Week One Adventures

[RaccoonRonin]

20 hours ago, Sequence said:

I'm one of the people that hasn't experienced some of the very aggravating sounding issues with rockets disassembling themselves or with struts not working. I've built launchers with solid boosters and held them steady with struts. I haven't had KSC follow me anywhere either. 

I find it difficult to believe that it could have anything to do with how I build and design my ships. It must be hardware related somehow. Maybe different chipsets or driver versions are causing issues with the game engine? 

Yeah I've been wondering a similar thing, like how could user experience vary so much on game parameters? Like performance makes sense, but like different chipsets producing different gameplay experiences is new to me. Maybe a dev can shed light on why this might be the case or something similar.

[RaccoonRonin]

16 hours ago, MechBFP said:

I think it does somewhat come down to ship building. After all my hours in KSP1 I have an intuitive sense of what will be stable and what won’t, with and without struts, and I haven’t had any issues either with wobbly ships or planes or anything.

The problem is that with the state the game is in right now, most people are simply going to shout “BUG!” even if the issue was 100% not a bug but because of a poor design.

Now whether or not some of the consequences of a poor design should be in the game is an entirely different discussions.
 

However until the game gets more stable I think it will be difficult for most users to differentiate the difference between what is a bug and what is intentional. 

I've personally tried making a much smaller version of the Mun rocket I made with stability in mind, and without at least a set of struts connecting one of the stages, and using the trick of editing the physics.settings.json file to increase joint rigidity the craft is still way more wobbly than it has any right to be, intentional or otherwise. Even with said fixes I've still had it completely fling itself apart simple pitching downrange for a gravity turn at 10km, and even higher. Beyond that, separating stages sometimes leaves my camera somewhere between the two separated stages and I can't find a way to refocus. That last bug is what made me put it on the shelf until an update or two come out. I could design around the Kraken and noodle rockets if I have to to have some fun and check out the game but the camera drifting (eventually) Kms away from my craft literally breaks any progression I could have. 

When these things don't happen (rarely) or somehow don't end up ruining my craft or mission, it can be really fun and excites me for the future of the game. But as it stands it's almost too buggy to enjoy what little is there feature wise. Still have hope it'll get better, but I feel the need to stress to people that aren't experiencing the same thing that it is an issue. Even without autostrut nothing made out of the materials we're supposedly working with when building these rockets would behave like that. Noodle rockets are simply not flight worthy.

[Cytauri]

Hey, the soundtrack’s awesome 

Thanks Mr. Mostrom!

Edited March 5, 2023 by Cytauri

[DerZerschneider]

On a positive note, ksp clearly has new members. 
the old audience was patient, grateful and you could be sure that players who build rockets know what an EA is. :)

Thanks for the work and for the fact that there will soon be a ksp2 that so many players have been wishing for for so long. 
I was skeptical myself at times, wrongly so. In my opinion, the developers are always honest, credible and very close to the community. 
this is exemplary and desirable for other games!

sorry for mistakes, the google translator helped, my english is good and limited at the same time.

Edited March 5, 2023 by DerZerschneider

[MechBFP]

6 hours ago, RaccoonRonin said:

I've personally tried making a much smaller version of the Mun rocket I made with stability in mind, and without at least a set of struts connecting one of the stages, and using the trick of editing the physics.settings.json file to increase joint rigidity the craft is still way more wobbly than it has any right to be, intentional or otherwise. Even with said fixes I've still had it completely fling itself apart simple pitching downrange for a gravity turn at 10km, and even higher. Beyond that, separating stages sometimes leaves my camera somewhere between the two separated stages and I can't find a way to refocus. That last bug is what made me put it on the shelf until an update or two come out. I could design around the Kraken and noodle rockets if I have to to have some fun and check out the game but the camera drifting (eventually) Kms away from my craft literally breaks any progression I could have. 

When these things don't happen (rarely) or somehow don't end up ruining my craft or mission, it can be really fun and excites me for the future of the game. But as it stands it's almost too buggy to enjoy what little is there feature wise. Still have hope it'll get better, but I feel the need to stress to people that aren't experiencing the same thing that it is an issue. Even without autostrut nothing made out of the materials we're supposedly working with when building these rockets would behave like that. Noodle rockets are simply not flight worthy.

