Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well Max did say 'if all goes well' or words to that effect, so no promises broken.

1.0.1 and 1.0.2 were necessary quick responses to fix critical issues immediately after release and before they went off for a pre planned break.

With 1.0.3 they can, and should, take the opportunity to look at what balances etc they are changing and check it is working as they want. A few extra days wait for us is no big deal.

I would say 1.0.2 completely breaking the reentry heating system, one of the primary advertised features of 1.0, warranted a freaking hotfix. Their ridiculous knee-jerk mucking with the atmosphere was completely unnecessary, the least they could've done was fix the heat.

- - - Updated - - -

"The end of the week" doesn't specify any particular week. All we know is it won't be at the beginning of the week, so not Monday or Tuesday ;P

Are you seriously going to play that game?

Fanboys, as useless as ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say 1.0.2 completely breaking the reentry heating system, one of the primary advertised features of 1.0, warranted a freaking hotfix. Their ridiculous knee-jerk mucking with the atmosphere was completely unnecessary, the least they could've done was fix the heat.

From what I read, they discovered a bug in the heat implementation. The fix in 1.0.2 changed it to what it was always intended to be in 1.0. The behaviour in 1.0 was actually a bug, not intended behaviour, even if you happened to like the effects of the bug. As I understand it, the heat in 1.0.2 is "working as intended", although is quite obviously open to future tuning.

There was no "knee-jerk mucking", and you don't rush another hot fix out to change something that isn't an urgent bug. Heat in 1.0.2 might not be to everyone's taste, but it's not bugged. You're getting another hot fix anyway, it's coming, and they are taking their time over it, to get it right, as many vocal complainants demanded they do (although frankly I sincerely doubt that any of those demands actually had any bearing on the timescale).

Fanboys, as useless as ever.

Comments like that just make you look quite foolish and lose all credibility with many people. That was entirely unnecessary.

Edited by Murph
Link to post
Share on other sites
The other thing which can cause crashes is if you run KSP at more than half res textures on Mac. I want my KSP in full textures please :D

Active texture management eliminates that chance. Because using higher texture qualities will cause more ram usage and active texture management reduces the ram usage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Active texture management eliminates that chance. Because using higher texture qualities will cause more ram usage and active texture management reduces the ram usage.

It doesn't eliminate it. It's still entirely possible to overload KSP with too many mods and push it into memory crash territory with ATM installed. ATM just helps a little with the problem.

Nothing can fully fix or eliminate that problem until KSP goes 64-bit (which Unity 5 should hopefully deliver).

I use half res myself, as I find the quality sufficient and prefer the performance enhancement from half res (it's a quarter of the texture data). As far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong as I don't do it, the stock game runs fine on a Mac with full res textures, it's only when you overload it via mods that you hit a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't eliminate it. It's still entirely possible to overload KSP with too many mods and push it into memory crash territory with ATM installed. ATM just helps a little with the problem.

Nothing can fully fix or eliminate that problem until KSP goes 64-bit (which Unity 5 should hopefully deliver).

I use half res myself, as I find the quality sufficient and prefer the performance enhancement from half res (it's a quarter of the texture data). As far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong as I don't do it, the stock game runs fine on a Mac with full res textures, it's only when you overload it via mods that you hit a problem.

It would be weird if the next ksp version (probably not 1.0.3) wouldn't be 64bit since the unity player IS 64 bit now.

Oh and yeah i forgot to add unless you've installed a lot of mods.

Edited by Roderik
Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I read, they discovered a bug in the heat implementation. The fix in 1.0.2 changed it to what it was always intended to be in 1.0. The behaviour in 1.0 was actually a bug, not intended behaviour, even if you happened to like the effects of the bug. As I understand it, the heat in 1.0.2 is "working as intended", although is quite obviously open to future tuning.

Then that is completely outrageous. I'm playing at 100% heating and it might as well be turned off because it does literally nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be weird if the next ksp version (probably not 1.0.3) wouldn't be 64bit since the unity player IS 64 bit now.

