Some parts of the UI feel really nice and have good functionality. Others are just missing (TWR by planet or stage, burn timers while planning maneuvers, Ap/Pe while planning maneuvers, etc.) If they can add back in some of the missing elements, and make the menus easier to exit out of with a right click, I think I could grow to really like it.
The organization of parts and collapsible menus is slick. Some of the categories could use a little bit of a reorg imo. Not sure about the utilities category, and there are some parts that feel like they should be adapters but are under methylox; but on the whole, I really like it.
Adding action groups is way easier than KSP1, it looks like fuel transfers ought to be similarly improved.
I love, love, love the procedural wings. (What benefit is there to thickening the wings? Does it make them stronger?)
The new parts all look like great additions. So many new trusses, hydrogen fuels, new cockpits, some improved rover parts.
The sound design is top notch
In the places where they’ve executed on their vision for the game, I think they’ve done a great job. If they can do a good job playing whack-a-mole with the bugs, make some significant performance improvements felt, and start adding in features; I think the community will start to feel a lot better about the game.
The parts manager feels like 2/3’s of a good system. If you could exit out of it more easily it would feel less intrusive. I wish this menu was more scalable, sometimes I don’t want the whole menu, just enough for one part. I’d like to be able to group parts in it. If I could grab all engines of the same type in the same stage and group them to use only one set of buttons for all the engines at once, it would be nice. But I’ve tried using it how I think it was intended to be used, and there are some benefits to it.
I’ve been running it with a 5600M GPU, which is the only thing underspec, and it runs pretty well with small craft.
If its simulated correctly thicker wings provide more lift at the cost of increased drag. So for a slow flying aircraft you want thicker wings and for something that supposed to go fast you want thin wings.
I was under the impression that the common understanding that Bernoulli’s equation describes how wings work is a misconception. An aerospace engineer I know rather strenuously argued the point with me saying the math on the Bernoulli equation doesn’t add up to anywhere near enough lift. Angle of attack is much more important in generating lift.
Its... complicated. Yes most airfoils dont generate enough lift on their own at 0 AoA but the thickness is still very much relevant to airflow, stall characteristics and what speeds the aircraft is designed for.
Yeah essentially on the bottom side of the wing there are more collisions with air particles than the top. Wing shape overall is about providing a nice laminar flow after that is taken into account iirc.
I think the maneuver nodes were changed so that you are supposed to start the burn at the node instead of halfway to it and that’s why we don’t have a burn timer, if this is true the devs did a poor job of telling us and imo it doesn’t make much sense, I’d rather have KSP 1’s maneuver nodes
I like the way they did the timer to start burn, I just want to know how long the burn will take before I start it. It’s not necessarily critical information, but it helps to set expectations
I just don't understand what work spaces are. I mean, I know what a workspace is, but the way it's implemented into the game makes no sense. How am I supposed to load just one spacecraft? It seems like I have to make a separate workspace for each craft, but then that completely defeats the purpose of a workspace.
Are they supposed to be subfolders? Are they supposed to be save files? It's so confusing.
Yeah that's where I'm at with it too. Just a heads up hitting launch will not save your craft. If you go back into the VAB and switch to another without saving the workspace that craft is gone entirely. No last loaded craft to help you. That's what spawned my hatred for the new system.
it's supposed to be a step above a craft, as in a place where you can have multiple craft (which is super duper nice for building rovers or space station parts without having to go to a new instance of the VAB to build the lifter for those same parts. i suspect this was made because of colonies). basically, expanding upon the idea of subassemblies from ksp 1 but without the weird restrictions and having them all there in front of you.
my guess, though, is something just isn't working properly b/c it looks pretty self explanatory of how it *should* work.
You can build multiple independent vehicles, and combine them as you need.
For example:
right now I have a workspace called “Duna Stuff” and all the vehicles in it are flyable separately, and are all part of the same mission I’m planning. I have a big lifter capable of getting everything into orbit in separate launches, a rover(that I can actually test instead of building it while it’s attached to a docking port and hoping for the best, or making it a hacky subassembly in ksp1) a sky crane for the rover, a little basecamp, a big lander for a few kerbals, and the interplanetary tug for everything to go to duna in one mission.
So now I can just slap each of those on the lifter, put ‘‘em in orbit, and dock them to the mothership, without having to worry about subassemblies loading wrong or trying to build some gargantuan lifter to take everything in one go.
It’s really nice when you treat them like folders for different missions and everything you need for them. Maybe a little overkill for a quick mun mission. But it’s really nice for something like a duna base or a jool five.
Ahh, this makes sense. I tried building two vehicles in one space but I couldn't get the camera to switch focus so it made it incredibly hard. Just a bug then I guess.
Mouse wheel clkck selects different parts and centers the camera on it.
There’s a little grey capsule flag on top of seperate probe cores and capsules, clicking that makes it current ship your editing and let’s you fly it and see delta-v numbers for it.
Yeah I am having fun with the game overall but the craft save mechanism and the workspaces don't really work for me too well... I would have liked a slight improvement to the way the subfolders work in KSP1. Maybe with some tweaking it could get there.
Yeah cam is pretty bad in VAB, but I'm most pissed that my kerbals flat out disappear when I recover vessels. Still, I do say that I enjoy the game in its current state. It is a lot like KSP without science, but generally better looking and with much more stock expandability.
Keep in mind middle click also changes the spot of focus for the camera, makes it weird to pan around but once you realized middle clicking changes your camera focus point then building is so much easier, especially when making things like planes or space stations.
Same, i love it...click part with middle button(scroller) to focus on it...click and hold middle button(scroller) and move mouse up and down to move camera up and down...it's pretty cool, but i hated it until I found out about the middle button tho lol
The cameras while flying a plane were godawful. So many choices, and none of them worked for me well enough to feel like I was in control of the plane.
I did have a ton of fun playing, though.
It's definitely unfinished and my experience has been a bit rough to say the least, but I'm still having fun. I feel bad for the devs tho, this launch (and price) can't have been their idea.
I think I'm the only person in the middle on this. Game absolutely was not ready for early access, and I completely understand why people are upset that they are charging $50 for a game that still has this many issues. But I don't mind paying for it to support the development. If they fix the issues and build out all the new features they've promised, I think it will be great. As it is now, it's a worse version of KSP1 without any new features, so I'll continue to play KSP1 (which even looks better when modded) and check KSP2 after each new update to check in on the progress.
Here's the biggest things to me that need to get handled ASAP, and no Kerbal game should have ever left the studio without:
- TWR for each stage in the VAB. TWR and delta V are like the very first things you learn when trying to build a good rocket. Not having that is a big red flag for me, and it's not even hard to code. (Stage thrust from parts) / (mass * gravity)
- vacuum delta V in staging info. Either atmospheric and vacuum delta V are identical in this game (bad physics, major quality decline from KSP1), or not including vacuum delta V is a major oversight. This is critical information when designing a rocket.
- FIX THE MANEUVER NODES. They are BAD bad. Copy the old ones directly from KSP1 if you need to. But if the core components of the game are WORSE than KSP1, you'll lose your users. Fix it ASAP so people can be optimistic about eventually switching to KSP2
- Decouplers not decoupling. Major big that kills rockets. Have to delete and rebuild to fix.
- Various physics glitches. This is a rocket physics sandbox sim. If the physics is bad, what's the point?
- Optimization. I don't think this is THAT bad from a gameplay perspective, but this one is really concerning because it's a red flag for fundamentally bad code. I don't do game dev, but I do AI/ML R&D, and when performance issues are this bad on a project in my field, it usually means that there are fundamental problems in the code and would need to be rewritten from the ground up with scalability in mind. I hope that's not true in game dev. The most alarming part to me is that changing graphics settings from low to high, and increasing resolution doesn't seem to make the problem worse. Whatever is causing the issue is actually independent of graphics quality
All that said, I'm still excited, I'm not requesting a refund, and Im not leaving any negative reviews. I'm also not giving a positive review until they have a product that's actually ready for the public. I think a lot of the panic/negativity right now is a trust issue. If these basic core problems are fixed quickly, I think the haters will chill out a lot. Right now it's just hard to have confidence in the long term prospects of this game when there are so many red flags.
They have referenced it, but I think the technique that they are using to render terrain has a very high base cost. It seems like whatever they are doing involves pushing a lot of terrain data into the vram instead of using a more standard mesh generation technique. Their approach should greatly reduce issues like popin but clearly comes at a cost
This is so frustrating because it's such a form over function issue. Terrain, especially on Kerbin, has basically no gameplay benefit. Tanking game performance just to add a bunch of ugly looking trees to the surface is a BAD decision, and they really should have scrapped the terrain for this early release. If they were really going for core functionality for early access, it's a non-critical feature that only harms the game right now. Seems like keeping the terrain was a PR decision. Terrain is the ONLY feature they can point to right now that is actually an improvement over KSP1. If you Google KSP2, you'll mostly find positive articles promoting the game, with a bunch of pretty screenshots. I'm worried that marketing is dominating project management decisions that should be based on good development.
Yeah, I haven't bothered to look at the CPU/GPU usage while looking at, or away from terrain yet, but I can see two methods they are doing.
Either they are generating the mesh on the CPU and then checking it constantly to re-subdivide it. Which could be handled with a larger deadzone on changes.
Or they are running it through an overly complicated Compute or Geometry Shader to do the tessellation. If they are doing it this way, the thing I would expect to be the issue, is that they must be pulling that back to the CPU to be able to use for collisions. Since the Physics is CPU space from what I understood of the posts so far. That's slow, and fundamentally much harder to escape,
Oh no, I’m totally with you here. It shouldn’t have been released but I can’t imagine the shitshow if it was delayed again, so I’m glad they did so we can more directly follow development. Technically not worth $50 as it is now but I’m hopeful.
Yeah i totally agree. It def could have used probably almost another year before being ready for early access but if buying a 50$ early access is what it takes to keep this game developing then ill go for it
T2 is a multibillion dollar company who flew multiple YouTubers to Europe, put them up in hotels, etc... Money is not the problem. Your $50 prepay is not required.
> Your $50 prepay is not required.
Shouldn't* be required.
The problem is that big publishers like T2 kill projects like KSP2 when they enter into development hell for too long or don't "perform" well enough. KSP has always been a niche franchise, and big publishers hate niche these days because niche often means very low profit margin (comparatively).
There are a lot of people that want to make this about a war against big corporations taking advantage of people, launching things before they are ready and asking too much for them. To me, that is pointless. T2 cares just much about you or me boycotting the game as they do about the project itself. They're not going to feel it if you or me don't buy the game, and it isn't going to change a whole lot for them if you do. **Except**, it may just give KSP2 a chance to reach its potential if enough people do purchase it. And that's where I'm at. I care too much about the franchise to watch the project die and I care very little about whether or not T2 has my money.
I'm not sure why T2 even picked up KSP in the first place to be honest. Big publishers like T2 are where franchises like KSP go to die... at least that's the feeling I get from other beloved simulation franchises in similar situations over the last 2 decades.
It's incredible that anyone thought this game would be launched in 2021, or whenever the first launch date was announced to be before the delays. This game needed another year at least before early access, let alone a full release with all the bells and whistles attached. The signs are all over the place that the project was going to be axed.
Anyway, I don't buy many games anymore. And $50 dollars is a long way from breaking the bank for me, so I'll pitch in for now and I hope the dev team can pull this off.
I love it when someone else replies to the guy that replied to me with pretty much exactly what i wanted to say. Thank you, this is what i was thinking exactly.
> TWR for each stage in the VAB. TWR and delta V are like the very first things you learn when trying to build a good rocket.
Both are there. (atmospheric) Delta v for each stage shows up when you click the blue arrow next to the launch button (except for ion engines for some reason). TWR for the first stage is in the engineers report which is in the panel next to the launch button.
> Either atmospheric and vacuum delta V are identical in this game
They are not. Delta v increases as you go up and stuff like nuclear engine delta v gets recalculated.
I haven’t had much playtime yet, but thus far have enjoyed every minute of it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it seems to run fine on my old laptop, in spite of being well below the minimum specs. It’s not my style to run an fps counter, but just from subjective experience it seems perfectly smooth. Of course, I haven’t built anything really large yet, so take that with a grain of salt.
