• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mako

  1. Development Update for Consoles!

    Performance of KSP, however, is almost entirely limited to speed of the CPU. So bugs or no bugs, a faster processor will handle all the physics calculations more quickly which generally results in a higher framerate. I can see the processor being the bottleneck even more on consoles than PC, since you can better optimize the graphics performance when you know exactly what graphics hardware you're running on. On PC, performance is can be limited on your graphics hardware if that hardware is older or lower spec. I know work has to be done for 4k and HDR, but on the performance side of things do games just run better because the hardware is more powerful? Do the devs have to do any work for that to happen? I don't have any of the consoles, so I don't have any experience with the software or the hardware. I've been curious how all that has worked out so far.
  2. Development Update for Consoles!

    Speaking of performance, I'm curious whether KSP will support/utilize the upgraded console versions. Will KSP run better on a PS4 Pro? How about the upcoming Xbox One X? I may have missed some news, but I don't recall any mention of Squad/Blitworks working on support for those console versions. That being said, I don't really know if it takes much work at all for a dev to utilize the upgraded hardware of those newer versions. Maybe it's quick and easy and/or maybe they're going to take care of that after bugs get fixed and control schemes get finalized so it just hasn't been mentioned yet.
  3. Development Update for Consoles!

    The thing is Squad no longer owns or controls KSP. Squad is still currently handling development, but Squad sold ownership of KSP to Take-Two Interactive. I'd have to imagine they're the ones who actually make decisions on what work is or isn't done from here on out. At this point Squad is an independent, third-party development team that for the time being is hired by Take-Two to work on KSP. There is nothing to suggest that will change, but presumably Take-Two could stop development (of any version) or switch development teams at any time with or without Squad's permission. I find in interesting that Squad is now a software development team that owns no products and currently consists of people who, since being hired by Squad, have only released updates for a product made by former employees. I think Squad shows some promise, but I'm very curious to see what comes after console and PC updates and Take-Two's first expansion to KSP. (I suppose that's a topic for a different thread.)
  4. Development Update for Consoles!

    The KSP Weekly posts in The Daily Kerbal section of the forum provide a weekly report of the development of KSP both on console and PC. If you want an extremely brief summary: to fix all the console version problems Blitworks started from scratch, work is continuing, bugs are fewer, and control schemes are being tested and fine-tuned. If you want more details check out those posts and I think there's main thread for the console versions which might hold more info. As always with Squad: there is no announced release date and it will be available when it is ready. My impression of the situation is they are taking their time to make sure they don't repeat the same mistakes as the original release. They can choose to rush things again, but you're already familiar with what happens when they do that.
  5. Cupcake's Dropship Dealership...

    Cupcake... Not that I'm anyone in particular, but I am constantly impressed with your creations, both the ships themselves and the presentations of them. You make both designing and flying look effortless and easy when I know the opposite is true. Your work is an inspiration.
  6. Stock fairings are cursed...

    @AlamoVampire There is no vessel part in the game that is procedural. Whether Procedural Fairings could have been used in whole, in part, or not at all is completely irrelevent: it was never going to happen. I believe HarvesteR said they specifically wanted vessels in KSP to be built from fixed-size, prefabricated parts. Therefore, procedural parts, such as fairings, were not a possibility no matter how much anyone wanted them. I'm actually surprised stock fairings have as much flexibility as they do because of this. So, if my memory serves me, the dev team wanted it this way. It was a conscious decision. They understood the arguement for procedural parts, but felt that functionality didn't fit with everything else so they made their own version that fit what they wanted. That's also why we don't have stock modular/procedural fuel tanks. At this point I doubt we'd see this design change significantly. Perhaps a new product with a different design philosophy would have a better chance of implementing procedural parts in stock. I'm just glad options exist, even if it's in the form of mods, so that players (at least those on PC) can tailor their experiences to their preferences.
  7. I was voted "Most Likely to Kill a Buzz" by my class many years ago. The magic isn't gone! It was inside those unbreakable joints all along... all we had to do was believe.
  8. Assuming you did not detach the pod from the rest of the launcher before firing and you had unbreakable joints turned on, I suspect what you're looking at is the rubber-banding of the joint between the parts as the force of the explosion is great enough to propel the pod away from the base while the joint remains intact to pull the pod back into position. Joints can do funny things when they're set to unbreakable. That would be my suspicion based on what you've mentioned.
  9. Stock fairings are cursed...

