Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[basic.syntax]

They are not shipping .90 tomorrow, and calling it 1.0.

The Squadcast Summary here says

"This release may take longer than previous ones due to the amount of content.

A lot of rebalancing and bugfixing, a lot of parts are going to be buffed and a lot of parts will be nerfed."

HarvesteR's goal-setting document mentions Bugs in bold, along with the added features.

* Bugfixes:

A lot of long standing bugs are being fixed, and we do mean a lot of them. Beta means bugfixes, after all.

If you haven't yet - be sure to read both links

[Jacke]

Ah. Performance specs, not graphical models. gotcha. Sorry about that. But you are referencing jet engine issues and applying it to the rocket engines, which isn't accurate. the jet engines may very well see a nerf with the new aero model (see #1.)

You said "part numbers" and i assumed you meant the part model numbers, not the statistics. (It's late and my comprehension is apparently lacking. My apologies for the misunderstandings.)

It's all good. My words were open to misunderstanding. Editted that first post of mine to hopefully make it more clear.

As for jet engines, there's a lot of good stuff in the Advanced Jet Engines mod thread. It appears that stock jet engines are sort of (but not quite) like a rocket engine that only needs fuel and not oxidizer. Whatever their problem the performance of the basic jet is cringeworthy: use as a first stage engine?!? They don't get out of efficient speed before they are staged partly due to stock aero drag being so high, but I suspect they need more attention that just fixing the aero model.

For a moment of levity, I just wanted to point out that getting 4 out of 5 KSP players to agree on anything is next to impossible, and to take a moment to thank Squad for finally bringing us all together on a topic

There is an overwhelming amount of agreement overall here today, which is most unheard of in these parts. Kudos to Squad, the uniters!

And all it took was "...the next update will be our 1.0 release...."

Seriously, I hope they really reconsider changing that stance. It's in their own best interest. Nothing good that will last will come of trying to push out a v1.0 release next.

They are not shipping .90 tomorrow, and calling it 1.0.

The Squadcast Summary here says

"This release may take longer than previous ones due to the amount of content.

A lot of rebalancing and bugfixing, a lot of parts are going to be buffed and a lot of parts will be nerfed."

HarvesteR's goal-setting document mentions Bugs in bold, along with the added features.

* Bugfixes:

A lot of long standing bugs are being fixed, and we do mean a lot of them. Beta means bugfixes, after all.

If you haven't yet - be sure to read both links

Doesn't matter how long they take to put out the next release. The changes in a release are never truly tested until it's pushed to a large number of players. Which for KSP means it has to release to be truly tested. I think they need 3 more real beta releases to do that.

And calling it 1.0 is a major step and will change how KSP is judged. Making the next release 1.0 is wrong and will get KSP slaughtered by reviewers in the shape it will be in. Many others in this thread have brought up this issue. It isn't going to go away just because the next release took 6 months instead of 2.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Jacke

[Athlonic]

I confidently voted "Hell Yeah!"

Take it as someone who never played KSP, I even had already a lot of fun the first time I played it (was 0.18 dec.2013).

Squad has already showed they got all the experience and means (excellent QA test team, ...) to deliver nice and stable public builds.

Plus, if the game has achieved all the goals they planned at development start, the game is definitely feature complete. (and I think they already did more than firstly planned ^^)

Personally, I don't need another never-ending early access game.

I know several people are not jumping on KSP right now because of its "Early Access" state, because unfortunately, too many projects that took this route failed hard, recently.

So final game state should means more people coming in.

However, as many stated here, I hope Unity 5 will come as soon as possible and more importantly with a stable win64 build (which gave me a nice +10fps boost and smoothness here) as the only issue I can see is performance and RAM limit when it comes to Mods.

I fully trust Squad and I think they fully deserve our support on their decision, so I am a little surprised (disappointed) when I see "No" has 80% vote here :/

Especially when we know that 1.0 is not the end...

[Olterin]

I can only chime in with what was said before: this update, being as big as it is, needs to be the non-release beta version (0.99?). Then listen to community feedback and fix bugs, and release 1.0.

... Or ideally, split it into smaller updates that can get community-tested.

... And yes, missing many things for me also, most notably reentry heating (please please please, this is integral to actual space travel, how can we have an atmosphere and not have temperatures affect our craft? There's even a max temperature listed on parts for crying out loud!). Reviewers might give the game as-is a hard time: I can already imagine "but where are the clouds?!?" and "... but what's the point of that note about max. temperature if there's no heat?"

[eddiew]

Are the game breaking bugs like orbits changing while 'on rails', kerbals being flung away from ships, kerbals falling asleep at the wheel, the NaN kraken, and the random disassembly kraken, fixed?

If so then yes, absolutely.

Otherwise no. I think people would be very annoyed to find their 'completed' game has these problems in it...

