Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[razark]

Just out of curiosity, since y'all seem to be pretty hard set on "we've set a date, and we're sticking to it", what happens if you don't feel the game is ready for release on that date? Are you going to release it anyway, because "it's release day", or are you willing to say "we don't feel it's ready"? Would you consider a 0.99 release on whatever your release date is?

The way it's come off, it looks like there's a push that when the calender reaches a certain date, something is going to be released, and that something is going to have a 1.0 label, no matter what it is.

Edited March 18, 2015 by razark

[Maxmaps]

We are having an actual beta phase, 0.90 is currently a Beta that the whole community is participating in, and showering us in feedback about. We also have a closed alpha (and eventually beta) testing for 1.0, as QA and Experimentals have so far helped in the cleaning up of a large (and growing) amount of longstanding bugs, balance issues, as well as the implementation of a bunch of small QoL features plus the vast majority of what we have announced so far.

Edit: To answer razark's question, if the day came where we had to look at what we had and found that we were simply not comfortable calling it 1.0, we would have no issues at all delaying it. For now, we see no reason to move our deadline, as the constant input from the QA team has so far reassured us on the fact that we are following the right path.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Maxmaps

[Yakuzi]

We are having an actual beta phase, 0.90 is currently a Beta that the whole community is participating in, and showering us in feedback about. We also have a closed alpha (and eventually beta) testing for 1.0, as QA and Experimentals have so far helped in the cleaning up of a large (and growing) amount of longstanding bugs, balance issues, as well as the implementation of a bunch of small QoL features plus the vast majority of what we have announced so far.

Edit: To answer razark's question, if the day came where we had to look at what we had and found that we were simply not comfortable calling it 1.0, we would have no issues at all delaying it. For now, we see no reason to move our deadline, as the constant input from the QA team has so far reassured us on the fact that we are following the right path.

I understand that you guys are working on the feedback given from 0.90, but since there is so much content added for the next version, why not pass it by the community one final time to hammer out any bugs/imbalances that QA may have missed? Is there a specific reason you are keeping beta closed for the release candidate? I'm having a hard time understanding...

Btw thanks for your replies Max

[regex]

I've come up with a few theories. My current favorite is that HarvesteR made a deal with Squad that they could take all profits and just pay him his salary until he finished the game. Now he wants to finish the game so he can quit his job and open his own company.

This is the most plausible thing I've heard so far, makes so much sense... My personal theory involves certain "undesirables" in Mexico having a hold on Squad, but I feel that's a pretty outrageous claim.

[Nemrav]

Maybe it would be best to simply expand the QA and experimental teams, lower the standards to get in, just for this once and maybe never again...

Also leaving out something because its iffy on its presentability is ok, always have the benifit of the doubt, it might save you...

edit : also I'd recommend looking through the old unused assets archives just once more, I know there's stuff from 0.18 that's still there that might be useful (air brakes, the propellers people have clamored for and some other things...)

edit2: ty for taking your time to reply in... not so friendly environment also Robotengie : no matter how good they do, according to the danny effect, someone somewhere will find a hullarious, game breaking bug... its impossible to get them all...

Edited March 19, 2015 by Nemrav

[Robotengineer]

How did all of the other bugs get by QA/Experimentals in previous updates? We have been disappointed in the bug squashing skills of QA/Experimentals team(s) in previous updates, what measures have been taken to improve the team(s)?

[Maxmaps]

We've had terrible experiences with the signal to noise ratio of any broad-facing testing environment. Sorting through reports becomes a mammoth task when the overwhelming majority of them are of extremely low quality. The amount of extra overhead this causes ends up having a worse effect that just staying with our core group of really experienced, super efficient QA Crew. Branch testing for QA started as soon as it was possible, and has gone on since. Add to that the fact that we're effectively scheduling the longest experimentals period in the history of our game, and we can be reasonably certain that most major things will be caught by then.

Happy to answer!

[Robotengineer]

So basically KSP will under go the beta versions that the community has suggested, internally?

[Maxmaps]

So basically KSP will under go the beta versions that the community has suggested, internally?

It has been going through them for a couple months now, actually! Which is why we were never fully sure on why people were so concerned.

[basic.syntax]

Changing course now after all the release planning meetings Maxmaps has referred to in previous devnotes, would be bad. Testing and QA have reported tons of bugs... it seems to me the problem has been the constant push forward takes time away from fixing those reported bugs. They also knew they would change how some systems work, so spending hours sorting through a reported problem with a system due for complete overhaul would be a waste. (The sad part for players is living with those bug(s) for the months it takes the new system to be developed.)

Now that they are locking down on features and probably cutting a feature or two until 1.1 - Squad developers can finally spend some time sorting through already reported bugs. Testing is not the weak link in the chain! (I'm encouraged also by talk of texture loading optimization via DDS, which should help with a long standing complaint about memory consumption.)

