Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[The Joker]

It's not an asinine argument.

When KSP goes to 1.0, it is considered, effectively, complete and ready for review. Squad may add more features, expansions, or improvements later, but when they make it 1.0 it will go to reviewers. A lot of things in KSP aren't complete, and with this many features being compacted into one massive update, there's going to be lots of bugs and issues with it, in edition to how poorly optimized it is already.

We've only just gotten to Beta. We had 13 updates through Alpha, if I remember correctly, from first release. But we've only had just one in Beta. I don't think this game is really complete. Why is Squad in such a rush?

[FlowerChild]

Well, that would basically simply turn experimental snapshots into unofficial 0.91, 0.92 and so on, and yes it would be reasonable.

Yes, it would be double-speak onto itself, just basically putting out a whole series of public releases without actually calling them releases.

There are a couple of advantages to it though in that they could make it opt-in, so they wouldn't have to worry about stability or breaking saves from one release to the next as only people that volunteered to be subjected to that level of instability would get involved. They could just put out a ton of versions in a short amount of time correcting bugs and not having to do the big release hooplah and publicity that they tend to for each one, and at the same time still get the massive amount of public testing out of it that tends to come with a public release.

It would basically be a way for Squad to leverage the early-access model for testing while still staying true to their word that the next official release will be 1.0. I personally don't think they should of said that in the first place, but perhaps this is a way to turn lemons into lemonade.

Put another way: I think if Squad would let us help them here, we could help make certain this was a solid 1.0 release.

And really, it wouldn't require them altering their development/release model all that much. I could see them even maintaining "private experimentals" to keep the signal to noise ratio high early on (with too much feedback sometimes being worse than too little), and then once they feel the game is ready for prime-time, then just add in a period of "public experimentals" to verify that's actually the case.

My question then is what could possibly hurt by a period of public experimentals before release to verify the game is in good shape? It seems to me that Squad could only gain from that. If it really is as solid as they think it is, they'll breeze through that period in no time. If it's not, well, then good thing we caught it in time.

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Wonder if SQUAD has external investors..

[metl]

It's not an asinine argument.

When KSP goes to 1.0, it is considered, effectively, complete and ready for review. Squad may add more features, expansions, or improvements later, but when they make it 1.0 it will go to reviewers. A lot of things in KSP aren't complete, and with this many features being compacted into one massive update, there's going to be lots of bugs and issues with it, in edition to how poorly optimized it is already.

We've only just gotten to Beta. We had 13 updates through Alpha, if I remember correctly, from first release. But we've only had just one in Beta. I don't think this game is really complete. Why is Squad in such a rush?

This thing has already been reviewed by reviewers over and over.

PC Gamer

Eurogamer

Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Gamespot

That was just a quick google. Should I post more? Seriously, once finally looking at things with fresh eyes, it isn't a big deal for them to go to 1.0.

[The Joker]

But these reviews kept in mind that the game was Alpha.

When it gets released as 1.0, it will be treated instead as a full game.

I'd imagine a lot of them would re-review KSP.

[FlowerChild]

This thing has already been reviewed by reviewers over and over.

Those are previews, not reviews. Reviews tend to be a lot less forgiving as they're evaluating things from the standpoint of being a final product. Pre-release, they can be much more accommodating with previews given there's plenty of room for the developer to make changes and improve things, and bugs are more or less to be expected.

When you see a score/grade on it, then it's generally a review, and the gaming media has a long history of pretty much being exclusively positive in previews, as companies wouldn't let them preview and potentially damage the reputation of their unreleased games otherwise.

Early access has blurred the lines on it, but previews essentially used to be viewed as "free" advertising. If you played your cards right you could sometimes score the equivalent of 3 full pages of advertising in a major gaming magazine for the price of airfare and a nice supper.

Edited January 25, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Richy teh space man]

I'm not convinced KSP is ready yet. I think that there are way too many loose ends to tie up before the game can be considered complete.

Are new planets being added?

Are volcanoes and cryo volcanoes being added?

Will KSP be 64 bit?

Will Unity 5 make or break the game?

Are clouds being added?

How do easter eggs tie into the career game?

Will there be in depth tutorials/guides for the game for new players?

Will contracts get expanded?

Add to that bug fixing all the bugs that have been raised and it's one humongous job to do in the next update.

I'm also confused on the issue that if beta version is considered scope complete why are resources being added?

[rynak]

I'm also confused on the issue that if beta version is considered scope complete why are resources being added?

Well, that depends on what you call "scope" and what you call "features inside the scope". Their "scope" might simply refer to generic subsystems - take for example contracts.... the system is in place, but could use new features. Honestly, this is one of the cases where i wouldn't be too hard on them for bending terms.