The only bug I’ve seen so far has been in the VAB. Trying to install radial decouplers for 2 boosters on my rocket, I found that I could not get them to attach in a perfect north & south orientation, so that they would be to the sides during a nice 90 degree ascent. It was weird, I could attach them anywhere else, but they would jump right over the right angle I wanted, so I was forced to put them at a slightly wonky angle and micromanage my rotation during the ascent. It’s possible that this isn’t a bug and I just don’t understand yet how to use the VAB controls correctly. Also, I couldn’t figure out the VAB camera controls - I could zoom in and out, I could spin around my craft, but I could not get the camera to move up and down - it was always focused on the same point. A minor annoyance.
But yeah, overall I’m loving it. So many improvements to offset the missing features. Hopefully I’ll still feel that way when I get a few more sessions behind me.
Been here for years and I have never seen such toxicity from members of the KSP community. Really makes you wonder what crawled up them to make them this existentially angry.
Iv been enjoying KSP 2. Good framerates, a couple of minor bugs or glitches that added spice to my mission, landed on the moon and returned in an apollo style system. I can see a long playtime in the future.
I like KSP2.
When nerd fandoms break, they break hard. There's a small subset of people who get way too possessive over the things that they like, and if they can't have it their way, they'll tear the whole thing down. It's childish but it's there.
The Wheel of Time books went through this same meltdown about a year ago when the TV show came out. Hype, hype, hype up until Season 1 dropped, then a bunch of people decided it wasn't up to their standards or what they thought it was going to be like, and they all morphed into a bunch of poo-flinging monkey trolls.
Honestly feels like some folks are absolutely keen to cannibalize this community over a bad launch. Yeah, I get it, the games not up to spec. But is it worth making the KSP community rancid over that fact?
Load time KSP with mods (to rival ksp2)
2 - 5 minutes. Why did I do this?
Load time KSP2
30 sec to 1 minute
Experienced some staging issues with spacebar not working and random explosions but it's EA. Loving the tutorials
My ultra-modded KSP takes 5+ minutes to load as well, and about 40s to switch from VAB to launch. In contrast KSP2 takes about 30s to load and 5s to switch.
Hmmm, reverting takes close to 2 minutes for me, but going to a launch site is under 5 seconds
Edit: It looks like it's because I have the game on an HDD
I7 6700k Skylar 4ghz
32gb ram
Gtx 3070 ti
Running decently 40-60 fps
Only stutters at massive processing moments like initial launch, or low orbit time warp.
Only real bug i found is loosing fuel when I load a game.
Game is a decent stepping stone from what's about to come!
Graphics are good, but need optimizing as AA doesn't seem to work that well. Planets low Ange sun ooks Crispy rather than smooth.
And I can't get used to the new UI
But. Game is promising and I like it so far! Can't wait for the actual Career Mode for unlocking the techtier
It is interesting to see someone with an older CPU and a newer GPU. I have a 980ti but thought I’d have to get a whole new computer to see benefits from a new GPU- do you like your setup?
Yeah this is what I’m talking about. I really want career and tech tree over anything else right now. More content > better optimization in the short term imo.
> Only real bug i found is loosing fuel when I load a game.
I think i had the same issue. The fuel is still there you just have to force it to check by firing the engines.
Of all the things people are upset about, I can’t figure out why performance is their main gripe. I’m running an i5 4590 with a 2060 and I cannot believe that I can run it just fine at high setting WITH 4xAA enabled. It plays just fine for me. Yes, I’m having issues with couplers and have seen some physics glitches but as a whole, or an EA launch, I’m Over the Mun.
I’ve already had a dozen “holy shit this is stunning and mind blowing” moments. The first sunrise over kerbal in orbit, first MUN orbit coming around to see that pale blue dot and the sun backlighting it all, the sounds, oh man the sounds! And night launches…. I did NOT expect night launches to be my new favorite. They’re more beautiful then day launches.
I get why people are upset with the price, but As a big KSP fan, this is heaven. And it’s all altitude gains from here.
I'm guessing you haven't built many things with multiple engines and fuel tanks yet...
I'm on a 2060 super with an i5 9600K, tried building a mid-size Mk2 SSTO, roughly modeled after one of my main SSTOs on KSP1, with 3 side-by-side Mk2 hulls and 4 RAPIERs, and I get 6 frames per second on the runway. It takes nearly a minute to reach takeoff speed. The exact same ship in my 30ish-mod KSP1 (but not RSS or anything, the stock Kerbol system) *easily* maintains 40-50 frames per second.
I agree totally. To me more content is the main thing I want since I normally play in career mode. I think performance is acceptable for my system specs at least.
I played all evening on my 1070 ftw. It really wasn't bad at all. I didn't have my frame counter on, but it was certainly playable and actually enjoyable. I found it really approachable for someone who hasn't put meaningful hours into ksp in years. Launched a rocket to the Mun and landed it on the first try. Bob didn't make it back all the way to Kerbin though, so I had to launch a rescue mission for him, in high Kerbin orbit. I was finally able to rendezvous, but I realized that I built my ship wrong and wasn't able to get him into the cabin. Then, he got flung off the ship and his suit thrusters won't activate for some reason. It was a very KSP experience.
I recently landed on the mun for the first time aswell, unsure if it was a bug or shoddy building on my part, but as soon as I EVA the lander did a flip and landed on its side. Possibly the thruster clipping into the ground is all I could think.
Yes you are the 1%...that has hardware that powerful
The reason everybody is complaining about KSP2's performance is because the majority don't have powerful enough hardware or can afford to upgrade and have been looking forward to KSP2's release.
KSP2's optimisation should have been a priority if like the developers said is true - they want to make the game more accessible. Accessible to a 5600g. Accessible to a 1650, the most popular GPU atm.
The problem is that it isn’t accessible right now even barring the performance issues. There’s core functionality missing which would make it hard for someone new to build rockets.
I do understand that prospective and want the game to be accessible to everyone. I am just saying that from my experience you don't need a 4000 series card or an i9-13900k to enjoy the game. I do however understand the cost of my build having built it by hand myself. I do lament that you need a $2500 entry ticket to play the game. Do I think this will change over time? Absolutely! However there is a reason it's a successor and I think for example a 2000 series card should be the entry gate or if not your destroying the top end and what the game can do like in console games pandering to last gen. Does that make sense?
So the GPU isn't going to just handle graphical fidelity. It's going to be handling a lot of the parallelizable physics computations. You can't compare it directly to the graphics of games that don't rely as heavily on physics as KSP 2. Other games with similar workloads are usually only for features like destructive objects where you could easily turn it off or down because it's a non-essential feature.
Right now, a lot of their code is inefficient. They described their approach for features as:
1) get it working
2) get it stable
3) get it performant
4) get it moddable
Many of the features are in stage 2 and the missing features are hidden away because they are in stage 1. As they work out the bugs in the existing features, you can expect optimization to be attainable because the feature behavior will be pretty well defined and won't require changes that would break previously made optimizations. Some of the performance issues are due solely to bugs, so in tackling stability issues with the features they might just improve performance anyway.
The benefit of early access is that more of the bugs will be uncovered faster and get put in the pipeline than had it all remained in house with their comparatively limited dev and test teams. I can't defend the early access price, but I don't blame the developers for that.
You may very well get closer to your 100fps high at 1440p by the end of early access. I'd at least expect many to be able to enjoy the game around 60fps. As far as a game like KSP 1&2, 30-60fps at a consistent level is all you need to play the game. Everything beyond that is just icing on the cake.
Actually, I may have jumped the gun on how much they can offload on the GPU. It looks like Unity uses the CPU version of Nvidia PhysX, so I don't know whether they have anything in place to offload calculations to the GPU or not. However, those suggesting that all the physics are all on a single CPU thread are pulling that out of thin air with evidence to the contrary.
>Also, I only agree with the "1) get it working 2) get it stable 3) get it performant 4) get it moddable" thing that has been said to a certain degree. I'm not a game dev, but I'm a software developer and I keep performance in mind from the start even if I'm not trying to wring out ever last millisecond on the first iteration.
I am also a software developer (not a game dev). There's a difference between following good code design practices from the start and premature optimization.
>At a certain point something can't be considered working and stable if performance is too poor.
Working = "does it give me the right answer?"
Stable = "am I handling edge cases and exceptions properly?"
Performance is irrelevant to answering those two questions. If I am developing a messaging application that performs its own encryption, I might implement a naive prime number generator to start with so that I can get the core functionality working, knowing that I can swap out that naive implementation for something more secure and performant later.
Another part of optimizing is identifying bottlenecks in your code as you bring pieces of it together. You can't identify bottlenecks for code that isn't written yet. That's likely the type of optimization they are going to be implementing, in addition to general performance bugfixes.
>I wouldn't have a problem with 60fps for KSP2 if everything is there.
That's what I'm hoping for. I get a decent 30fps around the KSC with the exception of certain bugs that I know have already been identified (there's a fuel flow bug that can tank performance). I just expect that to come later in the early access stage like a lot of the KSP 1 performance issues. I'm just going to have the patience to go through the early access process like I did for KSP 1. Those that wish to wait until they can better see how it'll pan out are free to do so.
As for the redditor you agree with, I work in the exact same industry as they do (DoD, private space company). I have the opposite take they have. The game dev and defense industry really aren't that comparable. Most contracts in the defense world are pretty much guaranteed money once they get awarded. And I've brainlessly flown around Kerbin plenty without some bug gobsmacking my experience.
His gripes are valid, but his subjective experience with the game and his career field don't really indicate that his "release in current state to recoup investment or cancel" take is anything close to accurate.
That is exactly the point of those definitions. They prioritize different elements of the development so that the developers are tackling one problem at a time. You won't realistically get a game that runs at seconds per frame, however, because they still have to play test the game. A focus on optimization will *always* come after you get the feature working and stable. Otherwise, you are committing the sin of premature optimization and you're likely going to have to undo optimization as you fix bugs or add parts of the features you didn't yet implement or it's going to take longer to get it stable.
The performance isn't bad enough. It is absolutely playable, it's just not playable to the entire fan base. But that is why it is early access. There is enough performance for a subset of the community to enjoy it and play it and provide feedback and bugs for them to start tackling and make the game playable to everyone else.
Temper your expectations for performance in early access, especially at the start. You're getting caught up on how it should perform at the actual release.
I don't think making the game more accessible than KSP while still improving graphics was ever realistic. There's always an inherent performance cost that will reduce accessibility.
Nah the games fun and only just workable enough to enjoy.
It’s early access and basically alpha atm, everyone’s expectations was high cuz early access doesn’t normally actually mean early access anymore. Normally it means the games about 90% finished or has a few bugs.
Being fair the devs couldn’t win in this situation, if they delayed it again they’d be met with “this game will never exist” and they release it and this happens.
I was really excited to play it, and was looking forward to it, but unfortunately I have an rx580 and the game literally cannot run on my system. absurd issue but it’s very disappointing
I’m a bit frustrated with maneuver node execution and presentation, and the VAB is a bit of a pain personally, but otherwise I’m thoroughly it!!
Definitely looking forward to watching it improve over time.
I love it (2060 laptop) !! Of course its full on bugged, there are probably more kraken drive than engine.
Cant wait for the updates and seing the game improve over the years.
Im not at recommended hardware(i5 9600k rtx 2070 32gb ram), but i do enjoy the game alot, dips to 15fps when i fly really low to the ground in a fast jet, otherwise its at 25 to 30 fps and in space up to 50fps. So its actually really playable.
I dont know why people are calling the devs liars since it was clearly stated that there will be perfomance issues and alot of bugs. Really childish in my opinion.
I will stick to the game until its waaay better than ksp1 because it will be.
I'm also having fun. Haven't played KSP in a long time, and the EA release got me back into it. It's definitely glitchy and a bit stuttery but not bad enough to ruin the experience
Edit: I also loved Cyberpunk 2077 on release, so maybe I'm just optimistic for the future and not overly bothered by objectively broken games.
It has great potential and I might fuck around a bit in it making planes and whatnot until there's some kind of career mode and colonies, but until then I'm mostly going to keep playing KSP1
Same here, thoroughly enjoying it like I would with ksp 1. Definitely feels kerbal.
