much more time strutting than I did in KSP1.

It's still being discussed because Nate's argument is, and has been, and continues to be, that rocket wobble is both fun AND simply a part of the Kerbal experience.  In spite of the complaints about it, that's the stance he has taken on this.  Please don't ask me to go hunt down his actual quote; it's been stated here in this thread enough times.

[Alexoff]

16 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

It's still being discussed because Nate's argument is, and has been, and continues to be, that rocket wobble is both fun AND simply a part of the Kerbal experience

Surprisingly, Nate likes wobbling rockets. After all, he said that he had played more than 2000 hours in KSP1, but it seems to me that the instability of crafts should get boring during such a time.

[LoSBoL]

25 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

It's still being discussed because Nate's argument is, and has been, and continues to be, that rocket wobble is both fun AND simply a part of the Kerbal experience.  In spite of the complaints about it, that's the stance he has taken on this.  Please don't ask me to go hunt down his actual quote; it's been stated here in this thread enough times.

Do, please do hunt down his take on wobbly rockets, which had been acknowledged plenty of times that they are working on it and its not where it is supposed to be at, you'll find you are misrepresenting his arguments.

Let me just share what has been said, by Nate, within the AMA;

'
In regards to the decision to leave wobbly rockets within the game. Are there plans to make this feature more detrimental to rocket design and progression? Or is this simply an early implementation of something that'll become more elaborate and significant?'

 

Nate; 

This is a really good example of how having something in Early Access helps us iterate and develop features forward. This is definitely a hot topic, so here's my two cents:

If a rocket is skinny and made of many stacked parts, it should wobble. Larger scales, no.

We're working on it, it will get better.

 

And yes, it will be discussed till the end of times when one keeps misrepresenting what's been communicated.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

It's still being discussed because Nate's argument is, and has been, and continues to be, that rocket wobble is both fun AND simply a part of the Kerbal experience.  In spite of the complaints about it, that's the stance he has taken on this.  Please don't ask me to go hunt down his actual quote; it's been stated here in this thread enough times.

 

26 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Do, please do hunt down his take on wobbly rockets, which had been acknowledged plenty of times that they are working on it and its not where it is supposed to be at, you'll find you are misrepresenting his arguments.

Let me just share what has been said, by Nate, within the AMA;

'
In regards to the decision to leave wobbly rockets within the game. Are there plans to make this feature more detrimental to rocket design and progression? Or is this simply an early implementation of something that'll become more elaborate and significant?'

 

Nate; 

This is a really good example of how having something in Early Access helps us iterate and develop features forward. This is definitely a hot topic, so here's my two cents:

If a rocket is skinny and made of many stacked parts, it should wobble. Larger scales, no.

We're working on it, it will get better.

 

And yes, it will be discussed till the end of times when one keeps misrepresenting what's been communicated.

From https://steamdb.info/patchnotes/11490665/

 

[LoSBoL]

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

 

From https://steamdb.info/patchnotes/11490665/

 

There you have it, thanks for confirming the misrepresentation.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, LoSBoL said:

There you have it, thanks for confirming the misrepresentation.

It's not a misrepresentation, he does literally says wobbly rockets can be fun and funny, which is something that's the majority clearly disagrees about. Most people have also shown a strong disagreement with the second point as well. A real misrepresentation is only quoting a single bit of text that's not what the other user is referring to.

[LoSBoL]

11 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

It's not a misrepresentation, he does literally says wobbly rockets can be fun and funny, which is something that's the majority clearly disagrees about. Most people have also shown a strong disagreement with the second point as well. A real misrepresentation is only quoting a single bit of text that's not what the other user is referring to.

It's Texas sharpshooting of cherry picking. Picking one argument and stating it differently then  was communicated and leaving out every other nuancing which has been made. 

 

That is misrepresenting, either by not reading, reading what you want to read, or just deliberately changing what has been said to suit your argument.

 

And what 'most people' want can be read in the outcome of the pole in this thread, you want to misrepresent that as well?

