asmi

Members
  • Content Count

    980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

About asmi

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You obviously don't have any knowledge to speak of on this matter. As an (ex-)modder myself I'm familiar with the way many mods work, and almost all of them had their developers reverse-engineer parts of KSP over the course of development of said mods. Now, it was mostly done to either work around some stock bugs/limitations or just to figure out how exactly things work (as we have NO documentation worthy of mentioning whatsoever), which is why Squad turned a blind eye to that by adopting a policy of "don't tell, don't ask" (which is why a lot of regular players are completely unaware of this). And I'm not talking about some obscure mods that nobody knows about - these are mods which top the list of most-often-used mods.Now, this practice did not in any way affect a business of Squad, which is why they were lenient on this, but lawyers are a different breed of people who care only about winning legal battles to make money on them (in order to justify their own existence and their big paycheques), and legally they will be in the right. THIS is why a lot of modders are worried now - many of them invested thousands of hours of their free time into their creations out of their own affection to make the game better for everyone, and none of them want all this work to be in vain.
  2. @sal_vager There are fewer and fewer of the "old band" so to speak here. I wish you well and hope you will come back!
  3. There is one feature which was (is) implemented in a mod...well...sorta kinda. I'm referring to robotics and moving parts specifically (like arms, deployable "wings" with antennae/solar arrays, various scientific instruments, etc.). If Squad would implement it so that every robotic action won't spontaneously blow up ship with about 30% chance - I'd be very pleased.
  4. There was a study done by ESA at some point, and GSE has been designed such that it would not preclude such upgrades in the future. I seem to recall that GSE was not the only issue - processing facilities would need to be expanded to support Progress/Soyuz campaigns (loading propellants/gases, pre-launch testing, crew quarters/training facilities and so on). Also the Soyuz capsule itself would need to be modified so that it would be more buoyant as in case of launch abort it would land into the ocean.
  5. Why it is silly? Do you always feel like you HAVE TO continue playing game you don't like (or burned out of) just because someone claimed that it's "playable"?
  6. I think this will actually be pretty substantial change as graphics updates usually require at least tweaking of visual assets too. As for localisation - as a native Russian speaker, I totally support that functionality. There is a lot of russian-speaking space fans, and for a lot of them language is an issue. For me it's not a big deal as I speak English fairly well, but I can absolutely see how it might be a big deal for some. Try using kOS and you'll be mostly watching videos of launches (with occasional "oh shi.!" moments when you mess something up in the script, or when you get an engine failure ). In this mode (I actually instituted a "house rule" to forbid myself any direct control of crafts aside from EVA's of course) it's MUCH more enjoyable. I'm an engineer, so I like engineering challenges, of which manually piloting is not, but kOS turned GNC around into another engineering challenge which I quite enjoyed.
  7. Well I can think of at least one thing - KSP is loooong time overdue for graphics overhaul. Current version is not 2017-year as far as graphics s concerned, and more like 2010-ish. Average gaming computer is not a calculator anymore, you know, and can handle quite a bit more. That would be number 2 on my list - current career is just borderline unplayable, and it's always been that way. Here I have to confess - I've never actually had enough patience to complete stock career (as in - unlock all R&D tree and reach all milestones). I enjoyed RP-0 career much more, and would be glad to give it another try once I have some free time and when all mods are stabilised for 1.2.2. "A man can dream" (C) I stand by my suggestion that they don't want to publish these things because they themselves are not sure if they can deliver (which is a problem of management, and not a technical one). And this whole "super secret" business IMHO is just plain childish and is completely out of place for professional software development shop.
  8. If you think that these are some kind of out-of-ordinary circumstances, than you are wrong - it's a day job for many of my colleagues. I deal with that every day. And my computational resources sometimes are even more limited (think microcontrollers which can't perform several billions of operations per second like even very old desktop computer easily can). The thing that every competent project manager knows is that you don't include things into roadmap unless you're reasonably sure you can deliver them on time and on budget. So such cancellations are always project manager's fault (the only exception being divine intervention from "higher-ups" of the company, but that usually is a sign that said company has much bigger managements problems), because it's his job to 1) plan things that can be implemented, 2) once they are planned, allocate enough resources so they can actually be implemented, and 3) manage schedule (expected and unexpected roadblocks), financial (going above budget) and resource (someone gets sick, gets into car accident