Can you private message me your ship? Press CTRL+C in the VAB and then you can paste it to me.
I would like to try it and see if I have the same results.

[Sleepy068]

I'm sorry but I've been following progress since the annoncement in 2019, you literally said yourself (in your show and tell videos) that your staff were playing this game in their spare time because it was so much fun. What kind of framerate are your staff happy with?!? If they were KSP1 vets, and one was a modder for it (Near Future), so I know they are, how could they have been happy with even the most basic functions not working?

I get Take Two giving the players the run around (Got EA so its good I dont need to take a 2nd mortage for the full release!) and mucking you guys around big time with 'the incident'  but the actual developers lying cuts deep. I hope you prove me wrong but what you've said is exactly what the lead developer of No Man's Sky did. This wasn't some video recorded hanging out with some streamers and you got caught out, that I'd say 'yeah fair enough, just trying to maintain the positive imagine and maybe got caught off guard.' no, your team made these videos...

"What's your point Sleepy?". BF2042 said "my bad" when they realised how much they screwed over their players, and they are making progress to correct that. I politely expect the same here and be bloody transparent, because you hid a heck off a lot before launch, you knew this was coming (thats why you set the recommended specs as the same as the NASA computer you tested the game on).

This game will become great but I really hope it isn't because modders have to make it so and that trust does need to be regained. Consumers own the market, not developers nor publishers. I've played thousands of hours of KSP, dont get me wrong here, I spent an entire year playing KSP 1 with no internet on a laptop that ran it like a potato cooks in milk, only game that 'worked' (the laptop ran at like 20fps at best, laptop fault here). I'm not trying to burst anyones bubble but this kind of stuff has to stop right? If you were honest, I'd have supported you even more (just as hard as the replies to this comment will be haha). 

Prove me wrong, please, because this game does look good, and it sounds amazing. Just be honest from now on. 

[Datau03]

43 minutes ago, Sleepy068 said:

I'm sorry but I've been following progress since the annoncement in 2019, you literally said yourself (in your show and tell videos) that your staff were playing this game in their spare time because it was so much fun. What kind of framerate are your staff happy with?!? If they were KSP1 vets, and one was a modder for it (Near Future), so I know they are, how could they have been happy with even the most basic functions not working?

That is because the devs have mostly been playing their full in development version of the game with all the features, not our Early Access build. The game was originally supposed to release as a full game with all the features, and they have been working on all the features like colonies, interstellar travel and multiplayer all the time. I personally think that they kinda rushed disabling the in development features for our build which led to what we have right now. We are propably not even seeing half of their work. I think we are gonna see some bugfixes and the game becoming better and better with each update, because with the updates it will become more what and how it was supposed to be in the first place. Onto a great KSP2 future!

[Bej Kerman]

20 hours ago, Temeriki said:

Ive been playing since it was free, you came in around the first major rewrite for a unity update.

We joined in the first two years of development. If you think coming in slightly earlier gives you some kind of high ground...

20 hours ago, Temeriki said:

Squad screwed over its developers on pay and had a few mass cullings when devs started pushing back on it.  I never claimed they were innocent but were not talking about squad and their evilness, were talking about how squad handled early access.  And yeah I remember bugs piling up, I also remember when they were able to port the game over to the next version of unity how it fixed lots of them (and broke other things).  I also remember the devs talking about how bugs were related to the specific version of unity and how work was being done on updates since devs talked to the community constantly.

Ksp1 went through like 3-4 versions of unity each requiring rewrites of huge chunk of the base game, these coincided with the periods of time where update cadence slowed.  But again the devs kept the community updated on the status of the rewrites.  During those big rewrite times updates tended to include "superficial features" as you said.

Mhm?

20 hours ago, RockyTV said:

Being the devil's advocate here, SQUAD was a media-focused company and had no experience at all with software dev.

And? People who aren't developers can still make competent decisions. Which Squad was seemingly incapable of.  That's besides the fact that by 0.18 they were charging money for what amounted to what's barely even a tech demo.

