For Science! - My Thoughts (And Yours Too!)

[m4inbrain]

1 hour ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

As a side note, I strongly suspect it's possible to land on the Mun and return on your very first launch... Not having a part count limit reduces the difficulty a huge amount.

I noticed that as  well, there currently isn't any requirement to "streamline" your rocket, you can just brute force it by adding 12 boosters and a few main sails straight from the get go. 

Didn't notice how "important" the restrictions in the VAB were (KSP1), but turns out that a lot of challenge goes away if you can just strap more boom to your rocket.

Now.. Whether or not that's a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder - i do think it's bad, but on the other hand, i'll still streamline my rockets either way. I just think that there's a missed opportunity to add challenge in a different way (bit like a puzzle game, which parts can i take, where do i have to make concessions etc), other than just "adding Delta V until sufficient". 

I understand that this potentially get at least interfered with once resources become a thing, but i don't know.. I personally liked it better with constraints.

In other news, played a bit further now. I'm not up to date on bug reports etc, so i don't know if the kind of awful (comparatively) performance on the map screen is "normal" or fresh with this patch - but after playing some more now (5 hours i think), .. yeah, the UI will not grow on me, i think it's awful with basically no redeeming features. Unconcise, unwieldy, clumsy, and i hope for either a mod to bring back something concise/compact/lean, or a complete overhaul. All aspects, including the Navball. And no, not the position. 

[stephensmat]

Just finished a three hour play session.

Ahh, I'm back. It's like coming home after a long time away.

So. In three hours, I finished four missions, and experienced only one glitch, which was quickly corrected by quick-loading. Since I've  made a point of quick-saving before any 'step' in all of my missions since KSP1, this was a very minor matter.

The familiar ritual of fly, fail, improve, repeat is exciting again, as I feel confident that it's my failure and not a glitch. And when I reached orbit, I spent a crazy amount of time staring down at the planet. It's... beautiful.

Congratulations Devs, it's a great game again. We're almost exactly where we were with KSP1, with better graphics. If I can figure out how to export saved ship designs from one campaign to another, and get a good Mechjeb equivalent, I'll be set.

And I will admit, I'm looking forward to Colonies more than makes rational sense. It Science Mode is any indication, then the song is right: Things will only get better.

[RalphKerman]

I only had a little time late yesterday evening to test the new update but I have a good feeling so far.

I started a new Exploration mode save and went through half the T1 tech tree in a few launches. Performance was much improved compared to earlier versions (I did not play much since 0.1.5 where it was already improved) and my old (but for the time of purchase very very powerful) system of 2 x 1080s, 32 GB RAM and an i7-6700K (all bought in 2016) is now running the game very well and I enjoy it.

So far I did not encounter any game breaking bugs, sure it's rough around the edges and from reading the bug report forum I guess I will run into some stuff along the way but the game is playable and fun and that is what counts for me. And finally there is a gameplay loop, an incentive to play. Sandbox is not providing long-term motivation for me, Explorarion mode is!

The QoL improvements are great, having a TWR and Delta-V readout for each stage in the VAB is essential to building vehicles and I am really happy that it is now implemented.

My 2 main items on the "wish list" are still:

• A UI-Redesign. The text font, layout style, readability and "waste of screen space" are still issues for me and I think with more and more complexity being added and more information needs to be made available to the player the whole UI needs a redesign to be more compact. This is a long-term wish and I am sure there will be improvements over time.
• More control over the message pop-ups. Please add some switch in the options page to turn off the pop-ups for stuff like "Your solar panels are not producing any EC" and similar re-occuring messages.

Overall, the "For Science!" update is a huge step in the right direction. I for sure am glad I stuck with the game and did not refund it after the initial launch disappointment.

[JeanRenaud]

Gone from "12 FPS, wobbly rockets, and 100% GPU usage" in the first version to "never less than 40 FPS, stiff rockets, and maximum 75% GPU usage" on 0.2.0.0, with my GeForce GTX 1660 Super. I would say that this progress is quite satisfying, for a system below minimum GPU recommended specs. Everything over 30 FPS is okay for me, and even better 40 FPS. And that is at max quality settings.

Having 100% GPU usage could give more FPS, but i think by getting just 75% GPU usage, my GPU fans are making a lot less noise, which is a good compromise for me. Getting more FPS over 40 would not give any advantage in this kind of game where reflexes are not the point.

Edited December 20, 2023 by JeanRenaud

[Ekerci]

I think so far it is great. of course we had to wait a lot and they didn't deliver what they have been promising on time.

