Why I haven't bought KSP 2 (yet?)

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, jnbspace said:

Putting it simply/ The recommended hardware requires a 3070. That mans spending €700 on a graphics card, and then spending €50 on KSP2 and I am not going to pay €750 for something that is not only less functional than KSP1 but by all accounts bug ridden.

Then don't. Buy a 1070 instead. Or if you're running a BBC Micro and can't run anything released past 2016 (or really don't care about Early Access titles), then keep playing KSP 1. KSP 2's an early access game, obviously it won't run well on an ENIAC until the devs get a chance to optimise it.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[RocketRockington]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Take the ratings and throw them out, they're irrelevant and subject to lots of bias. The fact you rely on the ratings to make a point for KSP 1 rather than the game is a point in of itself.

And your personal opinion is all that matters.  I'd take your post apart point by point, but it's pretty clear you're wearing some very thick glasses yourself, and it's not worth my time.

[Jacke]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

History repeats itself and KSP 2 is not an exception. We've seen a lot of games drop in a rough state and bounce back, give the game some time.

Plenty of games that screwed up at or around launch didn't get much better or even got worse.  A Bard's Tale IV, Duke Nukem Forever, Subnautica Below Zero, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, the list goes on.  A recovery if anything is the exception.  Most of those disappointing games are even more functional than KSP2 is now, don't demand the hardware that KSP2 does, but are still to a degree failures.

There is no guarantee that KSP2 will bounce back, especially considering Take Two has ordered cutbacks and layoffs.  Intercept Games won't be immune from these forever.  They may already have been affected.

What happens with KSP2 will have to be seen.  No one should assume anything before it is revealed.  For now, KSP1 is a much better game, despite what you think of it.

[Observe]

Long time player of ksp1 here. I was prepared to buy ksp2, but I put the brakes on when I read the state of the early access game. Considering this is ksp2, I erroneously thought that early access would have all the important features of ksp1 in working order and that mainly it would be the new expanded features of ksp2 that might be missing or unfinished. After all this time and several lengthy delays, I figured the game would be playable at least to ksp1 standards.

I'll keep an eye on how things pan out with ksp2. In the meantime, I'll continue playing ksp1, which runs well enough for me and for which there is a plethora of mods to keep me happy enough.

[Bej Kerman]

49 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

And your personal opinion is all that matters.  I'd take your post apart point by point, but it's pretty clear you're wearing some very thick glasses yourself, and it's not worth my time.

And you're going to ignore basically everything I said because you'd rather listen to reviews consisting of "Green men go into space. Spectacular" and "fun" (Real reviews, by the way. What eloquent critics.) than common sense; NUCLEAR ENGINES DO NOT CONSUME JET FUEL, SQUAD. FIX YOUR GAME.

Obviously people as professional as steam reviewers won't account for such basic balancing errors as those Squad makes. Things like Harvester doing something as absent minded as aiming a game at total newbies and simultaneously expecting them to hand-calculate dV - like, come on now. Hence, stop using "but X got 90% good reviews and Y got 50%!" as a crutch in your arguments when you're getting proper criticism of KSP 1 delivered on a silver platter.

[RocketRockington]

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And you're going to ignore basically everything I said because you'd rather listen to reviews consisting of "Green men go into space. Spectacular" and "fun" (Real reviews, by the way. What eloquent critics.) than common sense; NUCLEAR ENGINES DO NOT CONSUME JET FUEL, SQUAD. FIX YOUR GAME

I'm not gonna listen to one review.  I am gonna listen to all the reviews in aggregate.  Much much moreso than one guy screaming in all caps on forum who's proven themselves to be completely illogical.  Also apparently they're busy trying to fix the terrible state that KSP2 is in, at least, unless they got laid off or quit because they didn't want to work for the... *cough* excellent leadership they found at Intercept.

Edited March 9, 2023 by RocketRockington

[DunaManiac]

35 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

NUCLEAR ENGINES DO NOT CONSUME JET FUEL, SQUAD. FIX YOUR GAME.

