Sign in to follow this  
Kerbonautical

The things that never happened

Recommended Posts

Some users I notice pointed out the fact the list of planned features is unreliable and being honest, it really is, however that shouldn't devalue the idea as it can provide a very useful tool were it to actually contain relevant information. The only problem is as others also mentioned the devs have chosen that it's best to keep the secrets close to home to avoid disappointment which makes a lot of sense. I guess I've just become so used to being disappointed by other early access projects that a bit of disappointment here or there is worth it to me as long as I have a good idea what is still to come.

The only data that can truly be reliable is those posted by official means. Even if it comes from someone on the team (i.e. Maxmaps personal twitter, or a random post here on the forums) it isn't reliable. The scope of reliable information is more limited. Anything posted by the SQUAD user name here on the forums (including Devnotes) is very reliable. The official Twitter account works, I'm not sure if something on Reddit would qualify but I don't do reddit, maybe they have a SQUAD user name there too. Despite his twitter musings, Maxmaps is very careful what he says in Squadcast so that is fairly reliable information as well. (By the way, by this definition, I don't think the Delta V readout was ever truly confirmed either, that was just Maxmaps and his twitter)

The list on the Wiki however still quotes people who aren't even on the dev team anymore, not to mention it was just a random forum post where they mentioned off hand something they might like to do. I agree, such a list can be useful if it limits to information provided by the official channels. That is why I consider the list to be defunct. I think it could be made more useful if it reigns back the scope of information. For the most part that means anything that is coming in the very next version, plus maybe a few special cases like Mutiplayer where they have said time and time again it is on it's way. Anything further than that is questionable at best. In it's current form, readers leave the page less informed than they were before they read it, which is never a good thing for a wiki.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see, people here are mostly salty about the lack of an extra Gas Planet.

Now, to my understanding, one of the major reasons why extra planets weren't implemented is because they can be very memory-heavy. Therefore, we're more likely to see them following 1.1, I suspect.

Either way, it seems pretty redundant to me. The majority of the fanbase likely never make it out of Kerbin's SOI, and certainly not beyond Jool. Now that we've got realistic heat dynamics and aerobraking is pretty much impossible (hint - there's a reason why aerobraking is very rarely performed in real life), you'd need a ludicrous amount of dV to get anywhere worthwhile anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see again, a year ago:

There is a MOD,all of this stuffs you mentioned.

A lot better than the stock.

Ignoring the main feature killer of them all.

The 3.8 Gb limit, who not only limit mods but also other stuff like more planets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're asking for specific information, but not providing specific questions.

Since you've quoted me, I'll respond. Actually I wasn't asking for any information, I was just defending Kerbonautical's request for an update on some anticipated features. I don't think it's ok for certain members of this community to get all passive aggressive about it when someone asks a genuine question about something they missed, and although we had a bit of a to-and-fro I think at least some of the wanted details did eventually come to the surface.

As far as I can see, people here are mostly salty about the lack of an extra Gas Planet.

...

Either way, it seems pretty redundant to me. The majority of the fanbase likely never make it out of Kerbin's SOI, and certainly not beyond Jool.

Not really, as I've said a few times now the gas planets are just good examples of anticipated features that haven't materialised. If the planned features page on the wiki is just a mess of rumours, fair enough, but I doubt I've been the only one to look at it and assume it had some actual basis. Seriously, who checks sources on videogame features?

I don't think there's any basis to make any assumptions about what the majority of players do. Apart from the fact that we have no figures or statistics at all (except the vague hints that come from incomplete data collected by Squad), it seems kinda obvious to me that if people aren't going out beyond Jool, it's because there's not a fat lot of reason to go. There's no basis for assuming that more planets beyond Jool would be wasted. As others have said, if there was something to see out there, people would try harder to go and see it.

On the other hand if you can crash a probe into the sun, land on Mun and Minmus, flyby Moho, get stranded on Eve and drop a base on Duna, what's the point in going to Jool - I mean, what can it offer that you don't already have? If people aren't going out there it sounds like time to raise the stakes with more outer-planet content and not assume that horse is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you've quoted me, I'll respond. Actually I wasn't asking for any information, I was just defending Kerbonautical's request for an update on some anticipated features. I don't think it's ok for certain members of this community to get all passive aggressive about it when someone asks a genuine question about something they missed, and although we had a bit of a to-and-fro I think at least some of the wanted details did eventually come to the surface.

Not really, as I've said a few times now the gas planets are just good examples of anticipated features that haven't materialised. If the planned features page on the wiki is just a mess of rumours, fair enough, but I doubt I've been the only one to look at it and assume it had some actual basis. Seriously, who checks sources on videogame features?

