KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[78stonewobble]

9 minutes ago, Jasseji said:

Hence i can understand some people who expected more from KSP2 EA than KSP1 EA.

 

The argument "but KSP1 had even more bugs at the start" doesnt seem to be really valid

I see you kind of skipped everything else I said. 

 

OK, so an early access consisting 1 planet, 1 engine and bugs enough for requiring 4 more years of early access and 11 years total for bugfixes, is a fair and reasonable early access for 6 months of development time. 

 

An early access consisting of quite a few planets, quite a few engines and parts and bugs requiring an unknown amount of time in early access and post release fixes is an unfair and unreasonable early access for an unknown amount of development time? 

 

Can you go through the calculations and graphs, so I can judge how few bugs of what severity, features, frames per second etc. Is fair and reasonable to expect for an early access dependent on development time? 

 

 

[AlamoVampire]

Ive not even purchased KSP2 and I am beyond heart broken at what I just saw. I had hoped that with KSP2 and having procedural parts they would have adopted actual procedural fairings. What I just saw courtesy of matt lownes video: KSP2 Sending a Rover to EVE…Despite the Kraken Attacks! (Uploaded 8 or so hours prior to my post) just absolutely broke my heart. Less than 2 minutes 50 seconds in Matt is designing his rocket and goes to place the fairings. Do we see nice and easy to use fairings like the gold standard mod from KSP1 Procedural Fairings? Nope. What we see is more of the KSP1 stock “fairings” that are even worse some how… I am heart broken by this. I get it, its EA (still not an excuse imho) but they hyped procedural wings (in game from what ive seen via videos and carnasa’s live streams ive watched ((his space station shuttle streams))), procedural radiators (unknown to me on status) and procedural solar panels (possibly in game but unsure as ive not directly seen them) yet they use the clunky KSP1 “fairings” and seemingly make a (imho) bad system worse? 
I get it, ive not yet bought it or played it, but, I think I have a right to be disappointed by what Ive seen. Im hoping that either TT or a modder fix this so either procedural fairings (ksp1 mod) reaches ksp2 as a stock or mod thing. I will still likely jump in some day, but again, for now, im hanging out on the bench. Happy flying yall.

142003012023

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, AlamoVampire said:

Ive not even purchased KSP2 and I am beyond heart broken at what I just saw. I had hoped that with KSP2 and having procedural parts they would have adopted actual procedural fairings. What I just saw courtesy of matt lownes video: KSP2 Sending a Rover to EVE…Despite the Kraken Attacks! (Uploaded 8 or so hours prior to my post) just absolutely broke my heart. Less than 2 minutes 50 seconds in Matt is designing his rocket and goes to place the fairings. Do we see nice and easy to use fairings like the gold standard mod from KSP1 Procedural Fairings? Nope. What we see is more of the KSP1 stock “fairings” that are even worse some how… I am heart broken by this. I get it, its EA (still not an excuse imho) but they hyped procedural wings (in game from what ive seen via videos and carnasa’s live streams ive watched ((his space station shuttle streams))), procedural radiators (unknown to me on status) and procedural solar panels (possibly in game but unsure as ive not directly seen them) yet they use the clunky KSP1 “fairings” and seemingly make a (imho) bad system worse? 
I get it, ive not yet bought it or played it, but, I think I have a right to be disappointed by what Ive seen. Im hoping that either TT or a modder fix this so either procedural fairings (ksp1 mod) reaches ksp2 as a stock or mod thing. I will still likely jump in some day, but again, for now, im hanging out on the bench. Happy flying yall.

142003012023

I think the mistake in being heartbroken here is that EA is not a proper release and that the purpose of it is to gain feedback on this and other core aspects of the game. Else you'd have probably waited another 1-3 years to say you're heartbroken, and you'd be trying to play a full game with some of these mishaps.

[dave1904]

Bugs aside.

The UI is a disaster. Below are 3 images. Stock KSP1, modded KSP1 and Stock KSP2. If you look at how much of the display is taken up by information the KSP2 is simply wasting it. The whole point of a UI is to give you as much information as possible, as clearly as possible and not take up the entire hud. 

On first glance it seems like KSP2 is showing us way more information. In reality the only thing its showing me that KSP1 stock UI doesn't is my AP and PE. Why the hell is 30% of the screen taken up? and I cannot even see how much hydrogen is in the tank anyway. There is no other reason to click on a tank other to know how much is in it. There is no reason for it to be in the parts manger. Sorry this is simply bad UI design and other than looking fancy it doesn't actually tell me anything more. The Irony is that you give us the weight of fuel in the current stage. That is not even relevant. Useless information. Not always but thats why you should toggle information like that. 

