Kobymaru

Members
  • Content count

    1,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

880 Excellent

2 Followers

About Kobymaru

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

4,086 profile views
  1. This argument has been made about 5 times, by each side. I think it's time to put this thread to rest, everything that there is to say has been said, SQUAD did the SQUAD thing and said nothing, as usual. See you guys in the next "pls implement dV readout" thread!
  2. That's not an atmospheric prediction, that's the the time point of the intersection of the (vacuum) orbit with the ground. Hence me wondering where a predicted g-force readout comes from.
  3. Since when does KER do a Trajectory prediction? can you make a quicksave File and Upload it to GitHub to an issue? preferrably one that can be loaded without mods.
  4. The answer is: vacuum dV. It's perfectly correct in space and on/around most of the bodies, it's almost perfectly correct in the upper atmosphere (for second stages) and it's still a reasonably good estimate for first stages because even those don't spend much time in the lower atmosphere. And please, stop succumbing to the perfect solution fallacy, where the absence of a perfect solution for every single player somehow prevents a big improvement for the majority of players. Perfect is a bit better than imperfect, but imperfect is a lot better than nothing.
  5. This is where we'll have to disagree. I think it's about as necessary as an Apoapsis marker. That's very nice, and there are plenty of useful suggestions on how to do it. There's actually even consensus in this thread itself: implement it with a toggle. The problem is, there's no comment from SQUAD ever, in this or any other thread about this topic. And I can guarantee that this topic will come up until the end of time or until SQUAD implements it into the game. Even if all people in this thread will collectively agree to never speak of this again, there's probably a guy buying the game right now who will ask the very same question in half a year.
  6. I just want them to venture out of Kerbins SOI a little bit. I honestly don't think they do that. Maybe the QA testers do, but the devs and management doesn't. I think they used to care (nowdays not so much), but they didn't think it's a priority because "there's a mod for that". Unfortunately they also subscribed to the notion of "less information is better", and they believed that this is what players wanted. I wish, however, that they would realize how tedious the game is without it. I don't know what their opinions are today, but they have been very actively avoid any mention of this issue for a long time. This is the worst argument ever. The same thing could be said about literally any subsystem: contracts, aerodynamics, heating, and in fact, any project in life ever. Not doing something because of the possibility of not doing it perfectly is ridiculous, and being able to take criticism is just a life skill. You can whine about it, or you can improve your work based on that criticism. The aerodynamics are the perfect example: there was a mod for that, they implemented it anyway, "they still didn't get it right", but it's still in the game. And it's a lot better than nothing. Besides, what makes you think that they can't pull off a deterministic, analytical calculation with at least two working reference implementations (KER and MechJeb) so that it's useful for at least simple vehicles?
  7. I did, in fact, stop playing the stock game and the making history expansion for this very reason. But I'm just gonna quote myself, because I've written this too many times on this thread already: A bit of a mixed message here This thread exists becaue I've been using KER for so long that I forgot what its like to not have a dV readout in the editor. When I was reminded of it (trying to play stock for a bit), I got so frustrated that I started questioning where the fun in the (stock) game really is. Mind you: I'm not saying there isn't. I just couldn't find it. Oh, I do get it. Back in the day it was deemed too hard to implement, now they're just out of capable developers. In short: they just don't care. ps.: I have one simple wish: Let all the devs, every single one of them, preferrably including the management do a Jool 5 mission (that includes a Tylo landing), completely stock, with no KER, no KAC, no Transer Window Planner. Lets see how much fun they have when playing their own game. I'm pretty sure the real reason that we keep having this discussion is that most of the Devs play time is limited to staying in/around Kerbin, or at most going to the Mun, if at all.
  8. Fair enough, but could you enlighten me what they think about the following question: I'm just trying to understand how lack of a very selective piece information can be fun.
  9. How the hell would they have case against me? No, because I want to open up my code and ensure its survival.