Oh and yeah i forgot to add unless you've installed a lot of mods.

Dont forget that for x64 compatibility the engine has to be switched from unity 4 to unity 5 - which sure is not a trivial task for a game of that scope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then that is completely outrageous. I'm playing at 100% heating and it might as well be turned off because it does literally nothing.

And that was the correct decision by Squad for the first real implementation. It is absolutely not "completely outrageous". It would have been far worse if the majority of players had fired up 1.0.2 (i.e. the intended behaviour) and found that re-entry was impossibly hard (or just plain impossible). It does not matter that it's easier than reality, and it certainly does do more than nothing, having personally lost parts and entire pods, space planes, etc; mostly through a lapse in concentration (or a design issue in some of the cases of lost parts).

I don't know if the current level of heating is "about right" or not, I'm undecided on that. It's certainly not at the terrible point that you're claiming. There is still scope for future tuning and enhancement.

You evidently want it pushed far more towards reality, much more difficult, but I'm quite certain that you are in a relative minority with that desire. Squad provided you with a difficulty option, and you can even go into the debug options and make it more severe if the simple option still isn't enough for you when maxed. I want the default to be some risk from heat (there is some risk today on default 1.0.2 options, maybe not much, but it's there), and at least slightly forgiving to casual gameplay and people just trying to have fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And this is why I want Squad to take their time and test 1.0.3 so they don't accidentally introduce a different game-breaking bug while trying to fix the memory leak.

Same. Squad should also take their time to get aero/re-entry right so it won't need any further adjustments. It's quite frustrating to have to re-design craft because important systems like aero and re-entry are still being worked on after release (so currently I'm not playing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the current level of heating is "about right" or not, I'm undecided on that. It's certainly not at the terrible point that you're claiming. There is still scope for future tuning and enhancement

What is stock behaviour like at the moment anyway? In FAR (just FAR, no DRE), a direct Minmus return with a 20km periapsis burns about 3/4 of the way through a heat shield (which seems about right from a gameplay POV to me).

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is stock behaviour like at the moment anyway? In FAR (just FAR, no DRE), a direct Minmus return with a 20km periapsis burns about 3/4 of the way through a heat shield (which seems about right from a gameplay POV to me).

Somebody wrote they deorbited station without anything exploding because of heat... from Minimus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody wrote they deorbited station without anything exploding because of heat... from Minimus.

I wonder if this could be due to large drag slowing the station higher than a small craft would?

I haven't really a noticed need for heat shields myself tho. Shallow enough re-entry will do the trick inside Kerbin SOI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have been far worse if the majority of players had fired up 1.0.2 (i.e. the intended behaviour) and found that re-entry was impossibly hard (or just plain impossible). It does not matter that it's easier than reality, and it certainly does do more than nothing, having personally lost parts and entire pods, space planes, etc

1.0.2 100% reentry heat. I landed a pod at EVE. Direct reentry from JOOL (40Km Pe). Speed was over 6000m/s when hit Eve's atmo. WITHOUT heatshield. Don't know what you have done to lose ships, but reentry heat in 1.0.2 is not as dangerous as it should. New players can set easy options.

What is stock behaviour like at the moment anyway? In FAR (just FAR, no DRE), a direct Minmus return with a 20km periapsis burns about 3/4 of the way through a heat shield (which seems about right from a gameplay POV to me).

See above. Not right at all for me.

Somebody wrote they deorbited station without anything exploding because of heat... from Minimus.

I remember that post. IIRC the station lost 2 or 3 parts (batteries?), but without structural damage.

- - - Updated - - -

And:

Someone landed a one part ship (mk2 cockpit) safely at KSC runway from orbit. I can't find the post right now.

1.0.3 is a must, but I prefer waiting a bit more than having some weird balance issues again. So, let SQUAD test it.

