Calvinball? More like Spherical Hydrogen Tank-Ball!

[Nicrose]

4 hours ago, Dakitess said:

What is there ?... Flat out stretched texture without physical scattering ? No micro-topology ? Rough lightning that highlight any contour when the sun goes down, and turning any surface in a silver-ish weird reflexion ? Total absence of scenery, actually, let's be fair. Sure, planets, moons, blabla, won't be *very* different from what we have in substance. Dead rocky bodies, uh ?

But there is beautiful dead rocky bodies and... Ugly,  lazy scenery without any wow-factor at all and being way out-dated compared to what exist now in video games ? Yeah yeah yeah again "KSP2 is not Star Citizen budget wise" I get it, okay, yes, wouw, cool. Yeah, so, 30% of StarCitizen Scenery would be fine ? Or whatever other game that dare including some actual scenery and terrain physic ?

Or I should just be happy to stick with the 10 yo terrain from KSP1 with some glitters and shiny surfaces, since this is what most will say, whatever the graphics, it's KSP !

Ha... We won't go anywhere with this ambition, it's just my take, while scenery could actually really really really set KSP2 apart from KSP1 and benefit a LOT for every gameplay.

I agree I’d like to see more scenery however I don’t believe it’s THAT imperative to the game, nor do I think graphics are a MAIN focus for the game. At the moment, I just want a playable game regardless of looks. 

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

4 hours ago, NovaRaptorTV said:

I just... Don't know what to say...

While I agree that wobbly rockets are funny, they outstay their welcome within the first hour of gameplay and become more discouraging as time goes on. I know there is the argument of 'add more struts', but I really want to be mindful of the part count on vessels. Especially when they get more and more complex, like say, making the Space Shuttle, interstellar vessels, colonies, etc.

Granted, I started doing more advanced builds when KSP2 released, like my Saturn V-Centaur I made for the JUICE challenge. I also understand not everyone is going to try advanced building like what I took on, or what creators like Matt Lowne, EJ_SA, or ShadowZone have been doing for years. However, I think wobbly rockets do need to be reconsidered. As should the inclusion of autostrut in KSP2. But that's just me.

On the plus side, wobbly rockets are somewhat accurate. Look at SLS's onboards during the launch of Artemis 1. But the wobble was in the first couple of seconds of launch, and then the vehicle is stable for the rest of flight. If there is wobble, but it doesn't impact vehicle performance and is only for cinematic effect, then I'm okay with it.

It's amazing how much that pointless wobble could be fixed by just getting shot of the 'stack of tanks' and replacing them with procedural. But judging by some of the replies people will fight tooth and nail to just have a Kerbal Space Program 1 clone, complete with all the irritating 'Kerbal Physics' nonsense. I don't want an 'easy' game, hell I want something like Kerbalism to be stock, what I want is a game where I'm not penalised because of the half arsed physics/joint system for zero reason in flight.

 

I mean really, who wants their rocket to just snap in half for no apparent reason? I doubt I'll see a particularly big show of hands here. Who wants their space station to just wobble itself to pieces for zero reason? Or for 'docking adaptors' to function as nothing more than a bit of Blue Tac. 

[MechBFP]

48 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

It's amazing how much that pointless wobble could be fixed by just getting shot of the 'stack of tanks' and replacing them with procedural. But judging by some of the replies people will fight tooth and nail to just have a Kerbal Space Program 1 clone, complete with all the irritating 'Kerbal Physics' nonsense. I don't want an 'easy' game, hell I want something like Kerbalism to be stock, what I want is a game where I'm not penalised because of the half arsed physics/joint system for zero reason in flight.

 

I mean really, who wants their rocket to just snap in half for no apparent reason? I doubt I'll see a particularly big show of hands here. Who wants their space station to just wobble itself to pieces for zero reason? Or for 'docking adaptors' to function as nothing more than a bit of Blue Tac. 

