Jump to content

Yakuzi

Members
  • Content Count

    578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Yakuzi

  1. On 7/17/2020 at 7:20 AM, OHara said:

    This kind of thing happens, for very little obvious reason, between versions.   The drag model introduced in version 1.2 is very very sensitive to small changes in the shapes of parts, and for reasons mysterious to me the computed drag changes slightly when the unity engine changes.

    ...

    You have to redesign some of your craft when you change KSP versions.

    ...

    So the drag cubes for every part are recalculated between every KSP version? Or are they dynamically calculated every time you start up KSP? Why not calculate them once and keep them consistent between versions? These changes have significant ramifications in craft performance, so I'm very puzzled why they're being made in the first place. Especially without notifying the player base.

    My apologies for pinging once again, @JPLRepo @TriggerAu would either of you be able to explain what's going on?

     

    On 7/18/2020 at 4:28 PM, MechBFP said:

    The drag was changed on purpose. From my understanding there was a bug that was causing the drag cubes to not be calculated correctly. 
    So the extra drag is actually the result of a bug being fixed. 
    EDIT: Except for engine plates, those have issues with drag currently. 

    This is news to me. Which version were those changes made? Could you share a link where the devs explained why they changed the drag on purpose?

     

    On 7/17/2020 at 2:53 AM, Cavscout74 said:

    Nope, sorry, I don't believe that.  This is some kind of conspiracy!!!   :D

    2020 would not be my first choice for a travel back in time destination... Then again, maybe I had no choice :ph34r:

  2. I spend a lot of time in Kerbin's atmosphere to get my spaceplanes into orbit. Recently I've made the switch from 1.7.3 to 1.10.0 and to my surprise I noticed a substantial increase in the delta-v requirements to get my craft to orbit. Some SSTO designs with slim margins in 1.7.3 are now unable to reach orbit at all. Now I know that KSP 1.8.0 had some issues with drag cube calculations, but according to KSP's version history this should've been fixed in 1.8.1.

    I performed some basic aerodynamic evaluations to check whether my observations were legitimate or if was losing my mind... or worse, if my spacecraft flying abilities had deteriorated to disgraceful levels. Anyhow, I designed a simple rocket with a bit of fuel and LF ballast in the nose cone:

    ZgILemy.png

     

    Then I shot it straight up in KSP versions 1.7.3, 1.8.1, 1.9.1 and 1.10.0 (not 1.10.1, my bad, I'm not from the future) and logged the max altitude (repeated 5x per version, the standard deviation is indicated by the black error bars):

    EUn0TZV.png

    As you can see from the graph, there is a substantial reduction (>5%) in the rocket's atmospheric performance post KSP 1.7.3. Since this test rocket has few parts, a high TWR and shoots straight up, I can imagine that these effects are exacerbated the longer you spend in the atmosphere and are particularly detrimental for high part-count air-breathing spaceplanes that rely on building up speed in the lower and medium atmosphere.

    @SQUAD Are you aware of this issue, and if so, are you looking into fixing it? Since the version history documentation doesn't mention any aerodynamic changes after KSP version 1.7.3, I'm assuming this wasn't planned. These changes greatly impact my designs so any info would be immensely appreciated!

  3. I finished my first SSTO for KSP 1.10.0 today. My vanilla interpretation of Lockheed Martin's VentureStar, fully powered by a linear array of toroidal aerospikes :).

    6BUioSA.png

    noyBuaW.png

    G2o4PYH.png

    HF4pXA4.png

    dImXPlT.png

    T9yZZXU.png

    ItBVjjV.png

     

    Full album here

    Craft file at KerbalX. It's super easy to get into orbit. No need to touch the flight controls, the only thing you need to do is set SAS to prograde at 100 m/s, burn to apoapsis and circularise.

  4. Still bugged in KSP 1.9.0.2781 (x64). Any news on a fix?

    @OHara Bit of a late reply, but do you see similar asymmetric physics with the stock Mk3 parts? The 'hack' you tried above was suggested by @Porkjet when we first discussed this issue back in 2016 (the thread was magically lost), and is used for Mk3 fuel tank symmetry if I'm not mistaken. They should display the same buggy behaviour, right? Or are their attachment nodes right at the center of the part?

  5. @Cleperli created a thread a couple of days back, where (s)he asked if you can delete your KSP forum profile. A mod said deleting your profile is impossible and, alas, closed the thread before anyone could reply (hence this thread).

