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

[Bej Kerman]

12 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

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.

Note how those lines are replying to two completely different parts of the reply.

[Kerbart]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Note how those lines are replying to two completely different parts of the reply.

Note that it provide context to a statement that otherwise looks even weirder than it already is:

Quote

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

Sorry for trying to make you look good. Won't do it again.

[kerbiloid]

38 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

KSP-2 was announced with metastable metallic hydrogen engines.

After this, it's just funny to criticize a minor simplification of NERVA which (as it's written above) can be changed in a second by editing the config file.

But the KSP-1 authors had to simplify the model, because it's a game about planets reduced by 11 times in size, with delta-V dramatically lower than the real one. So, the KSP-1 nuke ISP is a wise compromise.

[DunaManiac]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I think that's the opposite. What we're faced with right now is a game that is a lot more unstable than KSP1 is. I mean, perhaps the patch will improve things, but it's a real shame.

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

To be fair, KSP2 UI has it's own issues. Sizing for example. KSP2's UI readability right now is pretty poor. One of the things that I liked about the KSP1 UI as opposed to KSP2's is that firstly, KSP2's UI is really too large for the screen. Secondly, I think it was a good thing to have the altimeter so large and hard to miss, as opposed to KSP2's when it's rather small and doesn't offer the same  readability.

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

It's interesting that you're hyperfixated on nuclear engines, to the point of calling them a bug, as opposed to other simplifications that KSP1 did. Reaction wheels are ridiculously overpowered compared to real life for example. However, this was simplified simply to make controlling vessels much easier, not to frustrate your preferences. I think it's ridiculous to call a simplification "a bug," in the same manner that fact that KSP's rockets don't have limited ignitions is "a bug." I'm sorry that Squad didn't seek your input on your preferences when coding their game.

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

If you need mods to enjoy a game, it's not a good game.

I don't think enjoyability is at stake here. If it is, it's pretty easy to modify the configs in-game. I mean, while you may support changing the nuclear rocket, others would be opposed to it. Making a change like that would essentially break every past vessel that uses a nuclear engine engine, which I think it's fair to say the majority of interplanetary vessels have. For people who use steam and have no way to roll-back or prevent the update, this would wreak havoc on essentially every past save. In the end, I think the reason that not many sweeping changes were made past 1.0 is for this reason.

Edited March 9, 2023 by DunaManiac

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I thought maneuver nodes were even worse in 2 so far, not even showing burn time until you start burning 

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

It's 800, so, not a bug... I don't follow your logic here

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.

Yes, Lf only tanks are too dense, so are planets. Rapiers and whiplash Isp is too high for kerosene fuel, but appropriate for liquid hydrogen.

Aside from the bulk, does it matter? Tank mass ratios are too poor for kerosene or liquid hydrogen 

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

 provide basic necessities like persistent thrustl

Have they though? All I know is that you can time warp during burns.

There's no persistent rotation that would allow a solar-ion thruster with realistic thrust to spiral outward. You can't plot a brachistichrone trajectory, you can arrange for a long burn on a craft and leave it burning while you switch to another craft.

Sooo.... they provide an alternative to 4x physics warp, with some upsides and some downsides

[Space Kadet]

i did buy it, and then tried to play it, on 3 seperate machines, and got more bugs in 2 hours that the first 3 years of ksp. i then returned it.

never been so dissapointed in a game, and i played dark void on release day!

 

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

I think that's the opposite. What we're faced with right now is a game that is a lot more unstable than KSP1 is

I am talking about fundamental problems that are well in the control of the developers, not unintended problems.

 

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it. KSP 1 getting onto Steam was a failure of its quality control and at this point the least I would ask of a sequel has already been addressed by KSP 2. KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off. No, KSP 1 being developed in 2011 by a small indie group is not an excuse given that many far better games had been developed by people, singular, no more than one developer, in the past before - Frontier: Elite II and SpaceEngine spring to mind, and even barring the work SpaceEngine had done to it after 2011, these games amounted to far more than KSP 1 did over the decade Squad was supposed to be doing more to it than piling on superficial junk and features that provide 0 benefit to the core experience, to provide fans the illusion of the game getting better, as opposed to focusing on such critical things as the haphazard, horrible, ugly UI which provides 0 readability thanks to the space Harvester thought to put between the altimeter and speed - two critical readouts - and basic necessities like persistent thrust, resource utilization in the background, procedural wings, a parts menu that doesn't throw everything in a haphazard list with little sorting, and so on. If you were happy with KSP 1's useless parts added solely to pad the space between updates that provided any real value to the game, you can be happy with KSP 2 adding basic necessities we've sorely needed for over a decade, that Squad could not be in the least bothered adding.

