• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About fisfis

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And this is my Mun heavy harvester I have mentioned in my previous post
  2. So today I was boring after completing some missions around a Jool and building heavy harvester for a Mun mission. As we are still missing robotic manipulators I tried to build one from stock parts: I tested this in space and on Kerbin as well. It is almost useless in space as when I want to move with particular part and SAS is active it is moving with whole ship. On Kerbin it works quiet well but I didn't try to grab some heavy load yet. I have had a plan to mount it to my new truck I have built afterwards, but I didn't find a way how to mount all grabbing parts together yet. Instead I build a truck with trailer and moved a ship to the sea. Trailer is mount using the grabbing unit with free pivot so it behaves really great and looks like real trailer. It is pity there are no better wheels and also that is is not possible to turn more with them.
  3. Guys, both of you, I never said they should stop adding and modyfying stuff. And I wouldnt be satisfied with .592763 version numbers. I said they should 1) fix bugs of current release (and previous releases starting by 1.00), at least those which are making the game unplayable . But WITHOUT modyfying anything else, especially game mechanics and mod API. Additions are possible, but again, without changing anything what can affect previously started career. This should be done using releasing patches. 2) follow common practices in versioning 3) stop making players disapointed 4) stop behaving like if this is still beta, it is not beta anymore. Do you think I want so much? [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='ModZero'] ...every new KSP version, people start threads about how things change and business-critical KSP spaceships blow up. [/QUOTE] This is democratic discussion. Everybody can write what he likes and what does not and also to recommend his ideas. It is not our problem it is driving you mad, we are so sorry, but you have to live with it. [quote name='ModZero'] ...IT development practices... [/QUOTE] We are talking about software development, not IT, it is a different story. [quote name='ModZero'] of starting a new campaign. [/QUOTE] If you dont mind to start a new career with every new release, go for it. I did it many times since career mode was introduced and now... I don't want to do it again until I'll finish the current one. It is impossible without bug fixes. [quote name='ModZero'] Therefore I ask Squad to no longer change anything, so no new threads start, so that I can stare at the forums in peace. [/QUOTE] So just because you want to stare forums in peace others should shut up and/or Squad should stop adding features? :D Man you need a doctor or some sort of sedatives. [quote name='ModZero'] EDIT: also, agile is [I]so 2001[/I].[/QUOTE] So it means it is not modern anymore, right? Ok, let me reformulate it, it is trendy. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Korizan']OP - well based on your replies you really aren't interested in anything other then prolonging the ... discussion.. Have fun with that, I'm out.[/QUOTE] I wrote many times what I want and why. But as some people are still trying to tell me I am wrong I have to write it again and again, make it more clear and explain why I want it like that.
  4. I still don't agree with you. You are mixing multiple things together. If you are talking about linux kernel, take a look on it deeper. In stable version (and I consider KSP 1.y.z as stable as it is not noted in a different way) you can be always sure that: - What is in major version will stay there with unchanged API until next major version - Features added within minor versions will be unchanged in next minor versions (from the API and functionality perspective) - Patches for worst bugs are released as they need to be released anyway, does not matter if as a patch or in next minor version. But there is nothing like - we are trying what our users will accept. This approach I have seen just at one company and it is Adobe and maybe some garage-style companies. But even Adobe is releasing hotfixes and feature updates without changing the basic functionality. This is not about SLA's this is simply about fairness. Even if the software is free I should know what I can expect from it. This is why there are versioning schemes. In software world there was never something as: Ready. All the time there are additional ideas, all the time there is something what was not implemented because of limited timeframe or money, all the time there is something wrong in implementation as devs usually say we'll fix this later, all the time there are bugs which were not discovered. And because of this, development lifecycle methodologies exists. And believe me, everybody you mentioned such as MS, Google and even guys from Squad have less or more implemented them. It doeas nothing to do with moder approach. Modern approach is agile development, but the basics are still same and targets also. And the target is always satisfied customer, believe or not.
