ddenis

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About ddenis

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I didn't say that contract is hard, I said that the game fails to give to user basic information about his mistakes. At the same time it gives a number which cannot be applied anywhere within the stock game UI. The difference with that link on the turning of PC is that... That this information available in the Windows help without searching on the internet, just press F1 and type "shut down", but KSP fails to explain this with in game tips.
  2. The best part of the game is when I'm playing, not when I'm trying to solve some game problem searching on the internet. "put a satellite in the wrong direction" there is a difference between doing the same stupid things again and again and did it once, see what says measurements and adjust my actions accordingly to eliminate errors.
  3. With what number I can compare the number shown in the contract? Is the current inclination shown anywhere? - - - Updated - - - If such a simple contract requires a tutorial then the game fails in being user friendly. (Not an in game tutorial)
  4. What if a person has a bad sight and can't distinguish dots? The contract window doesn't even have criteria marks as fulfilled when each of them is done, ok, it has for bigger parts, but the orbit parameters should have the same indication. P.S. And it's a common sense, if a user of your software doing something wrong, you have to tell him about that, so he or she can concentrate on fun things.
  5. SQUAD already doesn't explains a lot of things or does it badly. E.g. A popular problem with satellite launch when one has inclination +180 degrees from required... why not to show a message to a user with simple text "You're going the wrong direction, turn around" when Ap and Pe are correct... but no... The user has to go to the forum and ask here, because the game fails to point this mistake.
  6. First of all and most of all I want to see polishing of this game... Where each element is in harmony with everything else. And I ok if little new functionality would be added... But it's a dream. This game never would be polished.
  7. It can't run it on PC with all mods required to polish the game... What use mobile version would have. And... use search for the same thread.
  8. Graphics and sounds are essential to the atmosphere of the game. Atmosphere of the game, it's overall filling as important as gameplay is. Diving into clouds is much more pleasant than into an empty sky.
  9. Ok, from my position of QA with years in the field I want to say that QA (process) is judged not by founded bugs but by not founded bugs that were found by customers. And if your process is bad, then someone has to be responsible for missed defects. Not QA (process)? Good, then the person who scheduled 1.0. Because we've paid for the game and we, as customers, have all right to kick your ass for bad software which doesn't do everything you said it does. And it IS final product, because it's 1.0, there is no excuses that it's a beta, it has to do promised things. And if you have some issues which were found, but you weren't able to fix in time for release, then it would be a good practice to let customers know about them before buying by posting list of them, so the same defect would be rereported less and people would complain less about missed defect. Not responsibility of unpaid QA (person)? Ok, then it's an immature QA process in the company, the company which IS responsible for the quality of it's product. In my QA experience it was always like that. P.S. And yes, I decided not to play 1.0 till fixes will be published because I can't stand working with any software where the basic QA check wasn't made for fairings. Basic checklist for them: 1) Base without plaits has correct mass; 2) Plates adds correct mass 3) When plates are jettisoned the mass is subtracted from the craft's mass. That's the fist 3 things that have to be tested for fairings's mass testing (5-10 minutes for this) and they weren't... Or if it was intentional, then where is a logic in it, or why it isn't mentioned as a known defect in final release notes (with hotfix release date). And I don't say that the 1.0 is bad, just, don't speak about good things now.
  10. Fixed. Retester by scenario "Test 1". Actual result: A craft can take off with fairing base without constructed fairing plates. The craft can't take off with added fairing plates (4t). The craft can take off after fairing plates were decoupled.
  11. It can be done easily: if mass of the fairings is = 1/2 of the whole mass of the craft, then decoupling fairing base with fairing plates should increase acceleration of the craft excectly on the proportion of fairings' mass to the whole craft mass. In case if fgairings waiht 1/2 of craft mass, the TWR after decoupling faing base and plates has to be twice as big as it was before decoupling. Also one can check it in the next way: Six spider engines can lift 8t craft, but can't lift 5t craft... because 5t is "real" mass and 8t is "GUI" mass of fairings.
  12. Do you saying that mass of fairing plates is added to the fairing base? If so, could you give a relevant test for this? I can.
  13. Wrong. Test: Step 1) create craft with 1.25 probe core, small 1.25 fuel tank and 4 ant engines. mass of the craft is about 0.7t. It can barelly fly because it' twr is about 1.1. Step 2) Add fairings with 2 ot more mass. now the mass of craft is supposed to be at least 3t. basic calculation: 0.7t = ~1.1 twr, 3t = X twr. I would guess that twr is < 1, even if all fuel would be burn out mass of the craft can't go below 2.5t, but what mirracle.. it flies when ~ 40% of fuel is burned (mass of fairing base). The craft that barely could get off the grount with mass = 0.7t could get off the graund with mass = "3t"? Would you now insist on that all the mass is placed in the base?
  14. Fairing mass isn't added to the base because fairing panels are massless. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116910-Am-I-missing-something-or-stock-fairings-are-massless
  15. How have you checked? Don't trust everything that's written in the engineering report. Moderator's answer: