KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, Virtualgenius said:

The Vab is a dark dingy cluttered space which i am having trouble finding things

The VAB scene follows the same day/night cycle as the outside world, apparently. Probably important for multiplayer syncing. It is a bit dingy sometimes, perhaps lighting options would be nice.

19 minutes ago, Virtualgenius said:

the representation of parts looks weird to me from KSP1

You're just used to looking for specific things. Most of the parts look very similar to their KSP 1 counterparts and the new labels make it much less difficult to find parts of the same size regime. You'll get used to it

20 minutes ago, Virtualgenius said:

I cant seem to find the aircraft hangar either 

No aircraft hangar in KSP 2! There's a button in the bottom left corner that turns the VAB workspace horizontal so you can work on planes and you get mirror symmetry by cycling through the normal symmetry modes. In other words, the VAB and SPH were merged to make it easier to navigate - mirror and rocket symmetry aren't hidden from each other and planes can be worked on at the same time as your motherships 

[DwightLee]

Ok

Having a blast, so far performance has been better than expected.

10900k CPU, GTX 3800 GPU, 32 Gig Ram

I do not have FPS numbers up as I think that distracts from how it feels running, its just a number, the game feels fine and without a lot of stuttering.

Launched my first asparagus staged vehicle and found a few minor issues.

 

Issues
 

I cant seem to find how to separate 4 couplers into different stage points, I had to put the 4 couplers on 2 at a time to do it.

The struts often get confused, I try to put on 4 and they go nuts trying to put them all over the place and not symmetrical, ended up having to add struts one at a time.

Kerbals sneak into seats when you are not looking. You can save a craft with 4 seats and only want 3 kerbals, load it up from a save and an extra one will have snuck into that 4th seat, you cant trust the little green bastages.

 

All minor issues, just an annoyance at this stage, but does need fixing at some point.

 

Looking good, really loving the game!

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by DwightLee

[RW-1]

I've played with 2 for a bit.

I do think it was overpriced for the EA as well. Which I think is fueling some of the hate out there.

I was around during the early days of KSP as well, I think I paid $39 on sale once, got add ons for free.

But I can't see justifying $52 (w/tax) for an early access title. There are those who say 1.0 release will cost more, in that case everything in this version should be patched, fixed, etc. 

On the fence about a refund, because it ran decently on my potato, and optimizations can only improve that as time goes on, but will it go on? If they decide to pull it, well ...

Tough times.   It's early adopters buyers remorse.

I'll likely end up keeping it, as least it runs. My only complaint is screen res (adjusted the .json file) but the tiny font's are almost unreadable ... 

MSFS newest would barely run on my potato and it ran $90, definitely refunded that and will have to await a new ring to play on that farm.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by RW-1

[Stephensan]

so far 6.7 hours of still not being able to land due to one bug or another (on the mun i should state)

 

i think the fun one is thrust is like 1/10th its suppose to be..

 

or the one with docking ports, undocking INSTANTLY causes a fail jumping up the spacecraft into mach speed orbits even with you being perfectly landed..

 

or the one that near 40km SRB decide to just detach themselves regardless of speed..

 

or the parts that it decides, when or how it wants to fling your rocket if you are reverting back on a auto save, locking your thrust out, or not being able to control your vessel in the map..

 

docking with struts makes the struts NOT detach, also causing a soft lock, unable to remove them

 

i just want to land my kitty rover.  6.7 hours of pure enjoyment..

 

i really wouldn't have much of an issue, if the fact of having at highest recorded 15 fps, with an avg of 5.5fps wasn't a issue. 

 

 

(my report of ksp 2 so far)

Edited February 24, 2023 by Stephensan

[Kubas_inko]

3 hours ago, fragtzack said:

In my limited experience with life (50+years),  making claims of "a lot of people" or "everyone" to prove  a point immediately disqualifies the statement of logic and reason.

Luckily we got the stats to back it up e.g. steam reviews (people are not happy with it and some, not all, are getting a refund just like me) and steam hardware surveys (if you can't run it, why listen to recommendations?)

7 minutes ago, RW-1 said:

But I can't see justifying $52 (w/tax) for an early access title. There are those who say 1.0 release will cost more, in that case everything in this version should be patched, fixed, etc. 

