KSP2 or Kerbal Space Program 2. It was early access, I knew that, but it was such a broken mess that I somehow managed to put a lander on the mun, returned it to Kerbin and have never looked back. Rockets that were five parts long wobbling like a stick of candy gum, no re-entry heat and 5 fps on machine that ran KSP1 with volumetric clouds perfectly. Nope. That’s not even alpha.
As of December they added re-entry heat and allegedly improved wobbling in the “For Science” update by the way.
But I’m still watching and waiting for it to improve before buying. Reviews for it have been higher lately, but I don’t really trust the reviews when the devs set the bar so low. Everyone’s too desperate for it to finally be worth playing. It still doesn’t even sound as feature-complete as KSP1.
I was a little weary about it when I saw it having the same issues that ksp1 had at some point. You would think that one of the first things they would get right would be the physics, since they spent years getting it working in ksp1. I suspect that new company is just thinking this is a green field game, and are going to hit the same problems ksp1 had.
Agreed, but mostly because they haven’t actually improved anything from KSP1. It’s still the same wobble, and they solved it in the same way (with auto-strut). The only feature I want from ksp2 is base-building with proper collision mechanics that don’t make my base leap 50 meters into the air and explode, but it seems like the ksp2 isn’t capable of that.
It’s literally ksp1, but slightly prettier, with far fewer features, and way more expensive. You can get 90% of ksp2 with nodded ksp1, and it’ll run much better.
KSP2 or Kerbal Space Program 2. It was early access, I knew that, but it was such a broken mess that I somehow managed to put a lander on the mun, returned it to Kerbin and have never looked back. Rockets that were five parts long wobbling like a stick of candy gum, no re-entry heat and 5 fps on machine that ran KSP1 with volumetric clouds perfectly. Nope. That’s not even alpha.
As of December they added re-entry heat and allegedly improved wobbling in the “For Science” update by the way.
But I’m still watching and waiting for it to improve before buying. Reviews for it have been higher lately, but I don’t really trust the reviews when the devs set the bar so low. Everyone’s too desperate for it to finally be worth playing. It still doesn’t even sound as feature-complete as KSP1.
I was a little weary about it when I saw it having the same issues that ksp1 had at some point. You would think that one of the first things they would get right would be the physics, since they spent years getting it working in ksp1. I suspect that new company is just thinking this is a green field game, and are going to hit the same problems ksp1 had.
Yeah, it did suck. It is much much better now though. I genuinely enjoy it at the moment.
Agreed, but mostly because they haven’t actually improved anything from KSP1. It’s still the same wobble, and they solved it in the same way (with auto-strut). The only feature I want from ksp2 is base-building with proper collision mechanics that don’t make my base leap 50 meters into the air and explode, but it seems like the ksp2 isn’t capable of that.
It’s literally ksp1, but slightly prettier, with far fewer features, and way more expensive. You can get 90% of ksp2 with nodded ksp1, and it’ll run much better.