Instead, the more questionable thing is why any major things are implemented in the nonexistant "beta" phase at all - let alone a whole boatload of major features.

EDIT: Okay, that seems to have become common practice in the industry, but those who deliver halfway polished results, run extremely long beta periods, where the new implementations are just some of the work, with still a majority of the time being spent on polishing

Edited January 25, 2015 by rynak

[whiterafter]

I am a bit disturbed about how the developer keeps changing the definition of finished. But alas these are problems caused by open Beta. I am happy to see so many features coming in 1.0 and that they will not be giving up everything yet, but I really don't want to see them getting lazy and slow with everything after that

Even if they do, we will always have mods

[rynak]

Even if they do, we will always have mods

Mods cannot fix core parts of the system - like for example the way planets and oceans are implemented.

[FlowerChild]

Well, that depends on what you call "scope" and what you call "features inside the scope". Their "scope" might simply refer to generic subsystems - take for example contracts.... the system is in place, but could use new features. Honestly, this is one of the cases where i wouldn't be too hard on them for bending terms.

Come on man...by the definition they're using I can spend an afternoon throwing together a main menu for a game, and call it "scope complete" because there's a menu item for each feature that will eventually be in the game. Sure, the systems aren't implemented as they will be in the final game, but hey! They're there!

That may make for a good joke in a developer meeting, but you can expect that people will start looking at you weirdly if they think you're actually serious.

While all these terms like "beta" may be "just words", concepts like "feature complete" are not. Those concepts exist to pretty much prevent, or at least point out the danger of, doing stuff exactly like what's being done here: releasing games/software with new features that haven't been properly tested.

Squad is still adding major new systems, both what are essentially rewrites of old ones (aero), and entirely new ones (resource mining) and no amount of word play changes that.

[inigma]

I voted yes. Sandbox alone makes this 1.0.

[Bigbootie]

Whatever happens I just hope it all works out and doesn't sink the game and further development thereof. I really love this game but my unrealistically optimistic expectations for it have not been met. So much potential here.

[stargazer1235]

Why though?

I'm not sure if they were deceiving themselves or just us with this whole "we're beta/scope-complete but we're still adding features" thing, but they were deceiving someone, as that's clearly a false and self-contradicting statement. They also made statements implying that this was a beta period that would consist of multiple releases, and now that turns out not to be the case either.

And really, I feel compelled to package that with an apology to Squad, as I absolutely love their game, and don't like saying it, BUT: they haven't exactly been behaving in a trustworthy manner as of late.

I would like to ask which developers you do fill are trustworthy, because I personally believe there is not such think as a 100% trustworthy company, like people, you can't trust someone 100% but there are some that are more trustworthy then others.

Here are some examples:

Firaxis: They botched up Civ:BE and only relased one patch in over 4 months and have now decided to release a new game.

Star Dock: Planning to release GalCiv 3 which many people have paid for AT FULL PRICE with many missing features and host of bugs resulting from their new 64x bit engine.

DoubleFine: Released Space Base DF9 without finishing it and released half a game, the other half we are still waiting.

Squad: Sqaud has made some questionable statements and decision in the past but they always listen to their community in the end.

So what developer do you trust if it isn't Squad, since I believe they are one of the most trustworthy out there.

[rynak]

I would like to ask which developers you do fill are trustworthy, because I personally believe there is not such think as a 100% trustworthy company, like people, you can't trust someone 100% but there are some that are more trustworthy then others.

Strawman argument in the most boring and common way: appeal to extremes, thus excluding the entire range in-between.

[Rdivine]

I'm writing this post as a frantic, last minute resort as to remind squad what key details are missing in the Kerbal Space Program game.

The list, in my opinion, should be added inside the game to make it complete.

1.Re-entry Heating

Squad, the re-entry heating model now is horrible!

Firstly, any part in the game would be able to survive re-entry heating.

Adding actual heating itself would mean that some discarded/unwanted parts would be able to burn up in the atmosphere, instead of

acting like a ball of indestructible titanium.

(Ref:Scott manley)re-entry of a probe into the Joolean Atmosphere

Also, selective parts, such as capsules, would have heat shields pre-fitted for use. This feature would also be accompanied by parts such

as heat shields, inflatable shields and such.

(Ref: Deadly Reentry)A heat shield re-entering kerbin's atmosphere

2.Better atmospheres

Atmospheres such as that of laythe and kerbin are currently based on glowing blue-white balls which look terrible.

In real life, atmospheric color is based on the composition of the atmosphere, and the heating curve which looks like this.

(Ref:public domain,Wikipedia)Color graph, showing stages of temperature color

This is how the atmosphere of Earth looks like in Space Engine.

