One concern I have about KSP

[Tortoise]

KSP is a great game so far and I'm glad I'm purchased it.

But it's still in active development and it isn't even half way finished yet.

I'm concerned that as KSP is developed, it'll become more laggy and eventually demand higher computer specifications, thus not allowing a lot of us to have fun with the game if it becomes that laggy.

[Mr. Man]

KSP is a great game so far and I'm glad I'm purchased it.

But it's still in active development and it isn't even half way finished yet.

I'm concerned that as KSP is developed, it'll become more laggy and eventually demand higher computer specifications, thus not allowing a lot of us to have fun with the game if it becomes that laggy.

Yes. But by then we'll all have 200-core superthreading processors and will be ready.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why do you say it isn't halfway finished? I think it's way past the halfway mark.

[Tortoise]

Why do you say it isn't halfway finished? I think it's way past the halfway mark.

I only assumed because of the version numbers.

It's 0.23.5, I thought It'd be finished at version 1.0.0

I could be wrong though.

[Kerbonautical]

Actually the opposite is likely to happen. Due to the imposed restrictions of Unity due to having no multi threading support or GPU offloading the devs are clearly being extremely careful in the power required for these new additions and balancing it out with code optimization along the way, if anything KSP performance has been increasing lately.

Add this in with the fact that the next iteration of Unity will support multi threading properly this time and we should all see a noticable bump in performance. Computers of low end and high end specs should all get a respectable increase in performance. I couldn't say which will feel the greatest benefit but both should have access to a considerable amount of extra power from your CPU that currently is unavailable. If your running a highly modded version of KSP you might even be exceeding the requirements the final version will ask for, and I'd imagine there are a number of people out there running so many they have shot well past it.

[regex]

I'm concerned that as KSP is developed, it'll become more laggy and eventually demand higher computer specifications, thus not allowing a lot of us to have fun with the game if it becomes that laggy.

If anything it's become even faster and smoother as time has gone by, my laptop is extremely happy with 0.23.5 as opposed to 0.20.

[jdsutton]

I only assumed because of the version numbers.

It's 0.23.5, I thought It'd be finished at version 1.0.0

I could be wrong though.

Yeah that's not really how version numbers work...

[SpacedCowboy]

Yeah that's not really how version numbers work...

How do they work? Do you know? Or anyone else? Really curious!

[Red Iron Crown]

I only assumed because of the version numbers.

It's 0.23.5, I thought It'd be finished at version 1.0.0

I could be wrong though.

That seems to be a common misconception about version numbers. While it's true KSP is at 0.23.5 and it'll be "finished" at 1.0, any version between now and then could be the last one before 1.0. I'm hoping for early 0.30s.

After 1.0, we'll likely get bugfixes only, with new content moving to expansion packs.

[Ralathon]

How do they work? Do you know? Or anyone else? Really curious!

Push out major update, increment version number by 1. It ain't rocket surgery .

When people decide that the product is ready for public distribution you switch it to 1.0 and keep counting from there.

[r4pt0r]

they call it 1.0 when they are ready. thats really it. it could be the next update, or 35 updates from now. most devs do that. then the do the small fixes, which leads to ver 1.0.1, 1.0.2....

-edit double ninjad

[Lazro]

They count up until the devs say "done!", then they go from 0.xx.xx.xxx to 1.xx.xxx. Then they start counting up from there, if they add more content.

[boxman]

KSP is a great game so far and I'm glad I'm purchased it.

But it's still in active development and it isn't even half way finished yet.

I'm concerned that as KSP is developed, it'll become more laggy and eventually demand higher computer specifications, thus not allowing a lot of us to have fun with the game if it becomes that laggy.

So far that trend has mostly been opposite due to continuing optimizations. This is the case with most alpha software..

They usually dont start optimizations before the features are more set in stone so they dont have do redo it all at a later date, so I expect with time that it will also run better.

[cantab]

I believe Squad will be well aware that KSP's attracted a fair few "non-traditional" gamers, those who don't PC game much and thus don't have high-end computers. As such they do work on making the game perform well. The underlying engine is also expected to improve, in part because again it's targeting multiplatform stuff with phones and tablet versions.

It probably will always let us lag our PCs to oblivion with massive part count ships though.

[FenrirWolf]

If anything the game will get smoother as it goes along. tbh .23.5 was a pretty substantial boost in that regard.

