Squadcast Summary (2015-04-11) - Arrangement Of S.H.I.E.L.Ds Edition!

[JedTech]

I hope the new aero wont be as rocket-flippy as NEAR and FAR are. I want to keep it realistic but I suck at building rockets in realistic aero. They are also the reason i stick to sending stuff in spaceplanes more.

I'm not entirely sure which crowd squad is trying to please with the new aerodynamics. I'm thinking that the newbies will find it hard, and the realism folks will install FAR.

Don't they have use cases and user persona's? If they did, I doubt this feature would have been implemented as described.

Edited April 12, 2015 by JedTech

[Wjolcz]

I'm not entirely sure which crowd squad is trying to please with the new aerodynamics. I'm thinking that the newbies will find it hard, and the realism folks will install FAR.

Don't they have use cases and user persona's? If they did, I doubt this feature would have been implemented as described.

Well, you can always clone me like... 20 times, and you'll get that crowd.

[Daze]

I hope that the advanced aerodynamics don't become a stumbling block to kids wanting to learn about orbital mechanics. I know I didn't buy this game because I wanted an aerodynamics simulator.

Yea, since aerodynamics is useless in space flight just remove the "Launch" button and place a "Go to Orbit" one.

[Renegrade]

Now: Ooops, I turned too early and everything blew up.

That happens with 0.90 stock air too. It's just less pronounced. And soupier.

Anyhow, they're typically doing that idiotic "straight up until 40km and then turn to horizon" crap, which works in FAR too. (and by works, I mean, "isn't any dumber than in stock")

Also since when was it pod+tank+engine = space? That's usually "boom" for newbies too

I hope the new aero wont be as rocket-flippy as NEAR and FAR are. I want to keep it realistic but I suck at building rockets in realistic aero. They are also the reason i stick to sending stuff in spaceplanes more.

When in doubt, spam tailfins. They aren't strictly needed (especially for rockets built around 2.5m and 3.75m parts) but they can get you out of a jam if you're lost on how to proceed or have your drag all wonky.

[GusTurbo]

I'm not entirely sure which crowd squad is trying to please with the new aerodynamics. I'm thinking that the newbies will find it hard, and the realism folks will install FAR.

Don't they have use cases and user persona's? If they did, I doubt this feature would have been implemented as described.

I don't see how making KSP challenging is somehow a bad thing. That's a big part of its charm.

It's not as if the current aerodynamics system was designed to appeal to "newbies." It was always just a hacked together placeholder.

Edited April 12, 2015 by GusTurbo

[Hotblack Desiato]

the situation with the recent developments (haven't seen the squadcast) for me is: squad wants to integrate features of 4 quite big mods. FAR/NEAR, Procedural Fairings, fuel-mining (Kethane/Karbonite/KSPI) and deadly reentry.

that is a fine idea, and honestly, I wonder why they don't add lifesupport to the bunch too (shouldn't be too hard).

but: the mechanics of those mods evolved within the last 2 years, they changed over time (someone wrote about the PITA of construcing fairings) and they got better. and now it's a hard task for squad to replicate the features of all 4 mod-systems, and being better than the modders. they'll of course bring their own ideas into the game, and the next few weeks will show how good those developments were. for us players, nothing really changes: the mods aren't gone, I'm certain that they'll get an update to 1.0 and even beyond. like it was with kerbal joint reinforcement, where ferram told squad how to improve stability (with impressive results), yet KJR is still better than the stock structural system.

[Kelvin Kerbin]

I hope that the advanced aerodynamics don't become a stumbling block to kids wanting to learn about orbital mechanics. I know I didn't buy this game because I wanted an aerodynamics simulator.

KSP is about a lot more than just orbital mechanics, it's about design...for launch; orbital maneuvers; planet encounters; space construction; planet construction; etc... Assuming you are talking about a kid who is interested in learning about designing ships for orbital maneuvers, I would caution any kid who feels he is learning to design ships for orbital maneuvers without designing said ships for launch is fooling him/her self. It would be like designing planes to fly but not takeoff or land. Any kid ONLY interested in learning orbital mechanics can do so by running the in game tutorials. Those have ships already in space they can fly around all they want.