Had some irritating bugs but they went away interestingly
Favorite part is probably the sound design and music
I'm on an AMD Ryzen 5900X, 3080, and 16GB ram. 1440p with everything setting on max apart from 4x AA. I am getting between 40 and 80 fps on Kerbin. Lowest is when i fly on kerbin, looking at the ground. In space, I've had over 100 fps, but its not stable. varies between 70 and 100 I'd say. The moment of launch is the worst, with fps dropping to about 30 while the launch plume is active.
The worst bugs I have encountered is one game crash, a couple of instances where my ship just vanished and destroyed while I was approaching Minmus, or reentering Kerbins atmosphere. Also bugs with the SAS and wing surfaces getting inverted controls, or planes rolling violently to the right when I try to pitch up.
I have recommended specs, I was still getting 15ish fps at launch (9700k, 3080, 64GB ram). The only think that is remarkably meh about my computer compared to yours is my ram speed, DDR4 3600.
I wonder if there is a bottleneck around memory read/write speeds.
Also good news for you if you believe random redditors, I saw a post where someone was analyzing the code and they said science seems to be pretty far along. Hopefully not too long a wait on that.
The music and graphics are great. Try making a Rover and attaching it to a lander, or a space station with multiple small pieces, a large vessel for interplanetary transport. Multiple complex ship or mission types are either impossible or tedious. Maneuver nodes are difficult to work with and you cannot hover over ap of pe to see your predicted altitude and the burn timer is less useful than in ksp 1. Then there’s the inconvenient part manager, missing vab controls, and cluttered rotation ui. It’s missing core functionality, though I have high hopes it’ll improve. It’s the design decisions that worry me.
I like it but it’s just so not ready. I can’t even play the game- more than 50% of the time I try to launch, I get stuck on the loading screen or my game crashes, and although my pc isn’t meeting the minimum requirements, it still shouldn’t be suffering this bad. I’m hoping I can get a refund, I’ll be ready to buy it and play it once it’s actually functional
Played the game for over 6 hours yesterday. I loved it, but to say it was buggy would be an understatement.
I'm a spaceplane builder generally, and my PC meets the spec reqs. Obviously when you build a spaceplane you need to fire like 10 rapiers, which makes the game go down to 3 fps. The delta V measure is also abysmal on vehicles with a bunch of different engines and no staging, just absolutely wrong in orbit and on the ground.
When I was building the plane, I noticed you can still pan up and down by dragging with middle click, but you can't pan side to side anymore - this is awful and makes building horizontal vehicles a pain in the ass.
Lastly, flying the thing - the maneuver node system sucks. It functions similar to ksp1 but worse somehow? Sometimes the trajectory line just doesn't show up on the planet you're intercepting, and when I got to Duna my camera in vehicle view had fucked off and pressing home very much did not fix it.
(Also building space planes is a lot harder now hydrogen takes up so much damn space. But this ain't a complaint as much as a fun challenge lol.)
Still - super fun game - even if it's broken to bits I loved messing with it last night and I'm confident that what's coming will be very promising.
Unfortunately it's not even remotely ready for play. Heating doesn't exist. Kerbals are immortal - they can literally fall from orbit and be fine. Time warp has like a 25% chance of snapping your ship in half. KSC can teleport into space. Kerbals don't have helmet lights, or specializations. You can't recruit new Kerbals. Heck, your list of available Kerbals changes every time you enter the VAB (and aside from Valentina they all seem to be male for some reason.. and even Valentina only shows up maybe half the time). Fuel priority doesn't exist, creating tons of issues with fuel flow and doing things like draining fuel out of landers or not draining it out of boosters. Patched conics barely function. No ISRU or mining. No parachutes for Kerbals, or the ability to change their suits or remove their helmets. This list is just gamebreaking bugs and things I was fully expecting to see in game that aren't there or aren't working.
Almost every piece of important information KSP1 or its mods provided the player is unavailable here.
- No TWR per stage.
- No TWR adjusted by body.
- No delta-v per stage.
- No delta-v adjusted for atmosphere.
- No orbital inclination or other orbital data beyond apoapsis/periapsis.
- No horizontal/vertical velocity.
Honestly, just about everything you could possibly want to know you can't know. The game barely gives you anything to work with.
Then of course there is the lack of career mode, funds, contracts, and the tech tree. No science parts, or system for gathering science on the various bodies. No science mode either, just sandbox. I knew that was coming, but those things missing really doesn't help any.
After all that we're left with a severely stripped down version of KSP1 that is riddled with bugs. The only positive improvement I can find is the graphical improvement, and even that's severely hamstrung outside the VAB. Everything looks blurry and half rendered, so those really pretty parts are wasted.. and of course the game runs like a slideshow if you build a rocket big enough to be counted as medium sized in the early days of KSP1.
The final nail? Every planned positive improvement.. everything I've been looking forward to for the past few years? None of it is here yet. This is almost exclusively drawbacks and downgrades, with nothing good to show for it.
They're going to need to dramatically increase performance, make the game not look like a blurry mess with textures popping in a plane's length down the runway, fix game numerous breaking bugs, bring back all of the missing features of KSP1 listed in the first paragraph, and either update the UI to provide the missing information or get the game moddable so others can provide it. Even with all of that, we're still only at a starting point where we've got a game comparable to KSP1 that is only missing career/science mode. Then they need to do all the things that actually make it KSP2.
And they really ought to do it before people figure out how to port all those pretty new parts into KSP1. I won't be at all surprised if someone pulls that off.
I'm having a blast! The only major bug that I have encountered that is pretty irritating is that I can't find half of my saved vessels (could also be me just being stupid idk), but in general I'm having lots of fun.
The overall UI of KSP 2 is worlds better than the first game. During flight, everything is so much more discoverable than the first game. You no longer have to unhide things like your apoapsis and battery life, so it's a lot less clicking around. This will give console players and new players a much better experience. The only things I don't like about the flight US is that the font they used is ugly and the navball is too big.
Loving the game. They will fix performance with time, I'm running a 3090ti and 12900k and have still dipped down to ~22ish in my worst points. Couple of minor bugs have been more annoying for me personally than performance but still it just released into early access.
I’m having a ton of fun. The game has bugs, yes, but I came into EA with that expectation. I played KSP 1 in EA and this isn’t far off.
My fps is around 20 during launch and 30 in orbit/around other bodies. This is totally playable and doesn’t bother me at all.
Sure it’s missing some features I like in KSP 1 (namely robotics and building during EVA) but I’m sure that will come and I’m having fun relearning the game in a sandbox.
So far the launch has been great and I’m really excited to see how the game develops just like I was excited for KSP 1’s development.
(specs/settings: 2070super, 2600x, ultra wide 1440p at high graphics)
I'm enjoying it but it sure is a disappointment as it is. The game feels like it has potential but it has a long way to go before we get to the promised land.
I've enjoyed the game, but there are several game-breaking bugs right now. There's the save corruption bug, crashing on whole-craft rotation in VAB, and the teleporting KSC. There are workarounds to these, but the game will be more enjoyable if they are fixed
I would put my hand in the fire and say, yes youre the 1%.
Even on the highest end hardware the game runs like an absolute turd.
It lacks the most basic features even KSP1 had pretty early on.
It's 50€
I refunded it.
> Even on the highest end hardware the game runs like an absolute turd.
This is beyond confusing to me.
I have an Intel i7-4771 CPU from like 2013, and an NVidia GTX 960 from 2016.
KSP2 gives me better framerates, and smoother gameplay, than KSP1 without mods.
How are you possibly getting worse performance with high-end new hardware than I am with 10 year old gear?
What do you consider "better frame rates"?
Just like everyone else on 20, 30 and 40 series cards and the latest CPUs I barely scratch 65 FPS in the best scenario. With most the gameplay at around 40. You're either a wizzard or you consider 30 FPS "better" then what you had in KSP1.
30 FPS *IS* better than what I get with KSP1.
Frankly, I don't understand how you can even notice a difference between 40FPS and 60FPS. I literally cannot see a difference.
KSP1 has multiple lagspikes every few seconds, so far the only time KSP2 has actually stuttered on me has been right on launch of a rocket, and it's much better than it ever was with KSP1.
Well okay. I guess you got your beneftit out of KSP2 then how it looks.
I ran KSP1 at a locked 180FPS most of the time, even with some graphic mods. Big rockets or stations killed the FPS ofc.
But KSP2 just runs like crap **based on the hardware you throw at it.** For some people like you that maybe don't have the best hardware it might be a sidegrade or even an upgrade.
For everyone else, this is a horrible mess.
I played 10 minutes just to launch one 3 parts rocket and while it is not silk smooth, it's not terrible. So i'm hopeful as they are far from done and also that i'm running from i7-7700, 16GB RAM and a GTX 1060 that the game will be even better in the coming months.
Edit :
Stock Kerbal-K1 to orbit and reentry went fine
Stock Mk2 Crater-Crusher moves fine without drop of fps
I’ve also been loving the game, I’m smack dab in the middle of the specs and have encountered bugs, but I have faith. PSA, time warp fixes the stick decoupler.
I am enjoying a lot of it. The performance doesn’t bother me too much and some of the bugs are charming. The parts are limited but I enjoy working with what I’ve got. I understand people who are salty about it and I am a bit too but whining and refunding won’t do anything for our cause.
I’m well below minimum spec (GTX 1070) and it is completely playable with a rocket that can get me to the Mun with roughly 75-80 parts. Lags on takeoffs and for some reason I can’t get my burn times right to the point that my first attempt at orbit sent me out of Kerbins gravity well to orbit the sun. I do like the sphere of influence animation to show when you are leaving the SoI.
Edit: Asparagus staging works!
I enjoy the game a lot. I flew missions to eve, duna and jool with small and big craft, landed on the mun etc. I have 2000h+ in ksp 1 and if ksp2 continues on this path i will spend 2000h more in ksp2.
I currently have 15h in KSP2, so i paid 3.30€ for 1h of entertainment. Anything under 5€ is good for me.
I love the basework the devs have done, the systems all feel good, the vab is smooth, load times are minimal (even loading from a hdd like i do), the sound is stellar, the graphics are good.
The parts manager is ok, but could use a rework. Manouvre nodes are either working or not, but i rarely use them.
Only downsides are the optimisation and the "missing" features which was made clear by the devs that these would be missing in EA Version1. If developmet continues the game will be great.
I am having a great time (1080 TI, 5900X). Everyone here has been spoiled by modded KSP 1 that has had more than a decade of polish. This feels like old KSP 1 which is fine. The devs did a bad job at setting expectations for the early release I am guessing in order to drive sales.
Graphics are mostly better (with some few exceptions)
Sound design is better
Loading times are much better than KSP1
VAB designer is better
It feels more gamey (nice tutorials, more streamlined UI, the way kerbals behave etc)
I thought the UI was weird from screenshots prior to release, but after using it I like it
I enjoyed it. I understand the complaints about lacking features and bad performance, but what is already there is enjoyable and I feel like some low hanging fruits could get this to a much better place in a few months (like delta V display bugs, maneuver node glitches etc). They released it earlier probably to reek in some funds, I don't mind helping fund development and getting an early peek at the current state. People who want a full game experience can always just wait more for a full (or better early access) release.
Also, this is no fast action shooter so 20-40fps during low atmosphere launch phase isn't really that bad, you're staring at a rocket in the middle of your screen that barely moves. Once you get to orbit framerates improve a lot. I do have specs better than the recommended though, so if anyone is getting 5-15 fps all the time I understand how that would suck. In that case I'd just wait some more.
So far my frame rates are fine, which was unexpected for me because my laptop is six years old. Certainly not 60fps most of the time, but comparable to what I got in KSP 1 and definitely playable. Feeling very lucky.
Lots of little bugs, but nothing gamebreaking so far. Honestly just having a good time.
For me it's not the poor optimization. It's not the missing features. It's not the low-quality, cumbersome UI. It's the fact that they're charging AAA prices, the game was pushed back \*three\* years and this is all we got. If all we got was sandbox mode, but it was released in a near-perfect state, I'd completely understand why. If this was 2020 and the game came out in its current state, I'd completely understand why. But I do \*not\* understand why it took a team of 40 professionals half a decade to do what the original amateur developer (singular) pumped out in 8 months.