I think that this is a little unfair. The fact that all engines burn the same kind of fuel isn't a bug, it's an intentional simplification for gameplay purposes. I'm not here saying that the fact that KSP's planets are 10 times as small and as dense as they should be is a game-breaking bug. We can debate whether that simplification is worth it or not (given the lesser scope of KSP1, I think it is), but don't insult the team for doing so.

Edited March 9, 2023 by DunaManiac

[Bej Kerman]

34 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

40 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And you're going to ignore basically everything I said because you'd rather listen to reviews consisting of "Green men go into space. Spectacular" and "fun" (Real reviews, by the way. What eloquent critics.) than common sense; NUCLEAR ENGINES DO NOT CONSUME JET FUEL, SQUAD. FIX YOUR GAME

I'm not gonna listen to one review.  I am gonna listen to all the reviews in aggregate.  Much much moreso than one guy screaming in all caps on forum who's proven themselves to be completely illogical. 

As you say, Mr. Spock. KSP 1 couldn't possibly be broken, after all, a bunch of people who have no idea that nuclear engines don't run on the same fuel as jets are the people you should trust when evaluating how good a rocket simulation with a game on top is. Evermore logical and unbiased. 

40 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

unless they got laid off or quit because they didn't want to work for the... *cough* excellent leadership they found at Intercept.

That is a funny way to spell "Private Division".

9 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

it's an intentional simplification for gameplay purposes

Making the planets 10x smaller is forgivable given that the engines' specific impulses were adjusted to match. Sort of. But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable. If the thought of creators like Matt Lowne not being able to resort to the age old cliche of running NERVs and RAPIERs off the same fuel and carrying many tons more fuel than they should be able to doesn't make you excited...

8 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

don't insult the team for doing so

Alright. I still maintain that KSP 1 is broken on a fundamental level, ignoring bugs. Broken on such a deep level that it's ridiculous it got the following it has - forget how many fans are ready to defend it if someone dare do something like point out that nuclear spacecrafts don't run on the same fuel as jets. After all, a small, little humble indie dev team can't possibly do wrong...

[DunaManiac]

15 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Alright. I still maintain that KSP 1 is broken on a fundamental level, ignoring bugs. Broken on such a deep level that it's ridiculous it got the following it has - forget how many fans are ready to defend it if someone dare do something like point out that nuclear spacecrafts don't run on the same fuel as jets. After all, a small, little humble indie dev team can't possibly do wrong...

One could argue the exact same thing about KSP2, just with the references switched.

15 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable

But KSP2's many game breaking bugs and foundational issues are not? I mean, given KSP1's easy modability the nuclear-rocket/jet-fuel problem is an easy problem to fix if you personally don't like it. It would be more difficult, in my opinion, to manage several fuels on one SSTO - I've built numerous ones, and managing two fuels is already a handful - would be more difficult.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by DunaManiac

[Sea_Kerman]

Though IIRC the SABRE was supposed to run off of LH2

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

it's an intentional simplification for gameplay purposes

Making the planets 10x smaller is forgivable given that the engines' specific impulses were adjusted to match. Sort of. But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable.

Minecraft is a bad game, because real grass is not cubic.

Also chess is who knows what, because irl you don't move only straight and diagonally.

Edited March 9, 2023 by kerbiloid

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Sea_Kerman said:

Though IIRC the SABRE was supposed to run off of LH2

 

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

a bunch of people who have no idea that nuclear engines don't run on the same fuel as jets

As noted, you can make jet engines that run on liquid hydrogen. Simplifying fuel types into "liquid fuel" is not a bug, it's a gameplay feature, and I don't see how it's relevant to the state of KSP2. That said, I do consider it a positive that KSP2 splits it into methalox and hydrolox

 

[KerikBalm]

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Yet nobody complained about changes forced by the behemoth, in-game commercials, or microtransactions.

