Kerbal Space Program

Yeah I've heard from friends that the aero model is nearly unplayable now.

I haven't loaded the game myself to try it.

Thorgalaeg said:

Wasnt it a beta stage too short? Did they have enough time to fix all bugs and crashes and to get better performance?

Click to expand...

I read that the designers realized as they were slowly going through .XX version numbers that their numbering scheme no longer matched where they were in development. They were much closer to the game they wanted to release but were for example, still at .39 or whatever in alpha. So they jumped to beta, by which time they were essentially complete. So it's not really that they weren't in beta that long, it's just the way they had been numbering versions got changed around. In reality, a lot of the late-alpha stage should have been called beta all along, hence, they weren't really in true beta for a very short time.

As for bugs and performance - well they've been really good about getting rid of bugs as they appear. But I never expect them to decently improve performance, to be honest.

Thorgalaeg said:

I dont build using many parts, much the other way, however once you advance in the game, you want more complex missions, with multiple vessels, with stations, bases, service vehicles, cranes, shuttles, refueling tankers, probes, minning and anything you can imagine. Then when you get into the physics radius of your happy almost self-sufficient lunar base , bam! life turns miserable.

Click to expand...

This, x100

Yeah, I do tend to build overly complex rockets. However, I have learned to scale them back to more reasonable sizes. The root problem though is once you put up any basic infrastructure to go and do more fun stuff in space, the game can't handle it. You can launch 100 super-simple rockets but once you get 100 even simpler payloads together in one place, the game breaks. It's frustrating to do anything other than simple flybys or land-and-return capsule jobs.

I still say they released too early if 1.0.2 "hotfix" fundamentally changed the underlying physics of the entire game. Ugh. That's the kind of stuff you do in beta, not post-release.

I think it's really weird that they stayed in alpha and beta for such a long time, but then as soon as 1.0 was released they completely changed a fundamental aspect of the game, without much testing.

Isn't that what alphas and betas are supposed to be for? So that you can use that time to tweak game balance issues and stuff like that? Why change such a fundamental aspect of the game at such a bad time?

Seems like bad planning to me...

hobbsyoyo said:

Yeah I've heard from friends that the aero model is nearly unplayable now.

Click to expand...

It is very different from what it was. But if you used FAR it is actually very similar to that, which means you have to change how you launch rockets. Incidentally it also means it takes less delta-v to get to orbit now.

Start you gravity turn way earlier now and don't turn abruptly. It also seems that rocket are more aerodynamically unstable, fins can fix that.

Fins fix things, but if you give a rocket control surfaces it will wobble apart like in 0.13-0.17 days with ASAS. Big regression.

cardgame said:

I still say they released too early if 1.0.2 "hotfix" fundamentally changed the underlying physics of the entire game. Ugh. That's the kind of stuff you do in beta, not post-release.

Click to expand...

warpus said:

I think it's really weird that they stayed in alpha and beta for such a long time, but then as soon as 1.0 was released they completely changed a fundamental aspect of the game, without much testing.

Isn't that what alphas and betas are supposed to be for? So that you can use that time to tweak game balance issues and stuff like that? Why change such a fundamental aspect of the game at such a bad time?

Seems like bad planning to me...

Click to expand...

Valid points all around.

cardgame said:

Fins fix things, but if you give a rocket control surfaces it will wobble apart like in 0.13-0.17 days with ASAS. Big regression.

Click to expand...

Oooh that really sucks.

J-man said:

Start you gravity turn way earlier now and don't turn abruptly.

Click to expand...

This.

i have not problems at launching, just try keeping the rocket as straight as possible respect to relative air flux, which means turning it softly. Specially at 5000-10000 when high speed and air density are mutually problematic.

i dont find fins are a need either. Most times engine gimbals will do the work, maybe too much i would say.

High speed and air density is reached at a point in flight called MaxQ for those in the know.

I'm having extreme issues with KSP on my desktop. I can't even attach simple tanks to pods anymore, it just refuses to attach them. Also the graphics have reverted to asstard settings and it takes forever to load. So either my desktop is crapping out with age or the game performance standards have sunk even lower than they were already.

I notice only a tiny lower performance of ksp since 1.0.

Turns out the instal on my desktop is corrupted or something. On my laptop it runs fine but the performance has definitely taken a hit since I last played it. But at least it's playable, which on my desktop it is not.

Not a big fan of the aerodynamics and also the SAS is ungodly touchy and often causes crashes all by itself.

However, I do like that things can overheat on re-entry. Definitely makes some of the more odd designs unfeasable.

I'm seriously considering buying a sub $500 desktop to run this game. The trick is I'd only have time during work. And they block Steam. So I think I'd have to tote the thing home, download the game, then bring it back into work.

Of course, I don't even have a spare $500 just now. But I can dream, right?

Get an Intel processor. Major difference in FPS between Intel and AMD for KSP. i3 with maximum clock speed is probably your best best (i3 4130)

Have in mind that the engine can only use a single core to calculate physics, which represent the 90% or more of all calculculations. So the main factor to have in mind is how powerful are each single core in your CPU individually. It does not matter if you have an octo-core proccessor or the best GPU in the world, the big bottleneck is the power of each individual core inside your CPU, which basically means that for KSP Intel is better than AMD. Anway i have an overclocked i7 2600k at 4,4ghz plus a gtx 980 and lag starts to be noticeable with 250 parts or more.

Yeah, not sure if i5 is noticeably better in KSP but i7s are a waste of budget for gaming purposes.

Changed my mind on the aerodynamics. It turned out that for at least me, I had to unlearn some bad practices I had developed with older iterations of the game. Now I pay careful attention to my speed at various altitudes and don't turn as aggressively as I once did and things are ok. I'm even building massive rockets again now that I'm mastered the new system. And overall, I like it much better than the old one; it feels more real and I have to actually consider aerodynamic effects on my rockets rather than just ignoring them.

Also I'm really digging the career mode. I have it set to super-easy because I didn't want to be forced into a grind (which I gather it ends up being if you are not Scott Manley and play on anything other than easy) to get science and money. As it is, there is just enough challenge that I have to carefully consider contracts and launch vehicle prices as well as science objectives. But without too much effort I manage to turn a steady (but not enormous) profit in both science and cash. It's a lot of fun and all the new science instrumentation and the implementation of both contracts and science gives my missions newfound purpose.

It used to be I'd get somewhere and then get enormously bored because there was nothing else to do. Now I'm checking out all the biomes and setting up orbital labs and stuff. Great fun.

Edit: Also, I don't really experience the wobble issue that cardgame brought up with respect to control surfaces. Though to be honest, once I learned how to deal with the aero model, I don't need or use control surfaces on rockets, as counter intuitive as that seems.

Ladies and Gentlekermen, I present to you: The Wobble!

That's badly designed in a few ways.

Well, yes, but it's also an excellent demonstration of the problem that exists even in normal rockets. I'm not an aero scrub, I only played with FAR during/past .23 or so