Devnote Tuesday: I ain't getting on no plane!

[DMagic]

29 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Also is requiring the manual refresh a performance issue or just a design choice? Is there a reason this and the narrow bandwidth scanner can't provide a continuous feed (for additional ec even?)

Continuously generating textures is an expensive process, made more so when you are continuously calculating terrain data.

Though I suspect that with the low detail of the terrain map for Kerbnet (and the Narrow Band scanner, which is usually hidden behind the resource map) it wouldn't be too bad as long as the texture was incrementally rebuilt. But rebuilding the entire texture all at once wouldn't work. When refreshing the Narrow Band scanner map you can see a little 2 or 3 frame hiccup where the game pauses while the texture is generated. Continuously doing that would not be fun.

And also keep in mind that the map wouldn't be very useful if it kept on refreshing, making the cursor position constantly change locations.

[Ignath]

"We’ve kicked into full QA-mode this week! You know what they say: if you have a problem… if no one else can help… and if you can find them… maybe you can hire… The QA-Team!"

And now I have the A-Team theme song in my head, thanks SQUAD!

Edited August 10, 2016 by Ignath

[Adelaar]

Well, you know what they say at KSC: I Love it when a plane comes together. 

[StahnAileron]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

If only it was possible to make a simulator that's also a game, or a game that's a simulator.  What am I saying.  That's crazy talk.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take that as sarcasm (after all, I could be wrong; wouldn't be the first time.) Different people define "game" and "simulator" differently. I know there have been plenty of pure simulators that have been pushed as games (X-Plane, MS FSX, etc.). But here's the thing about those: they are advertised as sims first, games next. People know what they're getting into (in most cases). KSP tends to be advertised as a game first, sim second. In my personal opinion, with KSP in its current state, that's incorrect.

Okay, sure, there is SOME semblance of actual gameplay mechanics outside the required simulation play. However, tell me those gameplay mechanics aren't half-assed and feel more like after thoughts. I've seen plenty of users here on the forum continuously suggestion gameplay changes; there's good reason for that. (Whether any ideas said users recommend is another argument entirely.)

Even now with the new features that have been announced, all we're really getting are tools to facilitate any gameplay mechanics. I've yet to see gameplay mechanics beyond the contract system, fund management, and Science/Tech progression. (And you know my opinion on those aspect from my previous paragraph.) There's no talk about how KSP ITSELF will take advantage of those features as gameplay mechanics. Once again, it's up to the players and modders to come up with their own "gameplay" system. That's fine for something like Sandbox mode, but Career mode is severely lacking.

Going back to those simulators, even THOSE give you something to do, even if it's just taking off and landing at another airport. There's an in-built challenge to those sims that can pass a actual gameplay. Trying to land a Boeing 747 in a valley airport. Maybe flying through a storm without veering off-course or losing control. Night-time, instrument-only landing. There's inherent challenge in those. KSP has none of that (well, very little, I should say). Most of the challenges in KSP are player-induced, especially after you get proficient in the process of chucking large masses into orbit in a (mostly) controlled manner. And that can get old quickly. (Not really related, but it seems like Matt Lowne on YouTube is kinda running out of ideas on his own. Well, that's what it feels like to me, and it's just one example anyway.)

The devs are still working on KSP. For that I am thankful and therefore am willing to be patient. We all know KSP's state is... non-optimal, to be polite. It could have been FAR worse.

Disclaimer: The above is the opinion of the author and only the author's. The author does not speak on the behalf others, implied or otherwise. The above is provided as-is. No warranty is granted nor implied. Any damage caused to the psyche of the reader is the reader's responsibility. Have a nice day!

[LaytheDragon]

Will waypoints be able to be set in the Narrow Band Scanner interface when KerbNet is available @Arsonide?

[Geschosskopf]

8 hours ago, Alshain said:

Docking, maneuvering in space, and actually landing are apparently considered rare cases, because all of those were done by a pilot/commander on the Space Shuttle.