I could play more than before now and my comments are:

1.too much text. in games people don't want to read text but see some visuals. and text doesn't look good as well. huge windows are opening when you click on something and there are unnecessary text.

2. I couldn't find a window to see the missions while im in VAB. so while im building I was like do I needed to land to mun or just get into orbit. i need to go back and see the missions.

3. some of the parts doesn't make sense to new players. there is again text about the part but how we should use is not explained. also I was in the orbit and I couldn't see my battery charge. I could read how much solar panel is getting but couldn't see battery %.

4. science points looks easy but i think there will be a lot to go to get the points so it will start easy and will get very hard.

5. no limit or money issue in the VAB. i like that there arent any limitations but there isn't any money issue as well. so I can just build a huge thing to use it. it used to be more challenging. maybe the whole game will require much more parts to build considering colonizing etc.

 

overall, finally it's a game now that people can play. do we have a timeline for colony update? 

[stephensmat]

33 minutes ago, Ekerci said:

overall, finally it's a game now that people can play. do we have a timeline for colony update? 

 

That was fast.  I, for one, won't even think about that until I've filled the System with Space Stations and Starships.

Seriously though, most of the bug fixes have been at the 'foundation' level, which carries over into the expansions. Smart money says it won't be as long until the next expansion, but likely still several months.

Fine with me. Got plenty to do now.

[Sochin]

Well after working out how to get the install to load up I am impressed. Have not done a lot of science but wow that re-entry effect looks good. Slight niggle, after getting so used to seeing my Kerbal's through the window was in the "tin can" you could only see part of the helmet which looked odd.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, m4inbrain said:

Didn't notice how "important" the restrictions in the VAB were (KSP1), but turns out that a lot of challenge goes away if you can just strap more boom to your rocket.

Now.. Whether or not that's a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder - i do think it's bad, but on the other hand, i'll still streamline my rockets either way. I just think that there's a missed opportunity to add challenge in a different way (bit like a puzzle game, which parts can i take, where do i have to make concessions etc), other than just "adding Delta V until sufficient". 

I understand that this potentially get at least interfered with once resources become a thing, but i don't know.. I personally liked it better with constraints.

I thought of a way around this. What if we had the tiered upgrade system from KSP1 (though drop the stupid part count limit why can I add 50 huge fuel tanks but not 51 tiny thermometers to my craft?) but instead of buying tiers with a resource, we just got to unlock a tier when we reached a total amount of science gained.

You can spend it on parts in R&D too. I'm talking all-time total gained not how much you have in the bank.

So, say, once you've gained 100 science total, you get to upgrade one building one time. Then at 250, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10k, etc total science. Of course balanced so that you can get all your upgrades in a gameplay-interesting amount of time.

[chefsbrian]

I don't really see it as a problem that needs to be solved long term - Resources are the theoretical solution to this problem, encouraging players to be frugal with parts because of resource constraints. Trying to pack in an ancillary system that also ties it into research isn't gonna help any, and would probably just punish players who try to splurge with what resources they saved, or punish players who invest heavily into basic resource production, figuring "I don't have a lotta nuclear fuel but I can produce stupid amounts of methalox on the moon, so giant rocket ships it is - oh wait part limit nevermind."

Any launch part limit for gigabuilds also becomes irrelevant as soon as you have an orbital colony up - If you only let me launch 100 part vessels, I'll divide up to 100 part segments and waste 30 minutes of my time doing some orbital assembly right off the dock that put me right into a stable orbit. Again, a system that is completely unbalanced without resources, as the 'hard' part of the orbital colony is putting the stuff up there in the first place, but we get that for free at first.

When it comes to early access development, I'm a strong advocate that in all things pertaining to balancing stuff who's essential elements aren't in yet should be done in the players favor - It doesn't actually help encourage exploration or engagement with game systems to find problems and issues if we add arbitrary limitations now to try and mimic the consequences, but not gameplay, of future systems. 

[m4inbrain]

18 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I thought of a way around this. What if we had the tiered upgrade system from KSP1 (though drop the stupid part count limit why can I add 50 huge fuel tanks but not 51 tiny thermometers to my craft?) but instead of buying tiers with a resource, we just got to unlock a tier when we reached a total amount of science gained.

You can spend it on parts in R&D too. I'm talking all-time total gained not how much you have in the bank.

So, say, once you've gained 100 science total, you get to upgrade one building one time. Then at 250, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10k, etc total science. Of course balanced so that you can get all your upgrades in a gameplay-interesting amount of time.

Would be one way, yeah.