[Robotengineer]

It has been going through them for a couple months now, actually! Which is why we were never fully sure on why people were so concerned.

I believe the community has mistrusted the QA/Experimentals teams since the .24 issues.

[Maxmaps]

This is the most plausible thing I've heard so far, makes so much sense... My personal theory involves certain "undesirables" in Mexico having a hold on Squad, but I feel that's a pretty outrageous claim.

Not to mention incredibly gross, ignorant and stereotyping.

[regex]

Not to mention incredibly gross, ignorant and stereotyping.

Excuse me, I apologize for poor taste.

[sal_vager]

Gentlemen, this thread is starting to go off-topic, and I'll thank you all to avoid derailing it any further.

[katateochi]

We've had terrible experiences with the signal to noise ratio of any broad-facing testing environment. Sorting through reports becomes a mammoth task when the overwhelming majority of them are of extremely low quality. The amount of extra overhead this causes ends up having a worse effect that just staying with our core group of really experienced, super efficient QA Crew. Branch testing for QA started as soon as it was possible, and has gone on since. Add to that the fact that we're effectively scheduling the longest experimentals period in the history of our game, and we can be reasonably certain that most major things will be caught by then.

Happy to answer!

Thanks for the info Max, that does make things clearer! It did seem like a rather magical leap forward to 1.0, but knowing there are infact further "hidden" beta releases makes me less concerned.

As you're not going to have "broad-facing testing" how does that work in terms of us reporting bugs? Will there be at least some scope for that once 1.0 released or is it now entirely in the hands of the QA team to identify all* the problems. (by all I don't mean every single thing, I know that's impossible, but the bulk of them). If at all possible can we ask some questions about the QA process, I'd like to know what kind of load they test the game under (ie what sort of in-flight mission count they have when running test etc). But that's perhaps something for another thread.

[basic.syntax]

Since they plan to continue improving KSP after 1.0, they ought to be happy to continue accepting our bug reports for 1.0 and beyond.

If Max were to describe Squad internal testing process, and it sounded good, the next question is "why does x, y, z bug exist?"

That could start a messy new line of discussion about x, y, z bug, and I think katateochi is right to conclude that discussion of test process would fit better in another thread.

Testing is not the weak link in the chain; developer time is. Dropping a previously announced feature or two will make me sad, but if that opens up more developer time for bug fixing, the end result will be better for it. Nothing new here, this happens all the time in software development

[DoToH]

I believe the community has mistrusted the QA/Experimentals teams since the .24 issues.

Mistrusted? Some of us trust them. Radial decouplers behave at their will. Slippery ladders and cannon hatches are features. RAM.... who needs.

[/sarcasm]

Edit to add:

Managing to switch symmetry from radial to mirror in some cases is a game on its own

Edited March 19, 2015 by DoToH

[Deddly]

I don't believe the purpose of 0.90 BETA was to release a bug-free product...

[tntristan12]

It has been going through them for a couple months now, actually! Which is why we were never fully sure on why people were so concerned.

To be honest, this is the first I am hearing of Squad's justification to going to 1.0 so fast. We appreciate your feedback, but try to see things from our point of view. You have no shortage of quality testers here with more collective experience at modding than most indie dev teams would dream of having at their disposal, yet it routinely feels like you completely ignore this invaluable resource in lieu of the QA team you have already put together.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure your official testers are doing an excellent job! But you have a lot of voices here you are outright discounting.

What makes matters worse is the lack of transparency! I can't fault you for missing two squadcasts in a row - that's just the price of being busy. But there is absolutely no reason you can't provide some feedback on the concerns that are putting the community up in arms. I promise you that when we feel strongly about something, it is often for a good reason, and you could do much to heal the tension by officially addressing the issue in a more visible manner than an off-the-cuff twitter, reddit, or forum post.

[Commander Jebidiah]

Edit: let's not get side-tracked, please.-- Vanamonde

Returning to the topic at hand; judging by Maxmaps's posts on Reddit, Squad is pulling out all the stops and going balls to the wall with this, community opinion be damned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2zbd54/maxmaps_on_twitter_now_considering_that_adding_as/cphdfr2

The next release will be 1.0, it's a milestone we (as a team) are holding ourselves towards. Even if we don't have a publisher, even if we can set our deadlines to whenever we please, to do so just to make sure we can add every cool feature we think about is irresponsible and a bad practice for our development in general.

You guys deserve the best we can make as a team. It is deciding what is best that we're working on. Thus the feedback request. Maybe it's best for some stuff to wait til 1.1.-Maxmaps

Squad, listen to your damn players and tell your puppetmasters at Squad HQ to screw off and let you do your job properly. I'm really hoping these stupid decisions are coming from someone higher than HarvesteR, because I really don't want to believe this dev team is actually as stupid as they're appearing to be. If you continue this course of action, you will fail miserably and the majority of this community would have every right to abandon you and your work as a result. If I was a prospective customer and was following these events, I wouldn't touch KSP with a ten foot pole. KSP is about to end up on a list with Watch Dogs and Squad is about to end up on a list with Ubisoft. Toss some shoddy DRM in while you're at it; go big or go home, right guys?

