KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Socraticat]

3 hours ago, Walker said:

So I am, I'm having great fun with it. I've encountered some bugs, but nothing game breaking, performance is really good, fps only drops shortly after liftoff and only with large launch vechicles. Much, much better than KSP 1 at 0.15 version (when I started playing it). So I was shocked by amount of negatve comments. I guess that the game plays very differently on various machines and systems, with more bugs for some than for others...? 

The game is fun, but there are game breakers for sure. On one computer I've had issues that at worst resulted in needing a restart, quickload, revert, or other clever workaround.

 

On my other computer the game launched once, played, closed normally. Second boot of game: Load into VAB, game crashes, desktop crashes, blue screen, anient alien artifacts on second monitor... Hard reset. Now game hangs on either first loading screen, or campaign loading screen. Sometimes exiting the loading screen results in another blue screen crash.

 

First Computer is a Ryzen 5 3600 w/3080

Second is a Ryzen 5 3600 w/2060

Both have 32g RAM ddr43200

 

Fun game, but I'm really not sure about trying anything persistent, or further than Minimus. After encountering what I did on my second computer, I'm not sure I'll be doing much of anything until after the next patch. Maybe I'll try the weekly challenge if I can boot the game.

[Pulstar]

4 hours ago, MarcAbaddon said:

Orbits are not stable. Your AP and PE will shift. You may be on an intercept course, but won't be anymore next time you look.

This and in particular bug where the orbit randomly shifts for crafts not in focus is what concerns me the most. I get why we have wonky physics, confused UI states, the KSC or easter eggs suddenly rendering in the middle of the screen or unoptimized rendering/simulation systems or even serialization issues resulting in save/craft file corruption. But a core system like this should have been almost rock solid at this point, which is why I am concerned. Only explanation would be if it is getting reworked at the moment and it introduced new bugs.

[4d4Garrison]