You seem to be entirely missing the point given that last paragraph. 

[Nertea]

Speaking as a player first and dev second, I like to think of joint flexibility (wobble is a symptom, not a cause) like this. 

For myself, when learning and when building vessels, there was undoubtedly an extremely satisfying A-HA that came from taking a borderline garbage design and carefully crafting that structural reinforcement web so that it worked correctly. Sending something to the pad, seeing it sag and instantly knowing that this would cause Bad Things, was good. Putting some struts on there and seeing that disappear, and knowing that this particular failure mode was removed, was great. Without that early puzzle-solution feedback I probably wouldn't have played the game long enough to transition to the long term exploration chunk of the game where you actually go places and discover things.

In that later stage, having to work out the structural problems of things you feel like should work is incredibly frustrating, and doubly so when your Jool-5's mission's return stage disintegrates when you separate it, or when you connect the 3 modules of your Copernicus replica in Kerbin orbit, get an intercept with Duna and fire your engines, you see your vessel fold into 3 pieces. 

There's practically 2 different metagames there. Tuning a system to make players happy in both cases is challenging, regardless of the technical solution. 

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

how much that pointless wobble could be fixed by just getting shot of the 'stack of tanks' and replacing them with procedural

I haven't encountered a single instance when the rocket was wobbling in the middle of same sized stack of tanks. It's always those weak connection points, like adapters, decouplers, fairings etc. No procedurality can help with that.

1 hour ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

who wants their rocket to just snap in half for no apparent reason?

Nobody. But being a structurally unstable design (like, oh, I  don't know, a huge Mk3 sized payload on top of 3 kickback srbs stacked on top of each other, for example) is a very good reason and that's the whole point people are trying to make. If your ship is well designed, you shouldn't have to worry, if you went crazy, you can expect a failure.

[eagleswing12]

There’s a difference between an aerodynamic failure and a “wobble.” Parts should be able to snap, but not wobble. Wobble takes too long to compute, and snapping works much better.

[MechBFP]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Without that early puzzle-solution feedback I probably wouldn't have played the game long enough to transition to the long term exploration chunk of the game where you actually go places and discover things.

This. In particular for me the best part of the early game was starting off with almost nothing and unlocking pieces and trying to complete a goal with the limited pieces/power that I had at each step. 
That often required very “unique” designs which were often very unwieldy, and getting those designs to work through some thinking and trial and error was very rewarding. 

And yes the wobble later on in KSP1 was less desired and I eventually just installed the KJR mod to get rid of it because at that point the challenge was other things once most of the parts were unlocked.

As such I am very much of the mindset that stiffer vehicles should be a thing that can be unlocked through progression as that allows newer players to still enjoy the early game experience while helping out the experienced players. 

[The Aziz]

5 hours ago, eagleswing12 said:

There’s a difference between an aerodynamic failure and a “wobble.” Parts should be able to snap, but not wobble. Wobble takes too long to compute, and snapping works much better.

Either way, You're Not Going To Space Today™

Though, on occassions, you can unwobble the wobbliness and carry on. If it snaps, it's game over.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

9 hours ago, eagleswing12 said:

There’s a difference between an aerodynamic failure and a “wobble.” Parts should be able to snap, but not wobble. Wobble takes too long to compute, and snapping works much better.

Look at the first Not Going To Space Today scene in the EA trailer - the craft basically snaps into individual Legos.  It looked pretty good.  And the trailer also had stress groan SFX.  Hmmmmm.

[Wahnfried]

What happens to wobbling rockets when air drag comes into the simulation. Then every launch ends automatically in 3000 Kerbal meters or feet?

It is clear that rockets can break due to air resistance or excessive G-forces, but connections must withstand normal forces, especially when air resistance and positive G-force thrust are pressing the connections together.

In my opinion anyway.