Though, while certainly not perfect (even partially annoying), i do think the KSP1 approach makes more sense. Not currently, but as soon as resources are a thing. Spending "resources" to upgrade the Launch Pad from basically a dirt mound to (over X amount of stages) to a full Saturn 5 Launch Tower feels better to me. "Knowledge" doesn't build a building, concrete does. If that makes sense. 

Not that this approach is perfect, i did (and still do) think that it was obnoxious to have certain things like EVA etc locked behind certain building upgrades, so my preferred approach would be resource based, and only for the Launch Pad and Runway (and maybe the new Boat thing, haven't even tried that yet). 

Would then also give the incentive to do more "local" stuff like starting resource collection on Kerbin. 

That's just for now though, haven't really thought anything through (since it only became apparent yesterday). 

7 minutes ago, chefsbrian said:

Any launch part limit for gigabuilds also becomes irrelevant as soon as you have an orbital colony up - If you only let me launch 100 part vessels, I'll divide up to 100 part segments and waste 30 minutes of my time doing some orbital assembly right off the dock that put me right into a stable orbit. Again, a system that is completely unbalanced without resources, as the 'hard' part of the orbital colony is putting the stuff up there in the first place, but we get that for free at first.

 

You're not going to launch a Colony from a dirt mound/un-upgraded Launch Pad. 

Your entire argument doesn't really make sense, you're acting like KSP1 doesn't exist and people ran into that problem. They quite obviously didn't. And even if they were, which again, they didn't, that's simply an adjustment of numbers. 

But, again, they didn't. Because by the time you reach colony stuff, you already have an upgraded Launch Pad, especially if it's paid through resources (which you have to collect plenty of to build the colony stuff in the first place anyway). The same way people in KSP1 didn't have part limits by the time they reached nuclear propulsion. 

[chefsbrian]

10 minutes ago, m4inbrain said:

Your entire argument doesn't really make sense, you're acting like KSP1 doesn't exist and people ran into that problem. They quite obviously didn't. And even if they were, which again, they didn't, that's simply an adjustment of numbers. 

Do you want to try this sentence again? I'm entirely unsure of what you're trying to say here. KSP1 never had colonies or off-planet launch capacity, so I am exceedingly confident when I say that KSP1 did not have any issues with balancing extraplanetary launches against planet based ones.

You seem to be randomly jumping between talking about KSP1, potentially modded KSP1, and talking about what I think is future state assumptions of KSP2, but there's no point where it becomes clear which ones which, so I genuinely don't know what points you're trying to make about what things.

[Mickel]

A mixed bag for me, but generally positive.  Racked up almost a third of my total KSP2 hours today.

I have a potato, but it runs well enough for my eyes (I'm old enough to remember seconds per frame, so I don't dummy spit under 30fps...).  Without any AA it looked terrible, but I can now have some.  So this is good.

Chipped through a bunch of missions.  Entertaining enough, I suppose.  Science seemed to come too quickly through the first tier.  Seemingly high tech parts are in before 'big' parts, which seems odd.  But ok - I can route around them.  It signed me off on a Munar orbit when I didn't meet the mission criteria.  My PE was under the 60k specified.  It also mentioned Jool, rather than Mun when discussing comms.  But they warned we'd find things like that.

I managed a round trip to the Munar surface for the first time.  So that's progress.  Orbital decay still present under 20k around Mun.  Can't plan low level passes and landing sites too much.  On the second trip (to the strange signal), I couldn't get an orbital path to register on departure from Mun so couldn't get home.  A save/reload left me at 25k with zero velocity.  Didn't get going again from that.  Revert to  VAB and will try again in a couple of days.

Dv calcs in the VAB need a tweak.  My TLAR method of rocket design worked better than the calc numbers for Mun and back, and I was still way over a safe number.

Reentry effects were better than I expected.  I suspect they will be tweaked over time.

I've been quietly optimistic that this will come right, and  I've not got any reason to doubt that.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

7 hours ago, KincaidFrankMF said:

As a side note, I strongly suspect it's possible to land on the Mun and return on your very first launch... Not having a part count limit reduces the difficulty a huge amount.

I kind of miss the part count and cost constraints, A LOT.  The early missions are too darn easy.  Zero challenge.

I get that the game has a huge potential market among scientifically illiterate major corporate space opera media and toy franchise fans who have never heard of those Newton and Hohmann guys, and who need the first hits to be low challenge and free, though…. But if the rest of it is this easy I’m going to get bored.

