A Taste of Science

[cocoscacao]

10 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

What exactly?

That's not my intention. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I understand you're dissatisfied with the current state of the game. However, it seems that no matter what devs post, nothing really gives you any positive thoughts. So... What kind of post would you like to see from devs? What would bring your hopes back?

[Alexoff]

[snip]

4 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

ObsidianAnt, Matt Lowne, Scott Manley, SWDennis, EJ_SA

Did any of themfound game breaking bug? It seems that they had visual bugs, an anomaly flew after someone, but something completely hard did not happen.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[PDCWolf]

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And you expect the developers to magically pluck a complete product out of their bottoms if they can't keep up with T2's ridiculous deadlines? Again, get that daft idea out of your system. You're in the real world and things take time. Sit down.

Ah yes, blame T2, get out of jail free. You can get the date wrong by months, maybe a year by rushing them, but not 3. Do you really think T2 would come out saying they have a full game when there's three+EA years of development left? That's insane, and unheard of from T2 (though not unheard of from Nate's other projects back on Uber)

I don't want "a full game right here and now", and I don't think anyone has come here and asked that of them. However, it's painfully clear something big happened, that caused one studio to be kicked out and cannibalized, and a release date for a full product to end up as a 3 years late barebones EA that half works yet looks exactly the same as what was shown in 2019. What they haven't done is being transparent about it at any stage and that's what I'm asking of them.

I would totally understand if they come out and tell me whatever they had done prior to the studio change was thrown away and they started from scratch, for example, specially since that's what lines up the most with the slow progress and subpar experience we have right now. However I'm not gonna believe that by myself, they have to come out and clear it up. Clearing it up in fact is the complete opposite to showing they're barely starting on the parts for science now and they've had something as simple as a cockpit sitting around incomplete for 3 years whilst other cockpits are finalized.

 

[LoSBoL]

4 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

What do you think should be done by those whose expectations were deceived by the developers and who do not believe that they will not deceive again?

Where does this come from¿?

People that feel deceived should do whatever they feel they should do, why should I give them advise? 

5 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Did any of themfound game breaking bug? It seems that they had visual bugs, an anomaly flew after someone, but something completely hard did not happen.

I'd suggest you watch them again, they showed the exact state the game is in and what my experiences I have with it, what is your in game experience?

[Alexoff]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Which is impossible, but go on.

And the developers realized this apparently only in the sixth year of development, deciding to release early access.

4 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

it seems that no matter what devs post, nothing really gives you any positive thoughts.

This is not true, but the developers post supposedly mocking posts over and over again.

4 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

What kind of post would you like to see from devs? What would bring your hopes back?

Like something specific. For example, the date of the first step of the roadmap or the approximate end of early access. For example, developers could show a short video of collecting science. For example, developers could show how a small colony works. For example, developers could mention specific bugs that spoil the game, and tell how they will be fixed in the near future. But we, as usual, do not receive any specifics, only one part of all science. Why? Apparently not to upset, because most likely science will differ little from what was in KSP1.

[snip]

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[cocoscacao]

10 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Like something specific. For example, the date of the first step of the roadmap or the approximate end of early access. For example, developers could show a short video of collecting science. For example, developers could show how a small colony works. For example, developers could mention specific bugs that spoil the game, and tell how they will be fixed in the near future. But we, as usual, do not receive any specifics, only one part of all science. Why? Apparently not to upset, because most likely science will differ little from what was in KSP1.

Thanks. That's all I wanted to hear. Maybe you've written it somewhere already, but it passed my eye.

[Strawberry]

19 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

Chris Adderley, the person cited as the designer, didn't start working AS a designer at Intercept till 8 months ago - and didn't join intercept until 14 months ago, when they started as a concept artist (I guess they needed systems designers more than concept artists?   Weird leap).   

So... if that's the designer, the part is at most 8 months old.  Maybe he's counting the 'designer' as having done the concept design - and that still doesn't make it that much further back.    Definitely nothing related to 2020. 