I don't think there's any basis to make any assumptions about what the majority of players do. Apart from the fact that we have no figures or statistics at all (except the vague hints that come from incomplete data collected by Squad), it seems kinda obvious to me that if people aren't going out beyond Jool, it's because there's not a fat lot of reason to go. There's no basis for assuming that more planets beyond Jool would be wasted. As others have said, if there was something to see out there, people would try harder to go and see it.

On the other hand if you can crash a probe into the sun, land on Mun and Minmus, flyby Moho, get stranded on Eve and drop a base on Duna, what's the point in going to Jool - I mean, what can it offer that you don't already have? If people aren't going out there it sounds like time to raise the stakes with more outer-planet content and not assume that horse is dead.

I think it's not only that theres nothing much out there, it's that you have lots of tools to make designing rockets easier but interplanetary flight tools seem unnecessarily circumscribed. e.g. Include a transfer planner, that might make it more enticing to do outer system trips. The stats only show that people don't go, they don't show why, I have heard many casual players lament it being too difficult to bother with, not too difficult to do, just too much bother for little reward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding GP2, I'll say what I've said before: I want to see axial tilt in the game and then I want a second gas planet with a 90-ish degree tilt like Uranus. That will make it a new challenge and not just a second Jool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's not only that theres nothing much out there, it's that you have lots of tools to make designing rockets easier but interplanetary flight tools seem unnecessarily circumscribed. e.g. Include a transfer planner, that might make it more enticing to do outer system trips. The stats only show that people don't go, they don't show why, I have heard many casual players lament it being too difficult to bother with, not too difficult to do, just too much bother for little reward.

You raise a fantastic point that I'd almost forgotten about, the stats about how far people actually go and I remember it being surprisingly close to home for the most part. Unfortunately though, I'd shift a lot of the blame for that onto the game itself for two reasons. First is the lack of tools as you mentioned. This increases the difficulty of interplanetary travel to some rather absurd heights where only the best players will pull it off. It may have changed by now, but the last time I went interplanetary it required mods and some external tools to work out if I would make it. The average player isn't likely to go to these lengths so I do wonder how many people would go further if they had the means to.

The second reason is another you mentioned but one that has been bugging me for a while. There's no real reason to go that far since you can get everything you need right on the doorstep. I've been playing another early access game that suffers this same problem but found a way to get around it. It's and underwater exploration game called Subnautica, great game but not here to plug it, so here's the similarity. In Subnautica you need basic resources to survive if you play that mode, or resources to build new technology. It has a reasonably large environment with various biomes but you can get the large majority of what you need in the first couple biomes that are pretty shallow but the world runs thousands of meters deep should you choose to explore it. To encourage some more exploration while they still build out the world and what resources will go where in the final game, they have added fragments of the technology and scattered them throughout the biomes to force some level of exploration.

Now I'm not sure exactly how it could work out for the lore or logic of the game, but perhaps some small amount of the technology in KSP could require you to go collect science from a specific location, or a location with parameters that can't be met on Kerbin such as an SOI with a stronger gravity well etc. The problem of people not going to the planets could be overcome, but without directly adding content to be earned out there, then the typical means would be to gate content behind it. Obviously gating is never an ideal solution, but I'm also struggling to think of much to be added as a supplement to travelling out there that we don't already have such as big science/cash payouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding GP2, I'll say what I've said before: I want to see axial tilt in the game and then I want a second gas planet with a 90-ish degree tilt like Uranus. That will make it a new challenge and not just a second Jool.

The ice giant!

Obviously gating is never an ideal solution, but I'm also struggling to think of much to be added as a supplement to travelling out there that we don't already have such as big science/cash payouts.

That's a spot on description of a problem and I couldn't agree more. The irony is that all those bodies were polished with new biomes, but for who?

I saw somewhere that dialogue:

Squad: here's the amount of delta-v you need.

Player: but how much does my rocket have.

Squad: we're not telling.

Transfer calculation tools

Simple life support

Stock colonization parts

This is not a wishlist, KSP needs these things. I am aware that KSP is intended to be primarily a game, but you can't rule those out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought a great way to encourage visiting the outer planets (and exploration in general) was to expand the anomalies into a game mechanic that could unlock advanced technologies (or at least advance some kind of story mode).

Right now the anomalies are just easter eggs, but if their locations were randomized (and made discoverable via orbital scans) and tied to contracts that unlocked techs/advanced the story then it would really provide incentive to go out there and explore to find the anomalies and visit them with Kerbals.