[Urus28]

First tests for me... I run the game with a 3Gb 1060 GPU, so I was not expecting anything in terms of performances... But it was a happy surprise to see the game run with decent framerate for basic build. I still need to update my graphic card.

My major complaint was the number of game crashes, 4 crashes in less than 2 hours. I hope this is related to my outdated graphic card (my CPU is more recent). I had the same start with KPS1 with some mods, so nothing to be crazy about on my side.

My overall feeling is that the early part of the game is now far easier than in KSP 1, no part limit, no weight limit, good science rewards... I have the feeling that dev team is aiming to lead more gamers to a full discovery of the kerbol system and not limit it to a small batch of rocket scientists . And I think it's a good thing.

Did I have fun ? Yes ! Do I plan to continue playing despite some of my system limitations ? Yes !

I'm now very curious about the future developments, and I hope we will not have to wait another year to get the next major update.

[Chilkoot]

10 hours ago, regex said:

the missions just might be "easy cheater mode"

It looks like - by design -  most of the science awards in Tier 1 are supposed to be from missions.

Missions are the game's way of forcing new players to learn the ropes by interacting with the game in a success-oriented way.  The points/progress are the reward for engaging in that way.  From what I see so far, actual field science collection doesn't ramp up until later in Tier 2.

Most people in these forums are going to burn through Tier 1 in a few hours, b/c we already have a ton of experience with KSP.  For new players, the early missions are designed to ease them in without the extra complexity of science popups and designing ships around collector parts.  It's a cakewalk for us, but this is "easy first kills" stage of the game.

[Kimera Industries]

11 hours ago, JeanRenaud said:

Getting more FPS over 40 would not give any advantage in this kind of game where reflexes are not the point.

Well, when you're struggling to find out which action groups will save your crew before they plummet onto the runway, reflexes are, shall we say, helpful.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Kimera Industries

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

I kind of miss the part count and cost constraints,

I agree but they would have to be changed somehow.

Maybe a "Complexity" system that is similar to part count restraint but things like engines take more away then fuel tanks.

Maybe things like liquid engines require more Complexity Points then SRB's.

You could also gain more Complexity Points in construction and main research nodes.

Spoiler

The complexity points act like the parts count for the rocket not like funds.

I never understood how you could spam 30 engines but not 60 RCS thrusters.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Royalswissarmyknife

[MechBFP]

Overall I am liking the update, but the horrible camera system is really really really detrimental to the overall experience.

1) Impossible to get an "orbital" camera view (ie the same camera view as the map).

2) Camera does not stay where I put it when switching between flight and map.

3) All the current camera views (other than chase) do the exact same thing for some reason.

4) Switching between flight and map view often resets the camera back to a different camera view than I one I picked.

5) Dragging the camera with right mouse is too slow and there is no way to change it without changing mouse sensitivity (which impacts the cursor as well).

Edited December 20, 2023 by MechBFP

[Emanuel01]

Here are my two cents: 

1. I'm really happy about the upgrade. I hope this new wave of much needed optimism turns into sales and consequently more financing and resources for the development of the game. If the investors feel confidence in the long term prospects of the project, we'll surely see the updates gaining momentum. 

2. The science button is confusing and doesn't work properly. It would be really nice if it stopped running already completed experiments.

3. Would be nice to have more flavor text on experiment results. But I'm sure we'll see more variety eventually. 

4. The new contract system is way better than the original, I hope it gets integrated with the upcoming systems (colonies and resources).

5. I don't like science points being treated like currency, but I'm sure we'll get more depth once Resources come online.

6. Thermal UI needs improvement. I hope we get something better than red bars. 

Overall, good job team! Fantastic work and comeback 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

26 minutes ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

I agree but they would have to be changed somehow.

Maybe a "Complexity" system that is similar to part count restraint but things like engines take more away then fuel tanks.

Maybe things like liquid engines require more Complexity Points then SRB's.

You could also gain more Complexity Points in construction and main research nodes.

  Hide contents

The complexity points act like the parts count for the rocket not like funds.

I never understood how you could spam 30 engines but not 60 RCS thrusters.

 

I like that idea!  I enjoyed working within that part count constraints, but to your point they didn’t really map to reality super well…

[Bej Kerman]

14 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

only deployed once I ENABLED IT

I think I found the issue.

14 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

about 400m/s

 

[regex]

1 hour ago, Chilkoot said:

It looks like - by design -  most of the science awards in Tier 1 are supposed to be from missions.

Yeah, I might have spoken too soon, tier 1 science might be designed to be simply blown through. I got a look at the tier 2 costs and they're substantially ramped up. I'll start seeing how the missions progress through there tonight.

