[Poll] So what are we thinking about 1000 part ships?

[Alexoff]

13 hours ago, Master39 said:

the Devs clearly claimed that bigger rockets should not be wobbly

But this only applies to rockets, and we cannot say for sure whether this will greatly reduce the load on the processor. It's just that if thin (2.5 meters) parts spin like sausages, large parts will move a few degrees. But I think in both cases approximately the same calculations will be needed. And we don't know if there will be any big parts other than the fuel tanks.

13 hours ago, Master39 said:

Again, the station is half of the 1000 parts target, the Devs clearly claimed that bigger rockets should not be wobbly, meaning less things to simulate at that size, bigger parts will reduce the need for spam of smaller ones too, further reducing part counts

Well, usually my rocket rarely had more than 40% of the parts from the whole craft, usually a small functional payload contains a bunch of different small parts, and the rocket itself is just a bunch of tanks and engines. This is all obvious, in KSP1, after all, with the development, we also received more and more details and saved our time. That's the way it should be. But the question is - will we be able to release this 1000-part craft or do we need to moderate our appetites?

[snip]

Edited April 10, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Majorjim!]

On 4/8/2023 at 10:28 PM, Master39 said:

This is fun because I distinctly remember years of people wining because of no communication at all coming from the studio.

 

BTW 3 pages and nobody managed to bring up a single example of a dev actually promising 1000+ parts ships.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, it probably does, I don't know, but sure enough looks like nobody is even doing the most basic research before claiming that the devs promised x or y.

The reply to Shadowzone about part counts is a masterpiece in diplomatic responses, not only he never specifies an actual part count, but  it doesn't even come close to confirming 1000 parts ships or say that they will be possible.

 

The first step to a 1 km long ship isn't a system capable of managing 1000 1m parts, but huge parts that allow you to build such a ship in 1-200 parts at most, probably the ability to "containerize" landers into kits/hangars/containers and orbital colonies making you skip the part in which you need 10 times more parts to actually lift that ship to orbit from the KSC.

I will get round to finding the quote I read. It was from the devs saying that KSP 2 will have at least twice the part count performance as KSP 1. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Majorjim!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Including how people seemed to try to lower/raise expectations for the game based entirely on which version of events is most in favor of Intercept's current state. 

I linked a post of mine made in 2020 in which I was talking about "mosaics of MK3 spaceplane parts" already, that has always been my stance on the matter.

There's a serious discussion to be had here on parts counts and bigger parts, about what end of the spectrum hampers creativity more.

You brought up Lego, in the Lego AFOL community I've seen a certain diregard for the creativity needed to build somethin past a certain scale, it's difficult to convey a specific type of car at minifig scale than it is when you make it half a meter long, at some point it just becomes a matter of how much money you can spend for a certain build, or, back to KSP, how much performance you can throw at the ship.

I'm pretty sure that building a 1:1 replica of the Rocinante out of Oscar B fuel tanks is going to result in a ton of custom made tiny details, but also be unplayable in both KSP 1 and 2.

But the argument wasn't about that, it was specifically about the truss segments and solar panels.

We already know that the Devs went with bigger parts, that engine is a single part, and they've showed it back in 2019, I was merely talking about welding together truss segments or providing longer ones.

I repeat my statement:

There's no creativity lost if they give us 50m or 500m long parts instead of forcing us to line up dozens of 5m ones.

 

 

[LoSBoL]

Specs weren't posted, but here's a  claimed 1300 part vessel with FPS in the corner. Playable? 10 till 19 frames per second. 

Don't think KSP1 did better? 

Edited April 10, 2023 by LoSBoL

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

Specs weren't posted, but here's a  claimed 1300 part vessel with FPS in the corner. Playable? 10 till 19 frames per second. 

Don't think KSP1 did better? 

Good example, now weld all those struts together, you save half the parts and lose none of the creativity, add orbital construction to the equation and you also remove all the parts needed to launch it from the ground (I get what the challenge here is, I'm just pointing out that high part counts are not strictly required for that kind of gameplay)

 

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed, due to:

• personal remarks
• trolling
• being off-topic (e.g. arguing about arguing)

Folks, let's keep it civil and on-topic, please.

