KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Jimbodiah]

On 2/9/2024 at 5:44 AM, magnemoe said:

And the kerbals was the expensive stuff, not the base I was roasting in Duna atmosphere above. 

Rescue missions for free Kerbals and credits.

[Dakota]

New Sneakpeek over here: 

 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

Has nybody else changed their opinion of the re-entry effects in light of the re-entry footage from IFT-3?

[The Aziz]

Haven't played for so long that I forgot how ingame reentry looks like. I still have KSP visuals imprinted in my brain.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Haven't played for so long that I forgot how ingame reentry looks like. I still have KSP visuals imprinted in my brain.

Speaking of KSP visuals, SpaceX really do seem to be actually trying to validate KSP2.  First IFT-1 starts tumbling, IFT-3’s reentry footage looked very reminiscent of the For Science! re-entry effects, and of course the whole hardwar-rich rapid iterative testing approach…

[cocoscacao]

I'm watching Matt's new video on Duna mission. One thing I noticed is KSP 1 VAB soundtrack played in the background during construction. Not gonna lie, I miss that tune. 

[cocoscacao]

I'm doing a "no stress Minmus" fly-by, just because... In a slow time warp, my camera was focused on Kerbin slowly shrinking as the distance increased. There are plenty of crewed Moon missions ahead in the real world. Imagine those astronauts, slowly moving away from a single object in this universe that can sustain them, while almost anything can go wrong at any point. Proper cosmic horror.

This is why I love this game. It gives me moments like this.

Edited April 19 by cocoscacao

[mystik]

On 2/25/2023 at 2:27 PM, mystik said:

I was calling this out way before it was even launched.  I advised caution and BUYER BEWARE. The Steam store page is full of complaints.

50% negative reviews. And on top of that, there is a post from the devs that addresses (COPE) the performance issues.  I mean, they never for one second said that there will be issues with the performance like these. They kept quiet and now it exploded in their face.

The ones that bought it mention all the negative bugs and how it will get better (MORE COPE). Hey, I hope they don't get refunds. [...]

This post I quoted is my second last post from over 1 year ago. I am back only to say this.

And I say this because of this:

https://www.ign.com/articles/take-two-shutters-kerbal-space-program-2-studio-amid-layoffs

Okay. That's all I wanted to say. Bye.

Edited May 4 by mystik

[Max Que]

While the (radioactive) dust settles, what went wrong?

The last major release of KSP 1 added features no one was asking for that re-introduced old bugs in basic game mechanics.  It took several minor releases to get as playable as the last major version.  There are two problems evident here, one is the focus on cosmetic features like rotating docking ports taking priority over basic stability, like orbits.  The second problem is the software design was highly sensitive to changes, a lack of stability.  The game engine was pushed to do amazing things, and was bouncing off the CPU red-line.

Clearly a major upgrade was needed, but the reasons why became lost during KSP 2 development.

With KSP 2 the creative design factors led to a terrain compression system that demanded unrealistic hardware specifications, beyond the vast majority of the customers hardware.  This is a failure of Verification and Validation, a key process for any development effort.  Verification tells you your design meets requirements (like, will run on the customers hardware) while Verification tells you the design works (like KSP 1).  In this case the development effort did not meet either case.

KSP 2 had significant development time and resources before the EA build came out.  The timing of that release was a business decision, not a development mile-stone.  The business decision to release the EA build was not the problem.  The state of the EA build after that development time and money had been spent is the problem.

Far too much of that development time and effort was spent on creative design features at the expense of core stability.  If any internal V&V testing detected this prior to EA, it did not change the direction of the development effort.  Time spent on things like the impractical terrain system, parts manager, the VAB save mechanics, PAIGE, and so much more burned up development time.  Any development time lost to adding the foundations of multi-player was squandered.  All the development time was clearly needed on the most fundamental elements of game stability.  

When the community feedback came in there was (again) no change in the direction of development.  We heard about some organizational changes for more efficient development, but once the direction did not change.  As for the lack of communications with the community, the old saying "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything" seems to apply.

So what went wrong?  IMO:

Misdirected development effort, too many missing / broken game systems for the time & money spent.

Failure to V&V in early development, or failure to change development direction if the issues were detected.

Failure to change direction after EA feedback came in.