[Pecan]

Version numbers are not decimal numbers. Replace the '.' with any other separator (or decoupler) of your choice, eg; we are at 0-23-5. It all means major-minor-variant so after 0.99.7 (or whatever) the next minor update would be 0.100.0. Developers typically use major version '0' for pre-release, '1' for the first "we think it's complete" release and '2' upwards for new sales ^^. Pre-release anything goes, or fails to go. After release backwards-compatibility would be expected (but might not be possible) within a major version but not necessarily across them - so 1.5 would be expected to be compatible with 1.0 - while releasing a new major version is announcing "game-changing" differences.

All of this depends on the development team and how they keep track of different versions though. If they want to use a completely different system or change halfway through they can.

[katateochi]

How do they work? Do you know? Or anyone else? Really curious!

There isn't a set standard and some developers cook up their own format, but a typical standard that is used is called Semantic Versioning (which is similar to what Squad are using, but not quite the same). This site has a good (if a little complicated) explanation of Semantic Versioning - http://semver.org/

Version numbers are not a decimal number, they are (often 3) separate numbers in the format major.minor.patch (as described by Semantic Versioning)

Squad use a 4 digit version number but we often ignore the last digit. Their format seems to be release.major.minor.patch

ie 0.23.5.646; 0 is the Release number, 23 is the Major, 5 is the Minor and the patch is 646

The Patch number is usually incremented when a backwards compatible bug fix is implemented. (this number changes rapidly, each bug fix increments it by 1, but it doesn't effect the Minor)

The Minor number is usually incremented when functionality is added in a backwards-compatible manner (ie a new part added, but existing saves/craft still work)

The Major is incremented when incompatible changes are introduced. (ie a significant change that will probably break saves/craft)

The Release will be incremented when it hits it first "production grade" release. (the day we order Squad a case of champaign)

From right to left, each number is incremented independently of the others, ie 0.23.2.9 would change to 0.23.2.10 followed by 0.23.2.11, changing the last digit passed 9 doesn't mean that the previous number would be incremented. But if for example the Minor number is incremented, then the Patch number is reset, so 0.23.2.11 would change to 0.23.3.0 or if the Major is incremented then both Minor and Patch are reset; 0.23.2.4 would change to 0.24.0.0

You can't predict how close to completion something is from version numbers, they only serve to provide a record of the past.

Edited April 24, 2014 by katateochi

[Merinsan]

Someone really needs to address the version number issue in a sticky post. This must be the 100th time I've seen someone misunderstand how they work.

I don't think KSP will become too much for most computers. The main way things are handled is by separating them from each other, ie Kerbin stuff has no impact of Eve, etc.

Most of the stuff from here on seems to be more about controlling the gameplay, ie missions/money etc, which are trivial in terms of system resources. The biggest resource hog to come will be multiplayer, though I hope that doesn't affect singleplayer.

[Jouni]

Someone really needs to address the version number issue in a sticky post. This must be the 100th time I've seen someone misunderstand how they work.

Having more than one sticky post is a bad idea. When you make a post sticky, it doesn't really tell people "this is important, please read it", but "this is spam, please ignore it". The more you browse the forum, the more likely you are going to ignore the sticky posts, classifying them among the junk that usually surrounds the content in a website.

[Othuyeg]

I hope KSP will never be ready. I want them to keep adding more awesome content for us.

[vinsent10]

these versions are KSP BETA/ALPHA meaning the version 1.0 has already been made for KSP BETA/ALPHA but the finished game will restart the version count again

[Frank_G]

As a game develops it becomes more and more optimized, so KSP will get less laggy the further it advances. I am quite sure, it will go this way and that there is need to worry.

[Guest]

Having more than one sticky post is a bad idea. When you make a post sticky, it doesn't really tell people "this is important, please read it", but "this is spam, please ignore it". The more you browse the forum, the more likely you are going to ignore the sticky posts, classifying them among the junk that usually surrounds the content in a website.

I for one do not ignore sticky posts.

[Linear]

0.23.5 was defiantly a massive performance boost for the majority - but this is because of Unity. We can only hope as features are added, Unity is further developed and the KSP team make further efficiencies.

[Jas1126]

I love KSP as a concept but, I have to be honest.. I'm really disappointed. These ludicrous limitations are not only disheartening, they're infuriating. Here I am sitting on a powerful computer and if I get two medium sized ships in the same area then my PC struggles.

I feel like I can never truly enjoy this game. And that is a miserable feeling as I really do enjoy the game's concepts. I have so many ideas that are constantly stopped due to this engine. When Unity updates, I really hope this team puts forth a significant effort to upgrade.