(Ref:Space Engine)Atmospheric snapshot of Earth in Space Engine

Currently, the atmospheric scattering model needs some desperate redoing before KSP is rolled out for the public.

3.Clouds and auroras

Also, this is a desperate cry for Squad to finally add clouds into KSP!

Clouds would add more diversity into the skies, making flying a craft much more enjoyable, with all the clouds rushing into your

view, rather than seeing a winged craft gliding in the sky, with smoke bubbles billowing out of your engines.

This shows a comparison between a kerbin with clouds, and a kerbin without clouds.

(Ref:google, public domain,Astronomer's visual pack)Left:Kerbin without clouds Right:Kerbin with clouds

Personally, i think most people would prefer clouds in the game, as it adds a depth of feel into your experience of KSP!

Oh yes, and auroras.

Personally adding auroras wouldn't be much of a task. The towers of glowing plasma can be rendered with a 2d art pass, like how RCS jets are rendered.

However, with the addition of auroras, flying over the poles would be a much more meaningful task. Also, players would be able to identify poles of a planetary body.

This is how auroras look like in Space Engine.

(Ref:Space Engine)Snapshot of the poles of a planet

If Kerbal Space Program becomes as beautiful as possible, our gaming experience would be awesome.

4.New Skybox, please!

Squad, the skybox desperately needs a new art pass!

Below shows a comparison between the current skybox, and a more realistic skybox.

(Ref:google, public domain,Astronomer's visual pack)Left:Stock skybox Right:E.V.E. skybox

The realistic skybox model shows stars that are less blurred out, smaller, and more stars in the sky.

Furthermore, the galaxy isn't as blurred out.

I've played Kerbal Space Program with many skyboxes, and honestly, playing with the stock skybox makes the whole space travel a lot less beautiful and fun.

5.Parachutes

The parachutes in KSP are horrible. When they open, they stop the craft instantly, like hitting a brick wall.

In real life, the craft doesn't tear apart. But the parachute does.

So squad, please make better parachutes that break apart when the craft is too heavy, travelling too fast, or too dense in the atmosphere!

Real life parachutes have reefing so as to prevent a sudden drop in velocity. Reefing allows more time for the parachutes to open, and let the drag set in gradually.

(Ref:NASA)Orion parachute test, reefing.

Please, squad. Make better parachutes!

6.More planets

Currently KSP has 5 planets and 2 dwarf planets.

Squad promised a few years back that there would be an addition of a 2nd gas giant, with eeloo being the moon of that planet.

(Ref:Texture replacer)craft exploring the re-textured joolean system

Eeloo was mentioned to have geysers, and be an analog of triton.

Also, adding more planets would mean that our kerbal system is more diverse. More science, more planets, more enjoyment!

Thats all of my suggestions and missing features that i think should be added in the game before 1.0 is ready. If any of you thinks i missed anything out that should

be in the game, leave your comment below! Also, please let Squad read this forum post and tell them why they aren't ready for 1.0!

-I'm aware that Squad has recently left a comment on what they are adding isn't supposed to be realistic, but instead makes our gameplay more fun.

To that, i say, better graphics and non-titanium parachutes make our gameplay fun, too!

-And to those who insist i use mods.

Mods are not a solution to everything! They are only there as an optional gameplay feature, such as warfare, star wars parts etc.

-Why i'm referencing space engine in my forum post.

Space engine does excellent graphics and rendering. If KSP is going to be a space age simulator, it has got to LOOK like space!

Thanks, community and squad!

Edited January 25, 2015 by Rdivine

[klgraham1013]

So what developer do you trust if it isn't Squad, since I believe they are one of the most trustworthy out there.

I do believe that their hearts are in the right place, but some of what they're trying to do may be beyond their skill and experience at the moment. I'm specifically talking about career, which could really use an experience tychoon developer to bring it home.

edit:

I don't know. Maybe that statement isn't the most productive. Squad have done a good job learning what they've needed to to build the game they've wanted to. It's just, maybe a more experienced developer could have really helped the development.

Edited January 25, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Northstar1989]

I don't know what else to call this, and I would ask that the moderators *please* don't give me an infraction or close the thread for suggesting this (although I can't find it anywhere on the "Do Not Suggest" list, so...)

I am of the firm belief that Kerbal Space Program is NOT, I repeat *NOT* ready for its 1.0 release just yet.

I am not alone in this belief, either. A thread asking players whether they thought KSP would be ready for 1.0 in its next release, started just yesterday, has already received 484 votes, with more than 76% of players voting NO!

