Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[tater]

1.0 then is really shorthand for "feature complete?"

[Kegereneku]

I have been very defensive of SQUAD's action, however I do find that it is "too soon" as in it will diminish the importance of 1.0 as a "complete game".

Plus, after 3 year of Alpha, it feel cheap to have 1 beta version that was supposedly going to see a lot of thing happen.

Players would expect 1.0 to be playable without adding anything else than bug-fixe and NOT modify features AFTER which you are still free to do in beta.

I'm wondering if there IS laws keeping game-developer from modifying to much a game after "release" as to "not lie in advertising".

Yet SQUAD are going to be adding/modifying BIG feature afterward.

To name one they (kind of) promised :

- Heat management (since it was a part stat in game)

And obviously many player expect a drastic change over

- Science

- Economy/strategy

- Tech-Tree

- Jet-engines rework plus mk2/3 new part.

... continue ad infinitum

However, going 1.0 didn't penalized Minecraft too much, but it spent much more time in Beta. So I'm wondering if SQUAD don't just want to be able to market the game as a normal game legally.

...that or they are fed up with players criticizing their choice of game-design and want to be able to answer "Make X stock" with "it's OUR choice to do that freely"

[NovaSilisko]

No it's missing official multiplayer.

... whatever happened to that, anyway? There was so much of a fuss made over it, and then it just sort of disappeared. Reminds me of... something.

I'm wondering if there IS laws keeping game-developer from modifying to much a game after "release" as to "not lie in advertising".

Are you kidding me? Look at Team Fortress 2, or Minecraft.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

If there is a Unity 5 update in the wings I would say wait for it and continue BETA.

Main Issues I Have: Flashy screens with WHITE BLARING at you enough to cause seizures in the long run; even CABLE TV ads are doing this; it never used to be like this on regular TV now they have to FLASH SCREENS to make you try to remember stuff; Ancient Aliens on Hostory is a case in point; this to me is a serious issue and change of screens should be smooth and seemless.

There are noise issues going to map mode and even running map mode now - there should be NO ENGINE sounds in map mode.

There are probly some other reasons that have been listed.

Zeta

[BudgetHedgehog]

... whatever happened to that, anyway? There was so much of a fuss made over it, and then it just sort of disappeared. Reminds me of... something.

They did say it'd be coming after 1.0

Q: What about Multiplayer?

A: Multiplayer is something we’ve been working on for quite a while, but it still has a long way to go before it’s ready. MP is planned for after 1.0. So that’s still coming, but let’s take this one step at a time.

EDIT: Mind you, that article also make it sound like there'd be at least 1 update between 0.90 and 1.0 so I don't know what to believe any more. They did say that 1.0 will mean leaving EA and that the game has to stand up on it's own with all the necessary framework in place and they can't rely on upcoming features. They didn't mention upcoming content though, so yeah... things make sort of sense, at least.

Edited January 24, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[NovaSilisko]

They did say it'd be coming after 1.0

Hrm. Just haven't seen a peep from Jesus or anyone else about it in a long time. Where's that quote from?

edit: wow i need some caffiene or something i literally didn't see that was an url

Edited January 24, 2015 by NovaSilisko

[klgraham1013]

No. Not in the slightest. Unless 1.0 means something different then what it means for nearly every other game. I'm just so disappointed right now. If 1.0 comes out without delta v readouts... Whatever. Thank all that is good for the modding community. That's all I can say.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Hrm. Just haven't seen a peep from Jesus or anyone else about it in a long time. Where's that quote from?

The linked article, ninth question.

[NovaSilisko]

If 1.0 comes out without delta v readouts...

IIRC a while ago it was talked about that those probably aren't coming as they "remove some of the spontaneity" from the game, I think was the phrase used. Not sure when that was, maybe someone can find the post...

The linked article, ninth question.

Yeah, my eyes didn't register that the text was link-colored. Sorry.

[condraj2]

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??

Love KSP to death, but this is the correct sentiment in my mind. Also, re-entry heating. And maybe some environmental/graphics enhancements like in the Reinaissance mod, but mainly stable Windows 64-bit and Unity 5.

The vast majority of PC gamers have no idea how to manipulate game files, monitor memory usage, or any of the more technical aspects of games that will allow them to enjoy KSP in a full, stable fashion. Without the 64-bit client being stable, you risk not only bad reviews but a LOT of frustrated gamers.

[SmashBrown]

We're not super sure on something like remotetech, but reentry heat is something we can hammer out in half a day with Mu's new drag model. To call it dope would be an understatement.

That was from the original pitch of the game, the actual design doc came after it was decided that it would be a 3D game. It got fatter since but we're happy to say with this we fulfill it.

Now, to say 'therefore we are done with KSP' would be absolutely wrong. We have plans for (obviously free!) updates after 1.0 to smooth out rough edges and add a thing or two, but then there's things like 'drop everything and focus on upgrading to Unity 5 as soon as it is out' kind of stuff as well.

