What else needs to go on the mountain of content for 1.0?

[Bill Phil]

*votes everything*

[Skyentist]

What they have is plenty enough for one update. Individual updates should be a bit on the small side so the content in it has had enough attention to make sure its done well and right.

[sdj64]

I think KSP needs more "in-between" parts and missing parts in the stock lineup. For example, a stack mounted engine with 100-150 thrust, a 2 man rocket pod (either HGR's radish style, or NF's orbital pod style), a 3.75m rocket pod, a Mk1 crew fuselage, longer 0.625m fuel tanks. I've also always wanted 2.5m and 3.75m tanks half the height of the current smallest. For landers.

Now I know that mods can do that, but right now each of those parts I described is in a different mod.

Optimization is important definitely.

More planets would be great, but more ram use would be bad. They need to be unique compared to the currently existing ones.

[magnemoe]

I think at some point a overhaul of the discovery mechanism was planned to work with planets?

I would like them to implement that. Wasn't that a precondition for new planets?

In real life all planets was discovered long before we was able to reach orbit.

Only exception might be minor moons as in Gilly, Pol and Bop, and smaller asteroids who is already in the game.

Resources on bodies has to be discovered in orbit or landed.

[Cocox]

Guys, what this game really needs is some serious optimization. I FIND IT ANNOYING THAT JUMPING BETWEEN BUILDINGS SEVERAL TIMES LEADS TO MEMORY INCREASE.

So what I would like to see post 1.0 is:

- Optimization of the game (no more memory leakage).

- Hopefully a working 64 bit version as soon as Unity sorts it's crap out.

- IN THE DISTANT FUTURE AFTER SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT AN EXPANSION THAT OPENS UP NEW TECH AND ADDITIONAL SOLAR SYSTEMS. I WOULD PAY FOR THAT TOP (DECENT) BUCK.

[WOODY01]

I vote for optimisation, x64 support, and fluid dynamics.

I do not think more planets and moons are needed just more varity and interesting things to discover and explore.

The part list is somewhat lacking but not so much that it can not be overcome with some imagination.

[AbhChallenger]

Unity 5. That alone would make the game better.

[HafCoJoe]

#savethemagicboulder

[Creeping]

x64 support, optimization, and re-entry damage are the three main things that I want to be added before the end of the year. With Unity 5 apparently on the horizon, this could fix the optimization and x64 issues easier. The game doesn't run that bad on my computer (and I have a 6 year old HP prebuilt, pls halp me) but that is with some tone down of the settings, however at some points in a mission the game will get really laggy, plus the loading time for me is horrendous. x64 would really help us because a large majority of the community has at least one mod installed. It would really help for those that have/want a lot of mods. Re-entry is just something that I think is something required in a space game.

A full Solar System would be nice, but since the next update is going to be full release (which is a dumb idea in my opinion, but Squad are the devs, and they can do what they want with the game) and I would really want the top two things to be added (along with a lot of bug fixes, ladders shouldn't go to the moon because a kerbal walks up them) so KSP looks good to the community.

[NWDogg]

For the 1.0 release, optimization absolutely should be prioritized. They really need to be pushing KSP onto Unity 5 as soon as they can; the physics optimizations will only improve the quality and image of this game in the long term. The only other feature I feel is really necessary is re-entry heating, and even this one can be argued against to an extent. The rest of Squad's plans for 1.0 are solid, and I see no major reasons not to jump right into release (other than testing of all these new features, which should be the point of a beta anyway.)

The post-release update plans seem very nice, but honestly I would like to see them go a step further and implement some sort of 'Season Pass' for DLC and expansions. This, in my own little theory, could help extend the development cycle well beyond the planned free updates and give the devs some breathing room (financially and time-wise) to add those features that are 'out of scope' or 'too complicated' for the 1.0 release. There was a thread the other day about KSP being viewed as a 'service' rather than a one-off game; this approach might help keep this game fresh for a long time to come, if Squad were to adopt it.

And besides...even with all the bugs, lack of specific features that you want, the 'unfinished' Kerbol system and all: Would any of you actually NOT recommend this game? I know I would, even with all of its faults KSP is still one of the most unique and engaging, immersive, educational, and entertaining games ever made. With a 98% Positive rating on Steam, there's no chance that a couple mediocre reviews will hurt this game in the long run.

[Alshain]

Other: Bug fixing

[TeeGee]

I think that we all need to sit down and think about how we, the KSP community, would honestly review KSP in its current state.

Just stock. No mods added.

To emphasize my point; try to play this game purely stock for more than 2 days after playing with mods. It is a very difficult, sloppy and overall impotent experience for most veteran players. If the game were perfect, it wouldn't need 40+ mods by the average player to keep playing it.

That is what Squad doesn't seem to understand.

When this game is released as their "scope complete" game, it is going to be open for criticism when it is compared to other space games. Will the visuals hold up? Will the sound design? Gameplay?

And most importantly, will we be as forgiving for its shortcomings?

KSP has been an early access game for 3 years and its shortcomings were corrected by the community. It's not like the mods added extra things that KSP didn't need (such as pink parts, sprinkle colored decals etc). The mods added things that average space enthusiasts would expect from a space sim game (aerodynamics, deadly reentry, remote tech). KSP's success depends very highly on the community to pick up the slack from the developers.

Now people are going to start to see the flaws of the game; especially now that Squad will be charging full price for it. There is just too much wrong with this game to justify spending $60 on it, especially in 2015.

[Seshins]

I think the rest of the IVA's need to be finsihed at least. I mean there are some very convincing arguments about other, more meaningful mechanics and features, but having some complete IVA's and some very obvious placeholder ones is just damn messy.