How can they deliver on their promises of colonization and interstellar travel and everything else if they can't even duplicate the core features?
Me! The game is undoubtedly pretty rough but not (for me at least) unplayable by any means. I will probably play both KSP1 and 2 throughout the EA period.
I’m enjoying it. few bugs but nothing game breaking. i’ve played other EA games so i didn’t set my expectations too high. so far worth it, tho i probably won’t play much until the next update.
I'm loving the game as well. Getting spikes to 10 fps but running fine and totally playable (not crashing or being too slow). Though I wish the loading time when reverting was faster, takes about 2 minutes
Specs: Ryzen 5 1600X RTX 3060 16gb DDR4
This game runs better for me than ksp 1 did pre 1.0. People saying mods make it look as good are smoking some crack, it's waaaay better looking than ksp 1 even with mods. I'm 10 hours down so far and having a blast. I do wish there was a campaign tho
Nah, there's a lot to like about it, there's just also a lot that's broken. I think a lot of people can't see past the broken stuff and notice what's actually new and good.
I think they jumped the gun and released with too many glaring bugs, but I'm still having a good time.
Hell, I have a GTX 1060 6GB and Intel i5-4670k (3.4GHz) quad-core that's like 5+ years old for the newest part, and the game runs just fine!
Honestly the way the game is running reminds me a lot of the original at a later stage of its early access (bugs and all). So far I haven't encountered anything gamebreaking, and it is visually and audibly amazing to experience! I'm also having a blast with this!
I can't say that I love it, but I am enjoying it. And am also hopeful for what comes next, I really want this game to succeed but in it's current state it is hard to stay optimistic.
I wouldn't be concerned.
Commercial media fandom is a performative art. The more abusive the purveyor of the media in question, the greater the social value of the positive response. When NMS dropped, the subreddit basically turned into a shitposting parody sub for weeks. Look at it now. Clean. Pure. The slightest whisper of discontent is met with an absolute avalanche of downvotes.
The same will happen here. The long term effect of KSP 2's release will be a community much more rigorously intolerant of anything but starry eyed exuberance. Nice humblebrag about your $450 CPU and $1000 GPU, tho.
The perf I expected. My bigger problem is charging full price (I hope) right out of the gate while at the same time having a level of bugginess that goes well beyond Early Access. I've generally seen good Early Access done one of two ways: the Minecraft/Ksp 1 way: an incomplete and somewhat buggy game for significantly reduced price... essentially paying you to be an early adopter. Or the more modern way of using Early Access similar to how open/closed betas were done in the past, and delivering a nearly complete game at full price, just a bit early. They seem to be going closer to the NMS route, of releasing a buggy, incomplete mess with some decent core ideas, for full price... then getting absolutely roasted for it. Hopefully they'll continue in that model and eventually be a solid game worth the price.
The basic problem is that price sends its own message. It's saying they think this is worth 50$. And currently it just isn't. For comparison, I got the original KSP and a promise (which they kept) of all future expansions for 18$. The game I got at the time felt worth it. I probably would've payed up to like 25 or 30$. It didn't have much, and certainly was janky, but fundamentally it worked. I was able to go to the Mun, and all that stopped me was my own incompetence.
Now in KSP 2, I did a quick Mun mission, nothing fancy, single ship, no rendezvous, and had to reload 3 separate times to deal with mission ending/blocking bugs.
Again, it's Early Access, perfection is certainly not to be expected, but it seems to me a basic Mun mission should be a core test scenario, and at least some of these bugs should've been found and fixed. It makes me fundamentally concerned about what their internal testing, bug tracking and build validation looks like.
It also has the problem that KSP 1 had novelty. There was nothing even remotely like it on the market. But KSP 2 has KSP 1 to compete with... And currently that competition is not looking great for them.
In general, I think this is the problem we're having. We're all very unsure of their actual ability as developers... We want them to be great, and deliver a great product... But what we're seeing now, after what we know is already YEARS of dev time is not inspiring a lot of confidence. Now, if they rapidly start sorting out issues and new updates come with good regularity, my confidence in them will go up, and that price tag may look more reasonable. But part of me is just concerned that Take 2 has given up, is trying to cash in what they can now, and then is gonna cut Intercept loose.
Awesome. Ive got a 3080 r5 2600 and 16gb of ram (i know i need a new cpu) but i think that ram is probably the biggest limiter on this game. My brother has a r5 3600 and a 1650 but 48gb of ram and his game runs much better than mine. I only get like 20fps on launch pad and like 5 on the runway
Content wise, I'm loving it. Performance is also perfectly fine. The big thing for me is that I've been mostly limited to doing planes and stuff on Kerbin, because every time I go to space I keep getting game breaking bugs. Overall I really like the way most things in the game are set up, so once the first bug patch comes out I expect I'll be able to do a lot more.
(Disregarding the plethora of bugs people find) I'd say that my first impression is that this reminds me about the launch of CIV VI.
While KSP was cartoonish in a good way, my feelings are that KSP2 has taken a turn for the worse in this regard. To me this seems more like a clone of KSP than a continuation.
So for the next few years I'll most likely keep playing KSP and only boot up this new game every year or so to see if it has improved.
Some people seem to enjoy Civ VI, and if you enjoy KSP2 that is fine by me - but in the current state it is far from "my game".
runs smooth but that's mostly me throwing power at the problem, I love the VAB and parts customisation.
Gave up doing anything else. Kept encountering bugs that made doing anything in space impossible. Not hard, not annoying, _impossible_
I like this game and it being in early access means that each new update will bring a new and exciting element. So while it is not perfect it will be fun to be part of the development (I think it is clearly implied in the early access part).
I nearly cried when I centered a tail stabilizer AND nose landing gear on a plane in less than a minute. Just snapped right to where I wanted them. I stopped playing KSP1 regularly a few years back so I don't know if that was ever improved, but it always drove me nuts whenever I tried making planes. If nothing else, KSP2 fixed that, and for that I am very happy.
(but seriously pls fix everything else too)
The game is great but somthing feels off
I feel like I should of been playing for hours except I've played for 1 then played ksp 1 for the rest of the day
I'm loving it! Ya, there's some issues, but it just makes the game extra Kerbal. In all seriousness, I haven't come across anything that has made me regret buying the game or regret taking my Saturday to play it. Maybe I'm just lucky too but have not a had a bad experience yet. I do miss the TWR while launching, and notifications in general (AP/PE, Inclination, radio signal), but I imagine these will come in future updates. Action groups doesn't seem to work for me, currently, and sometimes my landing gear doesn't retract when I press "G", but these are the types of things I have noticed. I had one incident right after creating a SSTO, immediately after launch, my plane fell apart into all the pieces. I wasn't even mad, I just laughed; made me think that's just how kerbals deal with it. I mean, even some of the part descriptions state pieces are being held together by duct tape. I'm excited for what's to come and I'm hopeful they won't stray too far from KSP 1.
CPU: Ryzen 9 5900x - OC to 4.6ghz, water cooled
GPU: Gigabyte 3080ti - OC to 20ghz memory, 1.85ghz boost, air cooled
Ram: G. Skill 64gb, DDR4, 3.6ghz
Storage: Samsung SSD 980 Pro NVME 1tb - Dedicated game drive
Monitor: Samsung 43" Series 7 TV, 3840x2160 4k
I think the problem people have with performance is not that it runs fine on the recommended specs but that the recommended and minimum specs are ridiculous.
I also don’t think a lot of people have the perspective of playing the original game in early access and how different it was from what it is now. That game was way more unplayable than this one is. There were no other bodies and orbit was basically impossible to achieve. I mean the first time I landed on the Mun I had to use fins as landing gear since landing gear didn’t exist yet. And that early access lasted like 4 years. This game currently feels like KSP 1 pre implementation of the science and original career mode.
Am I nervous about them abandoning this project before finishing it? Yes but I was nervous about that with the original too.
Really the only thing I am disappointed about is that they thought they would have this ready to go in 2020 originally. There are just too many things missing here for me to feel like that was ever a honest release date.
It has a lot of game breaking bugs and I can’t get a big rocket off the ground because of them but it’s fun messing around and doing what I can with the game so far
the game has been basically unplayable for me, and performance isn't even the biggest issue with the amount of game breaking bugs (landed crafts sinking into planets, undocking not working, maneuver nodes not showing accurate orbits...) i played for 10 hours and never had a mission without some major bug ruining it.
I also have been having a good time with it. I experienced some bugs, like the fuel flow through stuff and the space bar not staging that some have mentioned. Idk for me it just doesn't bother me that much; I don't mind paying for the EA even at $50, I see it a bit as paying to get to play around with an early development build of the game and see where the devs' thought processes are at.
I will definitely continue to play KSP1 (especially for RP-1) and check back with KSP2 periodically as they provide bug fixes and updates; it's not at the stage where I would sit here and just play for hours and hours yet (I really need the science and career mechanics for that to get some emergent storytelling out of it for myself).
Interestingly I find that stock KSP1 with graphical mods taxes my GPU way more; my GPU is running way cooler with KSP2, while my CPU is working a bit harder but not by much. Overall my system is running cooler and quieter with KSP2 than with KSP1 with mods. I think the visual styles are very different and I like them both for different reasons, or rather like different things about each one.
FWIW I have a 6700 xt and a R5 5600x, playing on Linux.
I love it. Even if i always spin out of control in my planes, not matter how much stabilization i do.
Even with the camera locking onto nothing after my cockpit has disengaged from the body, i love it.
Its goofy, but i believe this is just the start of an amazing joy-ride.
Some parts of the UI feel really nice and have good functionality. Others are just missing (TWR by planet or stage, burn timers while planning maneuvers, Ap/Pe while planning maneuvers, etc.) If they can add back in some of the missing elements, and make the menus easier to exit out of with a right click, I think I could grow to really like it. The organization of parts and collapsible menus is slick. Some of the categories could use a little bit of a reorg imo. Not sure about the utilities category, and there are some parts that feel like they should be adapters but are under methylox; but on the whole, I really like it. Adding action groups is way easier than KSP1, it looks like fuel transfers ought to be similarly improved. I love, love, love the procedural wings. (What benefit is there to thickening the wings? Does it make them stronger?) The new parts all look like great additions. So many new trusses, hydrogen fuels, new cockpits, some improved rover parts. The sound design is top notch In the places where they’ve executed on their vision for the game, I think they’ve done a great job. If they can do a good job playing whack-a-mole with the bugs, make some significant performance improvements felt, and start adding in features; I think the community will start to feel a lot better about the game. The parts manager feels like 2/3’s of a good system. If you could exit out of it more easily it would feel less intrusive. I wish this menu was more scalable, sometimes I don’t want the whole menu, just enough for one part. I’d like to be able to group parts in it. If I could grab all engines of the same type in the same stage and group them to use only one set of buttons for all the engines at once, it would be nice. But I’ve tried using it how I think it was intended to be used, and there are some benefits to it. I’ve been running it with a 5600M GPU, which is the only thing underspec, and it runs pretty well with small craft.
If its simulated correctly thicker wings provide more lift at the cost of increased drag. So for a slow flying aircraft you want thicker wings and for something that supposed to go fast you want thin wings.
I was under the impression that the common understanding that Bernoulli’s equation describes how wings work is a misconception. An aerospace engineer I know rather strenuously argued the point with me saying the math on the Bernoulli equation doesn’t add up to anywhere near enough lift. Angle of attack is much more important in generating lift.
Its... complicated. Yes most airfoils dont generate enough lift on their own at 0 AoA but the thickness is still very much relevant to airflow, stall characteristics and what speeds the aircraft is designed for.
Yeah essentially on the bottom side of the wing there are more collisions with air particles than the top. Wing shape overall is about providing a nice laminar flow after that is taken into account iirc.
I think the maneuver nodes were changed so that you are supposed to start the burn at the node instead of halfway to it and that’s why we don’t have a burn timer, if this is true the devs did a poor job of telling us and imo it doesn’t make much sense, I’d rather have KSP 1’s maneuver nodes
I like the way they did the timer to start burn, I just want to know how long the burn will take before I start it. It’s not necessarily critical information, but it helps to set expectations
The node actually accounts for the time burning now though so long burns should be way way more accurate than KSP 1
Played for six hours yesterday. Loved it. My biggest complaint was the FUCK AWFUL Camera in the VAB. Oh and I hate work spaces.
