What may ultimately drive me away from the Kerbal Space Program

[HebaruSan]

3 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I wonder whether there’s a blocking function on the forums…

There is indeed:  Hover a user's name to get a member info pop-up. Click "Ignore", then check the "Posts" checkbox in the next screen and click "Update Preferences".

Edited May 22, 2023 by HebaruSan

[Wheehaw Kerman]

37 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The KSP analogy is inapt.  

*Deleted the rest.*

 

How so?  Is there another Unity-based rocket-building orbital-mechanics spaceflight/space program management game whose development hasn’t taken years in EA?

I mean, you can worry pointlessly if you want.  It’s your headspace, not mine.  I’m just saying that it’s a bit early for worrying.

[herbal space program]

On 5/20/2023 at 7:53 PM, Klapaucius said:

But I really have an issue with a lot of the criticism that is not constructive, often entitled and does nothing to move the game forward.  There is a damned if you do, damned if you don't aspect these days. If we don't get an update, someone gripes about lack of updates. If we do get one, someone asks why we got one if it does not contain every item they hoped for.  This is exhausting.  Part of me thinks I should just not read those threads, but another part of me wonders why I should have to.

Everybody should be entitled to express their opinion about the game, whatever that may be, so long as it does not involve profanity, personal attacks on anybody, or violation of any of the other clearly established community guidelines.  You are equally entitled to your judgements about those opinions, but you also don't have the right to  impose your own rules of what is constructive and what isn't on everybody else in the forum. If you can't stand all the complaining you see in some threads because it is too negative for you, then the part of you that says you just shouldn't read those threads is correct, full stop. The part of you that "wonders why I should have to" on the other hand, kinda sounds  to me like the flip side of the very sort of entitlement  you seem to be objecting to.  As far as I can tell, the moderators are doing a pretty good job of keeping anything really objectionable out of the comments, at a time when IMO a lot of people have pretty good reasons to be  unhappy about the state of the product.  And while I do agree that some of the complaints that are made are not fair and not constructive, I still respect the right of those forum members to say those things provided they do so in good faith and not just to troll others. The scroll wheel is your friend, and maybe next time you are feeling down about the state of the discussion, you could try to be the change by starting a new thread about something positive instead of just adding your own complaints to the pile!

Edited May 23, 2023 by herbal space program

[herbal space program]

On 5/22/2023 at 12:36 AM, pandaman said:

I'd be more inclined to say 'unenjoyable' rather than unplayable.  As well as the frustrating bugs, it may not yet 'do' what many of us want gameplay wise, but it clearly is playable.

I guess my response to that would be that if you're not enjoying what you're doing, you're not actually "playing" anymore, but to be fair it's really just a handful of exceptionally bad issues that make the game that way for me.  If they can just fix the orbital trajectory bug, the sinking lander bug, and the berserk SAS bug, I'll be happy to noodle around admiring the new planetary skins, looking for Easter eggs, and whatnot else until they get more of the new content developed. Game controller support would also go a long way towards making me less of an angry villager. Flying planes is just not fun for me if I have to do it with a keyboard and mouse.

[Haustvindr]

On 5/22/2023 at 4:08 PM, Socraticat said:

There is a point to be had here with system requirements and user systems. On some older hardware the game legitimately stops becoming playable.

I don't have a 1650 to confirm, but I hear that's the dominant Steam card... I don't know what the most common Kerbal User card is.

I would also recommend the use of "Some" in arguments to anyone reading this. As in, the game is "clearly playable" for "some", but not necessarily the otherwise assumed "all". It's deflationary and acknowledges that there's some gray between black and white.

Intruding for a bit just to let you all know a maybe relevant little piece of trivia.

I've had a GTX 560ti, indeed I still have it. Due to several things that are not really important, I've played on it until very recently. And yes, I've tried KSP2 on it. It was... surprising...

There are a number of things that this GPU doesn't like in modern games. There's specially the triplanar thing on terrain, which makes it go into crawl mode. The way they are introducing the video at the start is particularly hard on it al well. What does it mean?

1.- I had to deactivate the guided start to prevent the video from coming up.
2.- I had a whooping 0-2 fps while looking at the ground (KSP1 vibes? Yeah, but much stronger). Therefore my launches where looking at the sky to get around and be able to work the input.
3.- And once in space... It was surprisingly playable in the range of 10-20 fps. Mostly aroung 15.

The faults in my system were just the GPU. I have a 7700k which is more than enough for anything modern, and for anything new incoming for a number of years. I also built this one forward thinking with 32gb RAM so no issue in there as well. Just the 560ti weighting it down until I could finally replace it (only a veeeery liiiitle generational jump!).

The VAB was... workable. It was not great because you could feel the time lag in your mouse movements, but even if annoying at least you could build things. The launches were a little on the side of unplayable, and space was actually kind of enjoyable.

The biggest annoyance was actually the UI, but not because the UI itself, but the UI graphical style due to not playing at native resolution. These kind of pixelated UIs are very poorly translated to non-native resolutions.

Also, keep in mind that I could not play at all until 1.0.2, because I was a victim of the "pumping sim" issue, so I have no input on performance prior to that second patch.

With that said, I'd venture that a 1650 can indeed move the game in it's current iteration to a "playable" state (of course, depending on each player definition of "playable"). BUT, we all know about the requeriments of these games, so I don't really know what the combination of a 1650 and a weaker CPU can reach. A little grain of salt is needed over my experience before applying it to anyone else.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Haustvindr

[Socraticat]

@Haustvindr Wow! Thanks for the perspective!

What a wonderful share. That definitely gives me hope for all the 1650 users. I'm excited to see what the next update does for performance in this arena.

[shdwlrd]

5 hours ago, Socraticat said:

That definitely gives me hope for all the 1650 users

It's kinda funny, the 1060 6gb handles the game ok. Everyone is so worried about the 1650, but no one thinks about the fact that there is only a 5-10 fps difference between the two. (Depending on settings of course.)

Average fps for my 1060 is looking at the ground is 9-15 and looking at the sky is 20-30. In space, a solid 30+. 

[Scarecrow71]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

It's kinda funny, the 1060 6gb handles the game ok. Everyone is so worried about the 1650, but no one thinks about the fact that there is only a 5-10 fps difference between the two. (Depending on settings of course.)

Average fps for my 1060 is looking at the ground is 9-15 and looking at the sky is 20-30. In space, a solid 30+. 

I'm actually quite jealous.  I've got an AMD Ryzen 9 CPU with a GeForce RTX 2060 Super, and I'm hovering around 20 FPS in space.  Might be my attempts at ships too fat to be handled, but...

[PDCWolf]

People who "complain" are, first off, a free target for name calling, but let's ignore that for now. The thing I find the funniest is we have this argument going around that "if you're angry at the game (or any other negative emotion) then stop playing". Let me turn that around: If you're angry (or any other negative emotion) at the state of the forums, stop posting. Go outside, take some air, check on another community, touch grass, etc. Now, for what we both feel in common:

No one needs thread/post number Nth telling people what to post or how to feel, no matter how thinly veiled.

[snip]

Edited May 24, 2023 by Vanamonde