Overall the failure to focus on the root causes of the limitations of KSP 1,  and why it needed a core upgrade, not a creative re-imagining is the problem   These KSP 1 limitations needed to be the benchmark for KSP 2 development and V&V testing through the whole development.  Game development demands good creative (artistic) input, but it is a software design effort.  It's creative design expressed through software engineering.  It need to be organized as an engineering effort, as that is the foundation for the artistic expression.  KSP 2 got this backwards.

[dprostock]

26 minutes ago, Max Que said:

While the (radioactive) dust settles, what went wrong?

The last major release of KSP 1 added features no one was asking for that re-introduced old bugs in basic game mechanics.  It took several minor releases to get as playable as the last major version.  There are two problems evident here, one is the focus on cosmetic features like rotating docking ports taking priority over basic stability, like orbits.  The second problem is the software design was highly sensitive to changes, a lack of stability.  The game engine was pushed to do amazing things, and was bouncing off the CPU red-line.

Clearly a major upgrade was needed, but the reasons why became lost during KSP 2 development.

With KSP 2 the creative design factors led to a terrain compression system that demanded unrealistic hardware specifications, beyond the vast majority of the customers hardware.  This is a failure of Verification and Validation, a key process for any development effort.  Verification tells you your design meets requirements (like, will run on the customers hardware) while Verification tells you the design works (like KSP 1).  In this case the development effort did not meet either case.

KSP 2 had significant development time and resources before the EA build came out.  The timing of that release was a business decision, not a development mile-stone.  The business decision to release the EA build was not the problem.  The state of the EA build after that development time and money had been spent is the problem.

Far too much of that development time and effort was spent on creative design features at the expense of core stability.  If any internal V&V testing detected this prior to EA, it did not change the direction of the development effort.  Time spent on things like the impractical terrain system, parts manager, the VAB save mechanics, PAIGE, and so much more burned up development time.  Any development time lost to adding the foundations of multi-player was squandered.  All the development time was clearly needed on the most fundamental elements of game stability.  

When the community feedback came in there was (again) no change in the direction of development.  We heard about some organizational changes for more efficient development, but once the direction did not change.  As for the lack of communications with the community, the old saying "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything" seems to apply.

So what went wrong?  IMO:

Misdirected development effort, too many missing / broken game systems for the time & money spent.

Failure to V&V in early development, or failure to change development direction if the issues were detected.

Failure to change direction after EA feedback came in.

Overall the failure to focus on the root causes of the limitations of KSP 1,  and why it needed a core upgrade, not a creative re-imagining is the problem   These KSP 1 limitations needed to be the benchmark for KSP 2 development and V&V testing through the whole development.  Game development demands good creative (artistic) input, but it is a software design effort.  It's creative design expressed through software engineering.  It need to be organized as an engineering effort, as that is the foundation for the artistic expression.  KSP 2 got this backwards.

Yyyyeeeeessssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I would add a couple of things:

- Inability to manage, lack of damage control, excessive marketing meetings .

- Unbridled hiring of development staff, lack of a project manager (the one who controls the code and assembles it) and the absence of evaluation staff.

- Striking was the error of the "Spaghetti Rocket", something fixed in KSP1, which was repeated in KSP2 and which was supposedly in charge of a NASA developer.... I copy and paste the above code and no one evaluates how it works? 

 

[Dakitess]

I'll allow myself to bring my own personal opinion about what the KSP2 future could be, from now.

We know that the actual KSP2 won't achieve anything past the actual state of the game. Actually, it's "only highly probable", I can't see the future. But even if they pursue the dev one more year to release 2-3 patches to fix the remaining main bugs, even if they push to the Colonies Update because it's 90% done, it won't achieve anything. Colonies need resources, need interstellar, etc, to be relevant. It's only a brick of a whole wall. And I don't see why they would push to this update, because this last hypothetical 10% is always the hardest and would require some fix after that, some patches : more work, more financial debt just to finish an ark, while it won't improve sufficiently the Steam Feedback, won't trigger new purchases ? Nah, I don't see how / why it would happen.

That being said, let's assume, if you will, that this is the  end of the actual KSP2 game. What now ?

To me, the only possible positive outcome would be a new Dev team, a pro one, not amateurs, willing to make money of course, that would announce a "The Real KSP2" in a year or two, knowing that if they actually meet the people requirements, it would be a million sells. "Just" need to be economically viable, which means something less "big" (well...) than KSP2, more rational, more pragmatic, the keep the dev time low and thus the cost low. What would it looks like ? Well, exactly what I expected KSP2 to be : a from-scratch, pro-developed KSP1, embedding all the news techs that appeared the last decade, taking benefits from the new hardware, the news skills, etc. A MASSIVE technical update of KSP1 and that's it, nothing more. Yeah, I know, it's probably already a big work haha, but it's far more doable, to me, than what the actual KSP2 tried to make, while failing at every part of it.