Navbal doesnt work for me if its not in the center. The navbal is all I look at launching. Look at how massive it is, yet its useless. The Trust bar doesn't need to be that size. The Vertical speed indicator is massive yet you still don't know the exact speed. It is better than KSP1s because in KSP1 it was useless. The atmosphere bar is simply useless. Was in KSP1 to be fair aswell. It would be way better if we simply had a pressure number. As if an unexpirenced player knew what the hell that bar is showing and what that actually means. Whats the 3 different colors of blue tell me anyway? The light one is 1atm the black one is 0 atm but whats that mean on eve or duna? Nothing...... 

The orbital speed and altitude can be numbers. There is no reason to have the big fat bar along with them. Its a waste of space and looks crap. That navbal needs a redesign. Ideally just delete it and paste in KSP1 for now. Smaller and tells me what I need. The Little ship in the middle to show me where my ship is pointing is a total waste of space and doesn't help anyone. Again its useless because new players do not actually know what those vectors mean. They know what they mean when they use that maneuver tool so having a toy ship is unnecessary. 

Ill admit that I forgot to add an engine so staging is not in this image but I think you get the point. Its clean. 

In the Modded KSP2 I have wayyy more information on screen and can still see things. I have everything I need on screen in way more detail. Sure it doesn't look all fancy but it gets the job done and I dont feel overwhelmed even though its showing me far more information. (The craft in this image is not really a craft. Its just for scale)

Even if I sound negative I see alot of potential in KSP2. Its fluid and fast in ways ksp1 is not. I like how snappy the UI is and the sounds of the clicks in the VAB. If done correctly KSP2 can be a far far better game than KSP1. I still say if I dont like something. Im critical haha

[AlamoVampire]

@Bej Kerman from what I have seen and heard is that a ton of features are in place but hidden just to make EA work. At a bare minimum they have AT LEAST ONE functioning PROCEDURAL part in play and accessible to use in EA. Given this AND the fact that the mod Procedural Fairings has been a thing far far longer than even the first line of code for KSP2 I see no reasonable reason to have 1. The messy “fairings” from stock ksp1 and 2. Have somehow made them worse in KSP2.

As far as I am concerned Bej your argument holds no water from my perspective given that procedural wings are in game and at a bare minimum procedural solar panels and radiators are in the code. That and the fact my post is feedback from a customer who has yet to pay my money to get in. Given that I am voicing my disappointment at the lack of a true procedural fairing given TT/Intercepts own publicized hype for procedural parts one would think the input and concerns of a potential customer pointing out yet another reason for not yet paying would carry weight and merit. So please dont denigrate what Im saying or concerned about with “I think the mistake in being heartbroken here is that EA is not a proper release…” And on the record fairings are a core aspect and not supplementary as your final line seems to indicate, especially as aerodynamics are(or will) be vital considerations. Having functional, easy to use and easy to understand fairings verses what I saw in Lownes video is core. 
144803012023

[Mutex]

7 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

In the Modded KSP2 I have wayyy more information on screen and can still see things. I have everything I need on screen in way more detail. Sure it doesn't look all fancy but it gets the job done and I dont feel overwhelmed even though its showing me far more information. (The craft in this image is not really a craft. Its just for scale)

In your KSP1 screenshots the UI looks way too small. But I guess you're using a really big screen. I guess the issue is KSP2 doesn't let you scale the UI yet.

[dave1904]

Just now, Mutex said:

In your KSP1 screenshots the UI looks way too small. But I guess you're using a really big screen. I guess the issue is KSP2 doesn't let you scale the UI yet.

You need a widescreen monitor to judge. https://rog.asus.com/monitors/32-to-34-inches/rog-swift-pg349q-model/ I use that. 

Even if you could scale the UI... The navbal in KSP2 is a waste of pixels. I am really surprised so many people like it. I do not. I like simple UIs. 

[Greenback]

21 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Bej Kerman from what I have seen and heard is that a ton of features are in place but hidden just to make EA work. At a bare minimum they have AT LEAST ONE functioning PROCEDURAL part in play and accessible to use in EA. Given this AND the fact that the mod Procedural Fairings has been a thing far far longer than even the first line of code for KSP2 I see no reasonable reason to have 1. The messy “fairings” from stock ksp1 and 2. Have somehow made them worse in KSP2.