and ends up in a hospital for 2 months, or just quits for one reason or another) risks to ensure implementation happens when it's supposed to. And if any of above doesn't happen, it's his fault and his alone. That is project management 101, and this is a true essence of project manager's job. I actually feel the opposite. Before that - as hectic as it was - I've seen things moving somewhere, so there was a hope for a better and brighter future (which was, of course, the part of whole "early access" thing). Right now I have no idea what to expect, which is why I don't expect anything anymore and judge the game for what it is right at that point of time. What I do know though - such significant change of team's composition will delay any progress for sure. Been there done that. ------------------- But in spite of all that I've said above, I would be more than glad to see Squad proving me wrong by publishing they roadmap for the next year or so, and then seeing them deliver on it. Like many other indie devs manage to do (some of those were mentioned above).
  9. As a software developer myself, I can tell that these kinds of things tend to happen when there is no planning nor roadmap, because when they exist (even if just internal to the team) it's already known in advance which features would be implemented and approximately when. Presence (and accuracy) of such plans is what differentiates professional software development process from amateur-hobby-like "today I want to work on feature "A" 'cause it's cool!, but tomorrow I might change my mind". Everyone who has been following KSP development as long as I have (since 0.17) have seen many-many times that Squad has always been lacking in planning department. This is where all these hiatus came from - when something was announced before it was thoroughly planned and thought through. What they need the most is what they always lacked - experienced project/program manager which have enough experience to understand importance of good planning as well as actually coming though with implementations. Planning not as in "I would be really cool to add feature A", but more as in "Here's features A,B and C that we're going to include into next release. My analysis indicates that it would take approximately X days to design, implement and test, so let's make a public announcement that we're going to deliver A, B and C after 3.14 * X days" (Those who don't know why there's a multiplier next to X has never done any development and just don't understand how that industry works). And whey would actually deliver them in announced time.
  10. You can do it with MJ + RO. It handles asymmetric thrust pretty well in most cases.
  11. I've learned the game in zero time as I was space enthusiast before that and so knew all math behind spaceflight. And there was no career mode at the time. Oh - and no docking either (I've started in 0.17). So there was nothing to learn really except to slap things together and see them explode (if you think in 1.x craft are wobbly, I wonder what you'd say about 0.17/0.18 ) Lastly, my total playtime in KSP is significantly over 1k hours. And there are quite a bit of people like me. 0.1% maybe is a bit of overstatement, but surely devs count on players spending 100's of hours in-game, so a couple of hours-long tutorial is maybe 1%. If people spend 50% of their game time in tutorial, it means they are either incredibly stupid, or game design is very very bad, or just don't care for the game (this is often a consequence of previous point). Oh, and my numbers are pulled from the same "source" yours did.
  12. Also on the subject of "Career as tutorial" - this game is a sandbox which implies replayability is the name of the game (many of us here play it an-and-off for several years already!), so average KSP player is noob only for 0.1% of total game time at best. If career is indeed intended to be just a tutorial for new players (I don't believe it is, but some here do seem to think that way), they've invested one heck of development resources into feature most players don't need after their first few hours at most. Bottom line - KSP needs a real career mode if existing one is a tutorial.
  13. It's not that I disagree in general, but sometimes it does help with spacecraft design. For example check out Soviet Venera series of probes - first landers in series didn't even reach surface because there was no information about the kind of conditions they will encounter, and their "best guesses" (quite pessimistic at the time - they were built to withstand pressure up to 2.5 MPa - about 25 times normal atmospheric pressure) turned out to be totally wrong, and so subsequent probes were massively overbuilt to withstand ridiculous pressure only so they would be able to tell the story so to speak and transmit they read figures, after that following landers were built to be just tough enough to survive what at that point were known conditions for a little while. Same goes for other aspects - first landers had "sugar locks" for water landing as it was not known at the time that there is no liquid water on a surface of Venus, this feature was removed after first landers confirmed that conditions on a surface makes presence of liquid water impossible. Of course none of this is present in KSP, but I thougth I'd mention it anyway as it's a rare RL example when planetary science findings did actually affect spacecraft design. The only thing of that nature that IS present in KSP is presence of atmosphere and its' parameters (assuming you don't know about them in advance and use ingame atmospheric pressure to get data).