Remember in The Right Stuff how the "pilot's union" threatened to go on strike if they didn't put a window and joystick in the Mercury pod?  Pilots were obsolete even then, and their insistence on trying to remain relevant is IMHO exactly as ill-advised as retaining, let alone augmenting, the "craft line-unionized" KSP class system.

But even if you think that back in the Dark Ages of the space program, pilots actually had a real purpose, that is certainly no longer the case.  This is my biggest gripe with the class system (and the communications system, too).  It forces players into a world set in the distant past, even if they'd rather envision their games set in the present or near future.

 

Quote

While I disagree with your comparison to the real world, I do agree from a gameplay perspective , I dislike the class system.  Leveling Kerbals is a grind best suited for an MMO, not KSP, and the purpose of leveling them is either minimal or nonsensical.

Amen.  The existing system is so wrong, at such basic levels, in so many different ways, that it really needs to be junked.  There are way better alternative systems, and even no system at all is preferable to what we have now.

 

3 hours ago, evileye.x said:

I think, the class system is very good idea. Especially with mods, that extend the concept of kerbals proffesions, like KAS/KIS, tourism plus and so on...

I like the general concept of Kerbals having skills and gaining experience.  I'm just saying the existing system is about the worst possible way to implement this general concept.  Let's put things in perspective....

At the bottom line, the classes do the following things:

• PIlots:  Unique among Kerbals, they can reach out and push the "T" key.  For some reason, the space program hired the other Kerbals anyway, despite their inability to type up their resumes.
• Scientists:  While any Kerbal can remove a used data cassette from a Mystery Goo, only Scientists know how to insert a new cassette.  Seriously?  What's the difference in these actions?  Scientists can also simmer the Goo on the stove for months to extract some more data from it, but this takes way more time and produces far less results than just picking up more fresh science at the source.
• Engineers:  Only engineers can ever be taught to change a tire, and they have to leave Kerbin's SOI  before they can learn this strangely arcane skill.  Kerbin is thus littered with countless cars abandoned due to flat tires because it wasn't until well into the Space Age that anybody could fix them, and the few who now can are all on other planets.  Engineers also are the only Kerbals who know how to keep ISRU gauges in the green, which is the only skill amongst any of the classes that arguably would actually require specialized technical training.  But even rookie engineers can do this after a fashion, though they can't fix flat tires.  Seriously?

So, pilots are inherently useless.  They are replaced by machines early in career games and are thenceforth mere decoration for RP purposes.  Scientists are useless in sandbox and become useless in career games once you finish the tech tree.  Engineers are the only class with any long-term value, but they get their skills in a strange order.  You have an astronaut training facility but can't use it to train astronauts.  Kerbals only learn by planting flags on other planets, not practicing their actual skills, but aren't allowed to use their skills until they come home.  And hiring totally untrained, nearly useless Kerbals soon starts costing more than building a Jool-5 mothership, but you can't make these Kerbals what you want--they're already members of one of the silly craft line unions when they show up, despite having no real skills.  You have no control over who volunteers, and you can't reject the volunteers you don't want so they keep clogging up your queue, eventually preventing the type you want from ever appearing.

None of this makes sense from any perspective, gameplay or realism.  I would rather go back to the days of no classes than continue being stuck with the existing system.  But like I said, I do like the general concept, so I would much rather see the existing system replaced by something entirely more rational, useful, and fun.  There have been many good suggestions for replacement systems, and none of them can be worse than what we currently have.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[Pthigrivi]

Easy guys. Given that there aren't yet unique skills attached to some of the tier 4 and 5 slots I think its pretty clear they intend to add to this system in the future. I for one would love to see pilots able to earn things like landing site prediction and trajectory factoring drag. Engineers could get some basic KAS type abilities, Scientists could produce higher science yields, there's a lot that can happen. Getting some of these basic flight planning resources is still really helpful and relevant though and Im really happy to see it. We've had some nice discussions over in the Suggestions section if you have constructive ideas on how things could be improved.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Wallygator]

Since it has been brought up in this thread...  And it seems to be a proper place to provide feedback on devnotes and notes about devnotes...