6 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I thought maneuver nodes were even worse in 2 so far, not even showing burn time until you start burning 

Oh, right, you can do inclination changes properly with ion engines now and do your circularization and capture burns in one go, but oh no, a little UI element that appears when you begin your burn is absent prior to your burn beginning. Whatever. That does not constitute "even worse", and I'd wager claiming it's "even worse" over such minor issues would constitute melodramatic.

9 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 provide basic necessities like persistent thrustl

Have they though? All I know is that you can time warp during burns.

Oh, they added persistent thrust? Are you sure about that? Because all I know is that they added persistent thrust.

Yes, they added persistent thrust, and stating the purpose of persistent thrust to me just proves my point that they added persistent thrust.

[DunaManiac]

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I am talking about fundamental problems that are well in the control of the developers, not unintended problems.

This I think is a valid point.

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it. KSP 1 getting onto Steam was a failure of its quality control and at this point the least I would ask of a sequel has already been addressed by KSP 2. KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off. No, KSP 1 being developed in 2011 by a small indie group is not an excuse given that many far better games had been developed by people, singular, no more than one developer, in the past before - Frontier: Elite II and SpaceEngine spring to mind, and even barring the work SpaceEngine had done to it after 2011, these games amounted to far more than KSP 1 did over the decade Squad was supposed to be doing more to it than piling on superficial junk and features that provide 0 benefit to the core experience, to provide fans the illusion of the game getting better, as opposed to focusing on such critical things as the haphazard, horrible, ugly UI which provides 0 readability thanks to the space Harvester thought to put between the altimeter and speed - two critical readouts - and basic necessities like persistent thrust, resource utilization in the background, procedural wings, a parts menu that doesn't throw everything in a haphazard list with little sorting, and so on. If you were happy with KSP 1's useless parts added solely to pad the space between updates that provided any real value to the game, you can be happy with KSP 2 adding basic necessities we've sorely needed for over a decade, that Squad could not be in the least bothered adding.

The rest of this is not. It essentially amounts to a rant about how KSP1 didn't really fulfill your preferences. I would argue that persistent thrust really only matters for interstellar travel - which is why it was introduced in KSP2. Otherwise, it's essentially an edge case that you won't encounter, except in the example you cite most often, ion engines. Procedural wings are again, an intentional simplification whose merit's are debatable, but aren't a serious issue except in solely your view, apparently. KSP2's part menu also has it's own problems, such as performance issues. You continue to criticize KSP1's UI apparently without even reading my previous objections to it, based completely on your own pet peeves about it rather than on its merits. I'm really sorry you feel so strongly about this, I really am. However, I think that if you take out KSP1 and judge KSP2 completely by itself - it's a rather poor game.

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off.

This statement is questionable. There are many who could have done a worse job. KSP was maintained for 10 years. It remains to be seen whether KSP2 will be able to top that.

Edited March 9, 2023 by DunaManiac

[Jacke]

53 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it.  [ Mostly more ranting. ]

Your opinion about Squad is pointless here.  Why do you keep going on about it?  It's needless distraction.

As it seems Intercept Games only used the general nature and some of the places and parts of Kerbal Space Program to make KSP2, the exact nature and history of KSP1 has no bearing on KSP2.  Your opinion on Squad is not shared by the rest of the forum members posting here.  You have never made a proper argument to prove any of your positions.  Your continued ranting against Squad is off-topic and needlessly hurtful.  I'm wondering why you do it.

Without KSP1, there would be no KSP2.  I can play KSP1 right now and find it rewarding, as I have in the past.

[RocketRockington]

@Jacke I'm pretty sure the best strategy is to ignore, and, possibly, report, this isn't normal discussion anymore, it's just unhinged ranting that doesn't deserve attention.