    I'm somewhat puzzled why we can't delete our profile on the KSP forums, especially since you can on other Take2 websites, as per their Privacy Policy. So it appears to directly infringe GDPR regulations - which state that any EU internet user has "The right to be forgotten" or "The right of erasure" on the internet. Since the KSP forums are providing services and store personal data (at least an email address, I take it an IP address, but who knows what else?*) of EU users, they are bound by EU regulations. So if we can't delete our full profile, can our personal data removed/deleted at the very least?

    Not trying to start an excrement storm here, but if personal data is currently not removed upon request of an EU user, 'KSP forums' and their owners are liable to GDPR regulation infringement, which can result in a lot of misery that no-one is waiting for.
    So @SQUAD and forum mods, it would be immensely appreciated if you could give us a bit more feedback on why we can't delete our profile/personal data, other than: "Nope, I'm sorry, but that is not something this forum does."

    To start, could you please answer the questions below, though I'm sure my fellow forum users will have some more:
    1. In neglect of deleting profiles/accounts, how do you warrant that a user's personal data is deleted within 30 days upon request?
    2. What personal data do the KSP forums store?
    3. Is this personal data distributed/used in any way or form outside of the KSP forums?
    4. If the answer to question 3 is "yes", are you informing the user when his/her personal data is used by third parties?
    5. If the answer to question 3 is "yes", are you informing the user which third parties are using his/her personal data?
    6. If the answer to question 3 is "yes", how do you warrant that this personal data is protected and deleted by third parties?

    I hope the reply to @Cleperli's post was just a bit on the scarce side, and that you guys already have this covered. I did a quick search on the topic and the privacy policy, but couldn't find anything specific to the KSP forums. If there's an existing thread that explains this in detail, please send me the link.

    *This is a serious question. Anyone?
     

  6. 15 hours ago, ExtremeSquared said:

    They really tore into the top bugs in the bugtracker on this one. Nice.

    Huh, which ones? Apart from the science msg spam fix, I can't find 1.8.0 fixes for any of the top 50 upvoted bugs on the tracker (or closed bugs).

    On 9/5/2019 at 6:28 PM, nestor said:

    We do look at the public tracker and the upvotes. We look at both bugs and feedback from there.

    @nestor Does this mean there's gonna be a bug fix coming soon (as in 1.8.1 or 1.8.2)? Or is it just something that's in the pipeline? Again, there's some really low hanging fruit with a lot of upvotes on the bug tracker. Not unlike the bug listed below:

    14 hours ago, klesh said:

    https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/21214

    Its been a bug for 5+ years thats unfortunately had it’s reports closed twice without being solved.

    It needs a “0.5” to be changed to a “0.625” in a .cfg file, and can be fixed in less than a minute.  Instructions in the bug report on how to fix it yourself.  Please vote up the current bug entry to increase it’s chance of being fixed in the future.  

    Upvoted and SMH...

  7. On 9/12/2019 at 5:26 PM, Brikoleur said:

    My experience of it is kind of the opposite and I mostly play career.

    TBF I have adjusted the difficulty settings to avoid the grind -- specifically, I turn up Funds rewards and turn down Science rewards, as most of the grind comes from lack of Funds when you really need to upgrade a building and I don't enjoy that.

    Career does have its issues (in particular, most contracts are just pointless; fortunately there are so many that it's possible to pick only the ones you're interested in) and it is clearly just barely one step up from placeholder, but it is one step up from that and for me at least gets the job done -- I still set my own large-scale objectives, but it sets small-scale ones that can be worthwhile, and most importantly it sets constraints that make otherwise trivial design challenges interesting again -- stimulating creativity.

    We all play KSP in our own way, and that's completely fine. In this case it seems we're different sides of the same coin. While I've failed to learn how to enjoy career mode, you apparently have and, granted, that takes creativity. But what it really boils down to, is that 'career' mode in KSP1 is indeed barely one step up from a placeholder.

    Since Star*Theory have the chance to build KSP2 from the ground up, wouldn't you prefer progression mode that is fun because the challenges you have to overcome are actually immersive, rewarding and make sense? Which would include integrated space and planetary exploration, scientific discovery, investments in infrastructure development and maintenance (including LS), logistics to supply/maintain the infrastructure, and automated missions to avoid the supply grind. To me, this beats gimping a glorified career placeholder so it's not super grindy any day.

    I fully realise this would take quite a bit of thought and time to implement, but Star*Theory have been working on KSP for a while (plus they had an experienced dev team from the get-go and are asking a decent amount of money for their product). Do I expect this to be implemented? No. But I'm not ruling it out either, particularly since the devs haven't even given us any detailed info yet.

    In the meantime, I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

  8. 36 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

    This. 

    Should be made into an option. It will be too hard for newbies to learn coding, even if I love the idea.