It has been a long time since I last griped about the "Class System" - to put it bluntly, I "the opposite of love" it.  There is nothing in it that adds to game play, and it certainly adds nothing to emersion from my perspective. I'm sure some people may agree and some may not. I accept that.

If I were allowed to influence this topic, I would recommend the following:

• Kerbals should be "trained" for each and every mission to do specific activities - e.g. even for collecting a type of science experiment
• Every aspect of training should cost funds
• If a Kerbal goes on a second mission to perform the same action he/she did on a prior mission then the training cost for that activity can be less
• Plan your mission, build your vessel, pick your crew, assign tasks to your Kerbals, train them up and send them off
• UI aides could be provided in the astronaut training complex to simplify training assignments and costing - and to keep track of which Kerbals have been trained to do what
• If a Kerbal with specific training is KIA, then that task cannot be completed unless you have another Kerbal on the crew who is cross-trained
• The more missions a Kerbal completes, the higher their experience
• The higher the sum of the level of experience of your entire Kerbal Corps then the higher your reputation
• Kerbals with high experience are easier and cheaper to train
• When your Kerbal dies - their experience level translates to a proportional loss of reputation
• I'm sure there are other things that can be considered...

There are so many great things about KSP.  It saddens me that such a poorly considered "game mechanic" had been allowed to survive in this form. It strikes me as an element of the game that did not have an effective vision or requirements extending further into the game's expansion plans.

I also accept that there is a very low likelihood that my thoughts or reflections will ever make it into the realm of consideration buy the Devs.  But still, it's nice to write it down.

Everything else?... I LOVE IT.  An again great Dev notes BTW.

PS: Oh and Fuel Hoses please, and DV readouts please ;-)

 

[NathanKell]

3 hours ago, Chaos_Klaus said:

 

Paging @NathanKell

I'm interested in this. What does this mean? Will the whole vessel rotate like a rigid body now? I had this image in my mind where KSP vessels are basically just individual parts "flying in close formation". This would include all the parts having their own anglular velocity and angular momenum and this momentum would be communicated to other parts via joints. I also get that this gives a lot of oppertunity for oscillations.

Is this a simplification that is beeing implemented? Because a mass-weighted average sounds weird to me. Shouldn't it be connected to moment of inertia? But again that would require looking at the actual shape of the part, the mass distribution inside the part and an finding an origin to compute moment of inertia in the first place.

Please don't get me wrong. Sometimes the strangest simplifications can be made. I just want to understand.

 

EDIT: Or does this relate to vessels that are on rails only?

 

 

Nope, none of these things. It means vessel.angularVelocity (a value that is used by our PID, and by many mods), which reports vessel angular velocity (note, doesn't set, reports), which currently just reports the angular velocity of the root part, will now report the mass-weighted average of the angular velocities of the parts. (I.e. vessel.angularVelocity = sum[For each part](part.angularVelocity * part.mass / vessel.mass). Again, this is merely reporting, obviously the physics engine is doing the actual integration.

@Boris-Barboris talked about this a while ago and should be rather happy with this change.

[Pthigrivi]

19 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

 

Kerbals should be "trained" for each and every mission to do specific activities - e.g. even for collecting a type of science experiment

 

We've discussed this before and there are some problems with this--primarily grind. If you link experience to tasks like repairing things and conducting experiments players will end up repetitively breaking and repairing wheels and conducting menial experiments at KSC. Its one of those things that sounds intuitive but actually leads to some really dull gameplay. I don't have any problem with gaining experience from exploration. Its just an abstraction, and at the very least rewards players for getting out there and really playing the game rather than fussing about with tasks that aren't central to it. Im not saying such a system couldn't work, just that constructing it in such a way as to avoid repetitive ancillary tasks is more difficult than people realize.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Boris-Barboris]

43 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

talked about this a while ago and should be rather happy with this change.

