Ziff
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Ziff
-
-
This is not currently showing up in the CKAN index for 1.1 for some reason.
-
On 4/2/2016 at 5:30 AM, steve_v said:
Sure, about as unfair as not giving Store customers any way to test the 1.1 prerelease.
Squad, this fragmentation of your customer base needs to stop.
On 4/2/2016 at 5:33 AM, steve_v said:Since Squad are uploading to both places, i really don't see what's so hard about uploading the same files to both locations.
Really beginning to feel like Squad just doesn't give a fat rats hiney about store customers now that they're on steam...
It's obvious you are totally ignorant to the issues at hand and the reason this is all happening to begin with. The upgrade to Unity 5 has required the devs to tinker with large portions of the game. The update to 1.1 is the single largest update that Squad has ever done for KSP. It also includes a 64bit version as well, so that needs to be tested too. I think (I might be wrong on the number) there are only about 100 or so testers for normal updates. This update is HUGE and having additional folks to play and test will help find bugs quicker.
The pre-release is just like experimentals in that new builds are compiled almost daily to include bug fixes. In order to properly test software, everyone must be running the newest build. The issue with the store is that there is no way to force people to update for the new builds. This means some players who were testing would be on the wrong version and that only leads to confusion and more work for the devs during the debugging process. That leaves only the steam client as a reliable option for including people in the testing of the 1.1 update.
So there are two viable choices. Keep testing internal and take a lot longer to test. Allow some players to opt-in to help test the update and push it towards a release quicker than if it had been done internally.
I get that everyone just wants to play with the shiny new things, but Squad is more concerned with making sure the release isn't delayed and is as stable as possible.
You can read the entire changelog to see how big this update is below.
-
Jsut to add, i am using 50+ mods so it could not be this one causing the issue.
You'd have to remove all your mods and install just this one and try it out. Chances are if you're using that many mods than something else is going on or some other mod isn't playing nice with another.
-
16 month old necro. Really guys?
-
Since it's useless to reduce drag in stock KSP, they just might make it a fuel tank that makes the rocket look better.
Also, space potatoes.
Are you not aware that the next update is a revamp of the stock drag system?
-
Elon apparently thinks Kerbal Space Program is awesome.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2rgsan/i_am_elon_musk_ceocto_of_a_rocket_company_ama/cnfqmsl
-
Changing the gimbal of the engine is still not okay. That's one thing I shall not be changing my stance about. Some of the other things are eh, but changing something so that it is not actually a stock part anymore is too far. And the model for the Poodle is brilliant. It's the rename I disagree with. Yes, the name is a bit silly, but it's confusing to change it.
This is your opinion. Other people, like myself, are perfectly happy with the changes that Ven has made. Again, you are free to not install those features but to continue to make it seem as if somehow this mod must be changed to suit you is just ridiculous.
Now that's just sad that a person can't provide feedback without this kind of response.He isn't providing constructive criticism. He's saying "I like several of these things better the way they are in stock KSP." and quite literally demanding that nothing be changed except for the models. If that's how you feel about a mod then don't install those features. Or learn how to mod something yourself and make it how you want it, but to demand that a mod be changed to be more like stock because you just prefer stock.. Well that's just stupid.
-
2. You renamed the Poodle. This is just... wow. Seriously? This leads to a whole lot of confusion with what to call it to players who do not use the revamp. This definitely needs to be fixed. Adding a new engine called the Poodle only makes this worse.
I actually like the fact that the poodle is renamed. The poodle was such a stupid name that really didn't convey anything. If you want to change it back it's easy enough to change in the part file.
4. FL-T800 tank is not stripey anymore. This is pretty minor, but I really do miss my stripey tanks.
Uh. Then just don't install the FL-T800 tank?
So yeah. This needs to be more stock. It should really only change the models and maybe add some extra visual-only features. (TextureReplacer reflections and Command Pod windows lights.)
I disagree, I really like all the changes above the textures and I hope Ven continues to improve parts. You can always choose not to install parts you don't like or change things in a way you disagree with.
-
Ok, thanks for your assistance!!!
Might want to edit the post and change the Title so it says "Answered."
-
They were shot on a canon 6d, so yes
What kind of lens did you use?
-
Merry Christmas guys. Thought Deep Space Refuel is already possible with stock but wonder there might be new parts for it? Also hoping aerodynamic overhaul won't render all my planes going too astray. Redesign and test flights them all can take days.
Deep space refueling, as in, resource collection and conversion to appropriate fuels. Similar to Kethane Or Karbonite, but done how Squad sees it.
Man...I knew about this weeks before this thread appeared
We've all known since like October.. When HarvesteR announced it.
-
You could try again with no other mods to be sure, but I've never heard of HyperEdit causing this before, so I doubt it.
Removed all the mods, it worked. Added mods back two at a time and it continued to work. No clue as to what could have caused it because now it's functioning totally normal. To answer your other questions I waited about 30-60 seconds to see if it was stuck loading but it never moved past 1 FPS, I tried to save and reload but although I saw messages that said quicksaving/quickloading it never appeared to actually reload the scene.