  10. Is it? The common argument is that the dV information "spoils" the fun of ... something ... . So having the information available is not good because the user is supposed to magically eyeball the number through experimentation. OK, now let's take this premise and expand it a bit. So why do we have Apoapsis/Periapsis markers then? I mean, they are clearly redundant information, because could be calculated from orbital parameters such as velocity and altitude. They obviously detract from the fun of the aforementioned something, because the player can't experiment and is spoiled the suspense of how high/low their craft is gonna fly. For that matter, since less information is more fun, why don't we remove the velocity info altogether? It can clearly be calculated from triangulating various planets, here's a super easy tutorial on how to do it, and people who don't want to do this can either use this magical spreadsheet or install a mod. Also, why don't we remove the information on how much fuel is left in your craft? Same thing, calculatable from different numbers (integrated burn time, engine ISP, thrust, tank size and ambient pressure), super fun if it's not available, and you might as well install a mod for that. On top of it, it would even be realistic, because usually a spacecraft doesn't know its remaining fuel exactly. What is the difference between one number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success and another number that can be calculated from other information in the Game and is extremely helpful for mission success? How is one number a spoiler, and how is the other number clearly obviously essential? My suspicion is that the only difference is the status quo, because one has been around since the beginning and the other one is boycotted by the devs. Edit: this must be the spoiled fun that people are talking about:
  11. Wait, how does this work together with the "not suitable for a particular purpose" clause? I'm pretty sure that nobody can't sue GPL'd code authors for not getting what they expect, because the license clearly states to expect nothing. Yes it does. Either way, I'ma join sarbian and the others on this one and just continue business as usual, assuming this won't happen. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic now, but this meme needs to die, so I'm gonna put my off-topic rant into this box for anyone who cares:
  12. But neither the Mod author nor the User have access to this code. Who is hurt by this "violation"? What's the damage? I find discussions about the ideal and perfect lawfulness of an act ("but technically, it's ... ") pretty boring, I care about real life. So my question in practice, in reality, in this universe (that's a physical, not a legal universe), what is the problem, really? Who is gonna sue who? Who has the damage, who got hurt? Is Squad/T2 gonna sue me for writing GPL code that interfaces with their non-gpl code? Am I gonna sue Squad/T2 for release of their source code cuz I wrote something that could be used to link against their code? Is Squad/T2 gonna sue their customers? Is the FSF gonna Sue all of us for the fun of it, and because they like creating legal problems in situations with no victims?= Why are we getting so upset about this, again?
  13. It's 2018, GitHub exists. That counts as shipping the source code. If it's not on GitHub, the source is usually within the archive along with the binaries. Yes. All code that is licensed under the GPL. Which is the Mod's code, and not KSP's code.
  14. How are any of these "violations" relevant? Who is perpetrating the violations? Does the author violate the GPL by writing GPL code? Does Squad/T2 violate the GPL because users are taking their KSP copy and "linking" it against a GPL mod,without Squad/T2's consent or knowledge? Do Users violate the GPL by linking it to their KSP copy in the privacy of their homes? I don't think so. Distribution is key here. GPL only matters when you distribute. If you "violate" it internally in your company or at home and don't distribute your nonfree programs/modules, nobody cares. Modders distribute their GPL modules, but they ship the code along with it. No violation there. Squad doesn't distribute the Mods, no violation there. Users don't distribute the Mods, no violation there. I really don't think this is a problem.
  15. I'm not saying you are throwing parts together randomly. I'm just saying you could perfectly well do it and get away with it, because the stock game is just that easy with the tiny planets and OP engines. The dV number isn't the answer. The Boolean "Seeing if it works" isn't the answer, or the reason I play the game. The spacecraft is the answer, the staging, the engine choice, everything. dV is no more than a tool to be precise about it. I still put in a lot of work into the design of the vehicle. The difference is that I do less (not none) trial-end-error and more reading numbers that are perfectly obvious and shouldn't be a secret. This idea that withholding information is fun really boggles me. It might work in a novel, but not a game about engineering.