Should be dealt with care in stock SAS though, some mods, like IR-rotated station sections may break something. Integral term may zero it out, but it's usual practice to clamp it -> problems.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Boris-Barboris

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Kerbin is thus littered with countless cars abandoned due to flat tires because it wasn't until well into the Space Age that anybody could fix them, and the few who now can are all on other planets

No they came back to Kerbin. Because it's not traveling to Duna that teaches you how to change a tire. It's landing back on Kerbin afterward.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

If you link experience to tasks like repairing things and conducting experiments players will end up repetitively breaking and repairing wheels and conducting menial experiments at KSC

I imagined the proposed training to be more a "Train to fix tires" checkbox on a Kerbal. You click it, pay the funds (In this case, I think 1-10 funds should suffice) and the Kerbal knows how to change the tires on his very next mission. When he returns, the box unchecks but gets an outline, meaning that learning how to fix tires on future missions will cost half or less funds.

It may be a UI/UX nightmare, but I like the idea in concept.

Edited August 10, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[beelzerob]

17 hours ago, Alshain said:

I never heard them saying it was going to use 5.4.  I heard them say they hoped to use 5.4 if Unity released it on time.

From the "Smashing Buttons" dev blog about a month ago:

Quote

At the same time Mike and Jim, with the help of Bob (Roverdude) and Nathanael (NathanKell) have been working to update the game to Unity 5.4, a move that will allow us to fix a few long standing issues as well as increase performance in many ways

Unless I misinterpreted that.  Two weeks ago they also talked about getting their vehicle Physics Pro into 5.4.

[Terwin]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

At the bottom line, the classes do the following things:

• PIlots:  Unique among Kerbals, they can reach out and push the "T" key.  For some reason, the space program hired the other Kerbals anyway, despite their inability to type up their resumes.
• Scientists:  While any Kerbal can remove a used data cassette from a Mystery Goo, only Scientists know how to insert a new cassette.  Seriously?  What's the difference in these actions?  Scientists can also simmer the Goo on the stove for months to extract some more data from it, but this takes way more time and produces far less results than just picking up more fresh science at the source.
• Engineers:  Only engineers can ever be taught to change a tire, and they have to leave Kerbin's SOI  before they can learn this strangely arcane skill.  Kerbin is thus littered with countless cars abandoned due to flat tires because it wasn't until well into the Space Age that anybody could fix them, and the few who now can are all on other planets.  Engineers also are the only Kerbals who know how to keep ISRU gauges in the green, which is the only skill amongst any of the classes that arguably would actually require specialized technical training.  But even rookie engineers can do this after a fashion, though they can't fix flat tires.  Seriously?

Pilots are trained in controlling the craft, be it keeping the craft stable on the current course even with other forces trying to take it off course(not a trivial matter, especially in space), changing the current facing of the vessel to a high degree of accuracy relative to either a specified direction or relative to the current(and probably changing) trajectory.

I don't know about you, but retrograde and node/target tracking are pilot skills I find to be highly valuable, almost as valuable as the whole 'keep this thing on the target I originally set' functionality.  Sure you can add technological tools to allow ground control to remote-control your vessel, but to me this is just changing where the pilot is sitting.(the limits on the probe abilities is due to the inputs, outputs and communications abilities of the probe cores in question)

Scientists are not just 'changing a cartridge', they are reversing all of the impacts of the earlier exposure so that a new reading will provide clean data, and not a confused mess.

 

Do you know how to safely change a tire on the lunar rover?  Opportunity?  Curiosity?  Do you even know what tools are needed for each of them?

We are not talking about changing a car tire here, we are discussing repairing a highly sophisticated and optimized piece of equipment which did not have ease of repair as a design priority, generally in a very hostile environment where your dexterity is hampered by very thick gloves(on in the case of Kerbals, mittens) that you cannot afford to damage or remove

Can you distinguish between Munar regolith and ore? A rich vein vs a poor one?  

Radiators keep the drills/ISRU from overheating, Engineers guide the drills to more productive patches so the same drills collect more ore at the same landing site.

 

The class and level system are part of the constraints of the career game to make it more interesting/challenging, much like science and fund limitations.