I do not think it would be wise for the future of SQUAD or Kerbal Space Program to push the game to its 1.0 release just yet. If NOTHING else, it needs another publicly-release version to allow additional bug-testing of the feature-complete version by the entire KSP community. If they release as planned/announced, on the other hand, they will expose Kerbal Space Program to potentially vicious reviews by reviewers who will NOT be as kind to a game that is officially in its "complete" form as they were to KSP back when it was still in Alpha/Beta.

Besides, isn't bug-fixing and working out the final kinks what a Beta is for? So far, they've only spent one update in Beta- and that was the release that moved Kerbal *INTO* Beta in the first place, so that hardly counts for a "thorough beta-testing cycle".

Releasing KSP at version 1.0 would be a very bad idea for the future of SQUAD *and* Kerbal. It would hurt SQUAD's reputation in the long run, and would hurt KSP's reputation even more (thanks to bad/mixed reviews- there are simply too many bugs left to possibly iron enough out in just one update...)

I think they can spare the wait for at least one more (bug-focused) update before the final release. Heck, SQUAD has a community on their hands with not one, but *TWO* Cubesat projects currently under works based on community donations. I think if the community is willing to pay to put a satellite in space, we could certainly raise the funds to keep SQUAD's development cycle going a little longer for the game that inspired us all to do it, eh? If they asked, we'd be more than willing to help them, if money for additional development is really the issue...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited January 25, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

I've started a thread over on the Suggestions and Development forum suggesting that Squad roll back the move to version 1.0 and "release". I just thought you guys should know:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108465-Roll-back-the-decision-to-jump-to-1-0

Feel free to go over there and post on it, to keep it towards the top of the Suggestions/Development sub-forum (so hopefully the mods will see it and Squad will realize this is a major community concern). I encourage you to send your support, but even if you disagree with my opinion, PLEASE don't troll the thread or start flame wars- the last thing we need is the only thread on Suggestions and Development about this topic to get closed thanks to poor poster conduct...

Regards,

Northstar

[Nemrav]

I remember one quote that from Harvestr that summarizes pretty much what I noticed and hate on this and most other development threads right now... (im paraphrasing though)

We are currently at a point where no matter what we do, people get very upset about it..

Typically I see a pattern: Person A:

"hello, squad is a bunch of jerks

feature x is not in the game, they should at least get y modder to integrate and do something right for once (Charlie Brown), if you do not hold my views, you are a jerk"

after much debate, Squad gets a compromise of what people want and what they invision, Person B:

"hello, squad is a bunch of jerks

they were so lazy, they just half integrated something and made the rest of it themselves with the compromise in mind, they could have a least implemented feature z, if you dont agree, you are a jerk"

And typically persons A and B were infact the exact same person...

But, squad shouldn't rush things... Just take their time as they always have, then do one more whopper for the 1.0 release...

[Bill Phil]

Nuclear reactors?

And more planets?

Ven's Stock Revamp?

[klgraham1013]

If they came out and said, in all sincerity, that the reason for this is a lack of budget, I would understand. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for KSP to go gold. I've been very forgiving talking about KSP to my friends and have even gotten Squad at least 4 new costumers. If they insist on moving to 1.0. I can not in good faith recommend this game. There will be no more excuses for poor tutorials, un-intuitive UI, an unbalanced career mode, and a lack of necessary information given to the player. I will not be able to recommend this game without including a list of mandatory mods and a link to Scott Manley's channel. That is unacceptable.

Edited January 25, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Bill Phil]

If they came out and said, in all sincerity, that the reason for this is a lack of budget, I would understand. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for KSP to go gold. I've been very forgiving talking about KSP to my friends and have even gotten Squad at least 4 new costumers. If they insist on moving to 1.0. I can not in good faith recommend this game. There will be no more excuses for poor tutorials, un-intuitive UI, an unbalanced career mode, and a lack of necessary information given to the player. I will not be able to recommend this game without included a list of mandatory mods and a link to Scott Manley's channel. That is unacceptable.

I agree.

1.0 is more than just another version. It's Squad saying fully releasing the game. This means that if there are ANY major, and even minor, flaws, that there is no excuse for them. No excuse for a boat-load of bugs, no excuse for a lack of content.

Squad, please think about this. In all sincerity. Make a few actual Beta releases. Then, begin the systematic destruction of many bugs that plague KSP. And once all is said and done, release KSP as 1.0.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I remember one quote that from Harvestr that summarizes pretty much what I noticed and hate on this and most other development threads right now...

I disagree and I believe they have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy to allow themselves to insulate themselves from community sentiment. Who here would have been upset if the next version was 0.91 or 0.95 or 0.99 versus 1.0?

[Northstar1989]

@klgraham1013, @Bill Phil

I agree wholeheartedly with both of you guys. I'd give you reputation if I hadn't already given out too much rep in a 24-hour period!

Regards,

Northstar