My thoughts on KSP2 organized in no particular order 

• Controls
  • The game needs the ability to modify keybinds and sensitivities
  • Sensitivity slider for throttling 
• VAB/SPH
  • New controls are... alright... but there are some issues
  • Ability to hold alt during offset part to offset infinite distance
  • the new fairing system is terrible for some applications and great for others, add the ability to switch between old mode and new mode seamlessly 
  • Autostruts, even more necessary than ever with how bad the noodle rocket syndrome is in KSP2
  • the new UI is fine with me from an aesthetics perspective but it has a few issues
    • inconsistent sizing, some windows and text are huge, needlessly large even, while others are tiny and on some monitors and on lower resolutions may be difficult if not impossible to read
    • why oh why do we need to see every part in the craft when we right click on a single part? This makes no sense. 
  • glitches where flight UI like nav ball and time warp show up in VAB/SPH 
  • Inability to hold shift or some other key and slide around in the VAB/SPH, this was something I used all the time in KSP1 and its really necessary on certain builds, right now you can only rotate around
  • The new parts sizing labels are really nice, the organization will take some getting used to but that is minor 
  • Inability to see DV of individual stages
  • Inability to change planetary body to see DV
• Flight/flying 
  • PID tuning is not good, combined with the noodle syndrome all rockets have this creates oscillations that eventually destroy your vehicle in many cases. 
  • Controls feel generally sluggish, rockets are much harder to control. Could be new aero model, noodle issues, lag, other issues with tuning, or a combination
  • Add back the ability to change scaling and positioning of instrumentation HUD elements, I actually played KSP1 with my navball offset to the left slightly so this new setup is rather familiar to me. 
  • aforementioned text and UI issues apply here. on low res with a 1080p monitor the nav ball numbers are almost impossible to read. 
  • Haven't figured out a way to deselect all holds except turning SAS off.
  • The pause and timewarp notification pop ups are nice but they are too big, and the fact that they stack up is really annoying because they easily cover the whole screen. 
  • why does ESC not pause?? 
• Spaceflight/orbit
  • Why can we not see AP and PE of our orbit? 
  • orbits decay or change randomly
  • solar panel notif is too big and possibly unnecessary
• Maneuvers
  • Maneuver node system gets it own section because it is a mess
  • Orbit colors are all shades of blue, this makes it nearly impossible to distinguish between current and next orbit or encounters 
  • maneuver nodes are fat and you feel like you are grabbing the handles with boxing gloves, also you are either close enough to grab them easily and you can't see your orbit changing or you can see your orbit changing but you are not close enough to easily manipulate the node. 
  •   Difficult to grab node and slide it back and forwards in the orbit 
  • warping to node seems to be glitchy
  • Having the maneuver account for the thrust of the burn is awesome though, this change being in stock will be a huge help for new players once the other issues get ironed out 
  • The orbits changing on their own randomly I mentioned before means even IF you get an encounter you may lose it quickly 
  • Why not add transfer window planner into stock? 
  • Clicking on planets is weird and usually selects their moons for some reason? 
  • New flashing bright blue targets of entry and exit from SOI are unnecessary and distracting
  • No ability to micro adjust node
  • You cannot see your orbital line passing through the SOI, you cannot plan an encounter in a way that is actually useful 
  • orbital lines disappear sometimes 
  • No readout of your expected AP/PE from maneuver 
  • No way to skip orbits
  • No readout of how much DV is allocated per vector in a maneuver. 
  • Other random glitches that others have posted about
  • As it stands actually going anywhere in KSP2 is insanely difficult, and not because of the rocket science. 
  • The SOI's seem really finicky with getting encounters compared to KSP1, it feels like a barely touch a node and it swings all the way through an SOI in an instant. 
• Graphics
  • The game generally looks amazing, all the part textures look clean and modern, not like tin cans or random junk as in early KSP1
  • Scattering could look a bit better but it generally looks very good
  • the clouds can look a bit weird but they are stock now and look generally good
  • surface textures are a bit plain 
  • planets look very good from orbit but only certain altitudes, high granularity with the textures and scaling would help with this
  • Add planetshine 
• tips
  • The tips menu pops up every launch and action even if I have already done the action it is talking about before
  • Sometimes it gets stuck on screen or an arrow it was pointing with gets stuck on screen
• random glitches
  • random inability to control craft
  • kraken issues (minor so far for me but the aforementioned problems have prevented me from making craft that would really excite him in the KSP1) 
  • time warp bar staying stuck on screen in tracking station and VAB
• Performance
  • using a GTX 1060 TI (laptop) I get 8-40 FPS depending on he situation, with the lowest frames being near the KSC or looking at the surface of planetary bodies. 
  • There seems to be a lot of performance issues stemming from aero/parts physics/fuel/something with larger rockets and with more engines
• Other
  • a lot of the text is TINY in this game and needs to be changed, some icons are also too small to easily and quickly distinguish what they are supposed to be 

A lot of the UI issues, I suspect, stem from the devs not using lower res monitors and lower res settings so the pixel art looked fine to them? Also larger monitors would explain why the massive pop ups some of the windows are would not have annoyed them.

But the issues in this current version of the game in general cause me to wonder, especially since I found everything I outlined above in 3hrs of gameplay... Have the devs even played this game? 

There is a lot there that I can see as a foundation to build this into a good game, but perhaps my biggest issue is that the core gameplay mechanics aren't there. For now I hold out hope with what I see being able to be built upon, but this early access release has not given me a boost of confidence. 

I can deal with glitches, bugs, or even poor performance, but having the rocket building experience, the flying experience, and the maneuver node system be difficult or unusable means the game is nearly impossible to enjoy. If the game had just one issue, performance, maneuver nodes, flight, or building, I think the community would be much less upset than they are now, where we have all 4 of those issues with core gameplay, and were charged $50. 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by 4d4Garrison

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, 4d4Garrison said:

• • why oh why do we need to see every part in the craft when we right click on a single part? This makes no sense. 

It lets you find other parts even if they are in inaccessible locations. That being said, a search function would be nice, and as a whole it really needs optimising. If you have it open in the VAB, the game lags when dropping parts. Presumably it's regenerating the entire menu when anything changes?