So yeah, a big technical update, ready to host, then, for a whole new decade, some updates, be they minor or major, but without any promise, just like we had during 12 years with KSP1. But at least something which would be running well on our machine, and worth to get mods and new official contents along the year, thanks to a clean from-scratch basis. This announce would need to come quite soon, like in a year or two, so that KSP don't get buried too far in all memories.

What are your opinion about this ? Do you see KSP2 as needing a whole new content, gameplay, to be worth it ?

Edited May 6 by Dakitess
typo

[Codraroll]

On 5/4/2024 at 4:15 PM, Max Que said:

Far too much of that development time and effort was spent on creative design features at the expense of core stability.

But paradoxically, too few of those creative design features ever manifested in the game, which ended up playing like a prettier-looking, but bug-riddled feature copy of KSP1. That probably didn't help it attract customers.

I can only vouch for my personal experience, but I decided to wait to buy the game until it offered something that KSP1 didn't. After all, KSP2 came with a steep price tag and stability issues, but also the exact same planets and gameplay as KSP1. It was a setting I already had explored. It truly felt like I wouldn't miss out on anything by not buying KSP2 just yet.

The decision to try to get a stable version of KSP1 to run in the engine first was probably sensible from a development point of view, but it also meant the sequel had nothing new to offer returning fans. KSP1 offered the exact same gameplay with fewer bugs and more mods available, for a lower price, able to run on older computers. 

It baffles me that they didn't try to implement something to give KSP2 a unique draw. Giving Kerbin a third moon, or changing some of the planets in the solar system, or adding more planets, something like that. Sure, it would probably have added yet more to development time, but it would also have made the sequel stand out a bit more, and possibly attracted enough buyers to make continued development worthwhile. It's hard to make sales without selling points.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Robertbozic said:

That sounds like quite the adventure in Kerbal Space Program!

This was the first release version who was legendary bugged to the level that KSC could follow you up into space  

[NexusHelium]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This was the first release version who was legendary bugged to the level that KSC could follow you up into space  

That should've stayed in the 1.0 release 

[Bej Kerman]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:39 AM, Codraroll said:

Sure, it would probably have added yet more to development time

Exactly the opposite of what KSP 2 needed.

Not having enough draw wasn't its problem, the real problem is that there were obviously setbacks due to a corporate krakening judging from the initial 2020 release date.  Either they had nothing in the months leading to a full release, or (more believable IMO) they had a more complete project where a 2020 release was appropriate, but it was disrupted by T2 poaching Star Theory. If Star Theory remained intact, I don't doubt much that they'd have gotten something out sooner with more features.

KSP 2 could have succeeded and it didnt, and it wasn't down to needing an extra moon or some nonsense novelty.

[magnemoe]

54 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

That should've stayed in the 1.0 release 

Plenty of bugs left, one common one for me is falling trough the ground after time warp on the ground on wheels or legs on bodies with no atmosphere. 
I entered an underground orbit at Minmus once, just braking a bit and then burn sideways to raise Pe, however probe was tagged as landed so I could not leave it. 

Another one is that using wheels on many discoverables will make you jump as crazy, it happened twice at Moho, first time I managed to recover, but landing on the moheart, my manned lander was damaged and tipped over. 
Luckily I had an second lander there, I landed unmanned on first mission but that lander had an seat and enough dV to reach orbit. Problem was getting to it, it was pitch dark so I had to install an headlamp mod to see anything, 
Old lander used the small landing legs who did not jump but it had slid off the discoverable object. I came out of the hole at significant speed 

[Scarecrow71]

I think I said it in another thread, but I'll say it again here for posterity:  My biggest fear coming out of all of this isn't that KSP2 will simply get cancelled.  What I worry about is that not only will KSP2 get cancelled, but KSP3 will get the green-light to correct what happened with KSP2, and then all those of us who have KSP2 will end up having to pay for the next iteration even though we trusted the company to give us the current one.

I'll be up front and honest that if this happens - if development on KSP2 continues OR if KSP2 is stopped and KSP3 is done, and we end up having to pay a second time for it - I'll be done with the franchise.  I refuse to have paid for a product that was never finished only to be told "give us more money; we promise we will finish this time".  Fool me once and all.