Anyway, it's working now so thanks for the quick response.
-
Merry Christmas to everyone I can give it to!
-
Seems cone angle (at least on the 88-88) breaks if you target mission control in 1.5.2. I had to edit my save and point it back at just Kerbin, then everything worked fine. If I can confirm, I will throw an issue in github.
That's because you are targeting a direct vessel. Target Kerbin itself and you should see a cone.
-
First time I am ever trying to use Hyperedit. KSP 32bit, only mods are KER, RCS build aid, and hyperedit. Trying to test a probe on the moon, I'm using the change orbit feature, set to active vessel, body set to mun, altitude set to 25,000m. When I click set it puts the probe into orbit but then I get 1fps. Literally. 1fps. No idea what's going on and searching these forums turns up nothing.
-
That's what I'm saying. There were many users who never bothered to come back. I've never seen you before, for example. Luckily new users came in to fill the blank spots left by old ones.
Yeah. Look at my Join Date. I had started playing KSP around March 2012, just a few months before I joined the forums.. I joined to ask a few questions and then I was kind of quiet until the releases that popped up before the forum crash. That's when I became really active, so it was really poor timing and it's what drove me away.
-
October, actually. I lost my original account (created mid-october iirc), hundreds of posts, and some forum friends who didn't bother to register after the 'massacre'. It was a quick recovery, though. I've seen forums go dead after events like this.
I lost a bunch of threads I started, some with my own crazy rockets. I lost about a thousands posts and tons of Rep that I had gained from several special moderators who aren't around anymore, Rep from Nova himself, and a bunch of others. I stopped posting after that and I started lurking instead. I never stopped playing, I just lost the desire to rebuild my threads and posts. So now I pop up from time to time and shake the tree a bit then I disappear again. I'll probably be gone hang around another week or so and then disappear again until 0.91. comes along.
-
I tried with the updated .dll , I had the same problem. I could see the red icons with question marks but clicking them didn't show any parts. I deleted near future solar and rebooted, it worked. I can now sort by Mod. What is it about near future solar that it doesn't play well with it?
Edit: That was before you Ninja posted on me. Is there another new .dll now?
Edit2: I see it now, downloading and trying with Near Future Solar.
EDIT: YAY! It works with Near Future Solar now!
-
I just experienced this today. I kept aiming for the desert because it was flat but the game did the exact same thing. 2km left and instant crash to desktop. I had to change my orbit to land somewhere else to avoid the crash.
Mods you listed that I also have:
- Toolbar
Kerbal Engineer Redux 6.2.12
KAS
Procedural Fairings
RLA Stockalike
SCANsat
Stockalike Station Parts
Texture Replacer
Module Manager
All mods are up to date. I will have to dig up my output log.
Edit: Can anyone replicate this in stock? I'm not home right now.
- Toolbar
-
FYI: Ven's Stock Revamp has been on CKAN for a couple of days now. Might want to update the main post.
-
If you actually bothered to read what I've said you would realize that in my experience it isn't so "apparent, obvious, and intuitive" as you make it to be.
I've read everything you've said and the fact is that "in your experience" quite literally doesn't mean anything because you represent 1 person.
Remember that on these forums what we see is probably the top 10% (at most) of players who largely represent an outlier in the general population of players.That is a misrepresentation of the forums. Maybe in a thread like this you only see the top experienced players, but if you look at the forums as a whole there are far more new players. If you go read the help section you will see tons of people asking questions, mostly about things that aren't intuitive and obvious. These are not the top 10% of players, and they ask questions like "Why won't this Mk3 plane fly? How can I get this space plane into space? Why does my plane flip end over end for no reason?"
You cannot base your assumptions upon the perceived competency of such a small, elite group. Any change to stock is going to affect the entirety of the community, and that is something that has to be considered. We are effectively a "vocal minority".I have considered it. I've considered how it's going to change things for the better in so many ways.
We have already solved most of our issues with FAR, why is it necessary to force upon the majority a change in stock which we know will still not rival FAR and which in my experience, they aren't prepared for?1: You know what, you're right. Let's not update anything that a mod takes care of. So let's go back and remove docking , and the new parts catalog , and any and all of the MK2/MK3 parts, all of the 2m and 3m+ parts because KW rocketry and Nova/Punch took care of that, plus the parts catalog, there was no sense updating the catalog because we had a mod for it.
2: Your experience is not what everyone experiences. You're worried about aerodynamic changes in a game that basically requires people to learn orbital mechanics, the rocket equation, and things like ejection angles, phase angles, and pages upon pages of physics(if they want to understand what they're doing). Yet you think the average player can't handle some basic decent aerodynamics? That's ridiculous. It's quite frankly insulting to players.
-
That's the issue though, nobody is arguing that it would be improved.