[Palshife]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:00 PM, Nate Simpson said:

A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form. Whether that means limiting wobbliness to certain types or sizes of parts, or relegating certain behaviors to player settings, is the subject of ongoing internal discussion.

If you're having internal discussions, please bring to the table that, at least for me, the silliness was absolutely evident in the writing, the Kerbals themselves, and many of the parts. It was totally welcome. It gave the game heart, and told the player not to take it too seriously. It should be preserved. But, for my sake, I did not get hooked for the reasons you're describing.

In my view, the silliness did not necessarily spill over into how the game was played (though you could absolutely play the game silly if you wanted!). The principles of orbital mechanics were not overblown or inaccurate. Kerbin wasn't rendered as a zany, Toon Town landscape. When the rockets exploded they weren't accompanied by a "wah-wah" on a slide trombone. In this, many of us found out that the game was capable of connecting the player with realistic spaceflight, despite the unrealistic Kerbals and amateurish tone. I loved Apollo before KSP, but after? I developed a deep respect and admiration for the space race when I learned how much went in to planning and designing these vehicles, and being able to replicate them in the game was astounding.

And then some days I built the weirdest, most unrealistic disaster machines possible, and laughed my keister off watching them tear themselves apart.

Keep the silliness. Keep the light-hearted tone and the over-the-top Kerbals. Just keep in mind that not all of us have a laugh when the rocket wobbles and fails when we've tried everything to make it rigid. Let the player decide how silly they want to play. Please don't design silliness into the gameplay, and please don't justify silly emergent behaviors that get in the way of the player choosing how to play.

I like KSP2 so far and I'm looking forward to seeing it continue to evolve. I hope you'll bring this back to the team.

[lordbunson]

wtb rockets that don't fall through the planets surface

[uglyduckling81]

Please implement a Ray Traced lighting, GI, and shadow system to the game for people with high end hardware and future hardware.

After you have sorted out the core performance issues.

[Superluminal Gremlin]

5 hours ago, uglyduckling81 said:

high end hardware and future hardware.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you've noticed, people with high-end hardware struggle to run the base game even without RT.  

[LoSBoL]

3 minutes ago, Superluminal Gremlin said:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you've noticed, people with high-end hardware struggle to run the base game even without RT.  

That is probably more hearsay than reality, you can definitely say that KSP2 is underperforming and is badly optimized, but high end rigs aren't struggling to run the base game.

[Superluminal Gremlin]

3 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

hearsay

Guilty as charged.

Struggling was the wrong word. The game is underperformin,g yes, struggling, less so.

[Nicrose]

8 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

That is probably more hearsay than reality, you can definitely say that KSP2 is underperforming and is badly optimized, but high end rigs aren't struggling to run the base game.

I’ve got a 4090 and a threadripper and 120 gb of RAM and I get about 30-40 frames on average at 4K and dip down to 10-16 at launch depending on the rocket. Not saying it’s good or bad, just throwing out some info 

[LoSBoL]

45 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

a threadripper

Great processor for workloads which can be spread over multiple threads, unfortunately games and especially KSP1/2 doesn't profit from 32 threads at all. With so many cores the boost clock and single core performance is low, even compared to Intel core 3 processors, which will probably outperform the treadripper when it concerns gaming.

[Nicrose]

7 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

Great processor for workloads which can be spread over multiple threads, unfortunately games and especially KSP1/2 doesn't profit from 32 threads at all. With so many cores the boost clock and single core performance is low, even compared to Intel core 3 processors, which will probably outperform the treadripper when it concerns gaming.

I mean yes but I wasn't trying to flex or anything lol Just on the higher end of systems. I bought it for work so it isn't meant solely for games but I haven't had any games have problems with it and it runs faster than most CPU's even in single core tests for rendering 3D graphics. As for out performing in games, I believe it heavily depends on the game in question and the resources. Regardless tho, figured I'd throw my specs into the speculation in case anyone wanted to verify the claim especially considering my GPU and RAM which is way more in the wheelhouse of what this game uses most of anyways. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Nicrose

[RaBDawG]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:26 PM, razark said:

[snip]

Sure, why not?  A couple days for a handful more fixes seems a worthwhile trade-off.