I don't know if I am alone with this, but I don't mind paying pretty much anything, if it is worth it. What we are getting now is not worth $50. It might be worth it in the future once it is fixed and patched, but that is not now.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[Multivac]

I don't like all the people on here getting high and mighty with comments like "don't pay if you don't want to" and such. You aren't heroically sticking up for some small indie game creator who is having difficulty bringing a revolutionary new idea to reality, you're sticking up for a big corporation that is engaging in practices that, in my opinion, are pretty obviously unfair.

If you want your players to act as your QA testers, that should be reflected in the price.

If your game costs $50, it should be a pretty good, playable game. As soon as someone pays $50 they should have access to something that's at least a playable and enjoyable experience, regardless of future planned features or road maps or whatever.

If you just want QA testers, you should ideally be paying them, not the other way around.

And there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with expressing negative opinions about a product that is a major, over-priced letdown many years in the making, neither on third-party sites nor right here on this forum.

[Starhawk]

Some content has been removed.

Personal remarks and bickering are both off-topic and rule-breaking.

Thank you for your understanding,
Forum Moderation Team

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, regex said:

I find it amusing to see the comparisons to KSP1 considering just how little KSP1 had at 0.7.3 release. People have some really short memories.

There's also the comparisons to KSP 1 modded, which aren't really fair because KSP 2 isn't going to need you to download an outdated and possibly broken mod if you want to have thrust capabilities when using timewarp, as was the case with KSP 1.

[Kubas_inko]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

There's also the comparisons to KSP 1 modded, which aren't really fair because KSP 2 isn't going to need you to download an outdated and possibly broken mod if you want to have thrust capabilities when using timewarp, as was the case with KSP 1.

And then there are comparisons to "early" KSP 1 which was more of a passion project of a small team vs KSP 2, which is a project of a large team and a giant publisher. But people seem to miss that for some reason...

Edited February 24, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Kubas_inko said:

And then there are comparisons to KSP 1 which was more of a passion project of a small team vs KSP 2, which is a project of a large team and a giant publisher. But people seem to miss that for some reason...

It's only been three and a half years since KSP 2 was announced.

[Skorj]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Sure but announcing its in early access kinda does

 

No. No it doesn't.  EA does not mean low quality.  EA is not an excuse for low quality.  Low quality EA games almost never improve in quality over time.  EA is for games that aren't finished yet, games lacking content, not games lacking quality.

Here's the fundamental truth of software development: there's no magical future time when all the bugs get fixed.  The quality of software is a direct reflection of the professionalism of the team, because that's what professionalism is.  As time goes on, the reasonable expectation is more content at the same quality level.  Of course, this is just "on average".  There is always hope.  I'm holding out hope for KSP2. 

If you sell a product, game or otherwise, it's expected to work.  The only excuse for low quality in a game release is when no one on the team has ever worked in game development before (like the passion project that was KSP1).  Obviously it would be unfair to expect professionalism from people who are not professionals.  But that's not the case here.

[Suzerain]

Well, I left Jeb on the Mun to write this. 

First, the obvious - everyone who worked on this should be proud as punch, and I want to congratulate the team on reaching this milestone. 

The game is beautiful. Unoptimised, yes, but looks fantastic already.  My first descent down to the Mun was on the sunny side,  with me going "oh, that looks good!" a lot. 

and having left Jeb on the mun, I went back into the game, to the VAB. I planned to have Valentina land next to them, and do  a good old fashioned rescue (even if I did land fine!) So I built a new ship. Tried to name it in the VAB, and it changed to the map. Whereupon it jumped to Jeb's ship, which had then fallen into the mun, and in some kind of unlit Kraken Zone, it fell 150km to the barycentre of the mun before imploding.  Oops.  I think there's a couple of minor little krakens lurking in here that aren't going to make it  particularly playable for a while.  

I am however finding the flight control UI unintuitive in some areas. I don't need a great big throttle control bar, while the target marker on the navball's not as clear.  Its a very good bit of game interface design, but I'm not convinced its yet the best way to transfer control/heading/velocity data.  Also finding it very distracting to have to visually scan from one side of the screen to the other while trying to monitor fuel. I hope that there's ways to rearrange the UI later on to aid that. 

But despite that, I like the map UI design generally - it needs improvement,  but its little critiques, not a disaster.   