2 minutes ago, 4d4Garrison said:

Inability to see DV of individual stages

This is actually in the game. Click the arrow next to the GO button and it'll extend the stage display to show dV. Though, while it does show dV for each stage, you only get to know the TWR of the first stage under Kerbin's gravity. There's no individual stage display for TWR and the engineer's report doesn't let you set gravity and atmospheric pressure.

4 minutes ago, 4d4Garrison said:

Maneuvers

• Maneuver node system gets it own section because it is a mess
• Orbit colors are all shades of blue, this makes it nearly impossible to distinguish between current and next orbit or encounters 
• maneuver nodes are fat and you feel like you are grabbing the handles with boxing gloves, also you are either close enough to grab them easily and you can't see your orbit changing or you can see your orbit changing but you are not close enough to easily manipulate the node. 
•   Difficult to grab node and slide it back and forwards in the orbit 
• warping to node seems to be glitchy
• Having the maneuver account for the thrust of the burn is awesome though, this change being in stock will be a huge help for new players once the other issues get ironed out 
• The orbits changing on their own randomly I mentioned before means even IF you get an encounter you may lose it quickly 
• Why not add transfer window planner into stock? 
• Clicking on planets is weird and usually selects their moons for some reason? 
• New flashing bright blue targets of entry and exit from SOI are unnecessary and distracting
• No ability to micro adjust node
• You cannot see your orbital line passing through the SOI, you cannot plan an encounter in a way that is actually useful 
• orbital lines disappear sometimes 
• No readout of your expected AP/PE from maneuver 
• No way to skip orbits
• No readout of how much DV is allocated per vector in a maneuver. 
• Other random glitches that others have posted about
• As it stands actually going anywhere in KSP2 is insanely difficult, and not because of the rocket science. 
• The SOI's seem really finicky with getting encounters compared to KSP1, it feels like a barely touch a node and it swings all the way through an SOI in an instant. 

That's all valid, but do give it credit. Calculating how the trajectory warps under acceleration has been a long time coming.

[shdwlrd]

Well, my first opinions. The game is definitely playable at low to medium settings on an older GPU. (GTX1060 6GB)

Everything in the VAB will take some getting used to. I do like the workspaces concept, but there needs to be a way to name your different assemblies separately. (If I've missed something please let me know.) My only feed back at the moment is separate the pan, rotate, and zoom functions on the mouse. Most mice nowadays have a minimum of three buttons and a scroll wheel. Why is the pan on the scroll/middle button? It should be on the right button or forward/back buttons.

Never made it to space, had some issues with doing a proper gravity turn. (And no, I don't need pointers. Just a design/launch profile issue I don't have time to figure out right now.) 

Flying a plane is, well, the same as KSP1. Hopefully they will add an auto trim to the game or easier access to the trim functions. Because trying to fly your plane and trimming it using the same keys really sucks. (I mean separate trim keys on the keyboard. Not modifier plus control keys.)

Didn't get a chance to drive some rovers around. Will have to do that tomorrow.

Man the KSC is absolutely huge. I love it. Feels like a real launch complex. 

The sound effects are great, they're not overly annoying and are appropriate to the situation. (The loud clank when you hit hard and don't destroy the part is very satisfying weirdly.)

The music fits the different situations very well. (Not hard compared to KSP1.) I look forward to hearing more of it.

General concerns/hopes:

Joystick or gamepad support comes sooner than later.

An easier way to remap the keyboard and mouse controls.

A visual map of the keyboard.

What's with the SAS not holding your heading for more than a minute or two? It was easier to fly without than with it. (It should be the other way around.)

Better performance as updates come down the pipeline.

 

[IncompetentSpacer]

7 hours ago, RayneCloud said:

What you're doing is justifying something we call an "Is-Ought Gap". Just because a thing, IS, does not mean it Ought be. Just because we crunch, doesn't mean it's right, moral, ethical, or healthy. While I agree with the general statement that you should never launch before a stand-down or a weekend, because of the strain on communication and public relations, that's not an excuse to /Expect/ the team to work over the weekend. 

