Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[FleetAdmiralJ]

So instead of adding new features, testing to make sure it's ready, putting the final coat of polish on it, and then releasing, they're going to stick a bunch of new stuff in, hope the thing works properly, and release it?

This is, in theory anyway, why they have QA and Experimentals. I don't believe it is ever their intention, necessarily, to have general users be bug testers, although some end up acting as such.

[SkyRender]

Certainly is, but it's asking a question that ultimately none of us can answer without a crystal ball to see how expansive this next update really is, a point that sal_vager already made. This community only wants the best for KSP, and (right now at least) it seems like the community feels like this is rushing to Gold without any real Beta updates.

I think the biggest issue with this next release going 1.0 is making sure that the testing it receives is even more extensive than it has been for past releases. The general caveat most seem to have is that we don't know how well it will all work, and getting everything to work inevitably means that experimentals will have to be exhaustive in scope for this release. As long as it isn't rushed through testing, and as long as the developers are not shy to go back and do more work if the feedback of the testing team is "this isn't going to work", it should be fine.

On a semi-related note for those complaining that their pet feature isn't in KSP yet, I would point you to a number of other games that went 1.0 and grew considerably in scale and scope after that release. Terraria and Minecraft in particular are currently far more elaborate in their current forms than they ever were at their 1.0 releases. Eventually all games have to reach "release state", and smart project developers have a scope that defines when that is. That's what we're witnessing here.

Edited January 24, 2015 by SkyRender

[spidersVise]

Love the aero overhaul, fueled wings, "warp to". And fairings! I'm really happy those are going to be stock. Apparently they'll be procedural, too, which is boss. ProcFairings is always like the first thing I install in a fresh game. Even if I'm not using NEAR/FAR. Fairings just make things look better. And there's a weird satisfaction I get from staging and watching parts tumble away.

But the one that really made me pump my fists in the air and make an embarrassing happy squeak sound was the addition of female kerbals.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

I dislike the fact that features aren't in I was promised. And there's no explanation.

I.E - Re-Entry heat

[hoojiwana]

What's changed, besides a (apparently very arbitrary) number?

They could say they were out of Early Access and released, getting a lot of free publicity (and sales) from doing that.

[tater]

All are fine (bug fixes is listed, BTW). Tourism? Meh. Another pointless contract. I'm not happy with the career paradigm though, I want to see more interactive mission choices, and contracts that change based on how I direct things.

I'll add in that I agree on reentry heat. That to me was a given, it's mentioned in the current parts list (parts that cannot survive reentry).

[Whirligig Girl]

I'm dissappointed with a lack of Re-Entry heating. The game just isn't ready.

[Tiberion]

That's not the basis squad is using for whether the game is ready, though. I'm sure they would like to make the game work well with mods, but if the game works and is (relatively) bug free in stock, that will be their goal. If mods add additional bugs, that's the problem of the mods, not the game, no?

Nope, not really. There are plenty of bugs left and unimplemented or unfinished modding "hooks" that cause issues with mods. The two biggest issues with modding:

The memory issues of the 32bit KSP, and the complete instability of the win64 version. Both issues are on either Squad or Unity's end, and could at least be lessened with further development.

There are a multitude of things "unfinished" - not too many of them are major things.

Betas are for finishing things. At the VERY least an additional development cycle past this next release to address bugs and polish things seems extremely prudent, and I would love to hear any reason why it would be a bad idea.

[spacetoddity]

It's absolutely not ready. A 'beta' period that didn't even last *one* update is absolutely appalling, and Squad should without equivocation be ashamed of themselves. 0.91 needs to be a bug fix and optimisation pass, and nothing more. Bugs that have riddled the game for years (buggy UI, falling through terrain, phantom forces), and the terrible memory leaks and stability problems need to be squashed. That's the whole point of a BETA period. THEN they can add the aero overhaul and resources etc that people want. And female kerbals? What a joke.

