The Grand 0.25 Discussion Thread

[Superfluous J]

He paid for it. It's not free. He bought into an early access game, which means he paid for a future development of the game.

Incorrect. At least when I bought the game there was a screen on which it was very clearly stated that I was buying the game as-is with no obligation from Squad to improve the game or anything, but if they did, I'd get those improvements for free. When I clicked "OK" I accepted those terms as a condition for purchasing the game. Every single update that has come out since then was a(n expected) bonus.

[itsme86]

Is that a mod or something? Parts I haven't researched yet don't show up in the VAB for me to click on. Are you talking about the new hard difficulty where you need to buy the part after researching the node?

[severedsolo]

I'm loving the new spaceplanes. I've never been into them that much, I just couldn't really get them working and didn't have the patience. They seem to have done something with the new parts, as they behave alot better.

[montyben101]

Being able to toggle surface attach mode and node attach mode XD

[Nemrav]

You'll have to wait for Unity 5 to be released before having any hope for major performance improvements in KSP.

Sadly SQUAD choice of an engine wasn't good when it comes to performance. It works great for modders, but that's pretty much it.

Okay, you try paying monthly subscriptions for another engine to try out a simple experiment about rockets, I'm sure you will like it a lot... Also note how when an engine uses unity, turning up resolution makes absolutely no difference to the game.. Unlike every other engine out there...

Well just like plenty of other threads, this has turned into ''find a defect in previous posters' complaint, tell him off, then I make my own equally ill-founded complaint'' And yes, there is the irony that I play into my own concept well rather than solving it...

[Agricola]

Whine, Whine, Moan Moan, I want my money back, Whine Moan, I want a game that has everything I want and has everything working perfectly to my specifications. whine whine moan moan

[Gryphon]

Is that a mod or something? Parts I haven't researched yet don't show up in the VAB for me to click on. Are you talking about the new hard difficulty where you need to buy the part after researching the node?

Yes, that's what he is talking about.

[LukeStrike]

@Sky_walker: thanks for reseting the clocks in time

Write to the SQUAD team ? Is it eventually possible ? Not sure at all, and as you said, it will probably end in a kind of junk folder.

And yes we have paid for this game, it was not free at all, we (or I) just did that because we (or I) believed in this game, as a support for a promissing one (as I did for a lot of games, such as Starmade, which was a total mess) ... And for me, at this point, SQUAD is following let's say the same path.

You cannot add "fruits" on a rotten tree. The game was already "defficient", but instead of treating the "core" (or base, or root, as you prefer) problems, they just added more "layers" on a sick base.

It is like to say "ok, you have bought a car, not really running, but, instead of working on the engine, I've painted it in pink ... Lovely, isn't it ?" Yes, my dear, soooo lovely :/

In french we have a term for that which is "jeter de la poudre aux yeux" (throw glitter in the eyes ?) ... A kind of "magic trick" ? During the time you are "blinded" by "pseudo new features", you forget the essential,

which are: the game engine sucks, the interface sucks, the loading times sucks, the save and resume game sucks, the plugins integration sucks, and so on.

Any volunteers to work on an "open letter to the developpers" ? I'm in. So we could have a chance to tell them what a lot of us really expected from this promissing game. But I'm not too optimistic, I must say.

SY

LKS

[juanml82]

This may have been mentioned here before, but I don't have the time or desire to read 600+ posts, so here's my 2 cents.

I'm pretty cheesed off here. I run a lot of mods, I mean a LOT of mods, maybe not the most ever, but certainly way more than the average player, probably. Anyway, under 0.24.2, my game was running just fine as long as I used the Active Texture Management mod to keep my memory use down to a reasonable level. Well, whatever got "improved" in 0.25 may be great for some folks who play mostly stock, or have some monster gaming rig with near-supercomputer capabilities, but KSP is now totally broken for me, because ATM now doesn't work at all, and therefore I can't even load the game without an out-of-memory lockup/crash! As far as I know, the author(s) of ATM are working on fixing the problem, but the last I checked on the relevant forum thread, he was saying that it doesn't appear as though there's any way to get it working again. Or words to that effect, anyway. Bottom line, I may not be able to play KSP with any of the mods that I consider utterly essential for this game to be remotely playable.