As far as I am concerned Bej your argument holds no water from my perspective given that procedural wings are in game and at a bare minimum procedural solar panels and radiators are in the code. That and the fact my post is feedback from a customer who has yet to pay my money to get in. Given that I am voicing my disappointment at the lack of a true procedural fairing given TT/Intercepts own publicized hype for procedural parts one would think the input and concerns of a potential customer pointing out yet another reason for not yet paying would carry weight and merit. So please dont denigrate what Im saying or concerned about with “I think the mistake in being heartbroken here is that EA is not a proper release…” And on the record fairings are a core aspect and not supplementary as your final line seems to indicate, especially as aerodynamics are(or will) be vital considerations. Having functional, easy to use and easy to understand fairings verses what I saw in Lownes video is core. 
144803012023

To be fair I havent had any issues with the fairings and building them,  I think Matt Lowne wasn't using it correctly, due in part to a lack of demostration.  When you build the fairing you click on the add button at each segment but do not need to close it off at then you click the tick at the botom and it automatically close it to a point.

[MarcAbaddon]

You can also minimize the Navball in KSP 1, making the UI take up even less space. 

[AlamoVampire]

1 hour ago, Greenback said:

To be fair I havent had any issues with the fairings and building them,  I think Matt Lowne wasn't using it correctly, due in part to a lack of demostration.  When you build the fairing you click on the add button at each segment but do not need to close it off at then you click the tick at the bottom and it automatically close it to a point. (Sry had to add the second t to bottom lol)

Let me ask you this. You build your rocket, go to fly it and find you need to substantially alter your payload. How many clicks, how many steps to get clam shell deploy, reshape and resize your fairing? How easy? The “fairings” from stock are clunky and too finicky (from my ksp1 experience, but watching Lowne it looks way way worse in ksp2). With procedural fairings again imho the absolute gold standard fairing in ksp, its 1 click. Grab the fairing and drop it on the node and it auto shapes to your payload finding a size suitable to fit but not too large. 1 click. Easy. Instant. No fuss, no muss no needing tons of clicks or multiple segments. Also Matt Lowne was using them correctly as he is as close to expert as it gets yet the ksp2 junk (my honest opinion of both ksp1&2 stock fairings now knowing ksp2 failed to improve and looking like it went backwards) “fairings” look even more unbearable. Way I see it they dropped the ball. Ofc my opinion.

161803012023

please find my past posts regarding fairings to see my full opinion on fairings, but my opinion that what ksp1 calls fairings in stock is a poor joke and now it seems to extend to ksp2. I will never back down on calling the mod Procedural Fairings the absolute gold standard of what fairings in stock SHOULD be.

162403012023

Edited March 1, 2023 by AlamoVampire

[Mutex]

I think I'd prefer to have control over the shape of the fairing tbh, especially since it'll affect aerodynamics, and also so you can make cool shapes if you want to. If they get fairings working like in KSP1 I'll be happy.

[Fluke]

2 hours ago, Mutex said:

I think I'd prefer to have control over the shape of the fairing tbh, especially since it'll affect aerodynamics, and also so you can make cool shapes if you want to. If they get fairings working like in KSP1 I'll be happy.

Definitely agree here. I like the "challenge" of doing my own shape and the aero maybe not being the best design. But then again I'm not a MechJeb person. I actually really liked KSP1 fairings, minus closing them. KSP2 seems be have better control over that for a better parabolic shape vs KSP1. 

[Zozaf Kerman]

I personally feel the parts should be able to accessed with a right-click and the parts manager. Keep in mind that this does not mean that right clicking opens the part manager, but instead opens up a small little tab (like in ksp1). I also feel that the parts manager tab could be very useful for finding parts hidden behind fairings, and also for transferring fuel between parts.

I don’t know if any of my opinion is going to be used/ kept in mind, but this is my 2 cents. 

[Strawberry]

6 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

procedural solar panels (possibly in game but unsure as ive not directly seen them)

For clarifications, Nate Simpson explicitely said they had no current plans to implement procedural solar panels as they couldnt find a gameplay use. I think the claims circulating in the community of these is mostly just due to the woozle effect (essentially something chasing its own tails in circles when it comes to sourcing of claims.)

[AlamoVampire]

@Strawberry i could have sworn i saw something late last year about procedural solar panels but, even removing those and even ignoring radiators, my point still stands firm. 

 

210203012023

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Strawberry i could have sworn i saw something late last year about procedural solar panels but, even removing those and even ignoring radiators, my point still stands firm. 