Conversely to the flight controls, I'm finding that EVA surface controls are, on initial impression vastly improved over KSP1 -  WSAD controls felt much "snappier", less like Jeb was stumbling around. I really like that and look forward to dropping landers around to try them out.  So that's definitely to be commended. 

Getting them there might be a headache, though.  I'm not finding any delta-v change being displayed for burns, making orbital alterations difficult. I noticed the last time that there was a little "progress bar", for an ongoing burn but its not intuitive, clear, nor conveying sufficient data.  In KSP1 I have regularly managed to do landings on the mun without any manoeuvre node controls, and that is what probably helped me land.  I'm not convinced that a complete newcomer to KSP would enjoy the experience as much. 
 
In a similar data problem, I'm not finding it easy - or even possible - to get data on what my orbital periapsis or apoapsis are in the map. Again, insufficient data being displayed, or displayed in an unintuitive location I'm yet to find.  
And creating a manoeuvre in the map isnt as intuitive either, as the UI icons are bulkier and less crisp, so I think it needs a bit of cleaning up.  But I am confident that it will be resolved to make a better game overall. 

Amidst all the bugs and glitches, etc,  however, I must say that I do see there is another diamond in the rough in the core of the game, and I'm going to look forward to that. Those first impressions of the gameplay are positive.  And while tutorials are mostly redundant for someone with more hours in KSP than I want to ever admit to, they're excellently done so far - albeit at the moment intrusive at moments - I'm sure I'll be able to disable them later.  
(side note: Is it just me who thinks the voice actress for the tutorials sounds like Noël Wells, the actress who played D'Vana Tendi in "Lower Decks"?   I know its not, but to my ears, it sounds rather similar. and I'm laughing at the idea of someone getting typecast into playing green aliens...) 

--

There is however one area which I've not seen anyone else comment on, which does disappoint me greatly - and that is that it doesn't feel like a new game at this point. I know all the features of colonies etc are down the road some way, but here I am, building a ship with a Mk 1-3 capsule, a LTV30 or 45 engine, a Mk 16 parachute, etc etc.  It feels like I've just paid £45 for the same game I bought 11 years  ago, with a graphics update. While the core gameplay of KSP is excellent, and if its not broken, it would be foolish to try to fix it,  this doesn't feel like a new game.  Having the exact same components tarted up with a fresh lick of polys, to me, feels like KSP2 as it currently stands is not a sequel,  but a remaster. Intellectually, I know that there probably isn't a single line of code shared between the two games, but emotionally, that it seems to be repeating the exact same thing so slavishly disappoints me.  I'm not sure I entirely like that aspect of KSP2. 

--

I'm confident this will be a fantastic game, and will carry on KSP's legacy for another 10 years.  I want to congratulate every one of the developers, And I hope that those criticisms don't hurt them, because I know what its like to be in their shoes.  For each of those criticisms, I've tried to emphasise a positive impression too. I look forward to the future of this - but with the reservations I've stated here. 

[mcwaffles2003]

12 minutes ago, Skorj said:

No. No it doesn't.  EA does not mean low quality.  EA is not an excuse for low quality.  Low quality EA games almost never improve in quality over time.  EA is for games that aren't finished yet, games lacking content, not games lacking quality.

Here's the fundamental truth of software development: there's no magical future time when all the bugs get fixed.  The quality of software is a direct reflection of the professionalism of the team, because that's what professionalism is.  As time goes on, the reasonable expectation is more content at the same quality level.  Of course, this is just "on average".  There is always hope.  I'm holding out hope for KSP2. 

If you sell a product, game or otherwise, it's expected to work.  The only excuse for low quality in a game release is when no one on the team has ever worked in game development before (like the passion project that was KSP1).  Obviously it would be unfair to expect professionalism from people who are not professionals.  But that's not the case here.

Okay you have fun thinking that friend. Sounding really familiar to the BG3 forums here. I knew what I got into with their EA and this ain't looking too different. I'm here to find bugs and help the devs make something great, if you're looking for finished products, well... 

1st week of bg3 EA

We all saw the streams, we all knew it was far from complete, sorry you feel disappointed though

Edited February 24, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[mythos888]

4 hours ago, frozenbacon said:

KSP2 is okay, but there is no point in playing it because it doesn't offer anything that KSP doesn't have, and KSP does almost everything better. 

this.