  5. [quote name='Arugela']...[/QUOTE] Agree, but this sound like a lot of work and redesign of many things. I rather would stay on the ground and ask just for possibility to modify actions during the flight. Everything is developed already and we are just missing in-game GUI which is usually the simplest part of the development phase. So I will be glad if there is additional in-game gui allowing modification of custom actions. Additional to this, more keys / buttons can be added, but it would probably require more code modifications than the previous case.
  6. [quote name='Octa']You know what Scott Manley did with his "Interstellar Quest" -Series? He set it up with a recent KSP-Version and a more or less staple set of mods and did not upgrade. Fully aware that an upgrade of KSP might break mods and change gameplay mechanics.[/QUOTE] This is his decision. I would expect bit different approach from Squad, especially in versioning, patching, releasing new versions and compatibili [quote name='Octa']If your current mission works in 1.0.4, there's no garantuee that it'll work in 1.0.5.[/QUOTE] Where is this written? I haven't seen it anywhere. [quote name='Octa']And set this mission up in a version which is affected by a timewarp bug in the first place, how did you expect this will work out? That the update will only fix this bug, maybe adds new parts and does not change anything else that was already in the game?[/QUOTE] Exactly. This is what I would expect since 1.0.0. Bugs are fixed, patches released at least for those worst ones, parts which does not need to change the game mechanics are added in minor versions and everything else including changing API for mods in major versions. [quote name='Octa']The problem is, although according to a "classical" versioning scheme the number 1.0.5 tells otherwise, this game is still beta, so expect things to change. Newly added mechanics will require changes in the old mechanics and adding new parts might require rebalancing the exisiting ones so there are no uttlery useless or overpowered things.[/QUOTE] Squad team said (and it was also mentioned in this thread): We are proud to announce we are going out of beta and releasing 1.0.0 version of KSP. So I expected they started a normal development lifecycle with standard versioning approach. For those who don't know what we are talking about: [URL][/URL] In short. Everything below 1.0.0 is beta, everything can be changed anytime. Everything with postfix -beta is beta. Same case as above. (usually used with new major versions) Major version (first number) means it brings major changes. Such as API changes, game mechanics changes, file format incompatibility and so on. Minor version (second number) means that something was added, bugs fixed, but the behaviour is still the same Patch version (third number) means that only bugs were fixed.
  7. [quote name='Arugela']They should also add extra banks of action groups to go with it. ... Alt/RightShift category to not mesh them. ...[/QUOTE] Great idea, we well see if our suggstions will be impleented.
  8. Thanks for recommendation Diazo. But, to be honest, instead of adding new parts and changing of the game mechanics developers should focus on making the game as much user friendly as possible. As they claimed they will not develop any autopilots and whatever else, they should focus on tuning of existing stuff to make possible to be playing the game very easily (even when the difficulty is set to hard). To be honest, I hate mods from many perspectives. It can be discontinued, new versions of the game are not usually compatible with current mod version, in some cases it takes ages to release compatible version of mod, they are crashing games so many times, there is no usually support from anybody (authors of the game can't support it and mod author usually does not have time). It is someting like when you have a mouse with 20 butons and after that you have to use just three button mouse. Ofcoure it is great what comunity is doing for various games, but sill, developers are the ones who are leading the direction and I think modifications I have recently described are not that difficult to be implemented and also will make the game more playable without any mods.