 

210203012023

You are probably remembering procedural radiators, which some thought indicated it would be easy to use also do PVs, but procedural PVs were not mentioned by devs

[AlamoVampire]

@darthgently its possible, but again, taking them out of the equation my point still stands given procedural wings, add in radiators and you augment my points strength. The fact they took a bad “fairing” set from stock ksp1 and if the video i referenced above by matt lowne is any indication they made them worse. A fact that just blows my mind. Given that again the mod procedural fairings (which may have been abandoned as ive not seen it updated in a long while) is by far the diamond and gold standard for what fairings should be was not adopted into ksp or ksp2 blows my mind. They had a PERFECT opportunity to give us proper fairings by duplicating how that mod works (other mods were incorporated into later iterations of ksp1 and now we see one being touted to many cheers <im looking at you multiplayer > being folded into ksp2) and fold it in but they dont… its frustrating to me. Will this stop me from EVENTUALLY getting ksp2? No, but other factors might, but how things unfold will show me if ksp2 is worth my money. I already stepped back once after seeing how fumbled things are right now. 
 

213803012023

[Jacke]

9 hours ago, dave1904 said:

The navbal in KSP2 is a waste of pixels. I am really surprised so many people like it. I do not. I like simple UIs. 

From what I've seen in screenshots and videos, I think KSP2's cluster on the lower left looks confusing.  The navball has some of the issues the stock KSP1 navball has, not enough clear delineated grid lines on the ball.  I always use a NavBall Texture Changer mod to replace the stock one with a better one.

[Jasseji]

9 hours ago, Mutex said:

In your KSP1 screenshots the UI looks way too small. But I guess you're using a really big screen. I guess the issue is KSP2 doesn't let you scale the UI yet.

3440x1440 isnt THAT big. 1080p resolutions are a thing of the Past and more and more 1440p is the go-to standard in gaming

[Mutex]

2 hours ago, Jasseji said:

3440x1440 isnt THAT big. 1080p resolutions are a thing of the Past and more and more 1440p is the go-to standard in gaming

Resolution isn't screen size. They're using a 34 inch screen, which is pretty big.

[Guest]

A scalable UI would be nice.

I would be surprised if there won't be one somewhere down the line. I think they have other priorities just now though.

[LoSBoL]

43 minutes ago, Mutex said:

Resolution isn't screen size. They're using a 34 inch screen, which is pretty big.

It's a bit bigger, but oh boy does it open up both the UI and immersion.  In the screenshot above of KSP1 the poster did not bother to scale its UI, while he could to make things bigger and better usable.

KSP2 however does not give you the opertunity (yet) to scale the UI yourself, but they sure did have Widescreen users and 4K users in mind. The UI is scaled nicely and big enough to be usable, even with a 32/9 screen ( 2 normal 16/9 wide screens side by side). Below a comparison between 16/9 and 21/9 (3360x1440) and you can really see that the game opens up by giving you a much better view on the main subject, while leaving planty of space for part action windows.

21/9

 

16/9

 

The problem with 4K monitors is it just makes the pictures sharper, and therefore the UI needs to be bigger which leaves you again with a cramped space. For at least KSP i'd really sugest, 'go wide' instead of more pixels. You don't need the sharpness, you're much better off with width. On top of that, even an Super Ultrawide 32/9 5120x1440 monitor has about 10% less pictures to render then a 4K monitor.

If you want some more 16/9 21/9 32/9 comparison pictures;

 

[LoSBoL]

14 hours ago, dave1904 said:

On first glance it seems like KSP2 is showing us way more information. In reality the only thing its showing me that KSP1 stock UI doesn't is my AP and PE. Why the hell is 30% of the screen taken up? and I cannot even see how much hydrogen is in the tank anyway.

Opinions vary I guess, I don't need more information, I need the UI to be readible and for wider screens the size is perfect for me. At a meter distance on a 49" I can easily read all the information given to me by the navball and the info it is surrounded by, I just need to glance. It does a whole lot better then KSP1 and resizing the elements which just become blurry when scaled up. 

I do hope that KSP2 will have scalable UI in the future so everybody can have it the way they want. 

As for seeing how much hydrogen you've got left, use the resource window. It would indeed however be nice to have that opened when right clicking the fuel tank. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by LoSBoL

[tstein]

8 hours ago, Strawberry said:

For clarifications, Nate Simpson explicitely said they had no current plans to implement procedural solar panels as they couldnt find a gameplay use. I think the claims circulating in the community of these is mostly just due to the woozle effect (essentially something chasing its own tails in circles when it comes to sourcing of claims.)

HE seems to fail one of the basics of business... if your clients want it.. that is a feature on itself. Then the  main factor becomes the cost.

[Dakitess]

I don't get it, Procedural Solar Panel were already avertised in DevNote and other communications, right ? So they are confirmed, nah ? Along the procedural radiators.