Edited July 10, 2023 by LoSBoL

[Alexoff]

14 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

And what 'most people' want can be read in the outcome of the pole in this thread, you want to misrepresent that as well?

For the second time I want to ask - what are the results of the poll? Once you ignored the question, will you ignore it now?

[LoSBoL]

46 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

For the second time I want to ask - what are the results of the poll? Once you ignored the question, will you ignore it now?

Can you point me to the earlier question about the pole which you present as ignored by me?

[Alexoff]

18 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Can you point me to the earlier question about the pole which you present as ignored by me?

Sorry, I was going to write this, but then I deleted this question! My bad! So what are the poll results?

[KUAR]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

For the second time I want to ask - what are the results of the poll? Once you ignored the question, will you ignore it now?

It's literally at the top of this very page...is it not there for you?

[Pthigrivi]

I think it's pretty clear both from what the poll says and what Nate has said that most everyone wants some flex but not nearly as much as is currently in KSP2. Most folks don't want vessels to remain perfectly rigid and spontaneously shatter like glass, nor do they want ordinary, well designed vessels to become spaghetti. 

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

Do, please do hunt down his take on wobbly rockets, which had been acknowledged plenty of times that they are working on it and its not where it is supposed to be at, you'll find you are misrepresenting his arguments.

Let me just share what has been said, by Nate, within the AMA;

'
In regards to the decision to leave wobbly rockets within the game. Are there plans to make this feature more detrimental to rocket design and progression? Or is this simply an early implementation of something that'll become more elaborate and significant?'

 

Nate; 

This is a really good example of how having something in Early Access helps us iterate and develop features forward. This is definitely a hot topic, so here's my two cents:

If a rocket is skinny and made of many stacked parts, it should wobble. Larger scales, no.

We're working on it, it will get better.

 

And yes, it will be discussed till the end of times when one keeps misrepresenting what's been communicated.

I'd like you to tell me how I'm misrepresenting what Nate said...when he literally said:

Quote

Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny.  A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing "World of Goo" with rocket parts.  Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form.  Whether that means limiting wobbliness to certain types of sizes or parts, or relegating certain behaviors to player settings, is the subject of ongoing internal discussion.  We of course are following community conversations with keen interest, and this is an area where Early Access participants cane have a significant impact on the 1.0 version of KSP2.

I literally could not paint the picture any more clear than this.  Nate is on record here as saying that it's part of the fun of KSP, and it's part of the Kerbal DNA, to have wobble.  As far as listening to the community?  We've spoken.  The majority of posts that I have seen (and keep in mind what I'm saying there because what I have seen may not necessarily be what the entirety of the community believes) states that wobble is not fun, it should not be in the game, and it should be tweaked so that while it still exists in some form, it should not make the game unplayable simply because we don't have 10,000 struts attached to a single radial engine.

Now, before you go off and accuse me of cherry-picking certain things in his response:  yes, I am aware of his statement that the team shares the view that this is an issue.  Yes, I am aware that he states it's on the top ten.  And yes, I'm aware that they continue to say they are looking at things.  However, with all of this known, the community itself has a fix/workaround for this:  update the physics JSON file and change the value for JOINT_RIGIDTY so that rockets no longer wobble (or so the wobble is far less than it is now).  If the community can figure this out, why the frak can't the devs just implement that?  Why do we have to continue to update the file through every patch/hotfix/game update?  They are looking at fixing it...but the community literally handed them a short-term solution that they won't use?

Again, where is my misrepresentation?  I've given you the facts, and @PDCWolf has given you the straight-out thread from Steam.  How are we misrepresenting things here?

[Pthigrivi]

23 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I'd like you to tell me how I'm misrepresenting what Nate said...when he literally said:

I literally could not paint the picture any more clear than this.  Nate is on record here as saying that it's part of the fun of KSP, and it's part of the Kerbal DNA, to have wobble.  As far as listening to the community?  We've spoken.  The majority of posts that I have seen (and keep in mind what I'm saying there because what I have seen may not necessarily be what the entirety of the community believes) states that wobble is not fun, it should not be in the game, and it should be tweaked so that while it still exists in some form, it should not make the game unplayable simply because we don't have 10,000 struts attached to a single radial engine.