  9. [quote name='Robet.G']I don't know what's wrong with you people, I have no problems with. Any of these because I save zero space crafts. If I need a new craft I just build one, period.[/QUOTE] How do you rebuild a craft which is already in opposite side of space? I think you people are not playing career at all. And if so you are cheating... Where is the fun then? [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Ok, I agree with that. I agree with changing everything in major releases. But why the hell they just don't fix the biggest bugs in the game (which usually are making career much harder to pley or even impossible to play or causes loosing of Kerbals). I was waiting for 1.0 for more than year. I can wait without any problems other two years for a version updated with new features and changed game mechanics. [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Korizan']In regards to crafts getting broken during an upgrade. I know there a methods to replace them manually and at one time wasn't there a mod to do it as well ?[/QUOTE] So according to your recommendation, I have to cheat. This is not a reason why I am playing career. I want to play it according to some rules. And not to cheat. [quote name='Korizan']And of coarse the other option is if you are playing a career mode and can't complete a mission do to a change. Well F12 and complete it manually.[/QUOTE] Cheating... again. [quote name='Korizan']And the last and final answer is don't upgrade.[/QUOTE] I wrote it many times. Don't update = live with existing bugs. Man. Do you think I'll sit in front of computer for 3 years and wait till the ship reaches designed destination when there is a warp bug in the game? Wake up please. As there atre no patches released at all only the one option is to update.
  10. I think it does not matter who flies. Until there will be complete ship control in map view it is necessary to have this in normal window. Even when sond is launched.
  11. [quote name='Yakuzi']The fact is, Squad has stated KSP is out of beta, however, some core systems (like aero) are still under development which causes some people to be upset (rightfully so IMO). I don't care about non-core systems, but all physics related mechanics should've been properly designed before going out of beta, and committed to and rigorously tested so it won't require multiple game updates to iron out (5 since "1.0" and aero still seems to be under development).[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, the fact also is there was a lot of stuff missing in 1.0 (such as heat shields and so on). And when they add these kind of parts they have to modify physics these parts are usfefull at all. It is great they add such things. But again, please not in minor releases. If such thing is added it should be in major version. Minor version should contain just fixes and maybe some slight enhancements. What I'd like to see that when a major version is released the worst bugs are fixed in some minor version releases. I.E. the warp bug in 1.0.4 - It could be simply fixed immediately with a patch.
  12. [quote name='Gaarst']it's their games, they do what they want.[/QUOTE] Agree. Till the point we are supporting them :) [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='T-Bouw']... people can already modify the staging-order, so why not this in the same vein right?[/QUOTE] Exactly :) And from my perspective, in real ship it would be much easier to reprogram actions than staging :)
  13. [quote name='T-Bouw']fisfis, I think you should elaborate on your suggestion if you want a higher succes of it becomming something. I, for one, can't make anything of it. Details details fellow forum-goer![/QUOTE] You see :) And I thought I was clear in my suggestion. Ok. So let me describe it more closely: Sometimes it would be handy to be possible to modify custom actions defined in VAB. Especially in cases when two different ships are docked together and custom actions overlaps (i.e. I want to retract panels on first but I don't want to toggle engine on a second). You usually forgot mappings in a week. Also, sometimes you notice in deep space that mapping should be done in different way. So you revert back to VAB, change what you need and do other 20 minute long flight just to check that everything works as you wish (in Hard career mode this is even not possible). [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Gaarst']Already suggested a million times, yet never implemented.[/QUOTE] So what you want to say is that Squad does not take care about comunity at all and they blindly follows their road map?
  14. [quote name='jf0']... did I assign engine shut down to 2, and abort auto destruct and explode seuqence to 3? or was it engine shut downt to 3 and explode to 2? It can make a big difference and this has happened before.[/QUOTE] :D Exactly. And when you dock / undock something with same custom buttons mapped...
  15. S1gmoid: Look at Linux Kernel developmnet lifecyce, the same for i.e. Netbeans... This is stadnard approach and nobody pays anything for that. Or do you think they can make drastical changes in minor releases so API and basiclly all software relaying on it will stop working? No, there are just slight improvements and bugfixes. And they work in paralel on next major version. Take a look on unity engine itself. There are additions in every new version which affects existing functions as less as possible or dont affect them at all. What means that bugs are fixed and you can use new minor version without stress that something will stop working.[COLOR=#333333] [/COLOR]