Indeed, so far that isn't the issue, just a lack of progress by the dev team. Maybe it has to do with that star theory drama, maybe the star theory drama was because of the lack of progress. I don't know where to put the blame

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If they had, how could they test it? A wobbling planetary base?

Have we actually seen video of them testing functional colonies? A wobbling base could be made just out of colony shaped parts, functionally the same as a normal can craft

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

presume

Maybe, this is exactly what's optimized.

I am not presuming, I didn't make this idea up, it comes from here:

 

[-dbv-]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then don't. Buy a 1070 instead. Or if you're running a BBC Micro and can't run anything released past 2016 (or really don't care about Early Access titles), then keep playing KSP 1. KSP 2's an early access game, obviously it won't run well on an ENIAC until the devs get a chance to optimise it.

They had over 4 years to optimize it, that is the main problem. 4 years and they are still on internal-proof-of-concept version 0.21. They tell you that they love to play the game in every interview when they clearly didn't played it at all. Otherwise they would have noticed that this is a total mess and nothing works correctly.

The game is now available for ~35€ on most Key reseller sites and I'm sure we'll hit below 30 soon.

I'm ok with demanding hardware resources - it's the year 2023, we have a potent hardware generation, use it. But there has to be a setting for older cards (2-3 years) where it runs ok. If you're still on 1060 or worse - it was time to upgrade 3 years ago.

Edited March 9, 2023 by -dbv-

[RocketRockington]

7 minutes ago, -dbv- said:

I'm ok with demanding hardware resources - it's the year 2023, we have a potent hardware generation, use it. But there has to be a setting for older cards (2-3 years) where it runs ok. If you're still on 1060 or worse - it was time to upgrade 3 years ago.

Edited 2 minutes ago by -dbv-

Elite Dangerous looks & runs better on a PS4 than KSP2 does on anew  top end $3000  gaming PC, upgrading is not the issue.

Its just the case that KSP2 currently does a terrible job rendering planets.  Not even full proc gen like Elite Dangerous.  

[-dbv-]

I'm totally with you - but most of the complaints in the Stream reviews are people arguing about bad performance while playing on a "gaming-laptop" with a 1050 mobile. 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Have we actually seen video of them testing functional colonies?

Iirc, we have seen only scripted cutscenes and several standalone ships in the middle of nothing to show transparent cabins with smiling Kerbals.

[Dakitess]

Considering what KSP2 has to offer, graphics wise, yeah, it should run on a 1050ti laptop. Definitely. Lowering the settings of course, but totally playable, just like KSP1 was on iGPU of its time when you lowered the graphics. Actually, KSP2 at minimal looks garbage, which is okay-ish for a minimal don't get me wrong. The thing is, knowing how it looks, it should even run on last gen iGPU like IRIS or RDNA3, let alone a dedicated 1050ti or so. Stay with me : it looks like 2x better than KSP1, yeah ? But we have a pretended optimized game, and years of dev. So it should cancel out and be able to run as well I would say. I want to play KSP2 ultra minimal (lowest settings + 720p) on my working laptop in the Train. I want student I work with to be able to run KSP2 correctly on their laptop that often are 1050ti + 7700hq + 8gb RAM.

It's KSP2. It's not beautiful, it's not gorgeous, not at the lowest, and not more at the highest setting. What we see at highest is barely 2017 worth. Yes, it's not a BIG game with 200M$, it's fine, it won't look as beautiful as the last gen space games and it has its own difficulties regarding the physics and all. But... It's still a 50$ game, after 5 years of dev, based on a very existing game as a solid basis, plenty feedback, and with 2023 technologies, improvements, and all. No, it does really not look good by any 2020+ standards and it's a shame. It should pretty be able to exploit our biffy 40XX gen cards to run in smooth and beautiful, and in the mean time allow for settings to get it working on a 1050ti laptop, in 1080p, comfortably.