    @Gaarst What about them, besides the bug that prompted this thread (which was reported earlier in this thread to have been acknowledged and addressed by the devs) is so wrong in your opinion? They've been improved since they were first implemented and I don't recall them ever being unusable for me. Admittedly I don't have the most inventive play style, so I doubt I've pushed them to their limits, but I've not had difficulty using them. I totally understand and respect other players' preferences, and I'm glad we have multiple options. More options are usually better, in my opinion. In this case we have a stock option that is functional and fits the no-procedural-parts plan that the devs had (whether or not there should be procedural parts is a completely different discussion that goes well beyond fairings), and a mod option that people seem to be very fond of. (I can't say I'm concerned for the console players on the topic of fairings because as of right now barely anything works for them; fairings are probably the least of their struggles.) Although, everyone should probably completely disregard everything I say on the topic of fairings: I was one of those crazy people who recognized the confetti fairing separation was not realistic or ideal but wasn't bothered by it at all. Though I am glad clamshell separation is a thing, because, as I said earlier, I like options.
  10. Stock fairings are cursed...

    @AlamoVampire I don't want to play "What If..." all day, but it's likely that procedural fairings were not appealing to the development team as there are no procedural parts in the game at all. They had a specific lego-style design in mind for vessel creation, and I'm guessing they wanted to stick with it. But we'll never know what they were thinking. For all we will ever know they could have asked for permission to use/offered to buy procedural fairings and been denied. Either way, it's extremely unlikely to change. Thank goodness for mods, right? Hopefully they'll give modders even more freedom and control before they wind down development, but at least before then it sounds like they're still working on pesky bugs like the one in this thread.
  11. Stock fairings are cursed...

    Unless a mod has a license that allows the work to be used in a commercial product without permission, they would be setting themselves up for a lawsuit if they just picked mods they liked and put it in their game. I don't know what the license allows regarding the procedural fairings mod, but I doubt Squad can just take it and insert it in their game without opening themselves up to legal trouble. And if I'm wrong about the procedural fairings license, the point still stands for any mod you might want added to stock that has a commercial-use restriction in its license. For the record, I have no issues with stock fairings. Barring any bugs I prefer not having to install a mod to have fairings that get the job done. I think they have improved upon their initial implementation in a satisfactory manner, and I don't need to update anything when a new version of KSP releases. I understand why you would want them to be stock, but I bet you can find a significant number of players who don't care and/or prefer the stock implementation to have them remain in mod territory. Options are good, and thankfully mods were considered important enough to support. Instead of lobbying for this mod, or that mod, or my pet mod to be included in stock (which is likely impossible for many mods), we should all be lobbying for more access for mods so that modders can create more freely with more possibility and less limitations.
  12. @Omnifarious This can occur if you have some parts that are clipped through other parts on your ship. Sometimes the clipped parts can induce unexpected phantom forces between parts which can cause rapidly accelerating rotation of the ship to occur. If you don't clip parts but still experience the rotation, I would start to suspect a mod might be causing your trouble.
  13. Operating Systems Used for KSP

    So maybe I should say it's the auto-reboot to apply an update that was the issue rather than the auto-update. I'm quite used to auto-update as well, but I've never had a system reboot to apply the update without permission until Windows 10. Perhaps this was an edge case, but it nearly caused me some trouble. I do live production for events, and my Windows 10 laptop must have downloaded an update when it connected to the venue's wifi (auto-connected since it was a venue we frequent), and when it was idle it rebooted without warning to apply the update. I'm used to the nag screens of previous Windows versions, but there was nothing this time. I suspect it was a security update that was deemed a priority and/or that the system hadn't been updated in a while. Whatever the reason, it rebooted to apply the update without asking if it could, and I almost missed my cue because of it. I now check for updates before taking the systems out into the field, and I've set them to ignore updates during our busy hours. It's limited to a 12-hour window of the day, but it covers most of the time we operate and it's better than nothing. Perhaps there is something I've overlooked, but at the time it happened the only way I could find to avoid it happening again was to set those limits or make sure the system doesn't connect to the internet (not always an option depending on the event). I also use Windows 7 systems at work, and I've never had to defeat auto-updates to be in control of what is going on.
  14. Operating Systems Used for KSP

    @Gargamel and @regex I can't say I've seen any show-stopping problems with Windows 10, though my experience is mostly with laptops from work which came with 10 installed. I believe there were the typical growing pains associated with an OS release/major version upgrade, and the number of issues at launch may have been exacerbated by Microsoft launching 10 as a free upgrade to 7, 8, and 8.1 systems. Lately, however, I haven't really seen people mentioning the inability to move to Windows 10 because it won't work. I believe that for the most part if you can run Windows 7, 8, or 8.1, you can run 10. For me it comes down to some little annoyances at little changes between 7 and 10. Nothing so dramatic as the changes from 7 to 8, but enough that I had no desire to upgrade while it was free. When I build my next system I'll move to 10 because at that point the benefits will outweigh the small annoyances. On a somewhat related note, I will say that 10's auto-update and then auto-reboot with no way cancel the reboot came as an unpleasant surprise on one of the work laptops. It didn't cause a problem, but it was close. I've since set it to not update during peak hours, but I wish there was a way to disable the auto-reboot completely.
  15. 1.0.5 KSP previous version not working on Steam

