Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: The wait is almost over!


SQUAD

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SQUAD said:

If you double click on a targetable part (such as a docking port), that part will become the target, while clicking on other parts of a ship will target the vessel itself. Furthermore, clicking on the ship in control will now deselect the target

Very nice. A quick un-target method was missing from 1.2, and this is better than the old way of double clicking anywhere, less likely to accidently un-target.  (un-target's a word...what?).

Not totally sure about the negative weight to "contracts that were read but never accepted" as I tend to cherry pick contracts a lot. But it's only a small -ive weight, so not too worried. 
1.2 is really shaping up to be awesome, you guys have done amazing work! 


Hope you recover quickly @sal_vager!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Wait.  So did this mean a limited EVA fuel resource can be more easily modded in!?

I would think so, yes. And adding that small radio for EVA reports will be even easier!

3 hours ago, nightingale said:

That would be -8, and an accept is +12.  You can see all these values in GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg.

Not knowing how much of an impact a -1 has compared to a +12 ... this still would explain a lot why I am swarmed with part testing contracts - my damn greediness having me grab every quick and dirty "while landed"/"while on the launchpad" ... :P

I like the new "always one exploration contract" feature! Getting closer to introduce a loose "storyline" via the contract system.

 

And I also would like to join the metaphysical experiment of collecting positive spiritual energy to speed up Mathew's recovery!
Could not find a poem, not good at rhyming myself, especially in English - but I found this little gem:

After two days in the hospital, I took a turn for the nurse. 

- W.C. Fields

Edited by KerbMav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, KerbMav said:

Not knowing how much of an impact a -1 has compared to a +12

1/12th. Yes, it is that easy. :)

In your save each thing has a weight. So part tests might weigh - say - 50. If you accept one, that weight will go to 62. If you look at one and then leave Mission control, it will instead go to 49.

Max is 90, min is 10, and all of this is settable in your save. I'm looking at making a mod to reveal it all in-game and make it directly modifiable by the player, but in spite of it being a very simple idea I - as always - am completely unsure of how to even start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured hey, mabye I should test what I just said, so I loaded up a save and ran a quick test. Here is what my persistent file had:

before going into mission control:
            PartTest = 90
            Duna = 22
            Minmus = 55
            Mun = 54

Then I went into mission control, and...
Looked at "Surface outpost on Duna"
Accepted "Test something orbitig Minmus"
Canceled "Test something escaping Mun"
Then I left mission control and looked at my persistent file:

            PartTest = 82 (-8, makes sense as I accepted first and 90's the cap, then rejected for -8)
            Duna = 22     (+0, makes sense I think because this is not in place yet)
            Minmus = 67   (+12, makes sense as I accepted something on Minmus)
            Mun = 46      (-8, makes sense as I rejected Mun).

So I couldn't actually test the -1, but the rest were just directly added/subtracted so there's no reason to think the others wouldn't be as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

1/12th. Yes, it is that easy. :)

You don't say?! :D

Yet I have no idea how much impact the 1/12th would even had, the mathmatics behind it, how many contracts more do I get for a +1 is what I meant. :)

22 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I figured hey, mabye I should test what I just said, so I loaded up a save and ran a quick test. Here is what my persistent file had:

before going into mission control:
            PartTest = 90
            Duna = 22
            Minmus = 55
            Mun = 54

Then I went into mission control, and...
Looked at "Surface outpost on Duna"
Accepted "Test something orbitig Minmus"
Canceled "Test something escaping Mun"
Then I left mission control and looked at my persistent file:

            PartTest = 82 (-8, makes sense as I accepted first and 90's the cap, then rejected for -8)
            Duna = 22     (+0, makes sense I think because this is not in place yet)
            Minmus = 67   (+12, makes sense as I accepted something on Minmus)
            Mun = 46      (-8, makes sense as I rejected Mun).

So I couldn't actually test the -1, but the rest were just directly added/subtracted so there's no reason to think the others wouldn't be as well.

I think the "looked at but did not accept" only comes into effect when the time to accept the contract runs out and it is removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

So I couldn't actually test the -1, but the rest were just directly added/subtracted so there's no reason to think the others wouldn't be as well.

I've been playing with this on and off for the last couple of days. Can confirm it works as advertised.

It's not "look at mission control, turn down weighting" though.

It's "look at mission control, contract gets marked as "seen". Click on contract, contract gets marked as "read".