So anyway, thank you, Squad, for "fixing" your game until it broke, dammit!

I'm not using any of the large parts mods like B9 or KW rocketry, but I'm using a fair bit of them and, using OpenGL, memory usage is below 2GB now - and that includes the Astronomer's pack. Depending on your rig, the 64 bits mode might work - except that some modders chose to disable their mods in that version.

In any event, I think your complain should be addressed to the modders. Let's be honest here: if you've purchased, let's say Skyrim, and you download an 8K texture pack which includes high resolution meshes and that makes the game unplayable because it requires to top of the line GPUs working together to process all that, you wouldn't be blaming Betheseda for that. Any software has minimum software requirements. In the case of some mods, that requires 64 bit Linux KSP and 8GB of ram, minimum. But that's not Squad's fault.

[Jr6150x]

Here's my 2 cents. I LOVE the new update. Very fast running, and I don't have the greatest computer. I've been using the 64x version, and I have no major problems with it... I have only crashed 1 or 2 times.

In MY opinion squads doing awesome. It's their game and can do whatever with it.

[Masetto]

@Sky_walker: thanks for reseting the clocks in time

Write to the SQUAD team ? Is it eventually possible ? Not sure at all, and as you said, it will probably end in a kind of junk folder.

And yes we have paid for this game, it was not free at all, we (or I) just did that because we (or I) believed in this game, as a support for a promissing one (as I did for a lot of games, such as Starmade, which was a total mess) ... And for me, at this point, SQUAD is following let's say the same path.

You cannot add "fruits" on a rotten tree. The game was already "defficient", but instead of treating the "core" (or base, or root, as you prefer) problems, they just added more "layers" on a sick base.

It is like to say "ok, you have bought a car, not really running, but, instead of working on the engine, I've painted it in pink ... Lovely, isn't it ?" Yes, my dear, soooo lovely :/

In french we have a term for that which is "jeter de la poudre aux yeux" (throw glitter in the eyes ?) ... A kind of "magic trick" ? During the time you are "blinded" by "pseudo new features", you forget the essential,

which are: the game engine sucks, the interface sucks, the loading times sucks, the save and resume game sucks, the plugins integration sucks, and so on.

Any volunteers to work on an "open letter to the developpers" ? I'm in. So we could have a chance to tell them what a lot of us really expected from this promissing game. But I'm not too optimistic, I must say.

SY

LKS

The game runs fine. I'm sure there's room for improvement (as there is with any game, really). But, sorry, the game runs very well.

I get great framerate. I install plenty of mods. I don't get crashes.

You were not "had". I've seen plenty of Kickstarter and Greenlight projects that do flounder and don't deliver.

This game isn't even close to one of those. The game is already extremely playable, and many people have enjoyed it for ungodly amounts of time, myself included.

They're adding features because they need to progress towards release. You complain about the "core" of the game, but if all they did was focus on that, other people would be dismayed at the lack of features. And frankly, the core of this game is what's made it a huge success already, even without all the features they've been adding. Name a rocketry-sim that's better.

If you want to complain about a bug, or if you really think the game has a major performance-deficiency and can provide details, then do so without being sensational or accusing a company of wronging you.

[Dingo44]

I haven't installed the update yet, but I've been playing KSP with a bunch of mods, including KW, B9, KAS, and Infernal Robotics on a laptop. A MacBook laptop. A MacBook laptop that'sover five years old while also having chrome and messenger open and constantly switching between programs. Then closing the laptop while the game is paused and resuming the next day, or the day after. No problems. Granted it took me a while to get the game to this point, but it's there. So whatever you're doing on your super duper, Mr. Frenchman with all the fancy smancy bells and whistles, I have the best machine possible and I'm a programmer/developer, obviously ain't working fer ya. So before you go off on an amazing game that many people absolutely love, and where you were warned that the game is still in development, you might want to take a look at your own setup first.