[jimmymcgoochie]

I haven't bought KSP2 yet for three reasons:

1. I'm not sure my PC would handle KSP2 right now, unoptimised as it is.
2. The game isn't in a great state right now with numerous bugs and problems and playing it right now would probably leave me frustrated and somewhat jaded about the whole thing, as others already are.
3. I don't think it's worth the £45 asking price right now. With a few bugfix releases to get the game to a playable state and some of the "new" features added, sure, but not yet.

I still think that KSP2 will be every bit the worthy sequel to KSP, expanding on it in every way to make something bigger and better than the original, and I look forward to the day when it lives up to everything that's been promised.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

The rest of this is not. It essentially amounts to a rant about how KSP1 didn't really fulfill your preferences. I would argue that persistent thrust really only matters for interstellar travel - which is why it was introduced in KSP2.

Persistent thrust only matters for interstellar travel???

That's just, come on now. "Food only matters for when you're literally about to starve to death". A crewed ion mission is technically possible in KSP 1 but seriously. Hour-long burns. KSP 1 is supposed to be a game. Not something only for the hardcores. Persistent thrust is a basic necessity.

4 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

it's essentially an edge case

It's an edge case precisely because of these problems.

4 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off.

This statement is questionable. There are many who could have done a worse job. KSP was maintained for 10 years.

I'd say "on life support for 10 years" is a rather more apt description.

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

Your opinion about Squad is pointless here

"I disagree with your opinion, therefore it is pointless."

You make the call on whose opinions are valid?

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

Your opinion on Squad is not shared by the rest of the forum members posting here

And you're saying not being subject to a bandwagon mentality is a bad thing? I'm sorry you feel that way about me not blindly praising Squad just because it's what everyone else does. I'm still going to continue dissecting KSP 1 whether it's what everyone agrees on or not, and I'm certainly not going to think X just because it's what everyone else thinks.

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

You have never made a proper argument to prove any of your positions.

Yes I have. Then again, given the bulk of your argument, "I disagree" is grounds enough to consider an argument invalid.

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

needlessly hurtful

Tough love. Or, at least it would be if Squad ever took advice on-board and didn't give up on KSP 1 after the drip-feed development cycle that was post-1.0 KSP1.

2 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

@Jacke I'm pretty sure the best strategy is to ignore, and, possibly, report, this isn't normal discussion anymore, it's just unhinged ranting that doesn't deserve attention.

I'm sorry that someone having a different opinion is report-worthy in your eyes.

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it

If KSP-1 is that bad, why were you registered here in 2017, long before KSP-2 announcement?

Six years of pain and torment?

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 getting onto Steam was a failure of its quality control

KSP-1 had a free version, and everyone could download it and decide if its quality enough satisfying for him to worth buying.

So, it doesn't matter was it perfect or not before steaming.

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off.

It's strange, but noone else did it.

So, shame upon the noones, but wise people don't shoot the only piano player in the saloon anyway.

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 being developed in 2011 by a small indie group is not an excuse given that many far better games had been developed by people, singular, no more than one developer, in the past before - Frontier: Elite II and SpaceEngine spring to mind, and even barring the work SpaceEngine had done to it after 2011

But you prefer playing KSP-1 instead of rather better spacesims, as KSP-2 has appeared (?) just a fortnight ago.

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, they added persistent thrust? Are you sure about that? Because all I know is that they added persistent thrust.

Squad gave an ability to add the persistent thrust, and skilled people did it years ago.

[MarcAbaddon]

Even if you honestly think Squad and KSP 1 were bad (I disagree, but whatever) you gotta realize it is a bad look if one of the most vocal defenders of the KSP 2 EA constantly brings up the shortcomings of the predecessor.

It makes it sound as if KSP 2 can't stand by itself and only looks good compared to an even worse game. Which I am sure is not the intention, but as someone who likes KSP 1 and still has hopes for KSP 2 it gives off a really strange vibe. And I am pretty sure liking KSP 1 and having hopes for 2 is the majority position around here.

Edited March 10, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[Sirad]

Why i havent Bought yet ?