If the contract expires without being accepted, it will then take it's -1 or -2 hit. So it's not instant, it's when it expires.

Edited by severedsolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

Best wishes for a speedy recovery at sal_vager!

This update continues marching towards "best ever" status. Technical debt is being paid off in huge chunks. Mad Props at Sarbian and Arsonide for landing gear and wheel fixes, so many now that I've lost track. Keep up the good works!

But wheels are not fixed. They are still crap in 1.2 beta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

That is very insightful.

Thanks. And it's true! Have you tried them? Every devblog I read is like "ohh we're totally re-implementing wheels and the next Unity version will definitely fix things" while still my planes are drifting all over the runway and having phantom forces all over the place. I'm afraid the 'wheels thing' of KSP will never really be fixed... :(  At least it's not something to be very excited about of for the coming update...  (all the other improvements are!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SQUAD said:
Pablo (Paul_Amsterdam) and Leticia (Leto) are working very hard on the 1.2 teaser & cinematic trailer and it’s looking GOOD! We can’t wait to premier it and let you see the final product!

Is it going to be an animation, or a machinima? Because 1.0's trailer was noice :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chris_2 said:

Thanks. And it's true! Have you tried them? Every devblog I read is like "ohh we're totally re-implementing wheels and the next Unity version will definitely fix things" while still my planes are drifting all over the runway and having phantom forces all over the place. I'm afraid the 'wheels thing' of KSP will never really be fixed... :(  At least it's not something to be very excited about of for the coming update...  (all the other improvements are!)

Actually there was a bit of sarcasm involved in there, although you might have been aware of that.

But really, "still crap" is not something the devs can do a lot with. Which is a shame, because it really looks like they're taking the forum feedback very serious (maybe that was done in the past but it never looked like it), and an empty comment as "still crap" doesn't give them a lot to work on. Especially when most players report that wheels work a lot better now.

it would be helpful if you're more specific about what "not working" entails. "When I'm doing 50m/s with xyz craft (picture) I can make it slide sideways" or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Actually there was a bit of sarcasm involved in there, although you might have been aware of that.

But really, "still crap" is not something the devs can do a lot with. Which is a shame, because it really looks like they're taking the forum feedback very serious (maybe that was done in the past but it never looked like it), and an empty comment as "still crap" doesn't give them a lot to work on. Especially when most players report that wheels work a lot better now.

it would be helpful if you're more specific about what "not working" entails. "When I'm doing 50m/s with xyz craft (picture) I can make it slide sideways" or something along those lines.

My comment was not aimed at the devs, but to the person who was excited about the 'wheels part' of the update. I was just pointing out that he shouldn't be, really. There have been enough comments on the wheels in the prerelease part of the forums, so the devs are aware of the problem. Because they are aware of the problems (they have to be, because the problems are very obvious too), and still fail to come up with a solution they resort to trying to reduce the symptoms (changing a bit of friction modifier here and there, adding 'autostruts' so if you put wheels on wings the wheels don't bend (which is what causes the phantom forces)) etc etc. instead of solving the actual problem (why are there phantom forces in the first place?). It only proves that the problems are probably very fundamental to the engine and probably won't be fixed.

The wheels are better right now, because they are fighting the symptoms, but the fundamental problems are still there. Believe me, the devs are aware of the fact that there are phantom forces in some situations. There is no need for me to point that out to them. They are the ones who know their physics engine inside out.

 

Edited by Chris_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

Actually there's one thing they can do with it.

Ignore the author ...

I wasn’t sure if responding “it’s in your own interest that a post directed at the devs is interpreted as contributing and not as an empty insult” was worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Chris_2 said:

My comment was not aimed at the devs, but to the person who was excited about the 'wheels part' of the update. I was just pointing out that he shouldn't be, really. There have been enough comments on the wheels in the prerelease part of the forums, so the devs are aware of the problem. [..snip..] It only proves that the problems are probably very fundamental to the engine and probably won't be fixed.    The wheels are better right now, ....

Thank you for expanding on your original comment, with so much detail!  Wheels and landing legs have a very hard job in KSP. Some players are more willing to overlook or work around flaws, than others.  My excitement for 1.2 wheels and landing legs is for their improvement in this update; not that they are now perfect, seamlessly adapting to all situations. I was reacting mainly to the news that a new solution was found to the previously knotty problem of landing leg rotation, but decided to make a general compliment to the developers for all improvements they have made thus far.  They show no signs of stopping; who can say what cool improvements the next update may bring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...