If you want omni-capable kerbals, play sandbox.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Terwin

[Rodger]

Does anyone have any idea if the unity update, or 1.2 in general, would fix this problem:

I haven't been able to play KSP in months because of it.

[Redneck]

and any news from porkjet? Ive seen quite a few inquiries but no awswers. 

[Alshain]

8 hours ago, Arsonide said:

Yep, there are two plane parts with KerbNet access: the Mk2 Drone Core, and the avionics hub, which isn't technically a probe core, but we wanted a low level plane part with KerbNet access. The RoveMate even has KerbNet access. Of course, your scan resolution gets lower as your point of view gets lower. The RoveMate for example sees a radius of about ten kilometers.

I would recommend adding one independent part, call it KerbNet Interface Computer or something like that, it could be small like one of the science experiments, but still give manned missions access to KerbNet assuming an appropriate uplink is available.

EDIT: Or am I misunderstanding the feature?  Do manned missions have automatic access to biome (with satellite present) and waypoint data?

Edited August 10, 2016 by Alshain

[Majorjim!]

11 hours ago, Capt Snuggler said:

Any chance we could see some screens of what @Porkjet is up too?

Keep talking to that brick wall Snuggs.. I wish for some screenies too.

20 hours ago, SQUAD said:

and allowing you to place customizable waypoints.

Does this mean a robo rover will automatically follow waypoints? Is this autopilot for rovers?

[Alshain]

11 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Does this mean a robo rover will automatically follow waypoints? Is this autopilot for rovers?

That is a leap out into left field.  They've said nothing that would even lead to such a conclusion.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Alshain said:

That is a leap out into left field.  They've said nothing that would even lead to such a conclusion.

Exactly, hence the question mark. Nobody mentioned it and I don't see the point in being able to place waypoints on a rover without auto pilot. Why would you want waypoints without auto pilot?

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Exactly, hence the question mark. Nobody mentioned it and I don't see the point in being able to place waypoints on a rover without auto pilot. Why would you want waypoints without auto pilot?

To use with other craft in the future.  This implementation relies on seeing the location with a probe, satellite, or rover prior to setting a waypoint, unlike Waypoint Manager for example where you can set one up anywhere in the world from a vessel on the launchpad, this interpretation makes you work for it rather than giving it to you from the beginning.  You have to go there.  I imagine going there with a rover, rather than using a satellite from orbit, will give you more precision on where you place the waypoint.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Alshain

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Alshain said:

To use with other craft in the future.  This implementation relies on seeing the location with a probe, satellite, or rover prior to setting a waypoint, unlike Waypoint Manager for example where you can set one up anywhere in the world from a vessel on the launchpad, this interpretation makes you work for it rather than giving it to you from the beginning.  You have to go there.

To use with other craft how? I can see the location of any craft at any time.

[Alshain]

3 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

To use with other craft how? I can see the location of any craft at any time.

Assuming you leave the rover sitting there forever, yes.  But if you want to mark a location for later exploration and then continue on, this allows you to do that.

Of course the real reason for this is probably technical rather than logistical, because they simply attached the function to all probes and the rover body is a probe.  There was no reason to make an exclusion for the rover body.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Alshain

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Alshain said:

Assuming you leave the rover sitting there forever, yes.  But if you want to mark a location for later exploration and then continue on, this allows you to do that.

Of course the real reason for this is probably technical rather than logistical, because they simply attached the function to all probes and the rover body is a probe.  There was no reason to make an exclusion for the rover body.

Riight I see, you can mark a spot on the surface without a part being there. Got ya. Thanks for the explanation.

[Geschosskopf]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

No they came back to Kerbin. Because it's not traveling to Duna that teaches you how to change a tire. It's landing back on Kerbin afterward.

But the engineers were taught, at great expense, to fix flats for the space program, not go into private business.  Do you think the space program just let them walk off?  No, as rare and valuable commodities, the flat-fixing engineers were kept in a vault until the next transfer window, then shot off to another planet.  Thus, Kerbin's roads remain clogged with abandoned cars

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Pilots are trained in controlling the craft, be it keeping the craft stable on the current course even with other forces trying to take it off course(not a trivial matter, especially in space), changing the current facing of the vessel to a high degree of accuracy relative to either a specified direction or relative to the current(and probably changing) trajectory.