If it sounds like I'm upset, it's because I am. This game has the greatest potential of probably any that I have ever played, and to see it being pointlessly squandered is a damn crying shame.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Certainly is, but it's asking a question that ultimately none of us can answer without a crystal ball to see how expansive this next update really is, a point that sal_vager already made. This community only wants the best for KSP, and (right now at least) it seems like the community feels like this is rushing to Gold without any real Beta updates.

It seems the main complaints I see are:

1) "My most wanted feature isn't implemented yet" (Meh, too bad. It may be eventually but wasn't part of the original plan)

2) "It's not Unity 5 yet" (so you want them to delay release solely to wait on another company to release a new version of the engine that may or may not work as well as we hope it will?)

3) "Changes haven't been tested yet" - this one may be the most legitimate. But then again, Squad has QA and Experimental testers for a reason. I've never got the impression that they've intentionally used general players as debuggers, although I'm sure players have helped them with that.

My view is this: Unless there are some glaring new bugs, I don't see why it wouldn't be ready. I think it's probably been ready for a while. KSP, despite being "alpha" and Beta have had a lot fewer bugs than a lot of gold games that I've played. And I think people seem to be holding up KSP to a near impossible standard of "IF I FIND A SINGLE BUG I WILL DECLARE IT NOT READY FOR 1.0" which is, of course, silly.

- - - Updated - - -

If it sounds like I'm upset, it's because I am. This game has the greatest potential of probably any that I have ever played, and to see it being pointlessly squandered is a damn crying shame.

How is it being squandered, exactly?

[Captain Sierra]

It's absolutely not ready. A 'beta' period that didn't even last *one* update is absolutely appalling, and Squad should without equivocation be ashamed of themselves. 0.91 needs to be a bug fix and optimisation pass, and nothing more. Bugs that have riddled the game for years (buggy UI, falling through terrain, phantom forces), and the terrible memory leaks and stability problems need to be squashed. That's the whole point of a BETA period. THEN they can add the aero overhaul and resources etc that people want. And female kerbals? What a joke.

If it sounds like I'm upset, it's because I am. This game has the greatest potential of probably any that I have ever played, and to see it being pointlessly squandered is a damn crying shame.

I think its a little extreme to call it pointlessly squandered. I'd like to here further explanation there considering the definition of squander is to waste resources. While certainly not where we believe they should go, what evidence have you that squad has wasted resources to other things that could have been allocated to KSP?

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Betas are for finishing things. At the VERY least an additional development cycle past this next release to address bugs and polish things seems extremely prudent, and I would love to hear any reason why it would be a bad idea.

So basically your argument is they should hold 1.0 for another release "just in case" not because it would actually be necessary, correct?

[hoojiwana]

My view is this: Unless there are some glaring new bugs, I don't see why it wouldn't be ready.

For me this is the key thing, since experimentals testing doesn't always catch everything and in general the main release of an update to the wider audience leads to more things being found and spotted. Asking their small pool of testers to check both the new features, the new balance, AND fixes for existing bugs may be a bit too much. It may be a bit too much for the developers themselves to keep up with.

[enneract]

I think it is absurd that they turned down ferram's help with the aero model.

[Captain Sierra]

So basically your argument is they should hold 1.0 for another release "just in case" not because it would actually be necessary, correct?

I don't see how thats invalid. Just because Squad is throwing a crapton of bugfixing at us doesn't mean they'll fix everything. When we throw the fact that KSP advertises extreme modability into the face of the glaring issues that are rooted in stock with mods sometimes 'hook' and reactivate, the game needs to either a) at least wait until the first hotfix on the next update to go gold, or stop advertising modability.

Its clear by the latest development trend that the devs are focusing on the stock game with hardly a thought to mods. That needs to then be made more clear, or they need to backpedal and actually address the issues that throwing mods into the mix causes (and this is not in reference to bugs genuinely rooted in mod code).

/devil's advocate

[FleetAdmiralJ]

For me this is the key thing, since experimentals testing doesn't always catch everything and in general the main release of an update to the wider audience leads to more things being found and spotted. Asking their small pool of testers to check both the new features, the new balance, AND fixes for existing bugs may be a bit too much. It may be a bit too much for the developers themselves to keep up with.