Not that I don't love KSP more than food, but these are things that absolutely must be fixed before declaring the game ready for full release! Blaming Unity and promising future fixes is not good enough; players don't care whose fault it is, they don't care that it might be fixed next year, and they don't care that a complicated process of editing the save file might sort it out. They want the game to work now when they're playing without messing them around. There is only one shot at a proper release, and one chance for review sites to be positive. If KSP goes out still full of krakens then that chance is blown apart. And that would be a real shame for a game with so much potential.

[basic.syntax]

...calling it 1.0 is a major step and will change how KSP is judged. Making the next release 1.0 is wrong and will get KSP slaughtered by reviewers in the shape it will be in...

I responded to that argument a few pages back. Fans of this game have so many hopes tied up in this project, that Squad can never meet everyone's expectations. They may review it more harshly than a complete noob that doesn't know what to expect, beyond what the ads say.

I read what Squad says they are going to do, and if they meet stated goals, then they are delivering what was promised.

We shouldn't let hopes and expectations that are over and above - drive harsh criticism.

This is somewhat reminiscent of operating system flame wars: A lot of ppl use Windoze, but, savage it mercilessly at the same time. Its a platform that lets them do other things. Similarly, KSP has become a base platform for some great mods, but I don't want to forget that Stock KSP is what I started with and found interesting, and then continued with it to this day. (I started when ARM made news.)

It will never seem properly finished in some eyes. HarvesteR responds to that, by saying 1.0 is just another milestone, and they plan to continue development.

Stock Aero will probably not satisfy FAR or NEAR users, but, they continue to say they don't want to break the ability of modders to alter the game to their satisfaction. The future of KSP looks very good to me.

[BudgetHedgehog]

No. A lot of changes are happening that need consumer feedback regarding balancing, bugs etc - having to do that post 1.0 is fine from a dev point - it's just another version update, after all - but terrible from a PR and marketing point. Much better to have at least one more update that has all these shiny new things, see how the players feel about them and then release 1.0 with the necessary fixes/changes. I'm worried about the bugfixes because they sometimes create other bugs (tga loader, decouplers), but yeah... there's a lot to do and putting it all in 1.0 is a big leap of faith in the guys in QA and experimentals..

No, KSP isn't ready for 1.0. Needs an intermediary release to get feedback on the new features (2 of them - resources and aero - are completely) new so yeah...

[Jouni]

If the next version were just about tweaks, rebalancing, and bug fixes, KSP would be ready for 1.0. But because Squad is going to add several new major features in the next patch, it's definitely not going to be a release-quality version.

Of course, version numbering is no longer what it used to be. After alpha and beta, there's now a phase I call hipster testing. For example, when Apple releases a new OS X, all the hipsters in the world install in on their computers immediately and encounter all kinds of strange problems. Once the bugs have been weeded out, .1 or .2 will be the real release intended for real people.

If Squad follows this kind of version numbering, I'd expect 1.1 or 1.2 to be the first release-quality version.

[BLUESTREAK]

The ultimate question is "would this game survive first contact with the reviewers?" Sadly - and it really pains me to say this, as KSP is the most wonderful game ever - the answer is no. Not at this current point. It has beautiful potential, and the new additions are all that I could ask, but no. It will still have those bugs, and features missing, and that will kill it. Saying that there are all these wonderful plans for the future, backed by a great community just won't cut it with the reviewers. The game will get poor reviews - "A great Beta, but rushed execution and buggy" - and then people will stop buying it. As someone said earlier - No bucks, no Buck Rodgers.

Without a fan base that would be willing to buy the finished game, KSP dies. There will be no add ons because none will be being paid to make it.

[Jacke]

I read what Squad says they are going to do, and if they meet stated goals, then they are delivering what was promised.

We shouldn't let hopes and expectations that are over and above - drive harsh criticism.

That has nothing to do with how Squad releasing Kerbal Space Program v1.0 will be judged.

It will be judged by people who know little of astronautics. They will run a completely stock game. They will depend on its tutorials. They will depend on it running very well. And they won't like how stock KSP looks. And they will encounter bugs.

There will be the game reviewers, the YouTube video players, the Twitch streamers. Not just the ones we have now. Others. They will judge KSP as what they expect in a professional game released for $30.

And if you follow any of them, right now the AAA game industry is doing a crap job at that. Those reviewers and players and streamers have a lot of experience looking at and playing games critically. And finding games wanting. And saying so in blunt terms.

KSP isn't going to get kid-glove treatment here. It's going to be taken up by computer game test pilots who will see in a few days all the crap that's there right now.

I'm not sure what possessed Squad to call the next release v1.0. Whatever they hope to gain from that, I think they will lose even more.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Jacke

[covername]

Feature complete means welcome to beta, not this is the game I made and is overly bugged and optimized.

- - - Updated - - -

They are not shipping .90 tomorrow, and calling it 1.0.