I got Burned to often by 'early access' shemes that were purely just money-grabs. This did not apply to KSP1 but the franchise is under new management and whenever KSP2 will enter a enjoyable state (for me), thats the second im in. Im not good in voluntarely be an pre-pre-alpha bugtester so there is no Point in Buying it for me now.  I've got a Golden Rule. Time is precious. Read the Terms. Why saving a few Bucks to get acces to something earlyer that is not done to an extent that its just sillyly playable along. If i do Play 10 Hours a game and wasting 5 Hours to fiddle out a way to avoid Bugs, thats not worth my precious lifetime. I can spend those 5 Hours better and say to myself: Those 5 Hours of my lifetime were worth more than the additional price i have to pay for the Final Product someday.

As i noticed here, the waves rise high here, ya all could have read whats written as a disclaimer. No need for Pitchforks and torches. You dont bought a finished game. Its early access. Dont forget that you gave up all your rights by purchasing renting it now. You have no rights even for a Patch, or any right to ever recieve a finished product.

I take my Time and wait. Im looking forward to a finished or at least fully enjoyable product. I dont take any side but if you purchase it, read the terms?
There should be noo room for any uprise because, pacta sunt servanda.

If the Game gets finished one day, why worry now, just wait...

If its never finished, why worry, if you already purchased you have no rights for anything either.

So in both cases: why worry ?

[Ekerci]

i bought the game but I will try to refund it. my reasons and feelings are

1. this game is just UI update to me. I don't see a game here. Most probably I won't be able to refund it but i I will try. I played the game once for 2.9h on the first day and never opened again. I had time to play but I preferred other games to play.

2. I feel cheated. all those hypes and features were looking so amazing. especially colony. I don't care about multiplayer. I got that they told us it won't be in EA. but how about EA? this game is not in EA stage. they took many years until this point and all they did was take KSP1 codes bring it to KSP2 with few updates. I guess a modder could do the same.

3.there is nothing to play. i felt like it should have been a DLC to KSP1. I have played KSP1 and did stuff there but i dont find a point to do the same things here. actually you can't even do things in KSP2 that you have done in KSP1.

4. they took so many years and what we have is a crap broken game. so until the game becomes playable maybe it will take 5 more years and I don't want to support a company like that. I also have feeling of a scam. they will collect money from people and goodbye. wake up guys this happens in the game sector. 

 

[KerikBalm]

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, right, you can do inclination changes properly with ion engines now and do your circularization and capture burns in one go,

That's not how ion engines should work, and the time warp factor was not what limits thatm

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

but oh no, a little UI element that appears when you begin your burn is absent prior to your burn beginning. Whatever. That does not constitute "even worse",

Considering that you need that information to time when to start a burn, and ksp1 gives it to you while KSP2 doesn't, yes it does constitute even worse.

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, they added persistent thrust? Are you sure about that? Because all I know is that they added persistent thrust.

No they added thrust under time warp instead of thrust under physics warp.

If the thrust doesn't persist when you switch vessels, go back to KSC, etc then it doesn't persist and it's not persistent thrust.

And if the vessel can't change orientation while under time warp thrust, then the sort of continuous low thrust trajectories that I was excited about aren't even possible, making this just a way to save time on long burns. All trajectories remain standard impulse trajectories, and it still doesn't allow for accurate modelling of how ion engines should work.

A big disappointment

[MarcAbaddon]

That's a good point - it is thrust under time warp not persistent thrust. It's not usable when you need to switch to another mission for a bit, and the limitation of constant heading during the burn makes some more complex trajectories impossible. You won't be able to replicate the trajectory of the Dawn probe.

It's still a nice feature, especially for insertion burns and transfer burns out of an orbit with a long period (e.g. around Kerbol) since the pro-grade marker won't move around as much in that setting. 

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, right, you can do inclination changes properly with ion engines now and do your circularization and capture burns in one go,

That's not how ion engines should work

And? It's still a point for the new maneuver planner, when you can do such maneuvers with low-TWR engines.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

20 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

but oh no, a little UI element that appears when you begin your burn is absent prior to your burn beginning. Whatever. That does not constitute "even worse",

Considering that you need that information to time when to start a burn

"I need the burn length timer to figure out when to start my burns because the 'start burn in...' timer doesn't do it for me"...? Why do you need the burn duration to start a burn if the game already has a relatively big timer telling you precisely when to start your burn?