There will ALWAYS be things being found. There has never been a game released where things weren't found. Expecting zero bugs is a ridiculous bar in any game - heck - any piece of software release. I think the big questions are:

1) Do the new features work well within the game

2) Have things been properly rebalanced

3) Are there any major bugs that would significantly impact gameplay

If the answer to all 3 of those are "yes," then my answer to the poll in the thread is "yes, it is ready."

[hoojiwana]

May be too early to say since we haven't gotten many details on things, but for me the biggest thing to look forward to is the rebalancing. Hopefully it means an end to the reign of terror the 48-7S has had over the smaller rocket sizes. The fact I have a mod that has multiple parts in the same size category is totally coincidental.

[metl]

I have mixed feelings. I've been burned by many early access titles that jumped the shark then never got touched again. Squad making this announcement so soon on the heels of Beta makes me nervous, especially when they said that it was not going to be that way. That being said, if they implement everything listed, then there truly isn't any reason not to call it finished.

I wonder, do you suppose they got an offer they can't refuse from a company interested in buying the rights to the game upon completion? Talk about a hell of a promotional tool for a space agency (public or private.)

[CalculusWarrior]

The massive feature list (which I am overjoyed about, by the way) will undoubtedly lead to some issues. Many large features have run into problems upon release in the past, the unbalanced Strategies stand out in particular in my mind. These features usually take a patch/update or two to fully satisfy the community and mesh well with the rest of the game. If SQUAD releases that many new things at once, we will have at least one bad problem, and possibly not go to space today. Now, we've all seen how the forums can get when there's an unbalance/issue (magical ISP-enhancing kerbals, anyone?), so releasing this and calling it a finished game, only to have to release a patch/new version shortly after launch reminds me an awful lot of many games released last year.

Please don't do that, Squad. I propose that at least one version before 1.0 be released, so that the community can at least see how the features are implemented and offer their feedback. I'm not saying that Squad's QA team isn't great, but when Version 1.0 hits, the protective cocoon of 'Beta' falls away, and KSP is exposed to the full fury of game reviewers and their ilk. Having feedback from the entire KSP community will greatly help it stand on its own as a complete game.

Additionally, I showed KSP to my friend the other day, and he complained how ugly it was. I was about to violently disagree, but then realized that I'm used to running Environmental Visual Enhancements, along with Astronomer's Visual Pack, which make the game absolutely stunning. He has a point, stock KSP is pretty plain in comparison.

As part of the current atmospheric enhancements, perhaps the devs could sneak in clouds? Heck, hire rbray and get him to make EVE stock. Its touches just add so much more to the game, and I feel that newer players would be motivated to stick around longer if they could really see how pretty the game can be. While I'm on the topic, all KSPs' planets feel pretty boring in terms of environments, and new features there would be most welcome. However, I understand that this would likely push back KSP 1.0 by many, many months.

Finally, the topic of Unity 5. While I understand that the Unity and Squad devs don't talk to each other, KSP would be enhanced greatly by waiting until Unity 5 is out before releasing. The game still doesn't feel 'smooth' to me, like many others do. While I do experience mostly lag-free flight, things like the UI and menus feel a little slow, as well as the several seconds between switching scenes. It could be just me, but I think a few more optimization-oriented things need to be done under the hood before I can consider KSP to be release-worthy.

Whew! I'm usually the type to sit by and not participate much in the large feedback threads, but as this was such an important issue towards the future of KSP, I couldn't help but throw in my own 2 cents.

tl;dr: The update will add lots of features, KSP still feels plain and unoptimized.

Solutions: Have at least one more Beta release before 1.0, add clouds, and try to update the engine to Unity 5.

These are the thoughts of one lowly forumer, feel free to discuss them and/or tear me apart.