And in addition, yes, it makes sense to compare it with other game totally different, when they show beautiful graphics and still demanding an old GTX 960 as a minimum which run correctly and does not look like excrements in the mean time. Stop complaining about people which are complaining about their 5yo rigs not being able to run KSP2. They can run Hogwart Legacy, they can even run somehow a StarCitizen, and plenty other example : there is no excuse about KSP2 asking for much more, with a very very not flattering result. Yes, it's more beautiful than KSP1, thanks for that captain obvious, that's not the question. Yes, GamePlay comes first, no one argue about that, even if I would be tempted to do so since KSP1 already has that gameplay completed. Yes, people will need to update their rigs one day or another, that's breaking open doors, thank you.

And yes, it's EA and it will get optimization, maybe substantial one, like 2-5 the actual performance. Yet, it's not enough, It lacks about 10-15 times* the performance gap, which is a whole another story and I don't see how they will manage that. But anyway, people saying "upgrade your rig, you poor" don't even mention the game being EA. Nah, they just say "1060 is damn old, it's normal it won't run modern games", while... it runs it perfectly. Except KSP2.

Spoiler

* KSP2 is running 10 FPS with a 150 parts craft with maxed out specs rigs. KSP2 is sold as an optimized KSP dealing with all the limitation and being coded from scratch to address them so that player will be able to build larger, more complex craft. It's advertised this way. In KSP1, with the same rigs, and the same craft, you would hit XXX FPS. Okay, now, a large craft, which I consider to be about 600 parts for instance : it runs 40+ FPS in Stock KSP1. It runs 15 FPS on a FULL graphics modded KSP1, with my setup (5800H, 3070 LAPTOP). To give proper advertised "optimization", this same craft should run 40+FPS all settings maxed out, that's a bare minimum, otherwise there is no gain compared to KSP1. The actual 0.1 EA would run that craft at 1-3 FPS and / or crash : that's a massive gap to compensate, and i'm not sure to see how. That's not a 50% nor a 200% optimization, more like a 1000-2000% and KSP2 looks like it directly inherits all the flaws of KSP1 which never quite be able to address them. That's not reassuring.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Dakitess

[KSK]

If you’re getting in a knot about the realism of putting  jet fuel through an NTR in KSP1 then boy have I got bad news for you about KSP2. 

Anyhow, back on topic.

I haven’t bought KSP2 yet because a) I’m not much interested in more sandbox play, even in a prettier sandbox and b) likely performance (or lack of) on my current computer. 

From what I’ve read about the plans for KSP2 , Colonies are probably going to be the make or break feature for me.  I don’t care about multiplayer full stop and I’m not excited about interstellar travel - quite the opposite in fact.

So, if setting up and running colonies in the Kerbol system looks like being fun in its own right then I’m probably in - assuming that performance gets a boost.

If colonies are just skimped over as a stepping stone to the ‘real gameplay’ of interstellar travel, then that’s going to be a harder sell for me. I’m really not fussed about ‘building cool rockets’ just for the sake of it.

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by KSK

[magnemoe]

For me, well I bought an 4070ti and got it last Wednesday. The next day my computer died.  Motherboard was dead, so was the PSU, I assumed it was only the PSU but it took with it the motherboard. 
Also got the option to update my GPU.
Got new motherboard Tuesday but found that my CPU ran very hot as in 80 centigrade and could easy peak past 100 and shut down. 
I assume than the cooler had been broken for quite some time but worked with the old processor. 
Today I will install an new cooler and hope things improves. 
 

[Kerbal3]

I haven't bought it yet because I don't have  a good enough graphics card yet.

[Bej Kerman]

14 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Alright. I still maintain that KSP 1 is broken on a fundamental level, ignoring bugs. Broken on such a deep level that it's ridiculous it got the following it has - forget how many fans are ready to defend it if someone dare do something like point out that nuclear spacecrafts don't run on the same fuel as jets. After all, a small, little humble indie dev team can't possibly do wrong...

One could argue the exact same thing about KSP2, just with the references switched.