Woe unto me if my life were such that it was meaningfully affected by a two day delay in a video game that I'll put a few hours into in the first place.

So now that you have the patch, and half the bugs are not fixed, the 3 most critical bugs not fixed, and now NEW game breaking bugs.  Do you feel the same?

[razark]

16 minutes ago, RaBDawG said:

So now that you have the patch, and half the bugs are not fixed, the 3 most critical bugs not fixed, and now NEW game breaking bugs.  Do you feel the same?

I feel just great.  Got plenty to do without obsessing over a video game I'm not playing.

 

I guess I really would be doing so much better if they had rushed out a bad patch a couple days earlier.  Would have really turned my life around.

[Scarecrow71]

21 minutes ago, razark said:

I feel just great.  Got plenty to do without obsessing over a video game I'm not playing.

 

I guess I really would be doing so much better if they had rushed out a bad patch a couple days earlier.  Would have really turned my life around.

[snip]

@RaBDawG has a valid point as it relates to your original statement.  The patch was delayed by 2 days to help get things in order, and you commented that the 2 days wasn't a big deal and that it was worth the wait to get a better patch.  Now, after having the patch drop and seeing that not only is it not good, but has made the game worse, do you still think that waiting the 2 days was worth it?  Do you still think the community shouldn't be upset or angry over the slowed cadence, having patches get delayed, and the game being so buggy as to be unplayable in some instances?  I'm interested in hearing your honest thoughts here, not a bunch of sarcasm-dripped one-liners meant to insult or offend.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Starhawk
Redacted by moderator

[razark]

13 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

The patch was delayed by 2 days to help get things in order, and you commented that the 2 days wasn't a big deal and that it was worth the wait to get a better patch.

I stand by what I said.  Two day delay for a better patch is a great idea.

14 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Now, after having the patch drop and seeing that not only is it not good, but has made the game worse, do you still think that waiting the 2 days was worth it?

Yes.  A short delay for a better product is a great tradeoff.  This round, they failed to deliver.  Not the first time in KSP's history, probably not going to be the last.   Additionally, we don't know what bugs were fixed and QAed in those two days.  Maybe a handful of small issues made it into this patch because of the delay?  Until we actually have a detailed timeline in our hands, any claims are nothing more than speculation.

Supposed there had not been a delay?  What would have been gained?

Also, the only thing that I've seen that was worse was a capsule re-entering.  A thing that KSP 1.0 also managed to fail at.  Not an EA version of KSP1; re-entry worked fine in every version I played.  The official release version 1.0.

16 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Do you still think the community shouldn't be upset or angry...

Being upset or angry is fine.  Constantly overreacting is a bit different. 

I have played the game and had fun in it at times.  Other times, I've found it utterly frustrating.  Overall, I'm not happy with the current state of the game.  It's buggy, it's incomplete, it's showing signs that the direction it's being taken in is not what I would prefer.  I am, however, accepting that the game is in the state it is in, and nothing is going to change that besides giving the devs more time to fix it. 

 

But it's also a video game, and we're arguing on a video game forum, and I shall treat it with all the dignity I feel it deserves.  There's plenty of things to be serious about, and a game about little green explody folks and their explody creations just really isn't that high on the list.

[Starhawk]

Folks, please pay attention to our forum guidelines.

They specifically forbid "Content unsuitable for children or younger audiences, e.g. nudity, sexually suggestive or explicit images, excessive violence, gore and recreational drugs"

Please avoid such topics when posting.

Thank you for your understanding,
Forum Moderation Team

[The Aziz]

...I honestly wonder what was there that this particular rule was brought up lol

So anyway, new dev update soon™ 3 hours or so.