[Linear]

The game runs fine. I'm sure there's room for improvement (as there is with any game, really). But, sorry, the game runs very well.

I get great framerate. I install plenty of mods. I don't get crashes.

You were not "had". I've seen plenty of Kickstarter and Greenlight projects that do flounder and don't deliver.

This game isn't even close to one of those. The game is already extremely playable, and many people have enjoyed it for ungodly amounts of time, myself included.

They're adding features because they need to progress towards release. You complain about the "core" of the game, but if all they did was focus on that, other people would be dismayed at the lack of features. And frankly, the core of this game is what's made it a huge success already, even without all the features they've been adding. Name a rocketry-sim that's better.

If you want to complain about a bug, or if you really think the game has a major performance-deficiency and can provide details, then do so without being sensational or accusing a company of wronging you.

If you think this game runs great, I'd like to know what other games you've been playing - seriously, performance sucks.

Unfortunately, it's not on Squad's side (lets net get into graphic-related/ram-related discussion here) - it's Unity's problem.

[Linear]

I haven't installed the update yet, but I've been playing KSP with a bunch of mods, including KW, B9, KAS, and Infernal Robotics on a laptop. A MacBook laptop. A MacBook laptop that'sover five years old while also having chrome and messenger open and constantly switching between programs. Then closing the laptop while the game is paused and resuming the next day, or the day after. No problems. Granted it took me a while to get the game to this point, but it's there. So whatever you're doing on your super duper, Mr. Frenchman with all the fancy smancy bells and whistles, I have the best machine possible and I'm a programmer/developer, obviously ain't working fer ya. So before you go off on an amazing game that many people absolutely love, and where you were warned that the game is still in development, you might want to take a look at your own setup first.

Decent first post, and the guy is being silly, but seriously the bugs are ridiculous. The game straight up fails to load on some hardware, lags on others and bugs on others.

People love this game, sure - but sometimes people take it a bit too far and start to bash anyone who criticizes.

[Sky_walker]

Name a rocketry-sim that's better.

Lack of competition isn't an excuse.

I've seen plenty of Kickstarter and Greenlight projects that do flounder and don't deliver.

I didn't. Feel free to point me towards these plenty of floundering kickstarter games that would be so much worse than KSP.

If you think this game runs great, I'd like to know what other games you've been playing - seriously, performance sucks.

Or perhaps other way around: how big rockets / space stations did he build?

I had quite good impressions until I build my first space station. Then bubble went burst.

And: no, I didn't use mods back.

Unfortunately, it's not on Squad's side (lets net get into graphic-related/ram-related discussion here) - it's Unity's problem.

It's both.

You want a sample for when it's SQUAD fault? Build a spacecraft with 6 Advanced Grabbing Units and observe FPS count. You can try sending it into space or hooking them all to some asteroid.... I still remember my 10 FPS asteroid descend mission - an asteroid that got just a few chutes mounted on Klaws and an orange tank with engines.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Trentendegreth]

Lack of competition isn't an excuse.

I didn't. Feel free to point me towards these plenty of floundering kickstarter games that would be so much worse than KSP.

Or perhaps other way around: how big rockets / space stations did he build?

I had quite good impressions until I build my first space station. Then bubble went burst.

And: no, I didn't use mods back.

It's both.

You want a sample for when it's SQUAD fault? Build a spacecraft with 6 Advanced Grabbing Units and observe FPS count. You can try sending it into space or hooking them all to some asteroid.... I still remember my 10 FPS asteroid descend mission - an asteroid that got just a few chutes mounted on Klaws and an orange tank with engines.

my 2 cents and again i don't mean any disrespect, I'm not trying to belittle.

first things first, I'm not a mod or admin in any way, i love this community. if you would be so kind as to tone it down a bit, your coming off as an angry troll. which i don't believe is your intent. but there is also no need to belittle others because they don't share the same opinions.

second

anyone who has played this game for a prolonged period of time, already knows of frame rate issues, your preaching to the quire. however over time we have found it to be on the majority of unity's end. ALL physics calculations are on ONE thread of your computer, if you have an I5-I7 xenon you'll get the most out of this game. however still looking at part "soft-caps" (yellow numbers time dialation) of around 400. try playing on my AMDfx, and you'll get 200-300s., with that being said its not unplayable. and to be quite frank if you realy need validation on the buggyness of the Claw... go watch Danny...

third

trying to compare to other games is like trying to compare a kiwi fruit to an orange, yes there both juicy, and there both fruit, but thats about as far as you can go with it. there fundamentally different. especially when you take in consideration the second of my reasons.