Are you saying the current system cannot be improved by implementing basic aerodynamic principles, because that is absurd. It is obvious to nearly everyone who understands the system that some basic changes that mirror real aerodynamics would be beneficial. I would like to see a post detailing why an implementation of the basic drag/shape model would be worse than what we have now.
Nobody is looking at this from the perspective of balancing the gameplay. That was the intent of my original post, to get those who support realism to provide reasons that realistic aero make KSP a better game without resorting to the "realism because realism" reasoning so often used, but it seems all that has resulted from it is yet another useless argument about the merits of realism.This thread is not about the merits of realism. It's about what we want to see in the Aerodynamics update and you keep derailing the thread to argue against realism for any apparent reason. If you want to see something other than realistic aerodynamics feel free to make a post about it. What you seem to be doing is arguing against anyone who says a shape/drag system would be better than a mass/drag system for what is very apparent, obvious, and intuitive reasons. We all know what planes look like. We've all seen some ideas on conceptual spaceplanes. Close your eyes and picture a plane. Now go build it in KSP and tell me if it flies as well as you would expect. This is what the average player does and very quickly they discover the set of rules they were expecting to play by are quite the opposite.
Simply put the combination of the drag/mass system and fuel being stored in the fuselage instead of wings creates serious front/back weight distributions as a plane in KSP flies. There are ways around this, by balancing the dead/full center of mass but this currently requires a mod to see the dead center of mass. Following a somewhat realistic implementation of aerodynamics would lead to far more intuitive designs and less frustration. There will still be those Kerbals that just whack something crazy together and make it fly.
We are simply asking for a basic set of real rules to work with, just like how Squad did with rocket engines. Rocket engines follow basic principles to the point that we can plug the related numbers into the rocket equation and come up with delta-v required for orbital maneuvers. This exists because it is based on a set of basic rules that mirror reality. This is what we also want with stock aerodynamics.
-
This is a matter of perception. You are still moving on the lines indicated in the first picture. The first picture shows your actual path through space before, during, and after intercepts with the moon. What you aren't taking into account is the fact that the moon is moving. In the final picture it's showing your path relative to the moon. You have to remember that the moon is also moving. So, by the time you orbit around the moon it will have moved forward and the blue line showing your "Exit" path will reconnect with the other orbit and send you on your way. Also, recognize that the yellow line in the third picture is the same as the purple line in the second picture. There is now a new purple line in the third picture showing your exit from Kerbin's SOI.
[Edit] In other words, just zoom the map out and watch as your time warp. You'll see the ship get pulled in and it's orbit follow along where it should have gone.
-
What I'm implying (and what we must all be tired of) is that arguing endlessly for realism Could lead to such needlessly strict design process around a still unrealistic model...
Fortunately I'm sure most of us are more than okay with gameplay abstraction, and that's what we gonna get from game developers.
You're saying don't argue for realism because realism. We are saying don't argue against realism because realism.
# A Realism-Driven approach would be to consider that KSP 'must' only go toward more realism at any point, focusing on making the game "act like reality" rather that "look like reality", thus discarding simplification that make the game fun or playable at all.No one has said that it "must only" go towards realism. You seem to think that everyone here who wants to improve the stock aerodynamics by making it "more" realistic means that it is going to be MS Flight Simulator 2215 edition.
For example, considering that plane must be aerodynamic** or insisting to add a plethora of "realistic details" that bring nothing to the game.I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "considering that plane must be aerodynamic-" but seriously you always have to take into consideration the aerodynamic function of the parts in order to obtain flight. Currently stock KSP is has a very convoluted anti-intuitive method for this. Drag being dependent on mass, not shape, is the biggest gripe here, and the biggest reason why people are using the phrase "Realistic aerodynamics" because a drag/shape system is realistic compared to a drag/mass system. Again, not a single person here has suggested adding a "plethora of realistic details that bring nothing to the game."
# A Feature-Driven approach would be to set the gameplay you want to achieve, then shape the rules. Thereby focusing on making the game "fun" rather than "tedious", and including acceptable break from reality.
For example, for all intent and purpose KSP's spaceplane requirement can be split up to these basic features :
- Anything with enough "wing/speed" shall be able to achieve aerodynamic lift.
- Anything with enough/adapted engines shall be able to accelerate to any speed.
- Minor complication will still arise to make your spaceplane actually usable.
The ease with which a design is able to achieve this is then subject to parameter that allow to balance the game's progression.
What makes you think that realistic aerodynamics would be any more tedious than feature driven aerodynamics that are hard to understand and follow because we would have to learn all new rules about how planes fly?
2nd class citizen
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
What contract are you talking about? Squad is under no obligation to provide you with access to any updates past the Official release of 1.0. The fact that they have continued to update the game and will continue to do so is very telling of the kind of company they are. The love KSP and they know how much we love KSP and they love that we love KSP. It's a great thing.
KSP is no longer in Beta as the game has officially been released. This is a major update to the game due to switching over to Unity 5 and as such it requires more testing than a normal update. Calling this update a Beta release would only confuse people about the status of the game. So the most accurate description is a pre-release of the 1.1 update.