Kobymaru

Members
  • Content count

    1201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

784 Excellent

1 Follower

About Kobymaru

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

3182 profile views
  1. No one said that. I even specifically said that it is very playable and also very fun. But there is still plenty of room for improvement, and all I mean was the observation that the needed improvement is probably not going to happen anymore. Actually I would prefer several small patches. Because if they are small, then the chance of compatilibity problems will be miniscule. So mod authors could just say "compatible with all versions from 1.3.0 to 1.3.99", and trust in squad that they won't break things with minor patches (anymore).
  2. I know that's it's a big thing, internally, and I acknowledge that it's important. But for players with sufficient english skills, 1.3 was a version bump with no visible changes. That's pretty much what I read every week: "bugs begin fixed, QA testing, etc." Usually no specifics, and if anything it's pretty minor things like runway seams and wrong shadows. And that is good if that's chugging along slowly - but there is no ambition anymore to make larger improvements. We all know that the wheel physics have big problems, we also know that the engines and capsules are unbalanced. That's also "bugfixing", but the effort for fixing it is bigger. And that's what they don't do anymore. At least not according to anything I read that's public.
  3. A release devoid of features and the complete focus of all development and communication towards a DLC. For months now, we've only been hearing about localization and the expansion. There seems to be no drive, no desire anymore to improve the stock game (save for some stuff needed for the expansion). No Art passes on the Rocket parts, no fixing of wheels, no balance pass on the engines and capsules, no visual overhaul (remember the former Producer Maxmaps publicly dreaming of a KSP that looks as great as the EVE mod?). When was the last time you heard something like "we are not content with how this core system is behaving, so we want to invest significant work to improve it"? Don't get me wrong - the game is great and I enjoy playing it. But there are things in need of fixing (devs obviously disagree with players on just how much that is), and not only are they not getting fixed, there isn't even talk anymore that there is something worth fixing in the first place. It's all about the expansion now. I would be suprised to see a KSP 1.4 at all, and I would be even more surprised if this hypothetical KSP 1.4 had real significant changes and improvements. I think it's all DLC's from here on out.
  4. If you check the main thread (and the first post) you will find that I added a build for 1.2.2.
  5. I don't have numbers obviously, but my subjective feeling is that pretty much everyone says "I know it doesn't matter, but I'll just let the periapsis < 70km, cuz I want to be a good citizen". Interesting that you have a different perception.
  6. Why not just set the NavBall to "Surface", disable Moderation (or set limiter to 30) and pitch up to 30 Degrees manually?
  7. Realistically, it will never get bad at all, you will not run into the risk of ever hitting debris accidentally. However, most players (including me) are kind of OCD and just don't like leaving garbage around. If you're one of those, you should deorbit it. If you're not, there's really no point.
  8. So I added a new build of the latest version of Trajectories 1.7.0 for KSP 1.2.2 which can be downloaded here. Don't expect these build to be around forever and please update your KSP version eventually. The next version will probably have features that make it incompatible with KSP versions < 1.3.0.
  9. I am working on some core changes for the integrator that may or may not improve performance significantly and may increase or decrease precision. After that, I should probably do a pass on the hard limits for prediction and the performance/precision settings because I don't quite understand them yet. In the mean time, what would really help would be a good Issue report that you can post here: https://github.com/neuoy/KSPTrajectories/issues What I need: Stock or Far? Trajectories version, KSP version, FAR version (if any) Your craft file, please remove all non-stock parts Your entry situation, as detailed as possible (preferrably a Quicksave loadable in Stock) Your settings: descent profile (or pro/retrograde), Cache yes or no, Max Patches If you have precision problems, how far and in which direction do you deviate? There is not yet, but I think it's a good idea. Would you mind creating an issue here? https://github.com/neuoy/KSPTrajectories/issues edit: I have created instructions on how to create good bug reports here: https://github.com/neuoy/KSPTrajectories/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#how-to-report-bugs It would be appreciated if you guys and everyone else could skim through the "How to Report Bugs" section and follow the instructions the next time they want to make me aware of an issue.
  10. Dear CKAN maintainers including @politas, I have marked Trajectories compatible with every KSP version up to 1.3.99. I have done this in the Trajectories.version file inside the zip file, on http://ksp-avc.cybutek.net/ and on spacedock. Yet, this is how CKAN shows it: It says Max KSP version 1.2.2, when I marked it as being 1.3.99-compatible everywhere. What's going on?
  11. Indeed, it does. That's hella weird though, considering I put in the correct version in the AVC .version file and on http://ksp-avc.cybutek.net . The netkan file seems to be OK too, so I don't know what's going on. Either way, I can assure you that it's compatible with 1.3.0 and it's even still marked as compatible and installable via CKAN.
  12. Well it shouldn't be on by default, but it would be very helpful for those who know what they are doing.
  13. I wonder if it's possible to add a CKAN source for all of your stuff. Would be wonderful if we could just plop that into CKAN and update to your unofficial rebuilds.
  14. Of course, that was the whole point of using RK4 I'm actually using a time step of 1s or 2s and I'm still getting good accuracy. Compared to 0.1s, that's like a 5x performance improvement. If we could make precision work under these conditions, we don't even need a cache. Right now I am just using the current value of the time warp for prediction. Using the Local Truncation Error estimation for Euler, I'm already getting pretty close to the old precision (but with better performance). But there is still this the force error high-altitude which probably interferes with the investigation, so it might be best to figure that out first. Yes, it means that the steps are multiplied. Yes, there might be upper limits to what we can do with Trajectories, but I would quite like to explore those Even if it means to replicate KSP's errors The actual spot on the surface, or just the targeted point? If it's the latter, it's just that the world coordinates are not preserved between loads. But KSP does some funny things and coordinate translations on save/load and on-rails transition, so who knows.
  15. Hi, how do I retrieve the physical time step length (in in-game time)? I know that there's a setting for "max physics delta-time per frame" and that there's Planetarium.fixedDeltaTime, but those seem to be fixed settings, whereas the physics update time depends on system performance. I calculated my own value from the difference between Planetarium.GetUniversalTime() values in every FixedUpdate(), but I'm not sure that this is correct (or is it?) Also, this value needs to stay accurate for Physics-timewarp, where the time step gets bigger if I'm not mistaken.