Thought I was running out of RAM, but I don't appear to be.

[Ziff]

The simplest solution would be actually declare 64-bit system and 4 Gb RAM as minimal system specs - with a notion "While game may run on 32-bit OS, we can't guarantee that it would".

By the way, according to Steam Hardware Survey:

- Win 7 32-bit is 11.35%

- XP 32-bit is 3.93%

- Vista 32-bit is 0.75%

- Win 8 & 8.1 32-bit is 0.93% combined

In short, 32-bit is an absolute minority out there, and it's shrinking.

Sure, that may (and will) cause some uproar, but... it's 2015 in two weeks, folks, not 2010.

Squad hasn't even gotten to optimizing the game yet. Maybe we can hold off on this conversation for a little while. While I would love to see more x64 support, I don't think Squad has reached a point where the game is being completely hobbled by the memory issues of 32bit.

[Fengist]

... calls for improvement to the game that you do not happen to advocate for. Essentially, I paraphrase your statements thus far to suggest that you think earlier versions of KSP to have been perfect on their own, with mods, except for the aerodynamics. Which is fine, but... that's primordial KSP. It's pre-KSP. It's alpha KSP. It's progressing beyond that.

Again, I'm not offering the patronizing platitude of, "Oh, it's in alpha, there there, here have a tissue," in fact I think I'm saying the exact opposite: there's a plan for KSP 1.0, and as far as my paraphrase of your sentiments so far, against the apparent trajectory of KSP development, that plan is not one you agree with. That's unfortunate.

Thank you for your well thought out comments, this is the discussion I was trying to raise in the first place.

I fully understand there has to be a cutoff point for hardware and software exclusion. And yes, the Win 7 32 bit OS is old. I wouldn't have it now had I grabbed the correct CD after a recent HD crash. My prior version was 64 bit Win 7 and this 32 bit install has caused me all the grief of KSP not working. But here's the reality of it. The 32 bit Windows 7 works great, even if it is 10 years old. It's the same reason that, outside the gaming community, XP is still popular. I'm still downloading and installing new games. Granted they're not Crysis, but I don't feel excluded from the Steam list. I played LOL on 32 bit. I've played WoT on 32 bit. I play Guild Wars, Rift, SWTOR and a lot of other games. Granted they're not the latest and greatest, but on 32 bit they play and don't complain about memory issues.

I'm also aware that KSP is a mathematically complex game. I wouldn't want it any other way. And I realize those calculations require some horsepower. I'm fine with that too. If I had to upgrade to get more of those calculations, I'd be satisfied with that as a reason. But the changes I saw between .24.2 and .25 are NOT a reason to upgrade.

Grabbing a mod that I could have gotten any time I wanted and adding that to stock parts rather than coming up with entirely new parts is pretty lame imho. I agree, stock parts look pretty bland compared to what some mod developers are coming up with. But I could have downloaded that mod myself should I have wanted it. I didn't need it added into the game as it was a duplicate of parts available in B9, a much more popular mod (and another gripe, those new parts don't line up with B9 parts). Yes, I can go in and delete all those parts manually. That's not the point. It added nothing to the game that I couldn't have added myself should I have chosen. The same with exploding buildings. I've yet to fathom how that adds to the core of the game.

Now the planned new features for .90... I can agree with upgradable buildings for those running in career mode. That makes sense. Having them detonate on a bad launch, doesn't. I spent 5 hours last night trying to get one ship into orbit and failed miserably due to warp physics. There's already enough of the f*** factor in this game with wobbling and exploding parts without the launchpad going up in flames.

And yet another mod is going to be added in .90 rather than developing their own parts. Again, something I could add in now should I choose but don't need to because it's all in mods like B9 and LLL.

I understand Squad is small company. I praise them for what they're doing and love what they've done, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time writing this. And I realize part development is something that takes time, money, people and resources and that as an option, adding in mods to the core seems to make sense. But the net result is more memory consumption for something that was already available to me as an option. And, the exclusion of those 17% (a boat I am, unwittingly for the moment, sitting in. Had I not made the mistake of installing 32 bit Win 7 this wouldn't have come to my attention).

And I realize code optimization is still in the works and I hope it solves this issue. But what I'm seeing from the updates is a direction I'm not happy with.

What I'd like to see:

Rather than exploding buildings, I'd rather have seen more depth regarding things to do once you get where you're going. If most of you are like me, you spend hours and hours building, designing, launching and finally reaching your goal of getting to X orbital body. Once you're there... then what? Kethane added one new dimension. Now you can mine. Ok, so you fuel up and then what? Go somewhere else and mine more? Before my reinstall I probably had a couple dozen vehicles sitting all over the solar system, ones that had achieved their goal of getting where I was going. The reason they sat there and were never used again? There was nothing to do once I did got there. I enjoy sandbox so science just doesn't do it for me (too many stupid pointless missions). Right now, I'm working on the Jool 5 challenge. Once I complete it and get back... then what? All that design time, vehicles and resources were spent and will never be used again. Sure, I'll learn, but what do I do with that knowledge? Build another ship to go somewhere and do... nothing? Click the first icon in my sig. I circumnavigated EVE with stock+Kethane. Loved it, had a blast. And once I completed it, the plane sat exactly where I landed for months because there was nothing left for it to do.

I know, the game is still in development and there's still lots of things in their grand plan yet to come. My concern is that, with the direction I'm seeing, I'll end up with lots of memory hogging bloat and still nothing to do once I get where I' going.

[MisterFister]

See, what you call "bloat" other kerbonauts (myself included, incidentally) call "awesome." :shrug:

I'unno. Once you complete a few quests in WoW, you will eventually run into a "then what?" moment. That's what end-game content is all about. My own personal speculation is that destructible (and upgradeable) KSC buildings suggests that we'll eventually get multiple launch sites, each with pros and cons (launch altitudes, longitudes, latitudes, perhaps the possibility for a decent weather mod, etc.) Not only that, if you're restricted by low-level upgradeable buildings, what holds you to that restriction? Knowledge that you can make it go boom if you try to land something overweight on the runway without first upgrading it. Or whatever. I'll have to see how it unfolds.

Beyond that, from my own perspective, you're arguing with the wind. Sorry dude.