Just about everyone including Nate would agree with this statement. When he says its fun and part of the Kerbal DNA he's saying that allowing joints to flex some but not too much is a core part of KSP's physics. 

[Alexoff]

As I understand it, there are some discrepancies in the concept of "a little wobble". In my understanding, this is like real objects - skyscrapers and real rockets, a few percent of the length. Others have an understanding that the rocket should sway like a tree in the wind, but not like in KSP2, perhaps like in KSP1. And what Nate came up with traditionally no one knows and decoding is required.

55 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Just about everyone including Nate

I understand that he came to this not during the development and testing of the game, but after getting acquainted with the reaction of the fans. So the fans can record themselves a small victory

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Just about everyone including Nate would agree with this statement. When he says its fun and part of the Kerbal DNA he's saying that allowing joints to flex some but not too much is a core part of KSP's physics. 

You completely ignored this part of my post:

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Now, before you go off and accuse me of cherry-picking certain things in his response:  yes, I am aware of his statement that the team shares the view that this is an issue.  Yes, I am aware that he states it's on the top ten.  And yes, I'm aware that they continue to say they are looking at things.

I am aware of Nate's entire statement, and I even acknowledged that.

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Just about everyone including Nate would agree with this statement. When he says its fun and part of the Kerbal DNA he's saying that allowing joints to flex some but not too much is a core part of KSP's physics. 

Then why did it persist since the 2019 gameplay videos?  It seems like if he knew this, he would have had the team address it years ago, given how awful it is.

My take is that he came to this realization very late (basically after nearly every fan posted thier hate for this), which does not bode well on other upcoming design decisions.  It already took 6 years of closed door dev to get to this point - and all ongoing work on features like science is still closed door.  I don't count blender renders of a part as transparency.  How many more bad decisions will need to be undone once they see the light of day.

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Then why did it persist since the 2019 gameplay videos?  It seems like if he knew this, he would have had the team address it years ago, given how awful it is.

My take is that he came to this realization very late (basically after nearly every fan posted thier hate for this), which does not bode well on other upcoming design decisions.  It already took 6 years of closed door dev to get to this point - and all ongoing work on features like science is still closed door.  I don't count blender renders of a part as transparency.  How many more bad decisions will need to be undone once they see the light of day.

I’ll be honest I think KSP2 should have been pushed back another year. This was not nearly the biggest issue at launch, and Im absolutely positive that folks wished that they’d been given more time to address this and dozens of other issues. I have little doubt the decision to force the launch of such an unstable game was made for them. BGS pushed Starfield back like 18 months. Its not the end of the world. And no Im not going to have the same circular “but they said” argument for the zillionth time. T2 made their decision and we’re all just hoping we can get the game patched up and successful in the next year or so. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[RocketRockington]

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I’ll be honest I think KSP should have been pushed back another year. This was not nearly the biggest issue at launch, and Im absolutely positive that folks wished that they’d been given more time to address this and dozens of other issues. 

I agree it's not the biggest launch issue.  But it's not right to treat it just like a bug that needed to be triaged.  It was a design decision.  One of the big issues with KSP2 must have been lots and lots and lots of time wasted during dev, and there's no waste like the waste of having to undo a decision that never should have been made in the first place.

  It really does feel like no one on IG played much Kerbal and they're reinventing the wheel in a bunch of places (eg:PAM), and their 'reinvention' is often square.  They upgraded sound and graphics, but it doesn't take a huge brain to take 5x the budget and throw more artists and sound work at a product

At the end of the day, I think IG should put the old Squad leadership in charge of the project, or hire new leadership.

[Alexoff]

30 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I’ll be honest I think KSP2 should have been pushed back another year.

Would this year be enough to make 1.0 or would we get early access with few bugs and maybe science and one star system? Plus, a lot of things that were in KSP1 are not ready. Yet we have no idea how ready the other steps of the roadmap are. Science and multiplayer what we saw is a couple of screenshots, a couple of animations in the editor and that's it. In general, players usually think that if they get the game later, then it will be better, more time and effort has been invested in it. And it would turn out that the game was postponed for 4 years, but there is still not much in it.

