Why are intermediate releases not common?

[Whirligig Girl]

For instance, if Cargo-Bays for Mk2 parts weren't to have made it into 0.25, then we'd probably not get it until 0.90.0. Why not release part-features as soon as they're ready? Like 0.25.5: Cargo-bay update.

Obviously, this didn't happen, we got Cargo-Bays in time. But it was a real threat back then, that we'd not get them until "0.26".

Now we're on the edge of our seats because Mk3 Cargo-Bays might not be available in time; and the emergency release date wouldn't be until 0.91.0.

Well, there's an answer to this.

Q: Are ‘Beta’ updates going to be released quicker?

A: We hope so, but we can’t make any promises. We have tried shortening updates once before, and became aware of how the QA and experimental phases don’t really scale in proportion to the shorter update, so the result was that we spent more time testing, and less time developing, which needless to say, wasn’t very efficient. We’ll have to find our stride again for Beta, just as we did during Alpha.

What do you guys think?

[Tery215]

People are probably going to get disappointed if they receive an update that only adds one or two features/parts.

[pxi]

I think for one, the level of QA that Squad do on each release is quite impressive when compared to other 'early access' titles, and I would be hesitant about persuading them away from this strategy.

Having said that, in this particular case it seems we are talking about individual assets, which presumably don't need an updated executable to make them function. If I'm correct in my assumption, it's quite conceivable that they could be released as a small patch when they're done.

And for what it's worth, if a small update that adds a couple of parts upsets people, they are probably in for a major shock when the bugfix only patches start to land.

[CaptRobau]

It could mess up their flow. The schedule has been designed for full updates, followed by a hotfix in the week after release. Rince and repeat.

[prophet_01]

I play many other early access titles. While I was impressed by the number of updates that were released for some of them, I also realised that the performance and overall number of bugs did not improve or suffered from that. Some games even stoped development to fix parts of the code cause many features of the game were not accesable due to fps drops. Ksp may be slow in development and at some point we all get impatient but tbh it has been pretty stable and improves constantly. This way we also have the time to discuss the things we dislike before they get released, which I think improves the quality. The amount of qa is rly impressive in my opinion. A faster and less structured work flow might also shorten the amount of time that the community has to discuss prereleased material. New stuff tends to be talked to death up to the point that we get some kind of consensus. That might also be one of many reasons why the ksp community doesn't explode in wild rage after each update like it's pretty common with other early access titles

I would still vote for a delay of 0.90 if that is required to include the mk3 cargo bays and I don't think I'm ghe only one.

[Kegereneku]

I also wish they could just "delay" the beta release to include the entire Mk3 set and I know other fan are ok with that.

But if it break their workflow (which usually mean losing money while nobody is doing anything), I'll understand if they don't.

[zekes]

You have to admit it is weird they don't do those little updates as much as they used to....

[Red Iron Crown]

The smaller updates are usually critical bugfixes (with a few notable exceptions). I think the biggest reason we don't see point releases as frequently as in the past is because of the QA/Experimentals testing process; more bugs are caught and fixed before public release.