Luckily, there is a pretty easy solution to gain the limited knowledge outlined. Installing the HyperEdit mod allows you to move a ship directly to orbit and skip the launch. Launch is pretty rote without proper aerodynamics and almost any crazy thing will go up so having a launch stage without aerodynamics is pointless from a "learning" perspective (ignoring the absurdity of learning from a game). IMO, installing mods is much easier than designing things that work so hopefully this suggestion (if spread wide and far) would remove said stumbling block and would be considered a positive response to the proposed problem.

[Linear]

I'm not entirely sure which crowd squad is trying to please with the new aerodynamics. I'm thinking that the newbies will find it hard, and the realism folks will install FAR.

Don't they have use cases and user persona's? If they did, I doubt this feature would have been implemented as described.

They don't want to release a space simulator/game where launching rockets it's the most unrealistic, laughable mess since the GTA 4 PC port.

[Hotblack Desiato]

^^

honestly, I found near to be quite nice. it allows to build rockets which look like rockets and which are fairly simple and cheap, and have a decent payload-capacity.

for example for a smaller probe: probe body, solar panels, some scientific instruments, antenna, a nosecone, fl-t 180 tank, lv 909, decoupler, bacc booster and fins.

that thing launches to space just fine, and has enough dv to do a decent amount of work. in stock, you would require at least an additional liquid stage, and mayme more than one bacc-booster. and launching that feels better...

[Jumpyyoza]

Wait, if we want to have more panels, do we just increase the symmetry?

[regex]

I hope the new aero wont be as rocket-flippy as NEAR and FAR are. I want to keep it realistic but I suck at building rockets in realistic aero. They are also the reason i stick to sending stuff in spaceplanes more.

Build rocket with a TWR of 1.3~1.8. Tilt the rocket about 5deg when it reaches 75~80m/s. Follow prograde marker until out of the second atmosphere band. Adjust trajectory as desired once in third atmosphere band. As earlier stated, tail fins because KSP's engines lack the control authority they need. You'll never flip a rocket again.

And jmanidb is correct, I will be installing the new FAR because I want that sort of detail. OTOH, I won't be embarrassed by the prospect of handing the stock game to my (or any other) kid anymore.

Edited April 13, 2015 by regex

[John FX]

From the look of things, guys who are not paid do a better job than squad when it comes to things like aero, heat effects and fairings so I will continue to use their work. As well as saturatable wheels, realistic solar panels, kerbals with mass when in pods, rotation on rails and many other things.

Will we still have utterly unrealistic chutes in 1.0 too?

Don't get me started on clouds either.

Thank you to the makers of mods, you make the game acceptable instead of not.

[klgraham1013]

I don't see how making KSP challenging is somehow a bad thing. That's a big part of its charm.

It's not as if the current aerodynamics system was designed to appeal to "newbies." It was always just a hacked together placeholder.

I agree.

I started playing KSP because of the challenge. I was interested in space as a kid, but knew nothing about gravity turns or orbital mechanics. I had to learn to play. To say KSP is hard...I'm not sure that's right. It requires knowledge and patience. I'm also not a fan of the idea that "New Player Friendliness" means easy.

[Red Iron Crown]

Oh hey, Max followed up on his comments about the decoupler bug:

[worir4]

Oh hey, Max followed up on his comments about the decoupler bug:

[panzer1b]

YEAH!!! No more self destruct staging!

Also the sepatron industry is gonna take a hit. Sell your shares, quick!

What self-destruct staging bug?

The only bug ive had issues with is the whole stack decouplers failing to stage both sides at once and needing like 3 hits of stage before everything decoupled. Is this what you mean by staging bug?

[smjjames]

What self-destruct staging bug?

The only bug ive had issues with is the whole stack decouplers failing to stage both sides at once and needing like 3 hits of stage before everything decoupled. Is this what you mean by staging bug?

You know when your boosters smash into your craft rather than move outwards? The one where you have to use separatrons or otherwise your stage is going to get smashed to bits That one.

Yay for no longer being forced to put separatrons on in order to stop them from smashing into your rocket on separation.

[Renegrade]

What self-destruct staging bug?