    I fully agree! Even without it being optional, n00bs can just strap on a Kerbal on their craft so they wont have to deal with any com delays.

    Terminology aside, a certain degree of automation/autonomy would be very welcome in KSP2, particularly since we'll be dealing with space/planetary infrastructure, supply and logistics (since we get LS), and interstellar travel (for which the devs already mentioned they have included some sort of autonomy). Fingers crossed.

  9. On 9/11/2019 at 2:23 PM, Lu K. said:

    oh where was that? i'd like to see, i must have missed a lot of info released during this latest convention thingo.

     

    According to creative director Nate Simpson, there is going to be some form of life support:

    Interviewer: Will there be such a thing as life support systems so you have to ensure oxygen supply, water supply and food supply for the Kerbals?
    Nate: I can say so much that the need to keep Kerbals alive is a feature we're going to introduce now. But I can not say more about that at this point, but I can say so much. In case you tried mods on life support systems; it will not be so detailed, but as I said I can not say too much because there are a few secrets.

    source (in Kerman). Complete transcript on the forums here, courtesy of @nikokespprfan

     

    On 9/12/2019 at 12:15 PM, Brikoleur said:

    The difference is that you can just not build orbital bases, or only build them for very specific and very limited uses, and use bases on low-gravity moons for construction instead, whereas you can't just ignore LS. I.e. if they screw up LS, there's no way around the grind, whereas if they screw up supply for orbital bases, that's just one and largely ignorable gameplay feature that's kind of broken.

    (Of course it's possible they'll also screw up supply for surface bases but I doubt that; ISRU is a thing and it would be very weird if they don't build surface base gameplay around that.)

    I understand your concerns about LS being implemented properly to avoid grind. On the other hand, LS is such an integrated part of space exploration, KSP2 would feel incomplete to me if it'd ship without it (as did KSP1). The current career mode is the perfect example of a dumbed down system that is leading to a grindfest, inhibits immersion and stifles creativity. I know that Star*Theory are overhauling the career/science system into something called "progression", and am cautiously hopeful that LS was part of the design process of this overhaul. If they can turn career into something fun and sensible, I'm sure they can do the same with LS. Also since multiplayer will be thing, implementing actual automated supply missions would not be an impossibility.

    In the end, we can discuss this and get worked up about it until we turn blue green, but the best thing to do is wait what the devs will come up with and take it from there. I, for one, am very excited to find out what they've come up with!

  10. On 9/1/2019 at 2:59 AM, 5thHorseman said:

    Yeah 1 out of 20 people who are SO INTO THE GAME THAT THEY WENT TO A PRESENTATION ABOUT ITS SEQUEL have not left what is basically the tutorial area

    To be fair, I don't venture beyond minmus either. Not because I can't, but because there's no real challenge/incentive/discovery for me to go to any other planets (I've been waiting in Kerbin SOI forever for a planet update. Got my hopes up for breaking ground, but alas, same ol boring planets but now with slightly more grindy science clicking). I fully realize I'm a minority here, but please don't assume we're all too incompetent/undevoted to visit other planets.

    Which leads me to OP's question:

    If planets are as boring as KSP1, I won't buy.

    If career and science are as unimmersive/shallow/grindy as KSP1, Ill think twice before I buy

    If excrements is too dumbed down, I won't buy

  11. 18 hours ago, St4rdust said:

    You asked: "how about a few larger SRB's...?" And we listened to you.

    Very cool!

    While you're at it, could you please have a look in adjusting the Basic Fin ? The rebar really shouldn't be on spacecraft at all, guess that's why no other part has it. It could also do without the yellow stripe (unless there's plans to add monoprop).

    aVmBuoH.png

     

    And as always, don't forget about them bugs in the bugtracker you asked us to update and upvote... There's quite a bit of low hanging fruit there!

  12. 18 hours ago, JERONIMO said:

    how many salty 9 year old kids will come to ksp2 and give a one star review because it "twoo hrad"? ... a lot...

    how many panicky forum users are freaking out about ksp2 by making unfounded assumptions and misleading generalisations? ... at least one ...

    EDIT: I'm somewhat surprised by all the doom and gloom prophecies that are popping up on the forums since KSP2 was announced... Time to spend a bit more time away from the screens my fellow humans :kiss:

  13. 2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    There will be a big multiplayer update in the future.

    Is it just me, or does that sound like multiplayer won't be in the game at launch? 
     

    From the context of the article, I got the feeling that Nate Simpson meant he'll be giving up an update on how multiplayer will look like in the future:

    "Q: What are the chances of cross-platform multiplater?"

    "A: There will be a big multiplayer update in the future."

×
×
  • Create New...