[cpast]

There's one situation where this would be fine (annoying, but basically fine): If this is Squad saying that the whole having-more-and-more-intermediate-versions-released-to-the-public is done, and they'll do a full beta/RC cycle with the testing and QA teams (including alpha versions of the new features). Say, if the "prep for intermediate releases" is too time-consuming, and they think they can get it done quicker pushing frequent builds to testers. That'd be very annoying, and break the early access concept, but would work just fine in the end, and is how most games work.

Here's what it seems likely happened: Squad has been working for around 4 years on this game. They've gone through, by my count, 21 basic releases (0.07-0.25 counting 0.23.5 as a basic release, plus 0.90). The game is honestly right now in a state where it's a plausible game by itself. It doesn't feel like a beta; sure, it feels empty without mods, but that's because I'm used to mods, and to modding other games (so I looked for mods quickly). Other games I've played feel just as empty without mods in their final release state after I'm used to having lots of mods. KSP vanilla is a plausible complete game. It might not be the best complete game it could possibly be, but it's still pretty darn good.

So, you've spent 4 years of your life working on a game. It's in a decent state. You're losing some of the drive that led you to start working on the game; much of the novelty is going away. Testing, bugfixing, and stabilization is boring. You have things you want to do, but doing them will just push the time when you can say "I made a game" back even further. But you have these things you don't want to compromise on; you won't feel like you made your game until they're added. So, you say "I'll add these, and then I'm done! Game is made! There might be some updates, but I've now completed a video game!"

I have no idea whether that scenario has anything whatsoever to do with the actual development process, but that's honestly what ran through my head. Since I'd be tempted to do the exact same thing, I find it hard to criticize Squad if that is in fact the reason.

[hoojiwana]

If the answer to all 3 of those are "yes," then my answer to the poll in the thread is "yes, it is ready."

And those who are thinking "No" are worried that those questions won't be adequately answered. There is a lot to get done for this update, and splitting it in two would likely improve the chances of everything working out without needing to do a post-1.0 update that mars what should be the best moment in the dev cycle of the game.

[KerBlam]

As far as I'm concerned (which isn't really very far, honestly) The lack of 64bit support and PROPER multi-threading, multi-cpu support is the single greatest limitation of this game. Until it's addressed, I can't see how it could be considered ready for release. Any gamer that has to 'dumb down' their gaming PC to one core and a third (minimum) of their RAM in order to play a newly released game is going to scoff at this. I know there are workarounds which improve performance slightly, but realistically, the majority of people aren't going to want to bother with a linux partition, or deleting parts, or creating shell scripts... These things are going to hurt SQUAD if they release early using Unity 4.

Unity 5 is in Beta, it's available for use for people who pre-ordered. Has SQUAD been testing using this BETA?

Why not release a test version of KSP while it's still in beta i.e. v0.9.2, using beta Unity 5, so the community could help them debug it for an official release built on Unity 5??

[cpast]

So basically your argument is they should hold 1.0 for another release "just in case" not because it would actually be necessary, correct?

That's *exactly* how software release is supposed to work. You have an RC phase before releasing, and your last RC should be exactly the same as your final release. Now, this really works much better when testing is internal (saying "Here's 1.0! It's the exact same build as 0.96, because 0.96 had no issues that needed fixing!" sounds stupid in a PR announcement), but that is in fact the proper way to do release management.

[Rakaydos]

No.

Release everything they want for release in .91, wait for the inevitable cornercase bugs, AND for mods to achieve compatability, THEN release 1.0 as a bugfix release and point to the (presumably unbroken) community mods to reviewers.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

That's *exactly* how software release is supposed to work. You have an RC phase before releasing, and your last RC should be exactly the same as your final release. Now, this really works much better when testing is internal (saying "Here's 1.0! It's the exact same build as 0.96, because 0.96 had no issues that needed fixing!" sounds stupid in a PR announcement), but that is in fact the proper way to do release management.

Kerbal, indeed, does do release candidates on every release as part of experimentals as far as I'm aware. It's just it's a release candidate to a more limited audience than the full release.