The only bug ive had issues with is the whole stack decouplers failing to stage both sides at once and needing like 3 hits of stage before everything decoupled. Is this what you mean by staging bug?

In Vanilla KSP (without Claw's fixes), if you decouple anything at speed (above uh.. 150m/s or thereabouts, and below 750m/s), an invalid torque is applied to the object.

This amazing piece of neo-classical art, worth billions of dollars, will explain:

In situation A, the decoupler is located below the CoM for a booster. When it decouples, a torque is generated around the booster's CoM in the correct direction (the magnitude is wrong, of course, but it's masked by the position somewhat).

In situation B, the torque should be reversed, but in stock, it is not for whatever broken reason. This is incorrect and bad physics.

It's present in all unpatched versions of KSP, but some types of rocket designs won't cause it (they decouple really early or really late), and a lot of users are --I'mma be a bit blunt here--observationally challenged.

[BudgetHedgehog]

It's present in all unpatched versions of KSP, but some types of rocket designs won't cause it (they decouple really early or really late), and a lot of users are --I'mma be a bit blunt here--observationally challenged.

Not entirely correct - it was introduced in 0.24.1 as a result of trying to fix decoupling on the x64 version (inline decouplers also suffer from this incorrect application of force, but the effect is obviously inline and not as noticeable) and is somehow related to the krakensbane as the problem disappears after exactly 750m/s. When boosters decouple really early, there's negligible effect due the the low velocity. When the decouple really late, you're going faster than 750m/s so are unaffected.

[Renegrade]

Not entirely correct - it was introduced in 0.24.1 as a result of trying to fix decoupling on the x64 version (inline decouplers also suffer from this incorrect application of force, but the effect is obviously inline and not as noticeable) and is somehow related to the krakensbane as the problem disappears after exactly 750m/s. When boosters decouple really early, there's negligible effect due the the low velocity. When the decouple really late, you're going faster than 750m/s so are unaffected.

By "all unpatched" I meant like win32, win64(extinct in the wild), and linux, of 0.90 breed. Macintoshes don't actually exist, they're a hoax ( ). I should have said "all CURRENT unpatched KSPs". And by patched, I mean by Claw's fix.

And yeah, it was introduced in the 0.24 era. Prior to that, there was a DIFFERENT decoupler bug, where strutting across a decoupler gave it effectively 0 force. The 0 force bug was less unpleasant, and the fix in my sig actually simulates it in 0.24.x onwards.

Yay for bugs! *waves a little flag*

(I intentionally left out details on the why and how re: speeds as I'm trying to cut back on walls of text, to ease people's eye burdens as well as RSI-related stuff. Don't encourage me! I've hit the character limit before!)

[GusTurbo]

By "all unpatched" I meant like win32, win64(extinct in the wild), and linux, of 0.90 breed. Macintoshes don't actually exist, they're a hoax ( ). I should have said "all CURRENT unpatched KSPs". And by patched, I mean by Claw's fix.

And yeah, it was introduced in the 0.24 era. Prior to that, there was a DIFFERENT decoupler bug, where strutting across a decoupler gave it effectively 0 force. The 0 force bug was less unpleasant, and the fix in my sig actually simulates it in 0.24.x onwards.

Yay for bugs! *waves a little flag*

(I intentionally left out details on the why and how re: speeds as I'm trying to cut back on walls of text, to ease people's eye burdens as well as RSI-related stuff. Don't encourage me! I've hit the character limit before!)

I didn't realize that the bug was related to an attempted fix for the issue where struts canceled radial decoupler force. The new decoupler bug has been so much worse.

[Renegrade]

I didn't realize that the bug was related to an attempted fix for the issue where struts canceled radial decoupler force. The new decoupler bug has been so much worse.

Well, it was related to some win64 stuff that OWK mentioned - I dunno if it's related to the strut thing or not overall. It doesn't really matter though, the only thing is that radial decouplers have had bugs for as long as I've been playing

(and yeah, the newer bug is a LOT worse than the zero-force one. The result of the zero-force bug is "meh, that's lame", whereas the new one is "ARGH WHY DID YOU KILL MY ROCKET SQUAD?")