I've played a whole lot of KSP1, to the point that I eventually put it down because there was just not all that much new under the sun (so to speak).  I've been very much looking forward to many of the promised features of KSP2 for a long time now.  I'm pretty sad that we finally hit the EA date only to discover that there are none of the new features that I had been waiting to try out.  Not only that, but the science collection gameplay mode has not even made it back in again.  I was never a huge fan of just sandbox mode, but I've always enjoyed the modes where you unlock more-cool stuff by doing things in game with the less-cool stuff.

That  said, I'm sure that stuff will get better over time.  My disappointment really comes from feeling like I have been on edge for so long now, and then when The Day finally arrives, I find out that it is still going to be quite some time before I can even just play what amounts to KSP1 with better graphics.

Provided that things keep going, and don't just collapse for no good reason, I'll be back.  But not until the game hits at least almost-feature-parity with KSP1 from a gameplay loop perspective.  Even better would be when some of the new features/content comes online.  Hopefully once a few of these milestones have been hit, some of the more difficult bugs and performance issues will have been worked out as well.

I'm glad to see folks here who are thrilled to be playing the game as it stands, but I'm going to go back to waiting-and-seeing for a little while longer.

[esorth]

Decided to start my space program as I always tend to do in KSP1, building up a mostly-random comms network...

General thoughts:

• Didn't try a high-parts-count ship yet, but performance seems just fine so far.  Not looking at FPS numbers, but everything running smooth at mostly "high" graphics settings.  I have a fairly new GPU (Radeon RX 6700), but otherwise, my system is getting pretty old and below the supposed "minimum" specs (Core i5-2500 and 8GB memory).  I expected much worse.
• Everything is pretty.
• Everything sounds good.
• As a KSP1 veteran, I found myself very quickly ignoring everything tutorial-related, but the amount of tutorial popups don't seem unreasonable for a newly-loaded game.  Maybe I'm just used to ignoring similar game mechanics when I don't want the help.

VAB:

• General build experience is very familiar coming from KSP1.  Parts I wanted to use were there and where I expected to see them.  I found the newer parts organization (groupings by subtype and sorting by size) very helpful.
• New fairing building works well.  Probably would have taken me by surprise if I hadn't already seen a youtuber struggle to figure it out for a couple minutes.
• Like a lot of other players seem to be reporting, I found the info on my craft very lacking.  Hard to plan out stages without much in the way of per-stage info, like the per-stage TWR and dV that KSP1 gives these days.  One page has a TWR for the entire craft, which doesn't seem to make much sense for a multi-stage craft.  I suppose it at least tells me the very basic part of whether or not I'll make it off the pad to begin with, assuming that single TWR is the first stage.  And I couldn't find a consistent way to see stage dV.  Sometimes would appear with the staging, but those numbers typically just said zero no matter what I did.  Maybe intended info is just bugged out?
• Ran into something weird with the reroot tool (or whatever it was called now).  Couldn't seem to get out of it once selecting it.
• Hard to describe it, but I found it difficult to move around the entire rocket.  My rocket wanted to start out an entire rocket length in the air, and it took me a while to get it lowered down to the ground.

Flight:

• Before starting the countdown for my first launch attempt, a part immediately fell off through my rocket, but I couldn't see what it was.  Later, after getting to the crash report, it seems to have been the main antenna from my comms satellite.  Just fell off I guess.  Weird.
• Launch attempt itself was a buggy failure.  Nav ball never moved, but I clearly had control over the rocket because it would rotate for my inputs.  Then about 5000m up, game just declared I had crashed.  No idea why.
• Second launch started much better.  Nothing fell off my rocket, and all worked well through the first stage.
• On second stage, started around upper atmosphere, the rocket just didn't want to point the right direction.  Very weird.  SAS seems to have just stopped trying (was never close until I reoriented manually), and the engine gimballing seemed to have something wrong with it, making it just as difficult to control with engines running or not.  Very weird, but I managed to make the orbit work anyway.
• dV info continued to be messed up in flight.  Some stages would report a dV that looked reasonable, but most just claimed 0 dV no matter what.
• Repeating what many others seem to be reporting about maneuver planning being completely insufficient compared to KSP1.  Can't click to make an AP/PE sticky, and mouseover doesn't even seem to work while editing a node.  And the "orbit info" just continues to display the current info, and I couldn't find any way to get the post-maneuver info.  How am I supposed to know the result of the node? Even worse when planning subsequent nodes since I can't even find a way to see the amount of dV used by anything other than the next node, not that it would make much difference when I don't know how much dV my craft has left anyway.
• Final bug came after I detached my orbital insertion module from my final satellite.  After decoupling, the satellite reported no comms connection, despite having an RA-100 and a couple HG-5s as well as full power (as well as having a connection just before decoupling).  No change if I warp ahead until the craft passes over KSC.  So I guess my first comms satellite is not doing its job.  I also couldn't find any way to see comms paths like you could in KSP1, but I didn't really look for it until after I hit this bug so maybe something appears fine when comms are working fine.