1 hour ago, Chilkoot said:

Most people in these forums are going to burn through Tier 1 in a few hours

Less than two hours tbh, far less if I keep successful craft between saves so I don't have to spend time designing. I think you can clear most of it in ... maybe three launches at a guess? Maybe two, I'd have to make a chart about how the missions shake out to really know. You want to take a Science Jr. to the Mun though.

That reminds me, I need to kill Jeb and Bill. Bob already bit it and it doesn't look like he respawned, let's hope he never does.

[Scarecrow71]

2 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Overall I am liking the update, but the horrible camera system is really really really detrimental to the overall experience.

1) Impossible to get an "orbital" camera view (ie the same camera view as the map).

2) Camera does not stay where I put it when switching between flight and map.

3) All the current camera views (other than chase) do the exact same thing for some reason.

4) Switching between flight and map view often resets the camera back to a different camera view than I one I picked.

5) Dragging the camera with right mouse is too slow and there is no way to change it without changing mouse sensitivity (which impacts the cursor as well).

Camera issues have been discussed ad nauseum for quite a while here.  I agree with everything you stated, and I believe the devs are looking at improving the camera function.  I do know that #4 is reported as a bug and is actively being worked on.

2 hours ago, Royalswissarmyknife said:

Maybe a "Complexity" system that is similar to part count restraint but things like engines take more away then fuel tanks.

I liked the part count/weight limit from KSP1.  The only thing that I didn't like about that, as someone else pointed out, is that if I could get under the weight limit, I could put 50 mammoths on a ship but not 51 antenna (as an example).

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

I think I found the issue.

I generally deploy parachutes at ~600 m/s during descent, and I've never had an issue with them not opening.  I think what @Superfluous J had going on there was a bug.  I wonder if there is any chance he can reproduce this?

1 hour ago, regex said:

I think you can clear most of it in ... maybe three launches at a guess?

I'm 4 launches in (10k, sub-orbital, orbital, orbit the Mun), and I've got 85% of Tier 1 unlocked.  Granted, I didn't go science-hog crazy on some of the launches, but I can absolutely see where running through the optimal path to get science could deal with the entire tier in 3-4 total launches.  I'm sure someone will come up with a challenge surrounding this.

1 hour ago, regex said:

That reminds me, I need to kill Jeb and Bill. Bob already bit it and it doesn't look like he respawned, let's hope he never does.

I think we should go about snuffing out all of the Kerbals the game gives us at the start to see what happens.  For Science!

Edited December 20, 2023 by Scarecrow71

[regex]

9 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

I'm 4 launches in (10k, sub-orbital, orbital, orbit the Mun), and I've got 85% of the Tier 1 unlocked.  Granted, I didn't go science-hog crazy on some of the launches, but I can absolutely see where running through the optimal path to get science could deal with the entire tier in 3-4 total launches.  I'm sure someone will come up with a challenge surrounding this.

I'm positive I can clear it in two but, again, I'd have to look at how the missions shake out (you can clear them with craft already in flight but I'm not 100% on the order they appear) because completing missions and getting heat shields (I play on 120% heat) is pretty crucial to getting all the science. If science experiments transfer in a reasonable manner I can just leave the first flight in orbit and rendezvous on my way back from the Mun, no need to try reentry without a heat shield. It is entirely possible to land on the Mun or Minmus, or even Eeloo if you want, using the base set of parts (electricity might be an issue but most engines have alternators) so yeah, two flights (one to get the science, one with the new heatshield to return it).

Edited December 20, 2023 by regex

[kdaviper]

3 hours ago, Urus28 said:

First tests for me... I run the game with a 3Gb 1060 GPU, so I was not expecting anything in terms of performances... But it was a happy surprise to see the game run with decent framerate for basic build. I still need to update my graphic card.

My major complaint was the number of game crashes, 4 crashes in less than 2 hours. I hope this is related to my outdated graphic card (my CPU is more recent). I had the same start with KPS1 with some mods, so nothing to be crazy about on my side.

My overall feeling is that the early part of the game is now far easier than in KSP 1, no part limit, no weight limit, good science rewards... I have the feeling that dev team is aiming to lead more gamers to a full discovery of the kerbol system and not limit it to a small batch of rocket scientists . And I think it's a good thing.

Did I have fun ? Yes ! Do I plan to continue playing despite some of my system limitations ? Yes !

I'm now very curious about the future developments, and I hope we will not have to wait another year to get the next major update.

I would suspect the issue is your ram/lack thereof