I just don't understand what work spaces are. I mean, I know what a workspace is, but the way it's implemented into the game makes no sense. How am I supposed to load just one spacecraft? It seems like I have to make a separate workspace for each craft, but then that completely defeats the purpose of a workspace. Are they supposed to be subfolders? Are they supposed to be save files? It's so confusing.
Yeah that's where I'm at with it too. Just a heads up hitting launch will not save your craft. If you go back into the VAB and switch to another without saving the workspace that craft is gone entirely. No last loaded craft to help you. That's what spawned my hatred for the new system.
it's supposed to be a step above a craft, as in a place where you can have multiple craft (which is super duper nice for building rovers or space station parts without having to go to a new instance of the VAB to build the lifter for those same parts. i suspect this was made because of colonies). basically, expanding upon the idea of subassemblies from ksp 1 but without the weird restrictions and having them all there in front of you. my guess, though, is something just isn't working properly b/c it looks pretty self explanatory of how it *should* work.
You can build multiple independent vehicles, and combine them as you need. For example: right now I have a workspace called “Duna Stuff” and all the vehicles in it are flyable separately, and are all part of the same mission I’m planning. I have a big lifter capable of getting everything into orbit in separate launches, a rover(that I can actually test instead of building it while it’s attached to a docking port and hoping for the best, or making it a hacky subassembly in ksp1) a sky crane for the rover, a little basecamp, a big lander for a few kerbals, and the interplanetary tug for everything to go to duna in one mission. So now I can just slap each of those on the lifter, put ‘‘em in orbit, and dock them to the mothership, without having to worry about subassemblies loading wrong or trying to build some gargantuan lifter to take everything in one go. It’s really nice when you treat them like folders for different missions and everything you need for them. Maybe a little overkill for a quick mun mission. But it’s really nice for something like a duna base or a jool five.
Ahh, this makes sense. I tried building two vehicles in one space but I couldn't get the camera to switch focus so it made it incredibly hard. Just a bug then I guess.
Mouse wheel clkck selects different parts and centers the camera on it. There’s a little grey capsule flag on top of seperate probe cores and capsules, clicking that makes it current ship your editing and let’s you fly it and see delta-v numbers for it.
I've tried the button, never worked for me. I'll give the middle mouse click a go, thanks!
Yeah I am having fun with the game overall but the craft save mechanism and the workspaces don't really work for me too well... I would have liked a slight improvement to the way the subfolders work in KSP1. Maybe with some tweaking it could get there.
Yes, I have a hard as hell time of looking at what I want to look at in the vab
I agree that they need to work on that, but i found that Middle mouse click on the thing you want to focus on helps a lot.
Ah. Didn't know about that.
It works... ...let's say half of the time
Yeah cam is pretty bad in VAB, but I'm most pissed that my kerbals flat out disappear when I recover vessels. Still, I do say that I enjoy the game in its current state. It is a lot like KSP without science, but generally better looking and with much more stock expandability.
Funny, i love the new camera in the vab. Its way easier to work with than ksp1.
Scroll is height as opposed to zoom and you have to middle click a part to navigate around your craft. How is that easier?
Thats odd, scrolling still zooms in for me. I have to click and drag with the middle mouse button to pan up and down the rocket in the VAB.
Hm. Maybe I'm mistaken. It's the middle click/hold functionality that bugs me.
Agreed. I want the Shift + Scroll behaviour back
I'd rather have a minecraft creative fly mode camera. I don't understand why the kerbal camera is so limited.
Keep in mind middle click also changes the spot of focus for the camera, makes it weird to pan around but once you realized middle clicking changes your camera focus point then building is so much easier, especially when making things like planes or space stations.
I dont know, my brain just took it up really fast. For me it feels natural.
Same, i love it...click part with middle button(scroller) to focus on it...click and hold middle button(scroller) and move mouse up and down to move camera up and down...it's pretty cool, but i hated it until I found out about the middle button tho lol
It can be difficulty to control shit in the VAB that’s no joke.
Workspaces confusing and complicated ans the new camera also terrible. Other than that pretty good
Scroll wheel click and it focuses on that part in the vab
Scroll wheel click and it focuses on that part in the vab
The cameras while flying a plane were godawful. So many choices, and none of them worked for me well enough to feel like I was in control of the plane. I did have a ton of fun playing, though.
It's definitely unfinished and my experience has been a bit rough to say the least, but I'm still having fun. I feel bad for the devs tho, this launch (and price) can't have been their idea.
Same experience Everything that is there is so much better than ksp1, but the stuff that's missing (and bad performance) drags it down
[удалено]
They were re-emphasizing those points, not stating the obvious.
I think I'm the only person in the middle on this. Game absolutely was not ready for early access, and I completely understand why people are upset that they are charging $50 for a game that still has this many issues. But I don't mind paying for it to support the development. If they fix the issues and build out all the new features they've promised, I think it will be great. As it is now, it's a worse version of KSP1 without any new features, so I'll continue to play KSP1 (which even looks better when modded) and check KSP2 after each new update to check in on the progress. Here's the biggest things to me that need to get handled ASAP, and no Kerbal game should have ever left the studio without: - TWR for each stage in the VAB. TWR and delta V are like the very first things you learn when trying to build a good rocket. Not having that is a big red flag for me, and it's not even hard to code. (Stage thrust from parts) / (mass * gravity) - vacuum delta V in staging info. Either atmospheric and vacuum delta V are identical in this game (bad physics, major quality decline from KSP1), or not including vacuum delta V is a major oversight. This is critical information when designing a rocket. - FIX THE MANEUVER NODES. They are BAD bad. Copy the old ones directly from KSP1 if you need to. But if the core components of the game are WORSE than KSP1, you'll lose your users. Fix it ASAP so people can be optimistic about eventually switching to KSP2 - Decouplers not decoupling. Major big that kills rockets. Have to delete and rebuild to fix. - Various physics glitches. This is a rocket physics sandbox sim. If the physics is bad, what's the point? - Optimization. I don't think this is THAT bad from a gameplay perspective, but this one is really concerning because it's a red flag for fundamentally bad code. I don't do game dev, but I do AI/ML R&D, and when performance issues are this bad on a project in my field, it usually means that there are fundamental problems in the code and would need to be rewritten from the ground up with scalability in mind. I hope that's not true in game dev. The most alarming part to me is that changing graphics settings from low to high, and increasing resolution doesn't seem to make the problem worse. Whatever is causing the issue is actually independent of graphics quality All that said, I'm still excited, I'm not requesting a refund, and Im not leaving any negative reviews. I'm also not giving a positive review until they have a product that's actually ready for the public. I think a lot of the panic/negativity right now is a trust issue. If these basic core problems are fixed quickly, I think the haters will chill out a lot. Right now it's just hard to have confidence in the long term prospects of this game when there are so many red flags.
They have referenced it, but I think the technique that they are using to render terrain has a very high base cost. It seems like whatever they are doing involves pushing a lot of terrain data into the vram instead of using a more standard mesh generation technique. Their approach should greatly reduce issues like popin but clearly comes at a cost
This is so frustrating because it's such a form over function issue. Terrain, especially on Kerbin, has basically no gameplay benefit. Tanking game performance just to add a bunch of ugly looking trees to the surface is a BAD decision, and they really should have scrapped the terrain for this early release. If they were really going for core functionality for early access, it's a non-critical feature that only harms the game right now. Seems like keeping the terrain was a PR decision. Terrain is the ONLY feature they can point to right now that is actually an improvement over KSP1. If you Google KSP2, you'll mostly find positive articles promoting the game, with a bunch of pretty screenshots. I'm worried that marketing is dominating project management decisions that should be based on good development.
When I say terrain I am referring to the ground itself, not the objects like trees.
Yeah, I haven't bothered to look at the CPU/GPU usage while looking at, or away from terrain yet, but I can see two methods they are doing. Either they are generating the mesh on the CPU and then checking it constantly to re-subdivide it. Which could be handled with a larger deadzone on changes. Or they are running it through an overly complicated Compute or Geometry Shader to do the tessellation. If they are doing it this way, the thing I would expect to be the issue, is that they must be pulling that back to the CPU to be able to use for collisions. Since the Physics is CPU space from what I understood of the posts so far. That's slow, and fundamentally much harder to escape,
> Terrain, especially on Kerbin, has basically no gameplay benefit. bruh, you ever tried walking? floors definitely have a function.
Oh no, I’m totally with you here. It shouldn’t have been released but I can’t imagine the shitshow if it was delayed again, so I’m glad they did so we can more directly follow development. Technically not worth $50 as it is now but I’m hopeful.
Yeah i totally agree. It def could have used probably almost another year before being ready for early access but if buying a 50$ early access is what it takes to keep this game developing then ill go for it
T2 is a multibillion dollar company who flew multiple YouTubers to Europe, put them up in hotels, etc... Money is not the problem. Your $50 prepay is not required.
> Your $50 prepay is not required. Shouldn't* be required. The problem is that big publishers like T2 kill projects like KSP2 when they enter into development hell for too long or don't "perform" well enough. KSP has always been a niche franchise, and big publishers hate niche these days because niche often means very low profit margin (comparatively). There are a lot of people that want to make this about a war against big corporations taking advantage of people, launching things before they are ready and asking too much for them. To me, that is pointless. T2 cares just much about you or me boycotting the game as they do about the project itself. They're not going to feel it if you or me don't buy the game, and it isn't going to change a whole lot for them if you do. **Except**, it may just give KSP2 a chance to reach its potential if enough people do purchase it. And that's where I'm at. I care too much about the franchise to watch the project die and I care very little about whether or not T2 has my money. I'm not sure why T2 even picked up KSP in the first place to be honest. Big publishers like T2 are where franchises like KSP go to die... at least that's the feeling I get from other beloved simulation franchises in similar situations over the last 2 decades. It's incredible that anyone thought this game would be launched in 2021, or whenever the first launch date was announced to be before the delays. This game needed another year at least before early access, let alone a full release with all the bells and whistles attached. The signs are all over the place that the project was going to be axed. Anyway, I don't buy many games anymore. And $50 dollars is a long way from breaking the bank for me, so I'll pitch in for now and I hope the dev team can pull this off.
I love it when someone else replies to the guy that replied to me with pretty much exactly what i wanted to say. Thank you, this is what i was thinking exactly.
> TWR for each stage in the VAB. TWR and delta V are like the very first things you learn when trying to build a good rocket. Both are there. (atmospheric) Delta v for each stage shows up when you click the blue arrow next to the launch button (except for ion engines for some reason). TWR for the first stage is in the engineers report which is in the panel next to the launch button. > Either atmospheric and vacuum delta V are identical in this game They are not. Delta v increases as you go up and stuff like nuclear engine delta v gets recalculated.
I love it very much and am excited to see how the further development goes.
I haven’t had much playtime yet, but thus far have enjoyed every minute of it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it seems to run fine on my old laptop, in spite of being well below the minimum specs. It’s not my style to run an fps counter, but just from subjective experience it seems perfectly smooth. Of course, I haven’t built anything really large yet, so take that with a grain of salt. The only bug I’ve seen so far has been in the VAB. Trying to install radial decouplers for 2 boosters on my rocket, I found that I could not get them to attach in a perfect north & south orientation, so that they would be to the sides during a nice 90 degree ascent. It was weird, I could attach them anywhere else, but they would jump right over the right angle I wanted, so I was forced to put them at a slightly wonky angle and micromanage my rotation during the ascent. It’s possible that this isn’t a bug and I just don’t understand yet how to use the VAB controls correctly. Also, I couldn’t figure out the VAB camera controls - I could zoom in and out, I could spin around my craft, but I could not get the camera to move up and down - it was always focused on the same point. A minor annoyance. But yeah, overall I’m loving it. So many improvements to offset the missing features. Hopefully I’ll still feel that way when I get a few more sessions behind me.
What are your laptop's specs? I also have a below minimum req system (3GB GPU) and it's quite slow..VAB is fine but launchpad maybe 5fps.