We understand that this is an area that people (understandably) have strong feelings about, and there's nothing wrong with that.  If you want to share your opinion about the game or its development, that's fine.  Make your point.  Expect other people to make their points.  Folks can respond to each other's points, which after all is the (ahem) point of having, well, a forum. 

However, there are boundaries.  The following things are not on-topic, do not belong in the forum, and are not okay to post here:

• What you think about the poster themselves.
  • This includes your impressions of their attitude, motivations, or behavior-- anything other than what they've posted here in this thread.
  • This also includes what you think about their posting history outside of this thread.  Don't try to generalize what a person is like.
• Generalizing a person into a supposed group.
  • e.g. "You're just like [group of people] who has [behavior I think is unreasonable]."
• Criticizing the mode in which a person expresses themselves, or the way they argue.
  • If you do this, you're not debating the point of this thread; you're just arguing about arguing, which never goes anywhere productive.

If you find yourself doing any of the above, you need to take a step back from your keyboard.  If you're talking about a person rather than the thread topic, then you're doing it wrong.  Either take some time to cool off until you can post something within the bounds of civil discussion, or else just walk away if you don't think you can manage that.

And if you see someone else doing one of these things... please don't respond in kind.  You're not in any position to address anyone else's behavior, and it only makes things worse.   Please just file a report, and the moderators will have a look as soon as we're able; it's what we're for.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Overfloater]

- part count of several thousands (not 1000)
- interstellar

those are the only 2 notable features i gathered from all the dev talks & blogs etc'.

That doesn't mean i want a ship made of 4000 parts. Rather, the game was supposedly optimized to the point where part count is not a concern. There was a lot of talk about optimization.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Overfloater

[asmi]

On 4/8/2023 at 6:49 PM, Alexoff said:

If the new star has only 2-3 planets, then it will be rather boring, and we will have nothing to argue with.

As long as there are enough reasons to travel to those 2-3 planets, it won't be boring. 

[Alexoff]

On 4/9/2023 at 11:55 PM, Master39 said:

I don't think if the game will ever be able to sustain a 1000 parts launch from Kerbin, still, due to a number of choices of game design, I'm more than convinced that such stations and ships as the one shown in that footage are more than possible.

Again, the station is half of the 1000 parts target, the Devs clearly claimed that bigger rockets should not be wobbly, meaning less things to simulate at that size, bigger parts will reduce the need for spam of smaller ones too, further reducing part counts, and, finally, orbital VABs and delivery routes means you can build stuff directly in orbit, removing hundreds of parts of launch veichles from the equation. 

This speech comes down to the fact that a 1000-detail crafting game will not be able to process well, but we don’t need such crafting! After all, even on small crafts you can do everything, or you can limit yourself to sticking flags into the planets. And you can not fly further than Minmus at all, what a solution! I think we went to the second or third round. I think the vast majority of players expected KSP2 to do more than KSP1.

Here is my rocket with 2900 parts, 2017. Well, 0-1 fps at start.

 

On 4/10/2023 at 9:34 PM, asmi said:

As long as there are enough reasons to travel to those 2-3 planets, it won't be boring. 

It depends on the developers how interesting it will be.

[B15hop]

On 4/8/2023 at 2:00 AM, Whackjob said:

I remember partwelder.  Never used it.  It was all about the engineering challenge, for me.  It has to fly, it has to land, and it's gotta have the right end pointed the right way bare minimal fifty-one percent of the time.

Engineering challenges such as this:

Now, I did some stress tests with the lander leg (stump?) aspect.  And it held up.  But that was with the weight of one fuel can and six of them motors.  When I put this on the pad to try to give it its maiden flight (even though I've barely started the building UP portion) the weight of it IMMEDIATELY makes it liquefy straight into the pad.  That's engineering challenge number one.

It could take me months.