Edited by DoToH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I said this one million times, and I will say it again: I hope SQUAD is sensible enough to implement a fuel tweakable in 1.0.3 for most of the tanks to convert them into LF-only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.0.2 100% reentry heat. I landed a pod at EVE. Direct reentry from JOOL (40Km Pe). Speed was over 6000m/s when hit Eve's atmo. WITHOUT heatshield. Don't know what you have done to lose ships, but reentry heat in 1.0.2 is not as dangerous as it should.

Small stack (pod + small tank + small engine + bits) flipping over to point prograde right at the start of the major heating, due to not paying enough attention or not having enough stability when pointing retrograde. That's lost me parachutes for certain, and pretty sure I've lost the pod itself. Possibly slightly too steep angle at higher speed as well.

Lost planes many times at around 20km due to a lapse in concentration and letting the speed get out of control for the altitude.

New players can set easy options.

No, the game should not be too difficult on defaults (i.e. "normal"). "Easy" should be very easy, extremely forgiving. "Normal" should be easy enough with a reasonable understanding, but also quite forgiving in general, requiring you to really get it quite wrong before heat gets you, and nice wide margins where it won't get you. "Difficult" should be where you're into real difficulty, and the appropriate level to start to make good re-entry highly important. "Extreme" can be added for people who think anything less than sheer perfection should result in death. It's better to have the harder parts of things like heating be opt-in, rather than opt-out; that keeps the game appealing to the widest audience, avoids putting new people off by being too difficult when you're also expecting them to learn quite a lot of real rocket science, orbital mechanics, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this could be due to large drag slowing the station higher than a small craft would?

Yup. That's the root of the problem; stock aero delivers massive deceleration as soon as you pull any significant AoA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the current heating model is pretty realistic, the reason it is not more hazardous is that orbital velocity is below 2.5km/s while earth has an orbital velocity above 7km/s.

Try a steep reentry at 7km/s or higher and I am sure you will encounter serious problems.

A periaps above the heavy atmosphere(~20km) is hardly a steep approach and should be quite safe if you have a reasonable design.

I know that I have had heating bars from LKO return on small draggy parts like the basic fin even on a shallow trajectory(~25km), not enough to cause damage but plenty to show that there is heating going on and a less reasonable ship/trajectory could be in trouble.

If you want more hazardous heat, try having a steeper descent(like a periaps below -100KM) with a non-trivial velocity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want more hazardous heat, try having a steeper descent(like a periaps below -100KM) with a non-trivial velocity.

So... if you want a game mechanic to have some of impact in gameplay, you must do things that no one would ever do?. Nice

Reentry heat development time is wasted time, because nobody would ever need a heatshield unless a reentry planned with that purpose.

Blame on me for thinking that a direct reentry from Jool to Eve, hitting atmo faster than 6000m/s without heatshield should be dangerous.

And yes, earth has an orbital velocity above 7km/s, but RL manned spaceships always have heatshields. Aluminium melts at 933,47 K, not 2000K as almost every part in KSP. And RL astronauts aren't green.

Edited by DoToH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heat loads don't vary with entry angle, they just vary with velocity.

Yes, due to the drag increase, convection isn't as deadly as it was. My guess is the major improvements to thermal won't come until 1.1, but let's hope 1.0.3 is a bit deadlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, reentry heat and aerodynamics could scare away new players. I suggest we go further and make it so a new player is not overwhelmed with having to consider fuel, I mean this is a game and not a simulation, right? Perhaps if someone wishes to do something extreme, such as hop to every planet in a single trip, then fuel can become a consideration.

Sure, that means certain stock parts are rendered practically useless (fuel tanks, heatshields), but pointless game mechanics are preferable to the tyranny of REALISM.... *spits*

While we're at it, there's that whole thing about orbital mechanics and rendezvous procedures - how about we make it so people can just sort of point at stuff and fly there. You know, like in the movie Gravity? Surely all that rocket science is far too complex and, dare I say, real to foist upon innocent new players.

Think of the children, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When v1.0.3 comes out, it comes out. I'm patient. I'm still just hoping that Romfarer comes up with an update for v1.0.x for the docking camera... they really should put docking cameras in the stock game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...