    I suspect someone else can help you better since I have no experience with KSP on Steam, but I would try completely uninstalling KSP and then downloading version 1.0.5. If you have already tried that, then hopefully someone who has experience with the Steam version can offer a better solution. I do know that the directory where Steam installs KSP can be copied, backed up, and used with or without Steam, so you can keep backups of different versions with different mods and play them whenever you want without fear of Steam auto-updating. Good luck, and welcome to the community.
  16. Operating Systems Used for KSP

    Windows 7. While Windows 10 is, in my experience, a less annoying OS to interact with than 8.1 (and I don't even want to think about 8) 7 beats both in terms of least obnoxious to use. I suppose I'll eventually need to move to Windows 10, but that can wait for a core hardware upgrade. I use 7 at home and both 7 and 10 at work, and some feature changes that took place after 7 are annoying bordering on frustrating; I've found some workarounds that help but I've never needed to worry about those issues with 7. I'm really glad Linux exists and is a capable and enjoyable alternative to Windows, but I find that I appreciate Windows compatibility and ease of use over Linux's flexibility and price tag.
  17. How do I get the old version?

    They are not available. This thread, which I'm guessing you've already seen, provides all of the available early versions up to 0.13.3. Steam and the Squad store page (presumably other store pages as well) usually have the current version and the most recent previous version available. Squad/Take-Two could someday make some of the versions between 0.13.3 to 1.2 available, but I haven't seen any official word of that happening yet.
  18. Well, the listed specs that it sounds like you have found (like those on the Steam KSP page) are the minimum and recommended specs according to Squad. I can't recall if they've been updated at all over the course of development, but the minimum listed should be capable of running the game, but perhaps requiring lower settings and with lower framerate as compared to a more powerful system. KSP's performance is almost entirely tied to the CPU, as opposed to many games where the graphics card becomes the main performance bottleneck. So if you're only planning on playing KSP, the processor is pretty much the most important component to consider. My understanding is that the graphics capabilities of the last few generations of Core i3,5,7 series processors are usually adequate to run KSP without the need of a dedicated graphics card, but it may require reduced graphics settings. For many users, the second most important component to consider is amount of RAM, as this can affect mod use and general performance if the amount is too low. After making sure those two components are adequate, the next thing to consider might be a dedicated graphics card. If you have some desire now, or in the future, to play other games besides KSP, you will probably be wanting a dedicated card at some point. If you're buying a laptop you won't really be able to upgrade/add parts later (aside from RAM), so it's a good idea to buy for what you want now and what you think you'll want between now and when you're ready to upgrade again. If you're buying a desktop, upgrading parts is not terribly difficult so you can always add a graphics card or more RAM -- or possibly even a CPU upgrade -- at a later time. The install process is likely easier than you think and there are a lot of good resources available online to assist part picking and installation. If you have a price point in mind for how much you want to spend and an idea of how you'll be using the computer besides KSP (and any bells and whistles you might want), I'm sure we can get a some ideas together on what to look for.
  19. KSP console version US-only?

    The port work that was done by Flying Tiger Entertainment was so problematic that Squad was forced to end their contract and (probably nearly) start over from scratch. Several months ago Squad began working with Blitzworks for the new version of the port, and work is ongoing. There is no release date at this time as Squad does not typically announce dates before the work is complete. To elaborate just a bit, the version that is available on the USA store is widely considered buggy/broken to the point of unusable/unenjoyable. There are multiple issues, but the largest one is nearly universal save game corruption requiring a totally new save file after only a few hours of gameplay. If I remember correctly, Flying Tiger Entertainment and Squad did attempt to patch that version, but never seemed able to fix the most major of bugs. In its current state it seems as though everyone is better off not being able to purchase it. Now, with Blitzworks and help from an additional QA team, Squad has been saying work is progressing well and they're very happy with how things are going so far. They're taking their time for this version, and given the mess that they're trying to move away from it seems like the right decision. The KSP Weekly that comes out on Fridays in The Daily Kerbal usually has some news regarding the current state of the console version. There's not much to say because very little of the work is new or noteworthy, but they have been mentioning it each week for a while now.
  20. News on Xbox re release?

    No problem at all. I won't be purchasing a console KSP as I don't currently own any consoles, but I have a friend or two who might appreciate the game when it finally comes together so I've been keeping an eye out for news. Squad is taking their time this go around, and I think it'll be a while before it's released but most people probably agree with you that it's the right choice. I wanted to add, just in case you prefer the social media scene, that I bet you could check into Squad's presence on twitter and whatever else to be updated that way if it's easier. And welcome to the forums/community.
  21. News on Xbox re release?