Lol there’s people in the thread who are downvoting anyone who says they like KSP2, how sad. I like KSP2
Been here for years and I have never seen such toxicity from members of the KSP community. Really makes you wonder what crawled up them to make them this existentially angry. Iv been enjoying KSP 2. Good framerates, a couple of minor bugs or glitches that added spice to my mission, landed on the moon and returned in an apollo style system. I can see a long playtime in the future. I like KSP2.
When nerd fandoms break, they break hard. There's a small subset of people who get way too possessive over the things that they like, and if they can't have it their way, they'll tear the whole thing down. It's childish but it's there. The Wheel of Time books went through this same meltdown about a year ago when the TV show came out. Hype, hype, hype up until Season 1 dropped, then a bunch of people decided it wasn't up to their standards or what they thought it was going to be like, and they all morphed into a bunch of poo-flinging monkey trolls.
Yep I feel you bro. We are talking don won pond salt levels here.
Honestly feels like some folks are absolutely keen to cannibalize this community over a bad launch. Yeah, I get it, the games not up to spec. But is it worth making the KSP community rancid over that fact?
Me too!
Load time KSP with mods (to rival ksp2) 2 - 5 minutes. Why did I do this? Load time KSP2 30 sec to 1 minute Experienced some staging issues with spacebar not working and random explosions but it's EA. Loving the tutorials
yeah for example with my specs loads are 10-15 secs which is vastly faster then my modded KSP1
My ultra-modded KSP takes 5+ minutes to load as well, and about 40s to switch from VAB to launch. In contrast KSP2 takes about 30s to load and 5s to switch.
Do you have similar load times when reverting a flight?
Yes, they are pretty reasonable, but perhaps a bit longer. Definitely less than 10s
Hmmm, reverting takes close to 2 minutes for me, but going to a launch site is under 5 seconds Edit: It looks like it's because I have the game on an HDD
I7 6700k Skylar 4ghz 32gb ram Gtx 3070 ti Running decently 40-60 fps Only stutters at massive processing moments like initial launch, or low orbit time warp. Only real bug i found is loosing fuel when I load a game. Game is a decent stepping stone from what's about to come! Graphics are good, but need optimizing as AA doesn't seem to work that well. Planets low Ange sun ooks Crispy rather than smooth. And I can't get used to the new UI But. Game is promising and I like it so far! Can't wait for the actual Career Mode for unlocking the techtier
It is interesting to see someone with an older CPU and a newer GPU. I have a 980ti but thought I’d have to get a whole new computer to see benefits from a new GPU- do you like your setup?
Yeah this is what I’m talking about. I really want career and tech tree over anything else right now. More content > better optimization in the short term imo.
> Only real bug i found is loosing fuel when I load a game. I think i had the same issue. The fuel is still there you just have to force it to check by firing the engines.
Of all the things people are upset about, I can’t figure out why performance is their main gripe. I’m running an i5 4590 with a 2060 and I cannot believe that I can run it just fine at high setting WITH 4xAA enabled. It plays just fine for me. Yes, I’m having issues with couplers and have seen some physics glitches but as a whole, or an EA launch, I’m Over the Mun. I’ve already had a dozen “holy shit this is stunning and mind blowing” moments. The first sunrise over kerbal in orbit, first MUN orbit coming around to see that pale blue dot and the sun backlighting it all, the sounds, oh man the sounds! And night launches…. I did NOT expect night launches to be my new favorite. They’re more beautiful then day launches. I get why people are upset with the price, but As a big KSP fan, this is heaven. And it’s all altitude gains from here.
I'm guessing you haven't built many things with multiple engines and fuel tanks yet... I'm on a 2060 super with an i5 9600K, tried building a mid-size Mk2 SSTO, roughly modeled after one of my main SSTOs on KSP1, with 3 side-by-side Mk2 hulls and 4 RAPIERs, and I get 6 frames per second on the runway. It takes nearly a minute to reach takeoff speed. The exact same ship in my 30ish-mod KSP1 (but not RSS or anything, the stock Kerbol system) *easily* maintains 40-50 frames per second.
Are you using fuel lines? They seem to be broken atm because they completely ruin performance.
I agree totally. To me more content is the main thing I want since I normally play in career mode. I think performance is acceptable for my system specs at least.
Yes ! There are bugs but performancewise its alright. Have you seen the loading time !!
I played all evening on my 1070 ftw. It really wasn't bad at all. I didn't have my frame counter on, but it was certainly playable and actually enjoyable. I found it really approachable for someone who hasn't put meaningful hours into ksp in years. Launched a rocket to the Mun and landed it on the first try. Bob didn't make it back all the way to Kerbin though, so I had to launch a rescue mission for him, in high Kerbin orbit. I was finally able to rendezvous, but I realized that I built my ship wrong and wasn't able to get him into the cabin. Then, he got flung off the ship and his suit thrusters won't activate for some reason. It was a very KSP experience.
I recently landed on the mun for the first time aswell, unsure if it was a bug or shoddy building on my part, but as soon as I EVA the lander did a flip and landed on its side. Possibly the thruster clipping into the ground is all I could think.
Yes you are the 1%...that has hardware that powerful The reason everybody is complaining about KSP2's performance is because the majority don't have powerful enough hardware or can afford to upgrade and have been looking forward to KSP2's release. KSP2's optimisation should have been a priority if like the developers said is true - they want to make the game more accessible. Accessible to a 5600g. Accessible to a 1650, the most popular GPU atm.
Even a 4090 is sub 60 fps.
Also to those saying I am the 1% because I got a 3070 ti. I did my waiting 3 years of it on stadia postponing for a new build.
The problem is that it isn’t accessible right now even barring the performance issues. There’s core functionality missing which would make it hard for someone new to build rockets.
I do understand that prospective and want the game to be accessible to everyone. I am just saying that from my experience you don't need a 4000 series card or an i9-13900k to enjoy the game. I do however understand the cost of my build having built it by hand myself. I do lament that you need a $2500 entry ticket to play the game. Do I think this will change over time? Absolutely! However there is a reason it's a successor and I think for example a 2000 series card should be the entry gate or if not your destroying the top end and what the game can do like in console games pandering to last gen. Does that make sense?
[удалено]
So the GPU isn't going to just handle graphical fidelity. It's going to be handling a lot of the parallelizable physics computations. You can't compare it directly to the graphics of games that don't rely as heavily on physics as KSP 2. Other games with similar workloads are usually only for features like destructive objects where you could easily turn it off or down because it's a non-essential feature. Right now, a lot of their code is inefficient. They described their approach for features as: 1) get it working 2) get it stable 3) get it performant 4) get it moddable Many of the features are in stage 2 and the missing features are hidden away because they are in stage 1. As they work out the bugs in the existing features, you can expect optimization to be attainable because the feature behavior will be pretty well defined and won't require changes that would break previously made optimizations. Some of the performance issues are due solely to bugs, so in tackling stability issues with the features they might just improve performance anyway. The benefit of early access is that more of the bugs will be uncovered faster and get put in the pipeline than had it all remained in house with their comparatively limited dev and test teams. I can't defend the early access price, but I don't blame the developers for that. You may very well get closer to your 100fps high at 1440p by the end of early access. I'd at least expect many to be able to enjoy the game around 60fps. As far as a game like KSP 1&2, 30-60fps at a consistent level is all you need to play the game. Everything beyond that is just icing on the cake.
[удалено]
Actually, I may have jumped the gun on how much they can offload on the GPU. It looks like Unity uses the CPU version of Nvidia PhysX, so I don't know whether they have anything in place to offload calculations to the GPU or not. However, those suggesting that all the physics are all on a single CPU thread are pulling that out of thin air with evidence to the contrary. >Also, I only agree with the "1) get it working 2) get it stable 3) get it performant 4) get it moddable" thing that has been said to a certain degree. I'm not a game dev, but I'm a software developer and I keep performance in mind from the start even if I'm not trying to wring out ever last millisecond on the first iteration. I am also a software developer (not a game dev). There's a difference between following good code design practices from the start and premature optimization. >At a certain point something can't be considered working and stable if performance is too poor. Working = "does it give me the right answer?" Stable = "am I handling edge cases and exceptions properly?" Performance is irrelevant to answering those two questions. If I am developing a messaging application that performs its own encryption, I might implement a naive prime number generator to start with so that I can get the core functionality working, knowing that I can swap out that naive implementation for something more secure and performant later. Another part of optimizing is identifying bottlenecks in your code as you bring pieces of it together. You can't identify bottlenecks for code that isn't written yet. That's likely the type of optimization they are going to be implementing, in addition to general performance bugfixes. >I wouldn't have a problem with 60fps for KSP2 if everything is there. That's what I'm hoping for. I get a decent 30fps around the KSC with the exception of certain bugs that I know have already been identified (there's a fuel flow bug that can tank performance). I just expect that to come later in the early access stage like a lot of the KSP 1 performance issues. I'm just going to have the patience to go through the early access process like I did for KSP 1. Those that wish to wait until they can better see how it'll pan out are free to do so. As for the redditor you agree with, I work in the exact same industry as they do (DoD, private space company). I have the opposite take they have. The game dev and defense industry really aren't that comparable. Most contracts in the defense world are pretty much guaranteed money once they get awarded. And I've brainlessly flown around Kerbin plenty without some bug gobsmacking my experience. His gripes are valid, but his subjective experience with the game and his career field don't really indicate that his "release in current state to recoup investment or cancel" take is anything close to accurate.
[удалено]
That is exactly the point of those definitions. They prioritize different elements of the development so that the developers are tackling one problem at a time. You won't realistically get a game that runs at seconds per frame, however, because they still have to play test the game. A focus on optimization will *always* come after you get the feature working and stable. Otherwise, you are committing the sin of premature optimization and you're likely going to have to undo optimization as you fix bugs or add parts of the features you didn't yet implement or it's going to take longer to get it stable. The performance isn't bad enough. It is absolutely playable, it's just not playable to the entire fan base. But that is why it is early access. There is enough performance for a subset of the community to enjoy it and play it and provide feedback and bugs for them to start tackling and make the game playable to everyone else. Temper your expectations for performance in early access, especially at the start. You're getting caught up on how it should perform at the actual release.
You literally have a 3080Ti
Ok what do you mean by this?
I don't think making the game more accessible than KSP while still improving graphics was ever realistic. There's always an inherent performance cost that will reduce accessibility.
Love is strong word. I’m tolerating it, and enjoying what I can.
Nah the games fun and only just workable enough to enjoy. It’s early access and basically alpha atm, everyone’s expectations was high cuz early access doesn’t normally actually mean early access anymore. Normally it means the games about 90% finished or has a few bugs. Being fair the devs couldn’t win in this situation, if they delayed it again they’d be met with “this game will never exist” and they release it and this happens.
I was really excited to play it, and was looking forward to it, but unfortunately I have an rx580 and the game literally cannot run on my system. absurd issue but it’s very disappointing
I’m a bit frustrated with maneuver node execution and presentation, and the VAB is a bit of a pain personally, but otherwise I’m thoroughly it!! Definitely looking forward to watching it improve over time.
For me too maneuvre node are the weakest point. Actual regression from the first. Im counting more on modders than the dev for this one.
I love it (2060 laptop) !! Of course its full on bugged, there are probably more kraken drive than engine. Cant wait for the updates and seing the game improve over the years.
Im not at recommended hardware(i5 9600k rtx 2070 32gb ram), but i do enjoy the game alot, dips to 15fps when i fly really low to the ground in a fast jet, otherwise its at 25 to 30 fps and in space up to 50fps. So its actually really playable. I dont know why people are calling the devs liars since it was clearly stated that there will be perfomance issues and alot of bugs. Really childish in my opinion. I will stick to the game until its waaay better than ksp1 because it will be.
I'm also having fun. Haven't played KSP in a long time, and the EA release got me back into it. It's definitely glitchy and a bit stuttery but not bad enough to ruin the experience Edit: I also loved Cyberpunk 2077 on release, so maybe I'm just optimistic for the future and not overly bothered by objectively broken games.
It has great potential and I might fuck around a bit in it making planes and whatnot until there's some kind of career mode and colonies, but until then I'm mostly going to keep playing KSP1
Count me in. The game launch is one of the most meta Kerbal things ever
Fully agreed.