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

yes it does constitute even worse

Because, as I explained, you're blatantly ignoring things the game gives you to initiate maneuvers.

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

All trajectories remain standard impulse trajectories

Okay, now I'm getting the impression you haven't even touched the game or even so much as seen a screenshot or video demonstrating the maneuver planner, else you'd know how blatantly wrong this is.

Again... Not possible in KSP 1. Also, note the blatantly obvious "Start Burn In..." timer.

4 hours ago, Ekerci said:

maybe it will take 5 more years and I don't want to support a company like that

Then why'd you support Squad?

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it

If KSP-1 is that bad, why were you registered here in 2017, long before KSP-2 announcement?

No better alternative? A 90% positive review rate obfuscating the game's deep-rooted issues? As I said, KSP 1 was only successful because of a lack of competition.

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 being developed in 2011 by a small indie group is not an excuse given that many far better games had been developed by people, singular, no more than one developer, in the past before - Frontier: Elite II and SpaceEngine spring to mind, and even barring the work SpaceEngine had done to it after 2011

But you prefer playing KSP-1 instead of rather better spacesims, as KSP-2 has appeared (?) just a fortnight ago.

And the point flies over another head. I was showing that Squad's output was pathetic for a dev team, not that SpaceEngine and Elite II were designed for building rockets.

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I was showing that Squad's output was pathetic for a dev team

So pathetic, that KSP-2 after 4+ years looks like KSP 0.21 with more bugs but ray tracing.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

As I said, KSP 1 was only successful because of a lack of competition

But that just BEGS the question, WHY was there no competition?

I mean first of all there was. Simple Rockets 2 did a lot of stuff right - and a lot of stuff wrong - but they were a direct competitor to KSP. They lost out for some reason (I found the game boring and without style, and much preferred doing pretty much anything in KSP to SR2. But I can't speak for everyone only myself).

But putting SR2 aside, why was there no competition? I can think of 2 reasons:

1) Making a game like KSP is hard. Like, really hard.
2) The market is too small to justify the cost.

I don't know which of those is the reason no one's ever done it. I expect it's a bit of both. But "KSP (1) sux" is blatantly untrue because, compared to the other similar games out there (SR2 and now KSP2), KSP1 is superior in many ways to them. You can't be the absolute best in your (albeit limited) field and "sux." If you absolutely hate the best example of something in a field, what "sux" is the field itself.

In short: Making games like KSP sux.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Superfluous J

[DunaManiac]

On 3/9/2023 at 4:20 PM, Bej Kerman said:

That does not constitute "even worse",

Conviently, you ignore the other problems with KSP2's maneuver nodes. Firstly, there isn't a way to fine tune them like in KSP, and it has the same problem as KSP1 where at certain angles you can't pull the node, forcing one to awkwardly mess with the camera to get to it. It's even worse, in fact, due to how wide the arrows are.  There isn't a way to fast forward it multiple orbits, pretty critical for rendez-vous. Also, they're missing burntime until after you start the burn, which in my view is rather important. I want to know whether I'll be here for 1 minute vs 5 minutes. It's just a basic QOL feature that isn't hard to implement.

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Persistent thrust only matters for interstellar travel???

That's just, come on now. "Food only matters for when you're literally about to starve to death". A crewed ion mission is technically possible in KSP 1 but seriously. Hour-long burns. KSP 1 is supposed to be a game. Not something only for the hardcores. Persistent thrust is a basic necessity.

I maintain that it's an edge case, for KSP1, in case it wasn't clear earlier. In the vast majority of rockets, you don't usually exceed 5 minute burns when it becomes a necessity. For KSP2's scope, it is necessary because missions will last for months or years under constant thrust, so it is rather important. But for KSP1? It remains an edge case, as it only applies to large ion engine craft (which no-one makes) and large interplanetary vessels, which are also rather rare. Just because I call my preferences "basic necessities" doesn't make them one.

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's output was pathetic for a dev team,

I dispute this. Intercept has got off a on pretty bad foot too, so I'm not sure why you seem to commend them. I'm also not sure what Squad did to deserve such enmity from you, to seriously state that "their output was pathetic for a dev team," and "KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off," with no evidence to back it up. In indie dev years, 10 years is practically forever, and I think that they at least deserve some commendation for that feat. I mean, look at it's competitors. SR2 is by all means cleaner, more polished, and less buggy than KSP1, and yet it didn't really catch on.