I think we both wish for success of this project. I am merely basing myself on my experience, working on various levels of the organization, from successful projects vs the ones that failed .  Not sure that this falls under IS-Ought problem in this context but OK.

[Periple]

7 hours ago, IncompetentSpacer said:

*Because if you "sleep", you do not own the narrative and people fill in the gaps  in info with their own imagination.

Fans vastly overestimate the importance of "the narrative." Social media has the attention span of a mayfly, and also represents a pretty small fraction of the market base. People get incredibly het up about whatever for a week or two, and then move on to the next thing. Sentiment will turn on a dime if the news change, and while the social media storm is going on, usually the best thing is simply to ignore it. Saying anything just adds fuel to the fire. There's no reasoning with, or placating, the loudest and most determined fans, and attempting to do so will simply make them scream even louder. 

So the best thing is to sit down, shut up, and get to work fixing whatever it is that caused the outrage in the first place. When you have tangible progress, show it off. The narrative will turn around.

-- I did a quick look at the socials at large in re KSP2 and the "hey it's early access, give them some slack" narrative has a surprising amount of traction. It's pretty bad, but not quite THAT bad. 

(Also crunching or working 36 hours straight over the weekend is bad, let's not do it m'kay? This is after all a game -- and an early access game. Nobody will die, get injured, lose their livelihood, or experience other great personal tragedy if it fails to even start up for anybody. The biggest hardship someone might have to endure is having to get a Steam refund. Any emotional distress is entirely self-inflicted.)

[Walker]

6 hours ago, Socraticat said:

The game is fun, but there are game breakers for sure. On one computer I've had issues that at worst resulted in needing a restart, quickload, revert, or other clever workaround.

 

On my other computer the game launched once, played, closed normally. Second boot of game: Load into VAB, game crashes, desktop crashes, blue screen, anient alien artifacts on second monitor... Hard reset. Now game hangs on either first loading screen, or campaign loading screen. Sometimes exiting the loading screen results in another blue screen crash.

 

First Computer is a Ryzen 5 3600 w/3080

Second is a Ryzen 5 3600 w/2060

Both have 32g RAM ddr43200

 

Fun game, but I'm really not sure about trying anything persistent, or further than Minimus. After encountering what I did on my second computer, I'm not sure I'll be doing much of anything until after the next patch. Maybe I'll try the weekly challenge if I can boot the game.

That's what I'm talking about. I've launched series of more and more complex missions to Kerbin orbit and Mun, now I'm plannig trips to Minmus; not a single crash. Worst bug - fairing all messed up after vessel reload. Beside this, I had issues with parachutes animation (tough it slowed me down properly), camera behaveling odly, sun completly dissapearing in map mode - etc. nothing game braking, I was able to finish all my missions. My specs: laptop with gf 3070 (mobile), 32 gb ram, Core i7-10875H. Even the fps drop at launch isn't really a big issue. So - issues are really different on different machines...

[78stonewobble]

13 hours ago, bmyers831 said:

Well...  here we are.

PD released an extremely buggy, unplayable build on Friday.  Two days go by with multiple prominent youtubers reluctantly posting that the game was unplayable and a forum filled with bug reports.  It's now Monday and I don't see any sort of response from PD.  I just sent in a refund request as a pitiful protest that may get their attention.

I started KSP 1 around version 0.24.  This feels worse.  After a 3 year release delay I wouldn't expect to roll a craft out to the pad, see it sponge around, revert to VAB and then have that craft permanently stuck below the floor of the VAB.  I wouldn't expect to not see any TWR values.  I wouldn't expect to see delta V readouts barely functioning, and I wouldn't expect to see medium-complexity builds like a Saturn V replica bug out.

I agree that the game is unplayable.  KSP 1 has a passionate following.  All PD had to do was release KSP 2 with a similar feature set as KSP 1, reasonably free of show stopper bugs, and with an updated look, in a code base that could be built on for the future.  I could accept the rest of the roadmap as an early access situation.   It would have been a long awaited, huge hit.

Instead it's like we got something that really is early access for KSP 1, more than 10 years after KSP 1 went into early access.