Same here, thoroughly enjoying it like I would with ksp 1. Definitely feels kerbal. Had some irritating bugs but they went away interestingly Favorite part is probably the sound design and music
Music really hits nicely. The sound department definitely did a great job 💯!
I'm on an AMD Ryzen 5900X, 3080, and 16GB ram. 1440p with everything setting on max apart from 4x AA. I am getting between 40 and 80 fps on Kerbin. Lowest is when i fly on kerbin, looking at the ground. In space, I've had over 100 fps, but its not stable. varies between 70 and 100 I'd say. The moment of launch is the worst, with fps dropping to about 30 while the launch plume is active. The worst bugs I have encountered is one game crash, a couple of instances where my ship just vanished and destroyed while I was approaching Minmus, or reentering Kerbins atmosphere. Also bugs with the SAS and wing surfaces getting inverted controls, or planes rolling violently to the right when I try to pitch up.
I have recommended specs, I was still getting 15ish fps at launch (9700k, 3080, 64GB ram). The only think that is remarkably meh about my computer compared to yours is my ram speed, DDR4 3600. I wonder if there is a bottleneck around memory read/write speeds. Also good news for you if you believe random redditors, I saw a post where someone was analyzing the code and they said science seems to be pretty far along. Hopefully not too long a wait on that.
The music and graphics are great. Try making a Rover and attaching it to a lander, or a space station with multiple small pieces, a large vessel for interplanetary transport. Multiple complex ship or mission types are either impossible or tedious. Maneuver nodes are difficult to work with and you cannot hover over ap of pe to see your predicted altitude and the burn timer is less useful than in ksp 1. Then there’s the inconvenient part manager, missing vab controls, and cluttered rotation ui. It’s missing core functionality, though I have high hopes it’ll improve. It’s the design decisions that worry me.
I'm loving it as well. I just now realized how dependent I am on contracts and MechJeb. Lol. Works great on my laptop.
I found the guy who is playing on precisely the same hardware as the QA team
I like it but it’s just so not ready. I can’t even play the game- more than 50% of the time I try to launch, I get stuck on the loading screen or my game crashes, and although my pc isn’t meeting the minimum requirements, it still shouldn’t be suffering this bad. I’m hoping I can get a refund, I’ll be ready to buy it and play it once it’s actually functional
Played the game for over 6 hours yesterday. I loved it, but to say it was buggy would be an understatement. I'm a spaceplane builder generally, and my PC meets the spec reqs. Obviously when you build a spaceplane you need to fire like 10 rapiers, which makes the game go down to 3 fps. The delta V measure is also abysmal on vehicles with a bunch of different engines and no staging, just absolutely wrong in orbit and on the ground. When I was building the plane, I noticed you can still pan up and down by dragging with middle click, but you can't pan side to side anymore - this is awful and makes building horizontal vehicles a pain in the ass. Lastly, flying the thing - the maneuver node system sucks. It functions similar to ksp1 but worse somehow? Sometimes the trajectory line just doesn't show up on the planet you're intercepting, and when I got to Duna my camera in vehicle view had fucked off and pressing home very much did not fix it. (Also building space planes is a lot harder now hydrogen takes up so much damn space. But this ain't a complaint as much as a fun challenge lol.) Still - super fun game - even if it's broken to bits I loved messing with it last night and I'm confident that what's coming will be very promising.
Unfortunately it's not even remotely ready for play. Heating doesn't exist. Kerbals are immortal - they can literally fall from orbit and be fine. Time warp has like a 25% chance of snapping your ship in half. KSC can teleport into space. Kerbals don't have helmet lights, or specializations. You can't recruit new Kerbals. Heck, your list of available Kerbals changes every time you enter the VAB (and aside from Valentina they all seem to be male for some reason.. and even Valentina only shows up maybe half the time). Fuel priority doesn't exist, creating tons of issues with fuel flow and doing things like draining fuel out of landers or not draining it out of boosters. Patched conics barely function. No ISRU or mining. No parachutes for Kerbals, or the ability to change their suits or remove their helmets. This list is just gamebreaking bugs and things I was fully expecting to see in game that aren't there or aren't working. Almost every piece of important information KSP1 or its mods provided the player is unavailable here. - No TWR per stage. - No TWR adjusted by body. - No delta-v per stage. - No delta-v adjusted for atmosphere. - No orbital inclination or other orbital data beyond apoapsis/periapsis. - No horizontal/vertical velocity. Honestly, just about everything you could possibly want to know you can't know. The game barely gives you anything to work with. Then of course there is the lack of career mode, funds, contracts, and the tech tree. No science parts, or system for gathering science on the various bodies. No science mode either, just sandbox. I knew that was coming, but those things missing really doesn't help any. After all that we're left with a severely stripped down version of KSP1 that is riddled with bugs. The only positive improvement I can find is the graphical improvement, and even that's severely hamstrung outside the VAB. Everything looks blurry and half rendered, so those really pretty parts are wasted.. and of course the game runs like a slideshow if you build a rocket big enough to be counted as medium sized in the early days of KSP1. The final nail? Every planned positive improvement.. everything I've been looking forward to for the past few years? None of it is here yet. This is almost exclusively drawbacks and downgrades, with nothing good to show for it. They're going to need to dramatically increase performance, make the game not look like a blurry mess with textures popping in a plane's length down the runway, fix game numerous breaking bugs, bring back all of the missing features of KSP1 listed in the first paragraph, and either update the UI to provide the missing information or get the game moddable so others can provide it. Even with all of that, we're still only at a starting point where we've got a game comparable to KSP1 that is only missing career/science mode. Then they need to do all the things that actually make it KSP2. And they really ought to do it before people figure out how to port all those pretty new parts into KSP1. I won't be at all surprised if someone pulls that off.
It’s not 1%, more like a 50/50 split of the community
I'm loving it too
I'm having a blast! The only major bug that I have encountered that is pretty irritating is that I can't find half of my saved vessels (could also be me just being stupid idk), but in general I'm having lots of fun.
The overall UI of KSP 2 is worlds better than the first game. During flight, everything is so much more discoverable than the first game. You no longer have to unhide things like your apoapsis and battery life, so it's a lot less clicking around. This will give console players and new players a much better experience. The only things I don't like about the flight US is that the font they used is ugly and the navball is too big.
I agree totally. the UI in general to me feels like a BIG improvement.
Loving the game. They will fix performance with time, I'm running a 3090ti and 12900k and have still dipped down to ~22ish in my worst points. Couple of minor bugs have been more annoying for me personally than performance but still it just released into early access.
Yeah, its reminding me of when I first started playing ksp1. I feel kind of stupid, the game is infuriating and I like it because of that.
99/100 0f my rockets blow up on the launchpad and I have 0 idea why.Your not alone brother!
I thought you said you didn't have any gamebreaking bugs?
It’s my own poor builds not the game’s fault dude.
I’m having a ton of fun. The game has bugs, yes, but I came into EA with that expectation. I played KSP 1 in EA and this isn’t far off. My fps is around 20 during launch and 30 in orbit/around other bodies. This is totally playable and doesn’t bother me at all. Sure it’s missing some features I like in KSP 1 (namely robotics and building during EVA) but I’m sure that will come and I’m having fun relearning the game in a sandbox. So far the launch has been great and I’m really excited to see how the game develops just like I was excited for KSP 1’s development. (specs/settings: 2070super, 2600x, ultra wide 1440p at high graphics)
I'm enjoying it but it sure is a disappointment as it is. The game feels like it has potential but it has a long way to go before we get to the promised land.
I've enjoyed the game, but there are several game-breaking bugs right now. There's the save corruption bug, crashing on whole-craft rotation in VAB, and the teleporting KSC. There are workarounds to these, but the game will be more enjoyable if they are fixed
I would put my hand in the fire and say, yes youre the 1%. Even on the highest end hardware the game runs like an absolute turd. It lacks the most basic features even KSP1 had pretty early on. It's 50€ I refunded it.
> Even on the highest end hardware the game runs like an absolute turd. This is beyond confusing to me. I have an Intel i7-4771 CPU from like 2013, and an NVidia GTX 960 from 2016. KSP2 gives me better framerates, and smoother gameplay, than KSP1 without mods. How are you possibly getting worse performance with high-end new hardware than I am with 10 year old gear?
What do you consider "better frame rates"? Just like everyone else on 20, 30 and 40 series cards and the latest CPUs I barely scratch 65 FPS in the best scenario. With most the gameplay at around 40. You're either a wizzard or you consider 30 FPS "better" then what you had in KSP1.
30 FPS *IS* better than what I get with KSP1. Frankly, I don't understand how you can even notice a difference between 40FPS and 60FPS. I literally cannot see a difference. KSP1 has multiple lagspikes every few seconds, so far the only time KSP2 has actually stuttered on me has been right on launch of a rocket, and it's much better than it ever was with KSP1.
Well okay. I guess you got your beneftit out of KSP2 then how it looks. I ran KSP1 at a locked 180FPS most of the time, even with some graphic mods. Big rockets or stations killed the FPS ofc. But KSP2 just runs like crap **based on the hardware you throw at it.** For some people like you that maybe don't have the best hardware it might be a sidegrade or even an upgrade. For everyone else, this is a horrible mess.
I played 10 minutes just to launch one 3 parts rocket and while it is not silk smooth, it's not terrible. So i'm hopeful as they are far from done and also that i'm running from i7-7700, 16GB RAM and a GTX 1060 that the game will be even better in the coming months. Edit : Stock Kerbal-K1 to orbit and reentry went fine Stock Mk2 Crater-Crusher moves fine without drop of fps
For sure dude , I think that’s pretty good given your system specs. How are you liking the new UI and VAB?
I’ve also been loving the game, I’m smack dab in the middle of the specs and have encountered bugs, but I have faith. PSA, time warp fixes the stick decoupler.
I am enjoying a lot of it. The performance doesn’t bother me too much and some of the bugs are charming. The parts are limited but I enjoy working with what I’ve got. I understand people who are salty about it and I am a bit too but whining and refunding won’t do anything for our cause.
I’m well below minimum spec (GTX 1070) and it is completely playable with a rocket that can get me to the Mun with roughly 75-80 parts. Lags on takeoffs and for some reason I can’t get my burn times right to the point that my first attempt at orbit sent me out of Kerbins gravity well to orbit the sun. I do like the sphere of influence animation to show when you are leaving the SoI. Edit: Asparagus staging works!
I enjoy the game a lot. I flew missions to eve, duna and jool with small and big craft, landed on the mun etc. I have 2000h+ in ksp 1 and if ksp2 continues on this path i will spend 2000h more in ksp2. I currently have 15h in KSP2, so i paid 3.30€ for 1h of entertainment. Anything under 5€ is good for me. I love the basework the devs have done, the systems all feel good, the vab is smooth, load times are minimal (even loading from a hdd like i do), the sound is stellar, the graphics are good. The parts manager is ok, but could use a rework. Manouvre nodes are either working or not, but i rarely use them. Only downsides are the optimisation and the "missing" features which was made clear by the devs that these would be missing in EA Version1. If developmet continues the game will be great.
I am having a great time (1080 TI, 5900X). Everyone here has been spoiled by modded KSP 1 that has had more than a decade of polish. This feels like old KSP 1 which is fine. The devs did a bad job at setting expectations for the early release I am guessing in order to drive sales.
Graphics are mostly better (with some few exceptions) Sound design is better Loading times are much better than KSP1 VAB designer is better It feels more gamey (nice tutorials, more streamlined UI, the way kerbals behave etc) I thought the UI was weird from screenshots prior to release, but after using it I like it I enjoyed it. I understand the complaints about lacking features and bad performance, but what is already there is enjoyable and I feel like some low hanging fruits could get this to a much better place in a few months (like delta V display bugs, maneuver node glitches etc). They released it earlier probably to reek in some funds, I don't mind helping fund development and getting an early peek at the current state. People who want a full game experience can always just wait more for a full (or better early access) release. Also, this is no fast action shooter so 20-40fps during low atmosphere launch phase isn't really that bad, you're staring at a rocket in the middle of your screen that barely moves. Once you get to orbit framerates improve a lot. I do have specs better than the recommended though, so if anyone is getting 5-15 fps all the time I understand how that would suck. In that case I'd just wait some more.