 

So overall, I'm having fun, but this game is definitely going to take some big patches before it gets to the base level of KSP1 sandbox mode.

[BobbyDausus]

5 hours ago, EmanonP said:

Gah.   It's early development.   Those whining it's not as good as KSP1 that's been around for a decade just need to go away.

It's buggy, it's lacking content, parts, mods, career mode etc.    

Go back to KSP 1 if that's what works for you  and stop flaming an early release game still under development.

Plays just fine for me.    Don't regret the purchase at all.    

I would like to inform you that Early Access titles are usually playable by majority from low to high end users.This ain't

[Skorj]

9 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

We all saw the streams, we all knew it was far from complete, sorry you feel disappointed though

Glad you're enjoying it.  But please stop conflating "incomplete" and "low quality".  These are unrelated.  I certainly expected the game to be incomplete - it says so on the Steam store page.  They were very upfront about the included content.  That's not the issue here.  Quality is a different topic.  Bugs don't get fixed all at the end as part of "finishing".  Sure, that approach was common last century, I was there for it, but there's a reason everyone changed to iterative development.  It's understood now that "if there's not time to do it right, there won't be time to do it over".  But I'm belaboring the point, so I'll stop.

[Matrix Aran]

This just sounds like priviliged ranting, along with the other "Oh god KSP2 is a disaster release" threads floating around. This is in a far better place this early in the dev cycle than KSP 1 ever was at this point, and if this is the starting point, I expect it to grow far better than KSP1 did. So look forward to the future!

[Royalswissarmyknife]

5 hours ago, p331083 said:

So you like paying for the privilege of being unpaid quality assurance?

Yes.

[RCgothic]

I think any references to "manned" should say "crewed".  That's the inclusive language NASA prefers. Noticed it in an early tutorial text.

Edited February 25, 2023 by RCgothic

[BobbyDausus]

11 minutes ago, Matrix Aran said:

This just sounds like priviliged ranting, along with the other "Oh god KSP2 is a disaster release" threads floating around. This is in a far better place this early in the dev cycle than KSP 1 ever was at this point, and if this is the starting point, I expect it to grow far better than KSP1 did. So look forward to the future!

You don't compare it with a game developed by the same team ,compare with others,even lower budget one's and you'll find out that usually EARLY ACCESS mean it's garbage but playable,this is not playable at all

Edited February 25, 2023 by BobbyDausus

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, BobbyDausus said:

You don't compare it with a game developed by the same team ,compare with others,even lower budget one's and you'll find out that usually EARLY ACCESS mean it's garbage but playable,this is not playable at all

The game's working just fine on my end save for a couple mildly irritating hiccups. If you report whatever's breaking your game, maybe you'll see it fixed some day.

[Kubas_inko]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

The game's working just fine on my end save for a couple mildly irritating hiccups. If you report whatever's breaking your game, maybe you'll see it fixed some day.

Would be nice to know the specs and framerate. I always see "it runs fine on my machine" and then I find out that their machine has 4080 or that fine is 30fps while looking at the sky...

Edited February 25, 2023 by Kubas_inko

[BobbyDausus]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

The game's working just fine on my end save for a couple mildly irritating hiccups. If you report whatever's breaking your game, maybe you'll see it fixed some day.

Yes,but it should've not been like this.Anyway,hopefully things get better.I do think the issue is the actual terrain......Because those fps drop once Kerbin is in the picture,looking at space has acceptable frames

[DwightLee]

30 minutes ago, BobbyDausus said:

I would like to inform you that Early Access titles are usually playable by majority from low to high end users.This ain't

I would like to inform you that the developers said this game would still be in beta  with bug and optimization still being worked on. We knew this going into Early Access.

Not everyone likes working a beta with developers, why did you choose to?