I know the Early Access environment has so far been... well, not great, but I like to believe that we have so far delivered and will continue to do so. There's no financial motivations or limitations hampering the team. We simply are not comfortable being an Early Access game anymore. If the game at 1.0 is truly at a state where bugs and balance issues outshine the gameplay to the point that critics slam us, then so be it. Frankly, I believe we can do better than that, and I will do my best to deliver on that promise.

I got a reply, yay!!!!

Also some form of life support.

[katateochi]

You know, hearing this made me not so worried. 1.0 is just a soft line being drawn that says that everything in the design document is done. After this, community suggested features will reign supreme.

nice 1 for posting that. I feel less concerned after hearing that.

[boxman]

Very simple, yes or no.

Beyond Beta feature list and 1.0 announcement

There are loads of things that are missing that really should be a part of the stock game, so no i dont agree at all.. This is exactly what I feared would happen soon when it was announced it went into beta stage but then squad claimed those fears were unfounded since they would continue to add stuff for quite some time even in beta. Now turns out I was right and that they seem to want to push it out the door as soon as possible. Where are the stock clouds??? Where is the unity5 version that they claimed they would work on as soon as they got their hands on it?? Where are the hidden tweakables like the motor/ball bearing that was supposed to be enabled after bug fixing??

The very least they should do is port the damn thing over to unity5. They even stated that they would HALT all other work as soon as they got their hands on it since unity5 would be first priority and now it seems like they are dropping it entirely??

[tater]

If you cannot attach SRBS with stock decouplers, and have them separate without blowing the rocket up, and not wobble like crazy (struts are incredibly non-intuitive to connect parts designed to separate), there is a big problem for new users/reviewers I'd think. Single most frustrating thing about the game for me as a noob, and even now (and that's with Claw's fix). If I could use strap on boosters reliably, I'd virtually never reset to the launchpad or VAB. I'm always sort of stunned when they actually work.

[NovaSilisko]

Just want to point out Unity 5 isn't out officially yet - though it is in a beta phase, which is probably not yet stable enough to move KSP over to yet.

[Violent Jeb]

I voted no. This game is beta, even if it doesn't "feel" beta to those who have had time with it.

I've been playing since ~.17, i agree with others that this is one of the best games i've ever played.

If this is not an issue of money, this is an issue of semantics.

Squad wants to refer to the game as 1.0, which according to convention, is a completed product. Unfortunately, the world does not revolve around Squad (rather the sun, thank you KSP) - Squad should conform to a version structure that indicates an "almost feature complete" game; beta.

If your own community is this confused by your naming conventions not matching market expectations, think of how the general public will receive it.

I understand that it might generate some sales to push 1.0 now since this release is going to be jam-packed, but along with what everyone has said, why not allow at least one more beta release.

That will give you the opportunity to fit even more features into an actual 1.0 release. btw, you're still missing basic gameplay mechanics.

•Craft interiors - you can't just do 50% of them. that is incomplete.If you're going to do that, you might as well remove all of them.

•Heat Shielding - (even if it's one or two parts, it is a design consideration for rockets and a realistic one. You're trying to sell this as an educational tool)

•Life support - ^^ (How does keeping kerbals / resupplied alive not = more gameplay?)

•Resource gathering - That'd be nice to try out before a 1.0 release.

•A meaningful career that doesn't feel like grinding out procedurally generated contacts just for funds. You might as well remove this and just keep "science mode" because i've launched the game ~10 different ways and can't get an enjoyable start to career without mods.

•Ability to enable / disable atmospheres, active texture management, and similar performance mods (or features if you are wise), and do this from a launcher.

•Bigger / multipurpose landing gear? (edit: They mus've heard me.)

•A 2nd (or 3rd) landing gear wheel part(edit: They mus've heard me.)

•A functioning tutorial

•RPM / Alcor "like" features - In a space program game, people DO want to sit in the cockpit and have buttons and switches to play with, crazy but true.

•More planets?

•Future / emerging space technology?

•Recoverable debris (again, if you'd rather not simulate funding considerations for the space program you could just remove career mode since it is an empty grinding mess)

^This is actually a "no-brainer" -

ME: "What happens to the rocket debris?"

Kerbal: "uh, idk we've never even bothered to go find the junk after." RLY?

•Customisation options, beyond the space program name, why do all my kerbals and parts look the same as yours? Immerse me.

Many people have said it, i don't need to repeat it, there is much more to be added before it'll be a complete game.

Semantics and Version numbering aside, I've already invested in the game, so all i can do it hope we do see the updates (that will obviously be needed) after "Not-complete" Version 1.0 - And that we're not waiting months and years for them.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Violent Jeb

[Torquemadus]

I really hope we get a Charon analog to Eeloo. (Or some other dwarf planet if Eeloo is relocated.) Pluto and Charon are two binary dwarfs, orbiting each other. Leaving it out but leaving in a Pluto just isn't right. Even if you have to make it like a Moon instead of a binary orbit, it's still worth it.