[Pthigrivi]

55 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Would this year be enough to make 1.0 or would we get early access with few bugs and maybe science and one star system?

Yeah basically the latter. I might have also liked to see better flight planning tools. Folks expect a few bugs with any new game but KSP2 at launch was nearly unplayable. 

And to keep it OT i might have also expected KSP1-level wobble with some dial-back after player feedback. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

11 hours ago, Alexoff said:

Would this year be enough to make 1.0 or would we get early access with few bugs and maybe science and one star system? Plus, a lot of things that were in KSP1 are not ready. Yet we have no idea how ready the other steps of the roadmap are. Science and multiplayer what we saw is a couple of screenshots, a couple of animations in the editor and that's it. In general, players usually think that if they get the game later, then it will be better, more time and effort has been invested in it. And it would turn out that the game was postponed for 4 years, but there is still not much in it.

I think you are kidding.

Seeing how we now progress, there’s no way we would have gotten to KSP2 1.0 by the end of the year (even if they would have postponed the game launch by 10 months), if through 1.0 we both mean the entire roadmap done, even if not fully fleshed out.

Unless they hire Chuck Norris to single-handedly code the game.

[LoSBoL]

22 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

The majority of posts that I have seen (and keep in mind what I'm saying there because what I have seen may not necessarily be what the entirety of the community believes) states that wobble is not fun, it should not be in the game, and it should be tweaked so that while it still exists in some form, it should not make the game unplayable simply because we don't have 10,000 struts attached to a single radial engine.

Apart from the 'we want full rigidity' arguments you won't find many people that argue differently, including Nate. What we have now needs to be fixed, it's even in the arguments Nate shared, did you read what pdcwolf shared, it's full of nuances on the 'Nate thinks it's fun' take. 

22 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Now, before you go off and accuse me of cherry-picking certain things in his response:  yes, I am aware of his statement that the team shares the view that this is an issue.  Yes, I am aware that he states it's on the top ten.  And yes, I'm aware that they continue to say they are looking at things. 

So you knew the nuances, yet you chose to go short through the bend like Nate's take hasn't been nuanced extensively. That is misrepresenting someone's take, and does not represent the actual reality.

22 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

However, with all of this known, the community itself has a fix/workaround for this:  update the physics JSON file and change the value for JOINT_RIGIDTY so that rockets no longer wobble (or so the wobble is far less than it is now).  If the community can figure this out, why the frak can't the devs just implement that?  Why do we have to continue to update the file through every patch/hotfix/game update?  They are looking at fixing it...but the community literally handed them a short-term solution that they won't use?

It's great that modders are active, and if they 'fix' something and one likes to use the fix, that's great. As to why they don't want to put a quick fix bandage short term solution they've shared as well. Joint rigidity is not the fix they are looking for. Furthermore it's not an argument as to why you knew the nuances, and still taking the short bend.

22 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Again, where is my misrepresentation?  I've given you the facts, and @PDCWolf has given you the straight-out thread from Steam.  How are we misrepresenting things here?

You shared 'a fact', not the facts which paint a different picture, as I already mentioned in my reaction to PDCWolf.

21 hours ago, Alexoff said:

As I understand it, there are some discrepancies in the concept of "a little wobble". In my understanding, this is like real objects - skyscrapers and real rockets, a few percent of the length. Others have an understanding that the rocket should sway like a tree in the wind

Can it be that your assumptions are the cause of the discrepancies? Noone is arguing that rockets should sway in the wind like trees. If that's want you are debating against you might just be tilting at windmills.

As for the 'wobling like in real life', are you maybe taking that to literal? If KSP mimic that literally, you are not going to see wobbling in the game. Could it be that people, when they vote for 'like in real life' expect to see just a little wobbling in the game? 

 

As Pthigrivi already mentioned a couple of times, opinions on what people want really do not differ that much.

Edited July 11, 2023 by LoSBoL