[stupid_chris]

Pretty sure parachutes that make any physical and logical sense should be on this list but eh.

[LethalDose]

KER-style readouts for orbital parameters, TWR, remaining burn time, etc.

[SkyRender]

I'm going to have to side with the developers on this and say that adding extensive new features to the game at this point is probably not a good idea. You can't stay in pre-release forever, and KSP has been in pre-release for just over 4 years now. That is a lot of time and money for one project even in this day and age, and especially for a company's first video game. There are a lot of things that could be added (obviously given the mountain of threads suggesting features both before and after the 1.0 announcement), but none of them actually "have" to be added. SQUAD defines what is required for 1.0, and that definition is contained in their scope document for the game. Even if some of us don't personally think they're up to where they should be, obviously they feel that they will be in time for the next release.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't request features and the like, but what I am saying is that it's a bit heavy-handed to basically declare that your version of what KSP 1.0 should be is more relevant than what the developers feel it should be. We can certainly ask them to implement new features and unplanned changes, but it crosses the line when we expect those features and changes from them and right now if you please. I'm sure that's not the sort of tone most are trying to convey, but it's the tone that's coming across consistently throughout these myriad threads.

[Kerano]

Plenty of games have been released in a state which was much less complete and far more buggy than KSP 0.90.0 is currently. As long as the patches/updates don't stop too soon, I don't see a problem with Squad labelling the next version as the "official release". I mean, I'd like to see a Gas Giant 2 and a fix for the radial decoupler torque bug at some stage soon, but aside from that I'm very happy with the stock game.

[StarStreak2109]

Optimization as in better error handling (not every error, exception, failure or what not should result in a CTD), better memory management (stuff them memory leaks) and upgrading to a working 64bit environment are most important to me.

[DunaRocketeer]

I strongly think that a 1.0 release can do without any of these options listed, the only thing that needs to be added in addition to the already confirmed 1.0 features is clouds.

The planet just looks incomplete without them.

[cptdavep]

Is suspect the reason for going to 1.0 isn't because the game is complete, but rather pre release sales must have slowed and in order to justify continuing development Squad need more money coming in. I expect many gamers wait until 1.0 to buy a game so hopefully this will get them the cash boast needed to add the remaining features we want, and maybe start working on some DLC (colonisation, and maybe star systems along with all the fun parts to make that happen)

[Janos1986]

Small thing among the others, but the BACC sucks and needs a bit more oomph.

[Luis]

Waiting until everything is absolutely perfect before you release, doesn't necessarily result in the best service for players. This is the approach Blizzard takes and it means you have to wait 15 years for a game. KSP will never be truly finished and I think Squad understands this. But at some point, you have to acknowledge that you are updating a released game, not an unreleased one. By now, the distinction is pretty arbitrary, anyway. KSP is a game that is already publicly available to anyone, in exchange for money. That, gentlemen, is a released game, whatever you want to call it.

And the idea that KSP is suddenly going to get panned by reviewers because it is in official release is just scaremongering. Most of the major games sites and magazines have already reviewed the game at least once in the last four years. I've reviewed it for PC Format, and I will suggest that it is reviewed again for 1.0. Games journalists are perfectly well aware of the journey that KSP is on. 1.0 is an important milestone, sure, but it isn't the end of the road.

[Tuareg]

As I have said in the other, giant thread about 1.0.

The game doesn't need to be "complete" in YOUR eyes. The fact of the matter is, KSP feels they have met all of their initial goals, and therefor can call it a full release. That doesn't mean they are stopping development.

All these threads trying to either a) get more things included in 1.0 release or want 1.0 release pushed back are just absolutely rediculous. Those features you want so badly? There is nothing saying they wont be released in 1.1, 1.2, or whatever. If you are that upset about 1.0 release either start making mods, make your own game, or stop playing.

Squad doesn't owe the players.

u are "rediculous". i dont know what is it but sure. they dont owe the players, they will slap their own face. the casual buyers will not care of 1.1 or possible releases, they will care of what they buy. just like egosoft fkd up their entire future, squad will, too. never heard of that many refund request on steam thatn against them... and no, ppl were not complaining about bugs, the were complaining about content. now squad does the same as they did. dont listen to the existing loyal community, so they dig their own grave. the casuals are far less forgiving

[Northstar1989]

Tuareg, does, unfortunately, have a point. "The casuals are far less forgiving". So far KSP has been operating almost entirely off a very niche player-base willing to try out an Early Access game. But with 1.0, that's likely going to change quite significantly. And casual players will NOT be forgiving of things like random CTD's, rockets that explode on the launchpad or when re-loaded in orbit without warning, random phantom-forces on ships, or splashdown in water basically equaling instant death half the time (ALL of these are bugs that have happened to me on DOZENS of occasions, and even caused occasional ragequits from me, a loyal veteran of KSP...) They will also not be very forgiving of the terrible lack of optimization, and reusltant slow performance on even fairly powerful systems at times... (the inability to utilize multiple CPU cores, for instance, is *unforgivable* for an "official release" in a day and age where almost all computers are multi-core...)

Squad needs to reverse the 1.0 announcement decision. Sure, it won't look great- but releasing a space game without even such a simple thing as clouds, and with new features that have never been exposed to the players before the "release" will NOT end well for anyone involved. Which is sad, because KSP is an increasingly awesome game by a generally awesome development company, both of which DESERVE better than what they will get if the next update is the official release...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited January 25, 2015 by Northstar1989

[r4pt0r]

do casuals play ksp though? ksp just seems like a game casuals wont get into, it isnt really pick up and play, and the interest in space flight is sort of an acquired taste.

just like casuals don't really play gran turismo, or microsoft flight sim, or any other sim type game. KSP isn't really for the casual crowd, IMO