The Squadcast Summary here says

"This release may take longer than previous ones due to the amount of content.

A lot of rebalancing and bugfixing, a lot of parts are going to be buffed and a lot of parts will be nerfed."

HarvesteR's goal-setting document mentions Bugs in bold, along with the added features.

If you haven't yet - be sure to read both links

But what about the new bugs, and there are always new bugs. One release in beta is simply not enough to get a polished game.

[Highlad]

Let me start by saying I voted no.

I think the main problem here is that Squads view of 1.0 and our view of 1.0 are quite different. From what I have heard squad say, it sounds like they see 1.0 as a sign that says 'this game has all the core features implemented' not 'this is a finished game'. When they say they are leaving beta for 1.0, I recognise that they don't mean they are finished by any means. If they continue with their plan to go into a 1.0 release I imagine there will be updates focussed on bugfixes, optimisations and tweaking the systems that are in the game at the moment (e.g. Science) to both make the game more enjoyable and more stable. I also imagine that the game would be updated to unity 5 when it is released, whether or not the game was in beta.

My worry is not that the game will not improve but that public opinion of the game would drop as 1.0 would not be a release worthy of its title. Sure, this update is pretty damn awesome, but the bugfixes, optimisations and tweaking of systems mentioned before should be done while in beta. That, after all, is what beta is for. Furthermore, as soon as squad leaves the cover of beta, they will be open to heavy critique without the shield of 'its still in beta'.

Obviously the game will never be perfect, nor will there be a time when everyone loves it. However, I think that KSP has yet to gain solid footing for its jump into 1.0

[John FX]

In short, no.

In long... what you all said. The game is buggy and not ready for release. If the release game has even one of:

Tundra biomes next to KSC

Collision courses with Mun not even showing up as SOI encounters

Conic sections with no periapsis (which is impossible)

No Female Kerbals

A huge memory leak

Radial decouplers with no outward force

(and those are just off the top of my head)

...then the game is not even remotely ready for 1.0 release because those are BASIC things that need fixed. Not modified. Not changed. Fixed. They are bugs.

Yes. Even Female Kerbals.

I defend most of Squad's decisions because the game is still being actively developed and they specifically say on the box that they're not actually releasing it yet. That defense is out the window the moment this game hits 1.0.

I figured out what Project V is. |V|ojang.

EDIT: Okay I was out all night and just read this before finding out that they both ARE adding Females to the game AND revealed what "Project V" is. So I rescind both of those. And I can't even comment on the Project V thread about how shocked I am that they called it that, because the thread was locked

Wait, 'V' didn't stand for *female lady garden* (I'm sure you can figure that one out) did it?

Anyway...

So as the game will be reach 1.0 I assume all the items that were said to only be placeholders will be updated?

I'm specifically thinking of IVA although I am sure other people can think of more 'placeholders'

Like the parachutes that open instantly (of course, thank you Stupid Chris and thank you for fixing one of the most glaring problems with stock), the lack of clouds etc etc

This game looks ugly stock. It really does look bad.

How can people complain about the textures on buildings and not complain *more* about the lack of clouds for example?

On a brighter note, I am glad that things like procedural fairings might be a thing. They are already done in a very stable mod.

Who can think of more things that we were told were placeholders yet still remain in 1.0? I will be interested to see how many there are.

That is not completion, it's just quitting.

Too soon SQUAD, too soon.

[J.Random]

When I saw the article about the next release being an actual Release, my first thought was "Uh-oh. Funding problems?" It's never a good sign when beta phase is so short and release pushed out of the door so fast. So, I voted "no", but I don't think the vote matters. Probably, company owners have pulled the plug.

[Hary R]

When I saw the article about the next release being an actual Release, my first thought was "Uh-oh. Funding problems?" It's never a good sign when beta phase is so short and release pushed out of the door so fast. So, I voted "no", but I don't think the vote matters. Probably, company owners have pulled the plug.

I was thinking the same: " NOOO not spacebase DF9 syndrome Squad"...Well, I hope they will add more time to beta but if Squad's life support have failed... noting we do about it.

By The way, I've voted no. KSP need more beta testing (and a few more release) before it is complete, there still a lot of fix to be done.

[Vaporo]

I think that there should be at least one more release before 1.0. One more beta release (0.91) to test the massive list of stuff they'll be adding with a broad test group (crush all the bugs!), then fix any problems that arise for 1.0.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's odd to me that one of the major objections is that the new features won't be publicly tested before release. That's what happens with virtually every non-early access game.

Ultimately, version numbers are arbitrary. As long as development is continuing, features are being added, bugs are being fixed, I am a happy player.

The number or name that is put on each version doesn't matter to me, as long as there is another version coming. By the sound of things, there are more versions yet to come so I'm not going to say the sky is falling just yet.