Good catch with the Chris Adderley thing. This part is definitely related in some way mechanically to the 2020 part considering how many parts are shared, I wont be surprised if they basically just went "Hey we have a bunch of artists, and once you establish the framework for something (in this case combo science parts), making more of it is way easier, so lets use our artists to make easy to implement parts while our engineers work on figuring out the more difficult stuff".  I doubt this is a case of "They didnt get this done in time" considering the actual structural unit of the part is pretty simple (thus this part was likely pretty easy to implement as the rest of the work was already done), Im pretty sure this is more of a case of "We have the time we might as well make a combo part just for space probes"

Edited May 13, 2023 by Strawberry

[RocketRockington]

[snip]

4 hours ago, Strawberry said:

We have the time we might as well make a combo part just for space probes

That's an optimistic viewpoint.  If the have the other parts as separate pieces sure, maybe, but typically all science parts are one-offs and need to fit well with the tuning of the game, rather than being able to add more like you'd add another wing or tank or engine.  We'll have to wait till release to see.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[Strawberry]

[snip]

4 hours ago, RocketRockington said:

That's an optimistic viewpoint.  If the have the other parts as separate pieces sure, maybe, but typically all science parts are one-offs and need to fit well with the tuning of the game, rather than being able to add more like you'd add another wing or tank or engine.  We'll have to wait till release to see.

I tend to be pretty optimistic about this game in general sure, but I think these are intended to be science assemblies because 1. All of the mini experiments between the two are shared, and 2. Especially for the 2020 part, they look to be more "bolted on" then all one big science experiment. If these parts are just the infrared spectrometer + plasma detector + etc bolted together into one part, that would honestly probably be easier to add more of them then a new wing. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[RocketRockington]

43 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Especially for the 2020 part, they look to be more "bolted on" then all one big science experiment. If these parts are just the infrared spectrometer + plasma detector + etc bolted together into one part, that would honestly probably be easier to add more of them then a new wing. 

My own guess is that they're attempting to address the problem with science spam by limiting the # of parts and dumbing down the gameplay, rather than making the science game more interesting.  Only based on looking at these silly(to me) parts - especially whatever than thing that looks like a coke can and a Swiss army knife had a baby that got beat withe the ugly stick.  

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

ObsidianAnt, Matt Lowne, Scott Manley, SWDennis, EJ_SA

• ObsidiantAnt sped up the entirety of his footage slightly, (accidentally?) hiding framerate issues. He did not experience (or bothered to portray) any glaring issues, other than the lack of re-entry effects and ocean physics. He did mention the heating effects would be added for early access release lmao.
• MattLowne didn't hide the framerate issues, and he mentions encountering bugs and showed the eva-walk stuttering.
• ScottManley had, at points, the most noticeable framerate issues, though he also sped up his spaceplane flight near the KSC. He does however get a lot of points for warning users about the performance, though he didn't mention bugs on that conclusion.
• SWDennis also sped up parts of their footage but clearly showed framerate issues, and the only shown bug on his video was the wheel collision not working properly.
• EJ_SA has a 4 hour VOD I'm not bothering to watch entirely, but I did watch the section where he praises the physics system, the same one that can't hold an orbit stable, disassembles your spacecraft mid flight, and can't process the wheel collisions.

Only ScottManley had an almost proper warning of what was there for players on release. The rest didn't experience (or experience and didn't portray) or actively worked to hide the issues the game had and still has.

 

[Strawberry]

[snip]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

• ObsidiantAnt sped up the entirety of his footage slightly, (accidentally?) hiding framerate issues. He did not experience (or bothered to portray) any glaring issues, other than the lack of re-entry effects and ocean physics. He did mention the heating effects would be added for early access release lmao.

They made a video just for performance and content issues that's ten minutes long right after the ESA event

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanamonde

[TomKerbal]

<>

Edited May 19, 2023 by TomKerbal

[cocoscacao]

14 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I am not struck by fatalism and believe that fans can change something in the approach of developers.