Putting money into anything that is early access is really putting money where trust is.  You've broken my trust. Now your going to have to prove to me that KSP 2 is worth my money.

bye for now.

KSP1 had been in early access for almost 3 years, when you got into that and you can't give KSP2 3 days of early access? 

19 hours ago, tstein said:

Again you are one ignoring the evidence. KSP is not the only game that crossed the pandemic, yet is  one of the WORST results.

Your company being put into anotheer project?  Put this in your mind.. this game is a TAKE 2 product! NOT A PRIVATE/INTERCEPT product! When someone says  KSP 2 project sux it means  Take 2 failure, be it direct or indirect.

 

Well, the early access is comparable to early access. For reference, here is KSP1 earliest access release. 

"v0.7.3

Released June 24^th, 2011

• Initial Release^[2]

Notable Features

• Downloaded over 5000 times^[3]
• No SAS, although SAS module is implemented and generates torque
• The only engine, the LV-T30 can only be fed by one FL-T500 attached on its top
• The AV-R8 Winglet is just a fin and can't be used to control the vehicle
• It is nearly impossible to achieve orbit
• Kerbin is the only celestial object, does not rotate, and is a mirror reflection of the example planet from libnoise
• The sun is a directional light source at infinite distance
• The render distance is only 1500 km, and Kerbin will "sink" into the sky background, vanishing entirely as that altitude is achieved
• The original Intercontinental Kraken had not been fixed (Moving far from the KSC will result in shaking and even Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to floating-point precision loss.)"

I get why people, who expected early access to not mean early access and nearly full release, for some reason, would be disappointed, but that's really on them and their own unrealistic expectations. 

PS: And the big company vs. small company thing, where 1 company's early access can absolutely mean lack of features, poor performance and bugs and the other company's early access can't lack features, can't have poor performance and can't have as many bugs and they must be smaller bugs, is a silly and ambiguous definition of early access, that will make the already confused even more confused. Early access only refers to development stage. 

[MarcAbaddon]

1 hour ago, 78stonewobble said:

KSP1 had been in early access for almost 3 years, when you got into that and you can't give KSP2 3 days of early access? 

Well, the early access is comparable to early access. For reference, here is KSP1 earliest access release. 

"v0.7.3

Released June 24^th, 2011

• Initial Release^[2]

Notable Features

• Downloaded over 5000 times^[3]
• No SAS, although SAS module is implemented and generates torque
• The only engine, the LV-T30 can only be fed by one FL-T500 attached on its top
• The AV-R8 Winglet is just a fin and can't be used to control the vehicle
• It is nearly impossible to achieve orbit
• Kerbin is the only celestial object, does not rotate, and is a mirror reflection of the example planet from libnoise
• The sun is a directional light source at infinite distance
• The render distance is only 1500 km, and Kerbin will "sink" into the sky background, vanishing entirely as that altitude is achieved
• The original Intercontinental Kraken had not been fixed (Moving far from the KSC will result in shaking and even Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to floating-point precision loss.)"

I get why people, who expected early access to not mean early access and nearly full release, for some reason, would be disappointed, but that's really on them and their own unrealistic expectations. 

PS: And the big company vs. small company thing, where 1 company's early access can absolutely mean lack of features, poor performance and bugs and the other company's early access can't lack features, can't have poor performance and can't have as many bugs and they must be smaller bugs, is a silly and ambiguous definition of early access, that will make the already confused even more confused. Early access only refers to development stage. 

You are basically discussing something entirely different that the most of us. What you are talking about is managing your own expectations, for which what you suggest might be a good approach. Most of us are much more interested in the questions:

1. What does the current release tell us about the capability of the dev team?
2. How do the long term prospects of KSP 2 becoming a great game look like?
3. Which fundamental improvements have there been over KSP 1, especially in areas that have always held it back like the issues with the physics engine?