[metl]

I get the occasional fps slowdown. It usually happens during ascent between 45k and 80k meters. But it doesn't happen every launch nor did I notice it the last time I played without any visual mods (but it might have just not been the right time for it to happen.) I do notice some lag when another vessel comes within range of physics, but once it loads, the fps smooths back out. I also understand that I paid for an unfinished product, which comes with un-squashed bugs and issues. As they move closer to an official retail release, I am confident most of the major issues will be resolved.

[Dingo44]

Decent first post, and the guy is being silly, but seriously the bugs are ridiculous. The game straight up fails to load on some hardware, lags on others and bugs on others.

People love this game, sure - but sometimes people take it a bit too far and start to bash anyone who criticizes.

I agree. The bugs, well, bug me. It took me a long time to get my game to run the way I wanted it to. But I kinda get enjoyment out of opening up config files and debugging mods and such since I'm currently in school right now learning programming and hardware.

This guy was being over the top and I felt the urge to quit being a lurker on here and throw in my two cents.

[nismobg]

Just notice a nice little surprise , when you zoom in map view above a planet during an AP burn you can see the orbit inside the planet expand or retract ! I have always wondered how far till PA shows , now I can see !

[FishInferno]

Just notice a nice little surprise , when you zoom in map view above a planet during an AP burn you can see the orbit inside the planet expand or retract ! I have always wondered how far till PA shows , now I can see !

You could always do that

[Grimfilth]

.25 is great imo. nice new parts, usefull new icons on the navball. The sliders for the career mode are usefull and the new building opportunities are neat as well.

Yes there are bugs, there always will be bugs, and i can't feel sorry for those whiners. This isn't a completed game to start with, and if the game would be perfect and finished, it would be worth $50, right?

If you race on silverstone circuit with your average car and the car can't handle the track at high speeds, you can't blame the circuit, right? But people don't want to hear their car just isn't fit for racing, or their driving ability is poor. Get a decent rig together, get the right drivers and fix stuff with unofficial patches and don't expect miracle performance on a mediocre pc. And if you don't like this, you should be a console gamer.

Enough ranting, time for the hillarious bugs i encountered;

3 Kerbals landed on the Mun, together with a 2 kerb rover. The remaining kerbonaut tripped and i let him lay there next to the broken spaceship, the other 2 boarded the mostly working rover. Drove the rover with 90m/s off of a cliff and destroyed the rest of the rover and killing the 2 kerbals in their seat, but they got flung out of their seats in the crash trajectory. When the broken parts, kerbonauts and dust settled, the kerbonauts got up standing like nothing happened, but the map didn't show them, and i couldn't 'switch to' them. They stil stand there, smiling and all, in a field of debris.

Well ok, those 2 are dead, but i'm not that sadistic, so i launched a rescue spaceraft to pick up the remaining kerbonaut, who was still laying face down in the Mun dust. This time my landing was succesfull, and i switched to the kerbonaut who was still laying there. When i tried to walk with him, his ragdoll mode was still active, and he kept being in ragdoll mode, no matter what i did. (actually quite a funny bug, but this isn't goat simulator) I could move him slightly, got him to the rescue craft and boarded, exited again, and boneless Kerbal appeared to be fine again.

In the end, i'm thinking the state of the Kerbals have been mixed up, the dead ones were standing up like they're fine, and the living acted like he was dead/drunk.