I've whined personally about new MN look... They've changed it. Everyone showed dissatisfaction about inability to plan trips beyond fuel capacity. They've acknowledged it, and said they're gonna change that as well. Even that joke thread about inability to access garage was addressed.

I won't consider wobble and performance updates so far, because those issues have to die one way or another at some point. And they're also acknowledged as well.

So far, community's input have been taken seriously, as far as I can see. They can't fix everything at once. What were  they doing for the past 3 years? Don't know, and I don't care, because we will never find out. Current game state is bumpy, no objections there, but things are moving forward at a good speed now...

Edited May 14, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Vanamonde]

Lots of personal remarks removed. Thread is much shorter now. 

Please stop trying to tell each other what to think. 

[MechBFP]

2 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Current game state is bumpy, no objections there, but things are moving forward at a good speed now...

I wouldn't say a good speed necessarily, at least not yet. I'll withhold judgement on that until at least roadmap phase 2 is complete. It is a least moving forward.

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I wouldn't say a good speed necessarily, at least not yet. I'll withhold judgement on that until at least roadmap phase 2 is complete

Point taken. I'm also curious when the core gameplay issues are gonna be fixed. My assumption is before interstellar.

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, Strawberry said:

[snip]

They made a video just for performance and content issues that's ten minutes long right after the ESA event

After the original video from the event, which is what we were discussing. That same video is also mostly praise, and a mix of sped up footage along with footage where no problem is shown. When actually talking about performance, he mentions the system requirements without a reference to the performance proper, he then goes on to say everything was fine and he didn't had any issues or framerate problems, something completely debunked by the videos from his peers.

He called the EA a very good start (let me remind you, 38% positive reviews inside the refund window, 50% when keepers are considered).

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 5/12/2023 at 5:04 PM, The Aziz said:

You're pretty new here but you do realize that many people, myself included and I HUNTED for anything KSP2 related for the last 3 years, have never seen this? Where'd you pull that from all of a sudden

My thought exactly.

How... did... we... miss... THAT?!?

[Strawberry]

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

After the original video from the event, which is what we were discussing. That same video is also mostly praise, and a mix of sped up footage along with footage where no problem is shown. When actually talking about performance, he mentions the system requirements without a reference to the performance proper, he then goes on to say everything was fine and he didn't had any issues or framerate problems, something completely debunked by the videos from his peers.

He called the EA a very good start (let me remind you, 38% positive reviews inside the refund window, 50% when keepers are considered).

I dont feel like rewatching the video because its not worth my time, but while he was optimistic in the long run, they were definitely critical of the current build. I feel like you're cherrypicking some things here

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 5/12/2023 at 6:13 PM, Spicat said:

I'm active on the discord since it opened, and one day (some months ago) a random person posted this video and I saved it since then (because it has  only 200 views).

I appreciate you posting - because I'd never heard of "Eyes" before, either.

 

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I dont feel like rewatching the video because its not worth my time, but while he was optimistic in the long run, they were definitely critical of the current build. I feel like you're cherrypicking some things here

I watched the whole thing and wrote that rundown, there isn't really more than that on the video as far as critique or bringing forward the game's issues go. The one thing one could add is he mentioned he feels the system reqs are unjustified, which I totally agree with, but also isn't a really breakthrough level analysis to make, or a critique. His video and some others are the reason the "conspiracy" that influencers were given a different version of the game exists in the first place, the only exception being Scott Manley who clearly showed the framerate issues.

[Strawberry]

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I watched the whole thing and wrote that rundown, there isn't really more than that on the video as far as critique or bringing forward the game's issues go. The one thing one could add is he mentioned he feels the system reqs are unjustified, which I totally agree with, but also isn't a really breakthrough level analysis to make, or a critique. His video and some others are the reason the "conspiracy" that influencers were given a different version of the game exists in the first place, the only exception being Scott Manley who clearly showed the framerate issues.