The Kerbol system needs a decent main asteroid belt. We've already got a Ceres analogue (which Squad may need to update after the NASA encounter). We also need analogues for Vesta and at least some of the big "flying mountain" asteroids. There are a lot of opportunities for interesting places to visit. There are a variety of irregular "potato" shaped bodies. There are contact pairs. Some of the bigger asteroids have been found to have smaller asteroids orbiting them! There wouldn't be any harm in allowing players with a sufficiently upgraded tracking station to be able to detect moveable ARM asteroids in the main belt. This would allow players to clutter their asteroid belt with lots of smaller bodies if they wish to do so.

Jool currently offers gravity assists to an outer solar system that doesn't exist. We need analogues for all four gas giants. Jool and GP2 aren't enough. The real gas giants have very complex systems of moons and captured asteroids. They also have large numbers of "Trojan" asteroids orbiting their L4 and L5 Lagrange points. KSP doesn't support Lagrange points (they're on the what not to suggest list), but it could support Trojans. Placing a single Trojan at each planet's L4 and L5 points would offer an easy way to simulate some of the Lagrange points by the back door without messing around with physics. Instead of orbiting the Lagrange point, orbit the Trojan instead! Additional smaller Trojan asteroids could be added as "moons" of the main asteroid at each point.

We need a Kuiper belt for end-gamers to explore. The Pluto/Charon system is by no means the only example of a Kuiper belt dwarf system, and that shouldn't be the case for the Kerbol system either. Some have eccentric orbits that take them far away from the Sun towards the edge of the Oort Cloud. The Kuiper Belt has the additional advantage of a shorter development time, since it is already being spelt with a K anyway, negating the need to invent a new name of it! (For the record, as far as Pluto/Charon is concerned, I voted for Cerberus (Mass Effect 2), not Vulcan, but we ended up with Kerberos. There wasn't even an option to vote for Kerberos! I'm not sure what the Illusive Man would have thought about that! BTW, there's been a recent movement to have Neil deGrasse Tyson declared as the IRL Illusive Man!)

Finally, we have the Oort cloud. The IRL Oort cloud extends roughly half way between here and Alpha Centauri. Obviously, anything beyond that belongs to Alpha Centauri's gravitational SOI, not ours! Travel times from here to the Oort cloud with conventional propulsion are considerable. Let's hope Jeb remembers to bring enough snacks!

If missions to Kerbol's outer solar system are going to be modelled, we're going to need a small nuclear reactor. Solar power isn't going to work in the outer solar system. Energy requirements to transmit data from distant worlds back to Kerbin will be considerable. Nuclear power will be needed to power transmitters, operate electric propulsion systems, and run ISRU chemical reactors.

[Wallygator]

No. Not ready for 1.0

Squad should seriously consider delinking "1.0" and "end of early access" concepts as they are two separate things.

So... Declare end of early access now. Then after another beta release or two to demonstrate full balance and bug deaths, then a 1.0 release.

[DBT85]

I'll have to add, It means nothing to me at all what version number we're on.

The only people that really could have a problem with this are going to be reviewers and new customers. But that's all entirely dependant on how much is packed into 1.0.

[klgraham1013]

Does any one actually think career mode won't get torn apart by reviewers? Unless there's some major changes, KSPs uniqueness will only get it so far.

[NovaSilisko]

No. Not ready for 1.0

Squad should seriously consider delinking "1.0" and "end of early access" concepts as they are two separate things.

So... Declare end of early access now. Then after another beta release or two to demonstrate full balance and bug deaths, then a 1.0 release.

If you're accessing the game in a beta version, it's inherently an "early" access, I'd say.

[PDCWolf]

It seems life support got canned somewhere along the way, so did the NERVAs not using oxidizer, so did reentry heat. I am displeased, not surprised because I said stuff like this would happen many times, just displeased that my predictions were actually true. I held a small light of hope somewhere deep and now not even embers remain. Too bad I can't get my money back.

[hansen]

I am surprised and did not expect the announcement of 1.0. As many others in this thread I think the game needs still needs finetuning, especially regarding the overall performance. Can someone explain to me the benefit calling it a finished game 1.0 with the next release?

[CaptRobau]

•Craft interiors - you can't just do 50% of them. that is incomplete.If you're going to do that, you might as well remove all of them.

•Bigger / multipurpose landing gear?

•A 2nd (or 3rd) landing gear wheel part

Agree with you on the craft interiors. That's definitely not done yet. Even if there's no RPM like stuff, each pod or hab module needs an interior.

If you read the Beyond Beta post you would've read we're getting more landing gear.

[Violent Jeb]

Agree with you on the craft interiors. That's definitely not done yet. Even if there's no RPM like stuff, each pod or hab module needs an interior.

If you read the Beyond Beta post you would've read we're getting more landing gear.

I just finished reading, i'm excited about it but it still stands that these features will need to be tested.

I wanted to post now, to help stand with others on this topic & make our opinions well-known.