 

And if a dev is eggin' it through here, can I ask that we get an option to bring up the flight report on a crash WHEN WE WANT TO?  It's an absolute irritation for me to try to launch this ship, over and over again, and I can't see what's initially breaking because somebody's cheerfully shoving a clipboard in my face to try to get me to feel better about everyone dying.  That's what we're here for!  I bought the ticket, let me sit down and enjoy my ride.

One thing I've noticed is the game hates medium sized solid rocket boosters. Don't even bother with them lol.. My two cents. I'd rather use mroe small ones with decouplers. The medium ones with decouplers are jsut near impossible to make stable even when using struts at multiple points to secure them.

Sometimesif you just do revert to launch it will cause that initial load in to be less severe than the intitial load in and the ship can live. Idk why but it seems that way for me almost every time. If the ship is borderline stable, the initial load in will kill it but the selecting revert to launch will let it live.

[B15hop]

Well.. How’s 1546 parts? 

 

[Royalswissarmyknife]

Starting to think 1000 part crafts are going to be possible but not anytime soon maybe even pre 1.0

400 parts run well though some times even 600

[AtomicTech]

On 3/23/2023 at 10:55 PM, RocketRockington said:

I remember one of the most common pre-launch discussions centered on just how much better KSP2's foundations - the physics, the way it handles parts, etc, was going to be.

At one point, they even promised us that they'd help with the physics calculations by grouping part physics together; after the mess that we've seen barely patched, I doubt that we'll see it any time soon. Heck, we may never see it.

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

Heck, we may never see it.

What's your source? KSP 2 literally just came out and already runs much better than it did day 1.

[AtomicTech]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's your source? KSP 2 literally just came out and already runs much better than it did day 1.

One of the dev posts from a while back.

And that's a subjective question.

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

One of the dev posts from a while back

Which, if I may ask?

2 hours ago, AtomicTech said:

And that's a subjective question.

It's measurable.

[AtomicTech]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Which, if I may ask?

It's been a while. I'd have to go do some digging that I don't quite have the time for; apologies 

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's measurable.

How so?

[Scarecrow71]

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's your source? KSP 2 literally just came out and already runs much better than it did day 1.

It might for some people, but not for all.  I have seen zero improvement in frame rate or graphics with either of the first 2 patches.

[AtomicTech]

7 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

It might for some people, but not for all.  I have seen zero improvement in frame rate or graphics with either of the first 2 patches.

I've seen no changes in my fps yeah, still a stubborn 20 fps on my Laptop RTX 3070 and I7.

[Bej Kerman]

13 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

What's your source? KSP 2 literally just came out and already runs much better than it did day 1.

It might for some people, but not for all.  I have seen zero improvement in frame rate or graphics with either of the first 2 patches.

That's unlucky

Hope you have better luck with the next few patches and updates.

[Majorjim!]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:47 AM, LoSBoL said:

Specs weren't posted, but here's a  claimed 1300 part vessel with FPS in the corner. Playable? 10 till 19 frames per second. 

Don't think KSP1 did better? 

I’ll believe that has 1300 parts when I see it in the VAB. 

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's unlucky

Hope you have better luck with the next few patches and updates.

Assuming we even get them.  Which I have next to no hope for.

[Bej Kerman]

20 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

22 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's unlucky

Hope you have better luck with the next few patches and updates.

Assuming we even get them.  Which I have next to no hope for.

What do you mean? Most people reported performance gains and we're only a few patches in.

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

On 5/1/2023 at 2:57 PM, Royalswissarmyknife said:

Starting to think 1000 part crafts are going to be possible but not anytime soon maybe even pre 1.0

400 parts run well though some times even 600

Multiplayer will most likely throw a spanner in the works, when it comes to playing with 1000 part ships, no matter how optimized 1.0 is going to be. 

[Scarecrow71]

36 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What do you mean? Most people reported performance gains and we're only a few patches in.

First, just because other people reported performance increase doesn't mean everyone did.  I did not.  I've been at 20 foe since launch, and the last patch did not affect that either positively or negatively.

Secondly, my comment that you quoted was about my lack of faith in getting future patches, not about performance improvements.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Scarecrow71