Before you accuse me of

21 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

blindly praising Squad just because it's what everyone else does.

I'm by no means doing that. Firstly, I'm not sure why you believe that there is some kind of "bandwagon mentality" focused on "praising squad," obviously in opposition into your completely calm, utterly unbiased approach towards KSP1. However, KSP2 does have one commendation that I think is impregnable: You can't just say, "oh, you can just redo what KSP2 does in KSP1 with mods," because while you can, doing so in KSP1 is seriously stretching the game's capabilities. Believe me, I've tried. I had bases that would jump and shift for no reason, space stations that involved 2 dozen man-hours to build suffering an utter RUD (destroying a large spaceplane docked to it as well) because of a wrongly placed antenna, performance issues. KSP2 on the other hand, promised to do that from the outset. But what I've already seen so far calls into question whether it's any better than KSP1 in that regard.

Edited March 10, 2023 by DunaManiac

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And? It's still a point for the new maneuver planner, when you can do such maneuvers with low-TWR engines.

You could with the old maneuver planner too

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

you're blatantly ignoring things the game gives you to initiate maneuvers.

I am not, see below 

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Okay, now I'm getting the impression you haven't even touched the game or even so much as seen a screenshot or video demonstrating the maneuver planner,l

Hmmm, well, as the title of the thread suggests, I haven't bought the game - you are correct that I have not touched it.

I was unaware of this feature, and given all the videos leading to release featuring stuff that wasn't in the release, I was using (overall critical) videos of the post release product for information.

I guess if that maneuver planner is in and works as described, then the complaint of the burn timer not appearing until after the burn starts does seem to be a minor nitpick.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again... Not possible in KSP 1.

Agreed, but I was hoping for it to be possible in KSP2, I expected it to be, it was a not insignificant selling point for me.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 was only successful because of a lack of competition.

KSP 1 had virtually no competition- Orbiter would be the closest thing to competition before Simple Rockets.

I agree that KSP could have done many things better. There was certainly a lot of room for improvement, so it's not hard to imagine a superior competitor was possible.

We all knew it could be improved a lot, it's why we were so excited for KSP2.

I still hope KSP2 turns into a great product.

It's just not there yet for me.

[Jacke]

The problem for KSP2 is that Simple Rockets 2, now retitled Juno, is a competitor.

I already had SR2 but hadn't gotten around to it as I did all my rocketry in KSP1.  But since I can't play KSP2 on my current hardware, but can play Juno, I have installed it and will be checking it out.  The only thing that will limit my time with Juno is KSP1.

I understand the difficulties Intercept Games has with developing KSP2.  They need time to get out upgrades that fix issues and don't break more things, eventually improving features and releasing new ones.  But they need to improve their communication.  They need to explicitly tell us that and not depend on forum members who are game developers filling in the details.

EDIT: @Nate Simpson announced about an hour ago that barring QA testing finding issues, the first patch to KSP2 will be released on March 16th Thursday next week.  There appears to be some improvement in the communications today.

Because KSP2 does have serious competition.  Juno is right now a much better game that more people with older hardware can play.  I don't think the Juno devs are resting on their laurels and must be busy working on improvements right now.  As their game works very well, they don't have the pressure for bug fixes that KSP2 does.

I know of ex-KSP players who are playing Juno right now.  I will likely split my time between KSP1 and Juno.

KSP2 must be losing sales to Juno.  When Juno puts out a paid DLC, KSP2 will lose more sales to Juno.

That is KSP2's operational environment right now.  What will IG do about it?

Edited March 11, 2023 by Jacke

[Serenity]

On 3/9/2023 at 1:20 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Squad's work was pathetic, ridiculous, and honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone with any kind of standards would be willing to do anything but berate it. KSP 1 getting onto Steam was a failure of its quality control and at this point the least I would ask of a sequel has already been addressed by KSP 2. KSP 1 could have been developed by literally anyone else and it'd have been better off.

[snip]

It's not about your opinion but this is no way to critize a development team.

[snip]

Edited March 11, 2023 by Vanamonde