For the first two questions  small vs large company is entirely relevant in terms of what is in EA, because it impacts on whether there's a way for KSP 2 to make a profit down the road. As for the 3rd question, it's relevant because there are systems which are very hard to touch later in the dev process. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[78stonewobble]

14 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

You are basically discussing something entirely different that the most of us. What you are talking about is managing your own expectations, for which what you suggest might be a good approach. Most of us are much more interested in the questions:

1. What does the current release tell us about the capability of the dev team?
2. How do the long term prospects of KSP 2 becoming a great game look like?
3. Which fundamental improvements have there been over KSP 1, especially in areas that have always held it back like the issues with the physics engine?

For the first two questions  small vs large company is entirely relevant in terms of what is in EA, because it impacts on whether there's a way for KSP 2 to make a profit down the road. As for the 3rd question, it's relevant because there are systems which are very hard to touch later in the dev process. 

And do we base that discussion on the average of a reasonable consumer or the outlier of the consumers that need to be told hot coffee is hot? 

[Mantarochen]

1 hour ago, 78stonewobble said:

And do we base that discussion on the average of a reasonable consumer or the outlier of the consumers that need to be told hot coffee is hot? 

[snip]

 

The state of mind that the situation the game is in being okay, is the core problem. Not the people adressing the fact, or trying to tinker out why it is that way, and how it can be fixed.

Edited February 28, 2023 by James Kerman
Redacted by a moderator

[RayneCloud]

3 hours ago, IncompetentSpacer said:

I think we both wish for success of this project. I am merely basing myself on my experience, working on various levels of the organization, from successful projects vs the ones that failed .  Not sure that this falls under IS-Ought problem in this context but OK.

I might have misunderstood the intent of the post then, my apologies. Sometimes I Have problems gauging tone and meaning from text,  Joys of BPD. I think I agree, yes, we both want this project to succeed.

Edited February 28, 2023 by RayneCloud

[78stonewobble]

[snip]

Well, discovering whether a coffee is hot or not, before drinking it, is prudent and an example of doing one's due diligence. 

Not knowing that coffee can be hot or ignoring that a particular coffee may be hot, leading a person to burning themselves on hot coffee, would be an example of a person not living up to, what can be expected for a reasonable average person. 

The responsibility for the decision to drink coffee, whether a person did due diligence or not, is the responsibility of the person making that decision. 

And I don't think such a person get to blame any others for any potential resulting burnt mouth/throat and feelings of discomfort. 

*sips coffee that has cooled sufficiently to not burn, while still being delicious* 

Or in other words, it's not "Hah burn!" ... it's more of a "Hah self burn!"  

Edited February 28, 2023 by James Kerman
Redacted by a moderator

[MarcAbaddon]

19 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

And do we base that discussion on the average of a reasonable consumer or the outlier of the consumers that need to be told hot coffee is hot? 

Don't want to discuss the reasonableness, since that is very subjective, but dispute it being an outlier opinion.

There's a 50% negative review rate plus generally negative critical voice such as Rock, Paper, Shotgun or the German gaming magazines I follow. You sometimes get the negative review rate even if it is an outlier (but then it is usually due to being dragged in the culture war), but then the critical voices are usually more positive.

Or to complete the latest analogy of yours, sure, a coffee shop can sell much scalding hot coffee and tell the customers that they should have checked in advance. But it's not good for business. Regardless of whether there's moral blame there. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[kerbiloid]

If KSP 1 EA software had KSP 2 EA hardware...

And the (50 : 10) fivefold income for the company in Mexico.

Edited February 28, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Space Kadet]

ill shove my oppinion in video form.... its just a scottish man that more dissapointed whan anyother game
 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Space Kadet

[James Kerman]

Some content has been removed. Please discuss your thoughts about early access without resorting to personal attacks.

[Chilkoot]

15 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Never made it to space, had some issues with doing a proper gravity turn. (And no, I don't need pointers. Just a design/launch profile issue I don't have time to figure out right now.) 

If Kerbin is in the frame when you are launching, it will sometimes make controlling the rocket very difficult.  Chance your camera angle so you're looking straight upwards (get Kerbin out of the frame), and you may find your rocket is just fine!

[shdwlrd]

15 minutes ago, Chilkoot said:

If Kerbin is in the frame when you are launching, it will sometimes make controlling the rocket very difficult.  Chance your camera angle so you're looking straight upwards (get Kerbin out of the frame), and you may find your rocket is just fine!