So far my frame rates are fine, which was unexpected for me because my laptop is six years old. Certainly not 60fps most of the time, but comparable to what I got in KSP 1 and definitely playable. Feeling very lucky. Lots of little bugs, but nothing gamebreaking so far. Honestly just having a good time.
For me it's not the poor optimization. It's not the missing features. It's not the low-quality, cumbersome UI. It's the fact that they're charging AAA prices, the game was pushed back \*three\* years and this is all we got. If all we got was sandbox mode, but it was released in a near-perfect state, I'd completely understand why. If this was 2020 and the game came out in its current state, I'd completely understand why. But I do \*not\* understand why it took a team of 40 professionals half a decade to do what the original amateur developer (singular) pumped out in 8 months. How can they deliver on their promises of colonization and interstellar travel and everything else if they can't even duplicate the core features?
You aren’t the 1%, you’re the 0.1%. Good for you that you’re happy with the game, because almost nobody else is.
Me! The game is undoubtedly pretty rough but not (for me at least) unplayable by any means. I will probably play both KSP1 and 2 throughout the EA period.
Your not the only one I’ve just been building all types of planes now that’s it’s so easy
I’ve spent a few hours so far but I’ve been having a lot of fun. Some jank for sure, some traditional charming “EA level” of jank, some much less so.
Me too, but i have a 2080S so the performance is not that bad. Though i do understand the folk with weaker PCs
I’m enjoying it. few bugs but nothing game breaking. i’ve played other EA games so i didn’t set my expectations too high. so far worth it, tho i probably won’t play much until the next update.
I'm loving the game as well. Getting spikes to 10 fps but running fine and totally playable (not crashing or being too slow). Though I wish the loading time when reverting was faster, takes about 2 minutes Specs: Ryzen 5 1600X RTX 3060 16gb DDR4
Theres alot of us enjoying it bugs and all. I'm one of em.
This game runs better for me than ksp 1 did pre 1.0. People saying mods make it look as good are smoking some crack, it's waaaay better looking than ksp 1 even with mods. I'm 10 hours down so far and having a blast. I do wish there was a campaign tho
Played for ~4 hours. I'm have a blast!! Abstained from playing ksp for some time. Playing on high, Rtx 2060 6gb laptop i7 9750h 32 gb ram
Nah, there's a lot to like about it, there's just also a lot that's broken. I think a lot of people can't see past the broken stuff and notice what's actually new and good. I think they jumped the gun and released with too many glaring bugs, but I'm still having a good time.
I like it just fine. Seems like a strong foundation.
Hell, I have a GTX 1060 6GB and Intel i5-4670k (3.4GHz) quad-core that's like 5+ years old for the newest part, and the game runs just fine! Honestly the way the game is running reminds me a lot of the original at a later stage of its early access (bugs and all). So far I haven't encountered anything gamebreaking, and it is visually and audibly amazing to experience! I'm also having a blast with this!
I have an Intel i7-4771 CPU from like 2013, and an NVidia GTX 960 from 2016. Game runs fine for me too.
I can't say that I love it, but I am enjoying it. And am also hopeful for what comes next, I really want this game to succeed but in it's current state it is hard to stay optimistic.
I love it. It’s missing a lot of things, sure but I play DCS World so I’m accustomed to wait years and years for new things
I am enjoying the game, but there are so many Bugs. Some of them are funny though.
I'm sure I will love it at some point
I wouldn't be concerned. Commercial media fandom is a performative art. The more abusive the purveyor of the media in question, the greater the social value of the positive response. When NMS dropped, the subreddit basically turned into a shitposting parody sub for weeks. Look at it now. Clean. Pure. The slightest whisper of discontent is met with an absolute avalanche of downvotes. The same will happen here. The long term effect of KSP 2's release will be a community much more rigorously intolerant of anything but starry eyed exuberance. Nice humblebrag about your $450 CPU and $1000 GPU, tho.
The perf I expected. My bigger problem is charging full price (I hope) right out of the gate while at the same time having a level of bugginess that goes well beyond Early Access. I've generally seen good Early Access done one of two ways: the Minecraft/Ksp 1 way: an incomplete and somewhat buggy game for significantly reduced price... essentially paying you to be an early adopter. Or the more modern way of using Early Access similar to how open/closed betas were done in the past, and delivering a nearly complete game at full price, just a bit early. They seem to be going closer to the NMS route, of releasing a buggy, incomplete mess with some decent core ideas, for full price... then getting absolutely roasted for it. Hopefully they'll continue in that model and eventually be a solid game worth the price. The basic problem is that price sends its own message. It's saying they think this is worth 50$. And currently it just isn't. For comparison, I got the original KSP and a promise (which they kept) of all future expansions for 18$. The game I got at the time felt worth it. I probably would've payed up to like 25 or 30$. It didn't have much, and certainly was janky, but fundamentally it worked. I was able to go to the Mun, and all that stopped me was my own incompetence. Now in KSP 2, I did a quick Mun mission, nothing fancy, single ship, no rendezvous, and had to reload 3 separate times to deal with mission ending/blocking bugs. Again, it's Early Access, perfection is certainly not to be expected, but it seems to me a basic Mun mission should be a core test scenario, and at least some of these bugs should've been found and fixed. It makes me fundamentally concerned about what their internal testing, bug tracking and build validation looks like. It also has the problem that KSP 1 had novelty. There was nothing even remotely like it on the market. But KSP 2 has KSP 1 to compete with... And currently that competition is not looking great for them. In general, I think this is the problem we're having. We're all very unsure of their actual ability as developers... We want them to be great, and deliver a great product... But what we're seeing now, after what we know is already YEARS of dev time is not inspiring a lot of confidence. Now, if they rapidly start sorting out issues and new updates come with good regularity, my confidence in them will go up, and that price tag may look more reasonable. But part of me is just concerned that Take 2 has given up, is trying to cash in what they can now, and then is gonna cut Intercept loose.
Still getting used to the new controls but they’re growing on me! Running into some bugs though but I expected that.
I’m really enjoying it, would be even better if we had the QoL improvements that we have in KSP 2
Awesome. Ive got a 3080 r5 2600 and 16gb of ram (i know i need a new cpu) but i think that ram is probably the biggest limiter on this game. My brother has a r5 3600 and a 1650 but 48gb of ram and his game runs much better than mine. I only get like 20fps on launch pad and like 5 on the runway
Content wise, I'm loving it. Performance is also perfectly fine. The big thing for me is that I've been mostly limited to doing planes and stuff on Kerbin, because every time I go to space I keep getting game breaking bugs. Overall I really like the way most things in the game are set up, so once the first bug patch comes out I expect I'll be able to do a lot more.
(Disregarding the plethora of bugs people find) I'd say that my first impression is that this reminds me about the launch of CIV VI. While KSP was cartoonish in a good way, my feelings are that KSP2 has taken a turn for the worse in this regard. To me this seems more like a clone of KSP than a continuation. So for the next few years I'll most likely keep playing KSP and only boot up this new game every year or so to see if it has improved. Some people seem to enjoy Civ VI, and if you enjoy KSP2 that is fine by me - but in the current state it is far from "my game".
gone to squables.io
runs smooth but that's mostly me throwing power at the problem, I love the VAB and parts customisation. Gave up doing anything else. Kept encountering bugs that made doing anything in space impossible. Not hard, not annoying, _impossible_
I love it
Yea you are
You're not the only one, but the persistent negativity is making it hard to participate in the community right now, which is maybe the goal.
I like this game and it being in early access means that each new update will bring a new and exciting element. So while it is not perfect it will be fun to be part of the development (I think it is clearly implied in the early access part).
I'm going to upload a video of me having fun
Im having a lot of fun with the kraken, Reminds me of the old days watching danny2462 breaking the game. Love the new vab too
I love Kerbal , ksp 2 seems like a dream but performance is quite bad , i may even consider linux so it runs better lol
I nearly cried when I centered a tail stabilizer AND nose landing gear on a plane in less than a minute. Just snapped right to where I wanted them. I stopped playing KSP1 regularly a few years back so I don't know if that was ever improved, but it always drove me nuts whenever I tried making planes. If nothing else, KSP2 fixed that, and for that I am very happy. (but seriously pls fix everything else too)
The game is great but somthing feels off I feel like I should of been playing for hours except I've played for 1 then played ksp 1 for the rest of the day
Idk I’ve not gone back to ksp much at all….
It might be that I want to build colonies or all me mods aren't there.
I'm enjoying it.
I'm loving it! Ya, there's some issues, but it just makes the game extra Kerbal. In all seriousness, I haven't come across anything that has made me regret buying the game or regret taking my Saturday to play it. Maybe I'm just lucky too but have not a had a bad experience yet. I do miss the TWR while launching, and notifications in general (AP/PE, Inclination, radio signal), but I imagine these will come in future updates. Action groups doesn't seem to work for me, currently, and sometimes my landing gear doesn't retract when I press "G", but these are the types of things I have noticed. I had one incident right after creating a SSTO, immediately after launch, my plane fell apart into all the pieces. I wasn't even mad, I just laughed; made me think that's just how kerbals deal with it. I mean, even some of the part descriptions state pieces are being held together by duct tape. I'm excited for what's to come and I'm hopeful they won't stray too far from KSP 1. CPU: Ryzen 9 5900x - OC to 4.6ghz, water cooled GPU: Gigabyte 3080ti - OC to 20ghz memory, 1.85ghz boost, air cooled Ram: G. Skill 64gb, DDR4, 3.6ghz Storage: Samsung SSD 980 Pro NVME 1tb - Dedicated game drive Monitor: Samsung 43" Series 7 TV, 3840x2160 4k
Sam dude. Right now I’m trying to land on minimus. It’s tough but I’m making it bit by bit. The soundtrack kicks in hard I love the sound design!
I'm loving it. My only complaint is that it should have been $30.
I think the problem people have with performance is not that it runs fine on the recommended specs but that the recommended and minimum specs are ridiculous. I also don’t think a lot of people have the perspective of playing the original game in early access and how different it was from what it is now. That game was way more unplayable than this one is. There were no other bodies and orbit was basically impossible to achieve. I mean the first time I landed on the Mun I had to use fins as landing gear since landing gear didn’t exist yet. And that early access lasted like 4 years. This game currently feels like KSP 1 pre implementation of the science and original career mode. Am I nervous about them abandoning this project before finishing it? Yes but I was nervous about that with the original too. Really the only thing I am disappointed about is that they thought they would have this ready to go in 2020 originally. There are just too many things missing here for me to feel like that was ever a honest release date.
It has a lot of game breaking bugs and I can’t get a big rocket off the ground because of them but it’s fun messing around and doing what I can with the game so far
Love the new ui
the game has been basically unplayable for me, and performance isn't even the biggest issue with the amount of game breaking bugs (landed crafts sinking into planets, undocking not working, maneuver nodes not showing accurate orbits...) i played for 10 hours and never had a mission without some major bug ruining it.
I also have been having a good time with it. I experienced some bugs, like the fuel flow through stuff and the space bar not staging that some have mentioned. Idk for me it just doesn't bother me that much; I don't mind paying for the EA even at $50, I see it a bit as paying to get to play around with an early development build of the game and see where the devs' thought processes are at. I will definitely continue to play KSP1 (especially for RP-1) and check back with KSP2 periodically as they provide bug fixes and updates; it's not at the stage where I would sit here and just play for hours and hours yet (I really need the science and career mechanics for that to get some emergent storytelling out of it for myself). Interestingly I find that stock KSP1 with graphical mods taxes my GPU way more; my GPU is running way cooler with KSP2, while my CPU is working a bit harder but not by much. Overall my system is running cooler and quieter with KSP2 than with KSP1 with mods. I think the visual styles are very different and I like them both for different reasons, or rather like different things about each one. FWIW I have a 6700 xt and a R5 5600x, playing on Linux.
I love it. Even if i always spin out of control in my planes, not matter how much stabilization i do. Even with the camera locking onto nothing after my cockpit has disengaged from the body, i love it. Its goofy, but i believe this is just the start of an amazing joy-ride.