Nope.  Pilots are trained to turn SAS off and on.  Period.  The other Kerbals can do everything else.  Or at least they can now, before this horrible, terrible idea of allowing pilots to monopolize even more flight controls comes out in the next update.  This is NOT making pilots more useful, it's making them into even more parasitic ballast than they already are.

You do know why we're moving to autonomous cars, right?  And why airlines and trains and even ships are on autopilot nearly all the time, right?  It's because machines control vehicles much better than people do.  The Skylon doesn't even have a cockpit.  The whole idea of pilots being a vital part of a space program is decidedly obsolete.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

I don't know about you, but retrograde and node/target tracking are pilot skills I find to be highly valuable,

Nope, I don't.  They are a new-fangled invention contemporary with the introduction of the class system, in a poorly conceived attempt to give pilots some reason to exist as a class.  I learned to play KSP without them.  Besides, the point-to-whatever system is so poorly implemented that you still have to point the ship that way yourself.  If you try to let it point the ship there itself, it overshoots by a mile, reverses, overshioots by 3/4 mile, repeat for 5 minutes, so takes forever to settle down, assuming this happens before you run out of RCS.  Now, the system has improved slightly on this over time, and I hear more improvements are coming.  But the system is unnecessary to start with, and doesn't work anyway, so it's just a waste of system resources.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Scientists are not just 'changing a cartridge', they are reversing all of the impacts of the earlier exposure so that a new reading will provide clean data, and not a confused mess.

You can, of course, imagine whatever you want to when it comes to resetting a Goo pod, but given that it takes no time, anybody can pull out the data, and new scientists with zero experience already know how to reset when they walk in the door, it seems to be a very simple procedure.  Like changing a cassette.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Do you know how to safely change a tire on the lunar rover?  Opportunity?  Curiosity?  Do you even know what tools are needed for each of them?

Sure, you need a jack and a lug wrench.  The  original wheel was, after all, put on with a lug wrench to begin with.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

We are not talking about changing a car tire here, we are discussing repairing a highly sophisticated and optimized piece of equipment

Which has tires held on by lug nuts.  Just because it's attached to something that contains some fancy science stuff doesn't mean that every single piece of the whole thing is complex.  Wheels have been around since at least the Neolithic.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

Can you distinguish between Munar regolith and ore? A rich vein vs a poor one?  
Radiators keep the drills/ISRU from overheating, Engineers guide the drills to more productive patches so the same drills collect more ore at the same landing site.

Like I said, the engineer functions for ISRU are the only thing in the whole class system that arguably requires any specialized training.  Although who's to say the Kerbal on the spot is actually making the decisions?  He could be just a servomechanism following orders from back home.

 

3 hours ago, Terwin said:

If you want omni-capable kerbals, play sandbox.

No, that's not how it works.  The dreadful class system functions the same way in all types of game.  The only difference with sandbox is, all Kerbals start with 5 starts.  But still only pilots can use SAS, still only scientists can reset Goo, and still only engineers can fix flats.

And you know what?  The thing I hate the most about the whole class system is that you can't totally mod it out of existence, nor create your own classes, or omnipotent Kerbals.  Have you ever looked at the Traits.cfg file?  It defines class names, which have various skills associated with them.  So you think, no problem, I'll just give all Kerbals all the skills.  But sadly it doesn't work that way.  Some things in the game, such as resetting Goo or using KIS to build stuff, key off the class name instead of the presence or absence of a skill.  Why?

If things changed so that class name was NOT used to decide which Kerbal could do what, but instead the check was for applicable skill, then I'd find the existing class system more tolerable, because I could effectively eliminate it.  Or modify it as I saw fit.  So rather than making a bad system even worse with the changes to pilot skills, just make the system fully moddable so everybody can be happy.