19 hours ago, DrKerbalMD said:

So, serious question: what's going on with the physics simulation?  How did we go from "our ultimate goal is to kill the Kraken" to the Kraken being alive, well, and angrier than ever?

To put a finer point on it:

1. What did the dev team do which led Tom to believe the Kraken could and would be tamed?
2. Why didn't it work?
3. What's the plan to wrestle the Kraken to the ground for good?

 

"Ultimate Goal" =/= to be done by version 0.1.x

18 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

21 hours ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

You got your argument handed back in a silver platter. The posts are still there. None is deleted and a simple Google search will throw them up in the first page.

The convo topic is now derailing with pride conservation as the only goal.

Nah, that's just the same 10 people club that are chronically in the forums thinking they know some magic context they refuse to mention whilst calling you names under the mod's eyes.

You're certainly good at proving other people's points!

2 hours ago, Sleepy068 said:

Just be honest from now on. 

Which they have been, else you wouldn't have been notified ahead of the EA drop that you'd need beefy hardware.

[Kerbart]

Can’t wait for the game to be in a more acceptable state for many players.  That wll hopefully reduce the toxic bickering.

Help us, Obi Nate Kenobi! You’re our only hope!

[RaccoonRonin]

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Can you private message me your ship? Press CTRL+C in the VAB and then you can paste it to me.
I would like to try it and see if I have the same results.

If I still have it. I tried doing a new save and to be honest the new save and load system is a bit more confusing to me than I'd like to admit, so it might have gotten deleted. Along with not being super willing to deal with the game as it is right now. Feel free to message me a reminder later on though and I can see if I can shoot you at least a ship I feel should work that doesn't and you can tell me whatcha get.

[DrKerbalMD]

I'm not asking why it isn't done in 0.1.x. I'm asking why the stability and reliability of the physics simulation has regressed from KSP 1.12.5 despite the fact that fixing it is a stated objective for KSP2.

Edited March 5, 2023 by DrKerbalMD

[Bej Kerman]

13 minutes ago, DrKerbalMD said:

55 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

"Ultimate Goal" =/= to be done by version 0.1.x

I'm not asking why it isn't done in 0.1.x. I'm asking why the stability and reliability of the physics simulation has regressed from KSP 1.12.5 despite the fact that fixing it is a stated objective for KSP2.

It's not the same game and this build of the game is likely only 3 years old. You aren't asking why the stability has regressed from a much older and completely different game, you are asking why the goal wasn't achieved in the very first pre-release version of the game.

[DrKerbalMD]

That's exactly what I'm asking, actually.

Edited March 5, 2023 by DrKerbalMD

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, DrKerbalMD said:

40 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You aren't asking why the stability has regressed from a much older and completely different game

That's exactly what I'm asking, actually.

Then you need to reframe your thoughts.

[DrKerbalMD]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then you need to reframe your thoughts.

So in other words, you don't know. Got it, thanks!

[Nuggzy]

1 hour ago, DrKerbalMD said:

I'm not asking why it isn't done in 0.1.x. I'm asking why the stability and reliability of the physics simulation has regressed from KSP 1.12.5 despite the fact that fixing it is a stated objective for KSP2.

What you should be asking is why the version number starts with 0. We shouldn't have 0.1.x, it should be 2.1.x. That's the problem, this isn't even a quality remaster when it should be KSP1+.

[Bej Kerman]

15 minutes ago, DrKerbalMD said:

16 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then you need to reframe your thoughts.

So in other words, you don't know

You'll stop asking questions intended to frame KSP 2 as a complete product, then we can discuss.

[DrKerbalMD]

  

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

You'll stop asking questions intended to frame KSP 2 as a complete product, then we can discuss.

What did I ask that frames KSP2 as a complete product?

Edited March 5, 2023 by DrKerbalMD

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, DrKerbalMD said:

What did I ask that frames KSP2 as a complete product?

I can see what you are doing. Have a good day.

[Casellina X]

20 minutes ago, Nuggzy said:

What you should be asking is why the version number starts with 0. We shouldn't have 0.1.x, it should be 2.1.x. That's the problem, this isn't even a quality remaster when it should be KSP1+.