I do agree that the game definitely needs some kind of mechjeb-lite system (including transfer window tools) if Squad wants more players to be able to get to other planets. The current barrier to entry is still very high in the base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see.

64-bit support is supposedly on its way in 1.1 or 1.2 (Unity 5 now has a native 64-bit editor, so it's easier to find out what's causing bugs).

From a player's perspective, this means MODS, MODS, AND MORE MODS. From the developer's perspective, it may mean that GP2 is back on the table (and if it is, people will crawl out of the woodwork for it, I'm sure.

Limited physics Multi-threading has been officially announced for 1.1 (one physics thread per ship, should make having more than one core useful when doing stuff like docking or base building).

UI overhaul was basically required (threw out a hodgepodge of 3 different UI systems)

Hopefully they let the Resource and Heat threads move to their own cores, too. Right now in 1.0.x, Physics, Resources, and Heat are bound to the same core.

The addition of the Heat thread is what makes 1.0.x so much more laggy than 0.90.x and before.

Having a lot of resource calculations on the ship has always caused problems, but only on higher part count ships.

Now, with both of those additional threads competing for CPU cycles alongside the Physics thread, it's no wonder the game's running slower than ever for 125+ part ships.

Letting those two threads (they're already somewhat independent) run on separate cores from the physics would do a LOT for reducing lag, especially if you run a mod like KSPI, TAC life support, USI Life Support, USI Kolonization, EL, or something else that is particularly heavy on the resource system.

Additionally, I suspect there's still some memory leaks in the new aerodynamics and/or aerodynamic heating code, because people's games are reliably crashing after moderately long atmospheric flights (across an ocean by subsonic plane, or halfway around the world on a supersonic/hypersonic one). Used to be able to circumnavigate Kerbin with a subsonic jet and still have plenty of RAM left over to launch a ship to the Mun and back, but not anymore.

Don't quote me, but I've heard that the Resource thread is due for a re-write as well. It'll work the same from our end, but it should be much better optimized. Not sure if that's slated for 1.1 or 1.2 or what, but I'm hoping 1.2 at the latest. This game has gotten quite sluggish, and 64-bit won't solve that.

Also, they don't even have a Load-On-Demand system for game assets yet (models, textures, etc.). There was a mod for that, hopefully it gets put in Stock.

That plus 64-bit KSP = ALL THE MODS, ALL THE TIME.

On the plus side, KSP 1.0.x now uses DDS textures, which are directly usable by the graphics card, greatly reducing loading times (and reducing RAM footprint somewhat, too).

Bottom line: There's a lot of back-end optimizations left to do, so I predict that it can only get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see.

64-bit support is supposedly on its way in 1.1 or 1.2 (Unity 5 now has a native 64-bit editor, so it's easier to find out what's causing bugs).

From a player's perspective, this means MODS, MODS, AND MORE MODS. From the developer's perspective, it may mean that GP2 is back on the table (and if it is, people will crawl out of the woodwork for it, I'm sure.

Limited physics Multi-threading has been officially announced for 1.1 (one physics thread per ship, should make having more than one core useful when doing stuff like docking or base building).

UI overhaul was basically required (threw out a hodgepodge of 3 different UI systems)

Hopefully they let the Resource and Heat threads move to their own cores, too. Right now in 1.0.x, Physics, Resources, and Heat are bound to the same core.

The addition of the Heat thread is what makes 1.0.x so much more laggy than 0.90.x and before.

Having a lot of resource calculations on the ship has always caused problems, but only on higher part count ships.

Now, with both of those additional threads competing for CPU cycles alongside the Physics thread, it's no wonder the game's running slower than ever for 125+ part ships.

Letting those two threads (they're already somewhat independent) run on separate cores from the physics would do a LOT for reducing lag, especially if you run a mod like KSPI, TAC life support, USI Life Support, USI Kolonization, EL, or something else that is particularly heavy on the resource system.

Additionally, I suspect there's still some memory leaks in the new aerodynamics and/or aerodynamic heating code, because people's games are reliably crashing after moderately long atmospheric flights (across an ocean by subsonic plane, or halfway around the world on a supersonic/hypersonic one). Used to be able to circumnavigate Kerbin with a subsonic jet and still have plenty of RAM left over to launch a ship to the Mun and back, but not anymore.

Don't quote me, but I've heard that the Resource thread is due for a re-write as well. It'll work the same from our end, but it should be much better optimized. Not sure if that's slated for 1.1 or 1.2 or what, but I'm hoping 1.2 at the latest. This game has gotten quite sluggish, and 64-bit won't solve that.

Also, they don't even have a Load-On-Demand system for game assets yet (models, textures, etc.). There was a mod for that, hopefully it gets put in Stock.