It wouldn't hurt to try that, but still have to redesign the rocket. The new engine stats are messing with me.

The first couple launch failures was do to the SAS bugs people have been reporting. After not using SAS, it was a DV shortage on the booster stage. Didn't want too dig to deep into it at the time. I was running against the Steam refund clock. 

[RocketBoy1641]

Just had this thought as I am about to fall asleep: when Science comes in, we need ballons....  because balloons carry science stuff, with a problem core, a transmitter and solar panels.  But, they might be elint too!

On 2/24/2023 at 9:53 AM, magnemoe said:

Just watched Scott Manley land in the Mohole. 
Two issues, first the landing light do not light up the surface, second is that its now an flat patch of ground down in the center, however he clipped trough the ground fell towards the singularity and was kicked out at 145 km/s  

Yes that is right. He earned The KKRACKEN Unleashed.  Or was that in another game....

[Jasseji]

23 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

KSP1 had been in early access for almost 3 years, when you got into that and you can't give KSP2 3 days of early access? 

Well, the early access is comparable to early access. For reference, here is KSP1 earliest access release. 

"v0.7.3

Released June 24^th, 2011

• Initial Release^[2]

Notable Features

• Downloaded over 5000 times^[3]
• No SAS, although SAS module is implemented and generates torque
• The only engine, the LV-T30 can only be fed by one FL-T500 attached on its top
• The AV-R8 Winglet is just a fin and can't be used to control the vehicle
• It is nearly impossible to achieve orbit
• Kerbin is the only celestial object, does not rotate, and is a mirror reflection of the example planet from libnoise
• The sun is a directional light source at infinite distance
• The render distance is only 1500 km, and Kerbin will "sink" into the sky background, vanishing entirely as that altitude is achieved
• The original Intercontinental Kraken had not been fixed (Moving far from the KSC will result in shaking and even Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to floating-point precision loss.)"

I get why people, who expected early access to not mean early access and nearly full release, for some reason, would be disappointed, but that's really on them and their own unrealistic expectations. 

PS: And the big company vs. small company thing, where 1 company's early access can absolutely mean lack of features, poor performance and bugs and the other company's early access can't lack features, can't have poor performance and can't have as many bugs and they must be smaller bugs, is a silly and ambiguous definition of early access, that will make the already confused even more confused. Early access only refers to development stage. 

Yes, but, how much did KSP1 EA Cost on Day 1 ?

[MarcAbaddon]

It had also been in development for just about 6 months at that point, with a lot of transparency about what the game had and what it didn't have working. 

[78stonewobble]

2 hours ago, Jasseji said:

Yes, but, how much did KSP1 EA Cost on Day 1 ?

Nothing.

1 hour ago, MarcAbaddon said:

It had also been in development for just about 6 months at that point, with a lot of transparency about what the game had and what it didn't have working. 

True, but it's one of the advantages of being a small team deciding for yourself, that you can decide to do it that way. You don't have to ask others. 


To me a reasonable realistic expectation of early access is this:

Bugs, poor performance, lack of features and no guarantees. 

A state in the development in a project.



You guys seem to suggest that a reasonable realistic expectation for early access should be:

Bugs, performance, features and guarantees dependent on various factors such as eg. cost and development time ( and presumably also budget, company size, problem free development vs. troubled development).

Which means that early access will be wildly different from project to project ie. project A's early access will be entirely different from project B's early access.

That's a quite complicated calculation to do, not even considering that there might be information we know little to nothing about. 



I think my approach is much less confusing for both consumers and developers and will overall lead to less unrealistic expectations, unfulfilled expectation, regret, buyers remorse etc.

   

In any case, the wonderful thing about choice, is that you get to decide, how you want to see these things. You don't have to agree with me and indeed it would be a boring world (for me) if everybody did agree with me. You guys keep me on my toes and I get to keep you on your toes.  
 

[Jasseji]

19 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

Nothing.

It had also been in development for just about 6 months at that point, with a lot of transparency about what the game had and what it didn't have working. 

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