[KN_Namida]

I just hope Squad adds all of the things on that list to the game.

NOT necessarily all in the next update (after all, that's a lot of things to add) but, you know, over the next few months... little by little (so any bugs can be found and fixed before the next big feature comes in).

[pandaman]

My gut feeling here is NO, not quite. All those proposed new things are bound to cause some bugs and balance issues that a little time in Beta could certainly help to find and fix.

But it is important not judge the game on how it is NOW in v0.90. If they take care with the implementation and testing then why not. If it turns out too buggy it is their Rep and sales that will take a hit.

If squad are, for whatever reasons, prepared to take that risk then go for it. I for one am looking forward to v1.0 and what it brings.

[spacetoddity]

It concerns me because it sounds a lot like they just want to get 1.0 out the door, so they can say that they've 'finished'. Regardless of any promises about continued updates, they can basically drop the game at that point if they want to, or at the very least cut development down to a skeleton crew -- slowing any bug fixes or updates considerably. Because hey, it's not an alpha or a beta anymore, it's not early access! We 'finished' it! We slapped that big ol' "ONE POINT OH" on there, so it's done.

Surely nobody can deny that there is something extremely on-the-nose about jumping from the first 'beta' release -- during which they assured everyone that the beta phase would have multiple updates, bug fixes and features being fleshed out etc -- straight to a final version. They have directly contravened what they said would happen. However much kool-aid the people on this forum want to drink, and lavish their undying affection on Squad, there is something very off about this new plan.

[Torquemadus]

I voted yes. It seems clear from Squad's statements that the KSP we will have at 1.0 is the KSP they envisioned when they started out. They have also made it clear that they intend to fix all of the known bugs. Provided that they are able to achieve these two things, then they are well within their rights to declare the game "done".

With the initial development of KSP completed, Squad can then move to fleshing out the game with new content. The Kerbol system needs a decent main asteroid belt, multiple gas giants, a Kuiper belt, and for good measure, an Oort cloud for end-gamers to explore.

NASA's upcoming encounters with Ceres and Pluto are likely to generate a lot of enthusiasm for dwarf planet exploration among players.

[pandaman]

I do agree with spacetoddity's point that it does contradict what was said when beta was announced. I too expected a few more updates in beta. But plans change.

It was obvious that they worked hard to get 0.90 released before Christmas, rather than force everyone to wait until January, so maybe some less critical 'in progress' bug fixes just failed to make the deadline as a result.

[Temeter]

Not sure where all your anxiety is coming from, the KSP-releases - aside from some tenacious bugs - all have been in a very solid state and often better than other games.

So YES, ofc the game is ready for 1.0 when Squad concentrates on balance and fixes. And it's not like smaller issues can be dealt with after release, games like KSP tend to get much more dev attention for a while, compared to traditional games.

Also, you really shouldn't worry about finances. That's just ridiculous, especially if you know anything about KSPs background.

[vexx32]

I do agree with spacetoddity's point that it does contradict what was said when beta was announced. I too expected a few more updates in beta. But plans change.

It was obvious that they worked hard to get 0.90 released before Christmas, rather than force everyone to wait until January, so maybe some less critical 'in progress' bug fixes just failed to make the deadline as a result.

It's quite possible that framework for some of the 1.0 features was also in the works already by that time, so they mightn't have quite as much work to do as we all might expect. Just a thought.

[Jovus]

It's odd to me that one of the major objections is that the new features won't be publicly tested before release. That's what happens with virtually every non-early access game.

Ultimately, version numbers are arbitrary. As long as development is continuing, features are being added, bugs are being fixed, I am a happy player.

The number or name that is put on each version doesn't matter to me, as long as there is another version coming. By the sound of things, there are more versions yet to come so I'm not going to say the sky is falling just yet.

My worry isn't that the new features won't be publicly tested. Indeed, you are correct to point out that most software isn't publicly tested until the release, and that model works just fine. (Though, since Squad does have a willing stable of beta testers - which is what we are, regardless of the version-grouping scheme - they should use them.)

My worry, as a former QAer for a software company, is that these new features won't be adequately tested. That simply cannot be done in a release concurrent with the features themselves. The very nature of the beast is to limit QA time, and limited QA time will focus on questions like "Does it do what it says on the tin?" and "Does the feature actually fully exist and make sense, or not?" Those are very good questions for QA to ask, but there's another that won't be, and it's the one that finds you the bugs your public will unwittingly stumble over in their everyday experiences (both because there are a lot more of them than you, and because customers do weird things): "How can I break it?"

Squad needs a "How can I break it?" release before they shove my favorite baby into the cold, hard world to fight off the wolves all by itself. And it doesn't matter if they say, "Yeah, we'll do that after 1.0," because, even if they keep their promise, the wolves will have already picked it apart (going, as usual, straight for the wallet).