[Infinite Aerospace]

32 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I think I said it in another thread, but I'll say it again here for posterity:  My biggest fear coming out of all of this isn't that KSP2 will simply get cancelled.  What I worry about is that not only will KSP2 get cancelled, but KSP3 will get the green-light to correct what happened with KSP2, and then all those of us who have KSP2 will end up having to pay for the next iteration even though we trusted the company to give us the current one.

I'll be up front and honest that if this happens - if development on KSP2 continues OR if KSP2 is stopped and KSP3 is done, and we end up having to pay a second time for it - I'll be done with the franchise.  I refuse to have paid for a product that was never finished only to be told "give us more money; we promise we will finish this time".  Fool me once and all.

What good does it do to make a KSP3 if KSP2 burned all of the bridges with the fanbase? Or are we going by the whole 'short memories' adage here? Right now, the community are basically condemning everything humanly possible about KSP2, who the hell would want to touch the IP again? Genuine question, not being facisous.

[PopinFRESH]

1 hour ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

What good does it do to make a KSP3 if KSP2 burned all of the bridges with the fanbase? Or are we going by the whole 'short memories' adage here? Right now, the community are basically condemning everything humanly possible about KSP2, who the hell would want to touch the IP again? Genuine question, not being facisous.

Maybe someone with a competent team? 

EDIT: For clarity in regards to the actual content of Scarecrow's post. If Take Two sold off the IP to another developer/publisher who actually had both the vision/drive and the competence to deliver a proper sequel to KSP as a feature complete product; and that 3rd party not associated with Take Two was asking to be paid for their labors I'd personally not find fault in them doing so, however, I'd also consider it a very easy win for said hypothetical 3rd party to "throw the community a bone" to give anyone who had KSP2 a small discount.

If KSP2 is "1.0'd" and/or abandoned; and then subsequently anyone associated/affiliated with Take Two begins development of a hypothetical KSP3 asking for more money then I'd whole heartily concur with @Scarecrow71

Edited May 7 by PopinFRESH

[NexusHelium]

1 hour ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

Genuine question, not being facisous

I would 

51 minutes ago, PopinFRESH said:

Maybe someone with a competent team? 

Intercept games has (had?) a fantastic dev team. No question about that. They are not incompetent. They were dedicated to the game. They were making good work on it (and hopefully still are), and they were overall just great people (can't say that for the people I haven't seen but I'm assuming)

Edited May 7 by NexusHelium

[PopinFRESH]

47 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

I would 

Intercept games has (had?) a fantastic dev team. No question about that. They are not incompetent. They were dedicated to the game. They were making good work on it (and hopefully still are), and they were overall just great people (can't say that for the people I haven't seen but I'm assuming)

If you say so; In my opinion the state of the game after 6+ years of development would say otherwise.

in·com·pe·tent

lacking qualities (as knowledge, skill, or ability) needed to do something well

 

I don't think anyone being honest can look at the development of KSP2 and say that it was done well. If those individuals posses the knowledge, skill, or ability required to successfully deliver what was proposed for KSP2, then the alternative is laziness or malice (which I don't think is the case).

com·pe·tence

the ability to do something successfully or efficiently

 

KSP2 was neither successful nor efficiently developed.

Edited May 7 by PopinFRESH

[NexusHelium]

2 minutes ago, PopinFRESH said:

KSP2 was neither successful nor efficiently developed.

I would argue that it has been successfully developed (improved and all that stuff)

4 minutes ago, PopinFRESH said:

If you say so; In my opinion the state of the game after 6+ years of development would say otherwise.

I don't see how you make something that essentially breaks all the rules of game development from scratch in less than a decade.

[PopinFRESH]

Just now, NexusHelium said:

I would argue that it has been successfully developed (improved and all that stuff)

I don't see how you make something that essentially breaks all the rules of game development from scratch in less than a decade.

Your definition of successful is wildly different than mine (and I'd argue the majority of people).

[Flush Foot]

Just now, PopinFRESH said:

Your definition of successful is wildly different than mine (and I'd argue the majority of people).

Code compiles without error.
Music plays when cues are hit.
Colours are displayed as expected.

Success!

 

/s

[NexusHelium]

Just now, Flush Foot said:

Code compiles without error.
Music plays when cues are hit.
Colours are displayed as expected.

Success!

You joke but that kinda is how you make a really strong foundation for an extremely successful game. Especially the code part. If your code takes all responses and can be easily manipulated then yes, you got yourself some good ol' fashioned success