But that answers it right? KSP2 is not KSP1 v2.x.x. It's KSP2 vx.x.x. While components and ideas have been carried forward, it's a separate game entirely. It's not KSP1+ because it doesn't build on the KSP1 codebase, but (according to the developers) starts fresh. Perhaps expecting KSP2 to be KSP1+ is what's leading to a lot of the disappointment folks are having.

[MarcAbaddon]

13 minutes ago, Casellina X said:

But that answers it right? KSP2 is not KSP1 v2.x.x. It's KSP2 vx.x.x. While components and ideas have been carried forward, it's a separate game entirely. It's not KSP1+ because it doesn't build on the KSP1 codebase, but (according to the developers) starts fresh. Perhaps expecting KSP2 to be KSP1+ is what's leading to a lot of the disappointment folks are having.

As someone on the disappointed (but still hopeful) side, I don't think that is accurate - at least for myself.

My disappointment lies in the fact that you can't really see the foundations being more solid than for KSP 1 since it is still the same old Unity physics models that caused a lot of the trouble and that KSP 2 has in fact managed to faithfully reproduce all the issues KSP 1 has. If we had a different kind of physics bugs, based on custom code that could be further developed, well that would have been a better sign.

The other main reason is that there a lot of systems that are relatively well encapsulated from other parts of the game. Including on-rail orbital mechanics and the way vessel trees are stored internally, yet there are very few (any?) systems that are working as intended. 

If anything I feel it is too much like KSP 1 in some of the core issues and what I would have liked to see is that the foundations are more solid than the KSP 1 foundations were.

[DrKerbalMD]

5 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

My disappointment lies in the fact that you can't really see the foundations being more solid than for KSP 1 since it is still the same old Unity physics models that caused a lot of the trouble and that KSP 2 has in fact managed to faithfully reproduce all the issues KSP 1 has. If we had a different kind of physics bugs, based on custom code that could be further developed, well that would have been a better sign.

Exactly. The KSP2 Kraken is still recognizably The Kraken™, and it's a meaner Kraken at that. So that leaves us with two possibilities:

1. The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is the KSP1 physics sim. The code was largely transplanted from the old game to the new game. If that's the case, why has it regressed so severely?
2. The starting point for the KSP2 physics sim is Unity itself, i.e. the physics sim has been reimplemented from scratch. If that's the case, why is the Kraken back?

If the answer to that question is "limitations of Unity," then what was the point of reimplementing the physics sim? KSP1 physics sim had the benefit of 12 years of iteration. It was battle tested. Why throw that away just to recreate all the same issues, many of which the old one had already conquered?

If the answer to that question is "well the rest of KSP2 is too different from KSP1 to simply port the physics engine," then why set the expectation that the physics simulation would be improved over the first one?

That's my real question here. If they thought the KSP2 physics engine was going to be a better foundation, what went wrong? Can it still be salvaged? On the other hand, if they knew it was going to be worse on launch, why talk about it at all?

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by DrKerbalMD

[0111narwhalz]

3 hours ago, DrKerbalMD said:

That's my real question here. If they thought the KSP2 physics engine was going to be a better foundation, what went wrong?

Have you considered that the answer might instead be a secret third option? Something like "we haven't put in the time to stabilize it yet."

I think KSP1's physics engine is a reasonably straightforward implementation based on Unity's basic tools. KSP2's physics engine might be a port of KSP1's, but I think "also a straightforward implementation based on Unity's basic tools" is adequate to explain the origin of certain similar issues.

[onion]

does 

• Fixed: Game breaking when loading to VAB or loading a saved game with a vessel in flight  

refer to "pumping sim once"?

[beetitan]

I think the steam community needs to see more activity like this. Right now the game is rating mixed with only 50 percent positive ratings which is heartbreaking. Many of us are excited about the future of Kerbal but hearing more from the devs may restore trust in the project and dev team. I would be lying if I said there has been a loss of trust out there after the launch of the game. Perhaps an address video to the community that empathizes the difficulties many are experiencing would be better received than just a bug list.