I agree with you 100%

Squad if you are going to say that we deserve the best then listen to us. We don't all want KSP to go 1.0 and the poll above says 73% of people here say they don't want 1.0.

Hey everyone who don't want to go put 'Don't go 1.0' in your sig thats what ive done. Maybe we will get Squad to stop the 1.0 release.

I also noticed that alot of the people wanting 1.0 are the ones who havn't been here to long. But thats just what ive noticed.

- - - Updated - - -

We've had terrible experiences with the signal to noise ratio of any broad-facing testing environment. Sorting through reports becomes a mammoth task when the overwhelming majority of them are of extremely low quality. The amount of extra overhead this causes ends up having a worse effect that just staying with our core group of really experienced, super efficient QA Crew. Branch testing for QA started as soon as it was possible, and has gone on since. Add to that the fact that we're effectively scheduling the longest experimentals period in the history of our game, and we can be reasonably certain that most major things will be caught by then.

Happy to answer!

May I ask how many of your 'Group of really experienced testers' have hugely expensive rigs?

[WuphonsReach]

As we've said before, we have met the criteria we originally designed as 1.0, there no incredible desire as much as us being responsible. We're evaluating our current plan to make sure everything can get done in time, and is brought to the proper quality that it should be at in order for it to be 1.0. If that means holding back some of the minor additions to the 1.0 plan, then we are okay with it.

Appreciate the information -- I think you (as a company) could have avoided a lot of the FUD/uncertainty if you had stated that 4-6 weeks ago.

Specifically the ideas that:

- The 1.0 release date is not set in stone

- You will only ship the features that are 1.0-ready

- You have an extended QA period scheduled prior to release

- Bug-fix plans for post-1.0?

[Bill Phil]

It has been going through them for a couple months now, actually! Which is why we were never fully sure on why people were so concerned.

I think it's due to people not knowing that...

[Robotengineer]

May I ask how many of your 'Group of really experienced testers' have hugely expensive rigs?

That is something they need to consider, if all of the testers have 16+GB of RAM, Linux x64, a decent CPU, and a high end graphics card, it will be very biased. IMO, it would be worth it to reimburse the testers to buy a laptop that has the bare minimum specs to run KSP, then get the results from that. That way you don't have to worry about pissing off everybody who has a cheap rig and thinks KSP will run. The demo also needs to have the exact same requirements as the full game so as to stop people with low-quality comps from running the demo and thinking they can run the full game.

[rkman]

That is something they need to consider, if all of the testers have 16+GB of RAM, Linux x64, a decent CPU, and a high end graphics card, it will be very biased.

Since Windows is the primary platform for KSP it is doubtful that most QA is done on Linux...

Nor is it likely they are testing 64bit KSP, and for 32bit the amount of RAM that the game can use is determined by the fact that it is 32bit, not by how much RAM the PC has, as long as it has at least 4GB.

On the other hand it should be tested to see if it runs acceptably on minimum specs.

[Aerolfos]

Edit: let's not get side-tracked, please.-- Vanamonde

Returning to the topic at hand; judging by Maxmaps's posts on Reddit, Squad is pulling out all the stops and going balls to the wall with this, community opinion be damned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2zbd54/maxmaps_on_twitter_now_considering_that_adding_as/cphdfr2

The next release will be 1.0, it's a milestone we (as a team) are holding ourselves towards. Even if we don't have a publisher, even if we can set our deadlines to whenever we please, to do so just to make sure we can add every cool feature we think about is irresponsible and a bad practice for our development in general.

You guys deserve the best we can make as a team. It is deciding what is best that we're working on. Thus the feedback request. Maybe it's best for some stuff to wait til 1.1.-Maxmaps

Squad, listen to your damn players and tell your puppetmasters at Squad HQ to screw off and let you do your job properly. I'm really hoping these stupid decisions are coming from someone higher than HarvesteR, because I really don't want to believe this dev team is actually as stupid as they're appearing to be. If you continue this course of action, you will fail miserably and the majority of this community would have every right to abandon you and your work as a result. If I was a prospective customer and was following these events, I wouldn't touch KSP with a ten foot pole. KSP is about to end up on a list with Watch Dogs and Squad is about to end up on a list with Ubisoft. Toss some shoddy DRM in while you're at it; go big or go home, right guys?

I am getting strange vibes HarvesteR is absolutely fed up with this proect in Nothc/Novasilisko style.

And they're pushing it so he can leave.

Now, the game continuing after he goes.. the future is bleak.