Maybe the reason why he didn't focus on it so much on that video in specific is because he wanted to make an entire video on it separately, and maybe the reason why they didn't complain as much about frame rates as they should have is because they were given absolute beasts of computers (forgot what specs they used for the esa event but they were insane). Those sound like much more reasonable explanations then "The esa people got a secret build that worked better that wasnt given to us on release because reasons" 

[PDCWolf]

14 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Maybe the reason why he didn't focus on it so much on that video in specific is because he wanted to make an entire video on it separately, and maybe the reason why they didn't complain as much about frame rates as they should have is because they were given absolute beasts of computers (forgot what specs they used for the esa event but they were insane). Those sound like much more reasonable explanations then "The esa people got a secret build that worked better that wasnt given to us on release because reasons" 

I called it a "conspiracy" for a reason. However I was indeed talking about the immediate follow up video in my previous post, the one called "thoughts and impressions". Maybe you're talking about another video? There's one about performance posted FEB 22 called "Performance and Content issues":

He starts by saying the first hint of performance issues was the system requirements... He was invited to the ESA event on the 9th meaning he knew the performance of the game playing on a 4080... 8 days before the reqs were released. He said not everyone experienced problems, and he only suffered micro-stutters and anything else wasn't consistent in occurring. He then goes on to say that the PCs on the event were having performance issues which he magically didn't experience but show up on all non sped up footage.

That's all for performance, and he goes on to talk about content, he doesn't mention the lack of re-entry heating for release, so he maybe still has the information that it was gonna be part of release like he mentioned before? Later on he talks about the game having 300+ parts, and say PD has been very open to the game being EA and missing content, saying it's ok to wait for more content to arrive and that it could be that way for quite a while. After that, he criticizes the price, something I agree with.

Again, a clear lack of critique and an even more dreary feeling that he either got extremely lucky, or is reluctant to actually take an issue with a game having performance problems in a 4080. I hope by now you can clearly see how this softball approach is something I strongly disagree with. Playing on release I had my ship explode on launch, explode on save load, had the KSC following me, had the game be barely playable, unstable orbits, had to battle the UI and control choices constantly, had my ship fall through the surface, the crash screen appearing for no reason, my save deleted, and so on.

The game didn't have "performance and content issues" it was (and still is for a lot of people) unplayable.

[LoSBoL]

7 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

• ObsidiantAnt sped up the entirety of his footage slightly, (accidentally?) hiding framerate issues. He did not experience (or bothered to portray) any glaring issues, other than the lack of re-entry effects and ocean physics. He did mention the heating effects would be added for early access release lmao.
• MattLowne didn't hide the framerate issues, and he mentions encountering bugs and showed the eva-walk stuttering.
• ScottManley had, at points, the most noticeable framerate issues, though he also sped up his spaceplane flight near the KSC. He does however get a lot of points for warning users about the performance, though he didn't mention bugs on that conclusion.
• SWDennis also sped up parts of their footage but clearly showed framerate issues, and the only shown bug on his video was the wheel collision not working properly.
• EJ_SA has a 4 hour VOD I'm not bothering to watch entirely, but I did watch the section where he praises the physics system, the same one that can't hold an orbit stable, disassembles your spacecraft mid flight, and can't process the wheel collisions.

Only ScottManley had an almost proper warning of what was there for players on release. The rest didn't experience (or experience and didn't portray) or actively worked to hide the issues the game had and still has.

 

Wow, that's some sugar coating, I saw non performant bugfested footage from all of them, none excluded. The times that the word 'bug' and 'maybe they'll fix this for release' was spoken, guided by the footage shown was telling the whole story. 

And here you are, one of the most critiquefull assessors of the game percieving it was all but some performance issues a few minor bugs and furthermore all dandy.

I'm not going to breakdown the videos for you, I'd suggest others to rerun them if they feel the need to assess for themselves. 

I knew exactly what I was getting at release.