Not. Having information readouts placed in a layout that doesn't trust my eyes to decouple like those of a chameleon, persistent thrust, on-demand loading of assets, maneuvers that aren't disgustingly inaccurate for anything but high TWR rockets, KSP 2 has already addressed tons of stuff Squad kept under the rug.

14 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable

But KSP2's many game breaking bugs and foundational issues are not?

No. There's lots of bugs but there's less issues with the foundation and it's much more forgivable than Squad whom didn't bother changing anything for over a decade, not even bothering to implement blatantly obvious QOL features modders proved can be done.

14 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

modability

A good way to break a game even further, and make it look even more patchwork. If you need mods to enjoy a game, it's not a good game.

10 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Simplifying fuel types into "liquid fuel" is not a bug, it's a gameplay feature

So long as the nuclear engines have an ISP of 700, it's a bug.

10 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

As noted, you can make jet engines that run on liquid hydrogen

Then why did Squad make this supposed hydrogen so dense and unbalanced? It's a blatant mistake they either kept under the rug or somehow never noticed.

10 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I do consider it a positive that KSP2 splits it into methalox and hydrolox

It's a simple change that would have cost Squad little to no effort, and yet they never did anything. Just another artefact of having a dev team who trusts complete newbies with hand-calculating dV and relied on mods for so long to provide basic necessities like persistent thrust and dV readouts because they couldn't make a complete game themselves. Thank heavens for Intercept.

10 hours ago, -dbv- said:

16 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then don't. Buy a 1070 instead. Or if you're running a BBC Micro and can't run anything released past 2016 (or really don't care about Early Access titles), then keep playing KSP 1. KSP 2's an early access game, obviously it won't run well on an ENIAC until the devs get a chance to optimise it.

They had over 4 years to optimize it, that is the main problem

A. There are a lot of disabled background features that are being developed in parallel.

B. They've still accomplished a lot of stuff Squad never bothered to do.

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

15 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

it's an intentional simplification for gameplay purposes

Making the planets 10x smaller is forgivable given that the engines' specific impulses were adjusted to match. Sort of. But letting players do something as stupid as run nuclear engines off the same fuel jets run on and get several km/s of dV out of something that should barely make it to the Mun is unforgivable.

Minecraft is a bad game, because real grass is not cubic.

Nice strawman. Dismissed.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

16 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

modability

A good way to break a game even further, and make it look even more patchwork. If you need mods to enjoy a game, it's not a good game.

The moddability lets many games keep being lovely and alive. TES, Fallout, HoMM, Mount & Blade, KSP-1.

The mods are the main reason why KSP got popular and stays being awaited for.

Mods form the community kernel and warm the interest, they form the intellectual landscape around the game.

Also it allows to redefine the engines properties, to prevent the nuclear engine from using the jet propellant.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

So long as the nuclear engines have an ISP of 700, it's a bug.

Real nukes have ISP 900.

And less if use anything but pure hydrogen.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then why did Squad make this supposed hydrogen so dense and unbalanced? It's a blatant mistake they either kept under the rug or somehow never noticed.

It's a wise simplification, which is:

1. Bypassed by mods.

2. Used by USI mod family.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

A. There are a lot of disabled background features that are being developed in parallel.

And probably temporarily postponed plans of becoming billonaires and ruling the world. So, what does it change, when they are yet disabled?

Edited March 9, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Bej Kerman]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

So long as the nuclear engines have an ISP of 700, it's a bug.

Real nukes have ISP 900.

And less if use anything but pure hydrogen.

Exactly!! Squad's borked NERVs shouldn't exceed 400.

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

So, what does it change, when they are yet disabled?

Oh, right, juggling all that stuff is going to have no impact on development?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Kerbart]

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Exactly!! Squad's borked NERVs shouldn't exceed 400.

Oh, right, juggling all that stuff is going to have no impact on development?

Not really. You'd be reading engine parameters from a config file, so it's changing one number in a file somewhere. Hard coding them would be an unbelievably bad practice.