That plus 64-bit KSP = ALL THE MODS, ALL THE TIME.

On the plus side, KSP 1.0.x now uses DDS textures, which are directly usable by the graphics card, greatly reducing loading times (and reducing RAM footprint somewhat, too).

Bottom line: There's a lot of back-end optimizations left to do, so I predict that it can only get better.

Say, would you look at that! A serious, straightforward and informative answer to the asker's question! :rolleyes:

This is how you get rep people. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only 3 simple things I would like.

Much less bugs

Better performance (like it was pre-1.0)

64bit

I could care less if anything else is added because there's mods for that. For example, new planets are in OPM. Better nukes in Atomic Age etc... I just want the game fixed. I'm contemplating going back to 0.90, add Deadly Reentry and FAR, and call it a day. But finding old versions of mods that are compatible with 0.90 might cause issues.

Edited by xtoro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets see.

64-bit support is supposedly on its way in 1.1 or 1.2 (Unity 5 now has a native 64-bit editor, so it's easier to find out what's causing bugs).

From a player's perspective, this means MODS, MODS, AND MORE MODS. From the developer's perspective, it may mean that GP2 is back on the table (and if it is, people will crawl out of the woodwork for it, I'm sure.

Limited physics Multi-threading has been officially announced for 1.1 (one physics thread per ship, should make having more than one core useful when doing stuff like docking or base building).

UI overhaul was basically required (threw out a hodgepodge of 3 different UI systems)

Hopefully they let the Resource and Heat threads move to their own cores, too. Right now in 1.0.x, Physics, Resources, and Heat are bound to the same core.

The addition of the Heat thread is what makes 1.0.x so much more laggy than 0.90.x and before.

Having a lot of resource calculations on the ship has always caused problems, but only on higher part count ships.

Now, with both of those additional threads competing for CPU cycles alongside the Physics thread, it's no wonder the game's running slower than ever for 125+ part ships.

Letting those two threads (they're already somewhat independent) run on separate cores from the physics would do a LOT for reducing lag, especially if you run a mod like KSPI, TAC life support, USI Life Support, USI Kolonization, EL, or something else that is particularly heavy on the resource system.

Additionally, I suspect there's still some memory leaks in the new aerodynamics and/or aerodynamic heating code, because people's games are reliably crashing after moderately long atmospheric flights (across an ocean by subsonic plane, or halfway around the world on a supersonic/hypersonic one). Used to be able to circumnavigate Kerbin with a subsonic jet and still have plenty of RAM left over to launch a ship to the Mun and back, but not anymore.

Don't quote me, but I've heard that the Resource thread is due for a re-write as well. It'll work the same from our end, but it should be much better optimized. Not sure if that's slated for 1.1 or 1.2 or what, but I'm hoping 1.2 at the latest. This game has gotten quite sluggish, and 64-bit won't solve that.

Also, they don't even have a Load-On-Demand system for game assets yet (models, textures, etc.). There was a mod for that, hopefully it gets put in Stock.

That plus 64-bit KSP = ALL THE MODS, ALL THE TIME.

On the plus side, KSP 1.0.x now uses DDS textures, which are directly usable by the graphics card, greatly reducing loading times (and reducing RAM footprint somewhat, too).

Bottom line: There's a lot of back-end optimizations left to do, so I predict that it can only get better.

Wow, thanks a bunch for the really in depth answer. I had actually wondered why performance had been going the opposite way as well so another question answered there. It would be really good to see multi-threading applying to ship physics, and it may still be an issue when you dock two very large vessels together it at least makes having them in the same physical space a lot more bearable. Being able to stack more mods is always good news too. Whenever the performance upgrade comes, I look forward to it. Hopefully it will also free up some space for the devs to continue to expand as well. I can't even imagine what a pain it must be trying to cram in more content when so many parts of the code are already fighting over a single core anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say, would you look at that! A serious, straightforward and informative answer to the asker's question! :rolleyes:

This is how you get rep people. :wink:

Why be sarcastic when Poe's law means I can't tell if someone is serious or not?

If I assume seriousness, it just means I miss a joke now and again.

If I assumed sarcasm, I'd give myself a stomach ulcer.

Oh and by the way, apparently MaxMaps said they're saving any graphics improvements that aren't optimizations for after 1.1

Edited by SciMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why be sarcastic when Poe's law means I can't tell if someone is serious or not?

Well, I imagine if I was being sarcastic about the qualities of your post I wouldn't have given you any rep for it :)

My remarks were slightly pointed in the direction of earlier posters, nothing more. Seriously, your post was the best response to this OP so far.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this