I deployed missile launcher (Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster) on the runway, with a kerbal in the external seat in front of the rocket and a RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit as main controller. It was fun and all until i drove the kerbal and the rocket straight into the Vehicle Assembly Building, the screen turned black and i had to ctrl+alt+delete to end the game. When profile was loaded again, the screen where i usually saw the Kerbal Space Center is black as well, there's nothing to do, but i can exit to the main menu.

Me, and the people i know who play KSP, noticed the graphics settings don't apply when KSP is running in windowed mode. It seems like the settings are default or lowest, even when the game session is running fullscreen. Restarting the game in fullscreen will render KSP in full splendour and glory, but when windowed mode is selected again, it'll render in lowered settings while the graphic options say it's rendering the best possible graphics.

[ThirdHorseman]

.25 feedback....

The Good:

-Performance. I was experiencing a ton of crashes before, and it is much more stable now for some reason. Knock on wood...

-The ion drive stuff all moved to the Propulsion section

-Mass decrease on the cupola

-Mass decrease on the SmallGearBay

-Cargo bays!

-I like the new aerodynamic parts...the wings and stuff. More to choose from, more shape variety, and a consistent look.

-ALT key to force surface connections off is great. Has already helped me a ton...

-Part renaming in Gamedata. While this was a huge pain, because I had created a ton of my own welded parts that referenced model files in the Squad directory that I had to go through and edit, I do like the fact that the directory and CFG file names are named appropriately.

The Bad and Ugly:

-No IVA on MK1 inline cabin? WTF? I understand putting aside the MK3 stuff till it's done, but the MK1 line is supposed to be done. Not having an IVA for it...especially since there already is a mod for it...is a bit sad.

-No IVA on the MK2 Crew Cabin? I mean, there is one for the Hitchhiker, I can't believe there isn't one for this.

-Why didn't you make the MK2 pods work with RasterPropMonitor? That's pretty lame. Both the MK1 cockpits work with that amazing mod, and the fact that the MK2 cockpits don't makes me not want to use them. There is already even a patch to add it...it really should have support in stock.

-There should really be a SAS module in the MK2 format. I know the cabins and probe all have reaction wheels built-in, but if we want to throw more in there we are stuck with using round modules that don't work well with the MK2 format.

-I am very unhappy with the crew transfer system. I was hoping it would be more realistic...you could only transfer Kerbals through parts that would realistically allow them to move. But you can transfer Kerbals through struts, girder segments...even I-Beams. That's pretty sad. I will continue to use EVA to move my Kerbals around, in an attempt to feel a little more realistic.

-When using surface attach on the cargo bays you cannot attach an item directly in the center of the cargo bay...it's always just off to either side. The only way I've been able to do it is to mount something from the underside, then flip it around so it goes through to the inside. You should really be able to surface attach a strut or mounting point directly inline on the inside of the cargo bay.

-While the MK2 fuselage parts have both LF+0 and Liquid Fuel options, both the Bicoupler and 1.25m Adapter only have LF+0 options. I know you can just remove the oxidizer in the SPH, but then you are carrying a lot less fuel. And why have dual options for the other items? I'd think there should be Liquid Fuel only options for both the Bicoupler and the 1.25m Adapter...

That's about it. Overall I give .25 a B grade. The spaceplane parts are nice to look at and build with, I've already used the cargo bays a bunch, and the fact that the game doesn't crash to desktop every time I revert to the VAB/SPH is a HUGE plus. The IVA situations, and the lame Kerbal transfer implementation, are big lows.

[qromodynmc]

Why didnt this come to my mind earlier

dont know if anyone made this earlier but,I'll make lot of beautiful planes with it..

[jlcarneiro]

Haven't played 0.25 yet, still trying to update lots of mods...

My main request goes to modders instead of Squad: please, adopt AVC or any other compatibility and version checking tool!

At least for me, every playing session begins with 30min of browsing add-on releases forum! When there is an upgrade, things get even worse!

Edited October 15, 2014 by jlcarneiro
typo

[distor89]

so has anyone noticed that the thrust for the Turbo Jet Engine is weaker than the Basic Jet Engine? can anyone explain this to me?