    In case you haven't come across this information on your own yet, the console versions are still under development and there is no release date since Squad typically does not announce those until the work is done. For the best place on these forums for information regarding the console versions and their current progress check out the last few weeks/months of KSP Weekly posts in the The Daily Kerbal section and/or the Announcements section. My summary according to those posts would be that Squad feels good about the progress being made by Blitzworks (the company now responsible for the console port work and one that seems far more reputable than the former port company), and Squad has outside QA help which should improve the development time and quality of the port. But check the first post in the KSP Weekly for the official word from Squad.
  22. It was a long way to say that Tier 0 would be in the game if Squad wanted to put it in the game. Obviously it is a very, very low priority. Which leads me to your point that they could have put the sub-par barn in place and fixed it later. If it's too low a priority to do thus far, what makes you think they would have ever done something about it? I would like to present as evidence the rocket parts that, just like the barn, were supposedly going to be updated and implemented. The only thing the community is responsible for is letting Squad know it does not believe Squad should cut corners when adding new assets/content. I think that is even more important and relevent now since updating older assets to match the quality of newer assets is postponed indefinitely.
  23. It really didn't. Squad chose to listen to community feedback and release the update without Tier 0. They could have chosen to rush to release sub-par assets, or chosen to bring those assets up to the same quality as the other Tiers. Instead they chose to postpone Tier 0. Also, they said they intended to rework Tier 0 and release it at a later date. This was 2 years ago now. Please explain how community feedback is responsible for the lack of a Tier 0 when Squad has had full control (until recently) and they've had 2 years to do something about it. The community is not a group of shareholders. Squad is not beholden to us; they chose what they do and how, and chose to listen to feedback or disregard it at their discretion. The idea that the community somehow has that much power is absurd. The people who said Tier 0 is omitted but intended to be reworked and released are no longer at Squad, but we've received no new information on Tier 0 before or since they left. It was obviously a very low priority for Squad at that time as evidenced by the sub-par assets, and it appears to have remained a very low priority ever since. If you want to be upset with someone for lack of a Tier 0, be upset with Squad and not with the community which provided the feedback Squad invited when they chose open development.
  24. The community complaining about the barn did not cause Squad to omit a Tier 0. Squad chose to omit a Tier 0 rather than postponing the update, and has chosen to continue omitting a Tier 0 ever since. At any point they could have chosen to add it in, but we've seen no signs that they are interested in doing so. If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that the community would deliver multiple options for a Tier 0 if Squad was interested in making the buildings mod-able. If a company doesn't want feedback, they don't use an open-development strategy. Squad obviously wants feedback. Choosing to only hear the feedback you like is far more damaging to a game than listening to all of the feedback. Feedback hasn't hurt this game or kept it from reaching it's full potential, inexperience from top to bottom has. It's actually remarkable that it was able to come this far, and that is only because of its unique core concept of building vehicles from prefab parts and operating them seamlessly from planet to planet under semi-relistic physics. Edit: I'd be remiss if I didn't add that I'm glad for how far KSP has come and that it's possible that the inexperience of the early team somehow made them take chances that a more experienced team would have avoided. However, as development continued, it seems (in 20/20 hindsight, of course) that management might have avoided some missteps if they had more experience. It's been an interesting ride to say the least, and any heated discussions exist because we all like this game enough to care about what happens to it. Edit #2: I forgot I wanted to point out that omitting the barn in that state was the right decision. It was objectively worse, quality wise, to the rest of the assets, and it would have been the first impression anyone playing Career mode would have seen. While I'm sure people could look past it, it would have been a bad way to present the game. The only good option was to redo the Tier 0 assets and we've seen no sign of that happening.
  25. CPU or GPU bound?

    @Svish To expand on this a bit: the physics range is now dependent on the location of the vehicle you're currently controlling. You can search around this forum to find the specifics, but in certain situations the physics range is more than 2km. What this means is any vessel (including space stations, etc.) that is in physics range of your controlled vehicle will have full physics calculations performed for it. Also, since the KSP Unity upgrade quite a while ago each seperate vessel within physics range is calculated on its own seperate thread. KSP has been multithreaded (physics on one thread, other features on other threads) for a long time, but only relatively recently able to handle splitting seperate vessels physics onto seperate threads. Any vessel outside of physics range is packed up and put on-rails so it has a minimal impact on performance. Once the controlled vessel comes within range the on-rails vessel is unpacked and now fully under control of the real-time physics simulation with its calculations performed by a seperate thread from the controlled vessel. It does make a positive difference, but overall performance is still tied to the number of parts per vessel and the single-core performance of the CPU.