Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: Wednesday Edition II

SQUAD

By SQUAD
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

 Share

Recommended Posts

Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
Just now, regex said:

How is OpenGL support looking in Unity 5, especially with Linux?

I certainly hope we'll be able to shut that off to help performance...

YUP. The absolute LAST thing this game needs is another 'pointless' feature slowing things down even more. The current performance is abysmal.

Just now, Gaarst said:

64bit won't, physics multi-threading could.

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, Azimech said:

If that is true, it's unfortunate. If not, it would be best renamed but still be available to modders. Even if unrealistic, it has certain properties and qualities that are useful for some applications. We don't know yet if the new module can do the same things as the old one.

I have a complex test rig to test the new wheel physics. If there are limitations or bugs I will find them on day 1.

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

Even if multithreading isn't significant the new PhysX version should offer single thread improvements as well.

again, yes. But gentlemen all I said was 64bit has no effect on FPS.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

YUP. The absolute LAST thing this game needs is another 'pointless' feature slowing things down even more. The current performance is abysmal.

It's not "pointless", PBR makes things look real nice.  The problem is not everyone has the latest and greatest graphics cards, or can immediately afford it.

(Or has the space to put up a new gaming computer because they have a brother-in-law that occupies the office while he acclimates to the town and college.)

8 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I have a complex test rig to test the new wheel physics. If there are limitations or bugs I will find them on day 1.

They're not concerned with new bugs, they're concerned with how well they can "exploit" the physics simulation to make the game do new things.  The old wheels allowed some interesting behavior and now that will be going away.

Nevermind, realized who I was talking to.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

I have a complex test rig to test the new wheel physics. If there are limitations or bugs I will find them on day 1.

Why am I not surprised :D
I'd love to use it too with your permission, I assume we both have insights in vehicle suspension in various ways and it would be great to exchange testing methods and  results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
katateochi

katateochi

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

I have a complex test rig to test the new wheel physics. If there are limitations or bugs I will find them on day 1.

6 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Why am I not surprised :D
I'd love to use it too with your permission, I assume we both have insights in vehicle suspension in various ways and it would be great to exchange testing methods and  results.

The MajorMech wheel testing conglomeration! I'd be interested to see what you two unearth. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
p_gper

p_gper

Posted
Posted

Nice to read that the bug-fixing is going the right way. Keep the bug huntion in the code. Is RoverDude's inflatable heatshield going to be available in this patch?

Pro Tip:

In the code (1100111100) throw some two's (2) it will surely keep the bugs away.

Also, is KSPedia the scientist at the bottom of the page really needs a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nikokespprfan

nikokespprfan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, p_gper said:

Also, is KSPedia the scientist at the bottom of the page really needs a name.

He has a name, its Wernher von Kerman.

3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Other than bugfixes, there are several small quality-of-life improvements: vessels in the tracking station can be sorted in order of when their next manoeuvre node is set to occur,

Very happy to see this!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
razark

razark

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Ser said:

Just can't get it, why RemoteTech isn't sufficient for you guys?

Frankly, it's too much for me.

I've used it.  It's great.  Does everything I could possibly want from a communications system.  However, last time I tried using it, it bogged my computer down way too much.  I'm guessing it probably has to do a lot of processing to track network nodes, compute paths, select shortest path to a command point, draw all the lines, and whatever else it may do.  So, while I like it and am not opposed to it, it's just not possible for me to run a communications network and fly a spacecraft, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just now, Azimech said:

Why am I not surprised :D
I'd love to use it too with your permission, I assume we both have insights in vehicle suspension in various ways and it would be great to exchange testing methods and  results.

Well it's not a rigid framework or contraption it's more of an idea of how I want them to work. My first test would be to confirm they can perform all tasks we use them for currently. Then move on to more complex tasks and uses, ie, attached to each other, how they collide with parts and the 'shape' of the wheel part. Roving over a very small gap right now will show you its not a wheel, its a single point. if that makes sense.

 Having said that.. I will have a think about a possible 'rig'. I am very curious to see how deactivating the 'anti-skid' feature effects bearing performance ect.

Edited by Majorjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted

 

Just now, regex said:

It's not "pointless", PBR makes things look real nice.  The problem is not everyone has the latest and greatest graphics cards, or can immediately afford it.

(Or has the space to put up a new gaming computer because they have a brother-in-law that occupies the office while he acclimates to the town and college.)

They're not concerned with new bugs, they're concerned with how well they can "exploit" the physics simulation to make the game do new things.  The old wheels allowed some interesting behavior and now that will be going away.

Nevermind, realized who I was talking to.

To me, shiny surfaces and better lighting are 'pointless' especially if it slows the damn game down more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbonautInTraining

KerbonautInTraining

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Roving over a very small gap right now will show you its not a wheel, its a single point. if that makes sense.

Oh, so that's why rovers don't like scaled up planets (more specifically the terrain's low poly density)

Edited by KerbonautInTraining
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Well it's not a rigid framework or contraption it's more of an idea of how I want them to work. My first test would be to confirm they can perform all tasks we use them for currently. Then move on to more complex tasks and uses, ie, attached to each other, how they collide with parts and the 'shape' of the wheel part. Roving over a very small gap right now will show you its not a wheel, its a single point. if that makes sense.

 Having said that.. I will have a think about a possible 'rig'. I am very curious to see how deactivating the 'anti-skid' feature effects bearing performance ect.

Yes, single point colliding with the surface. The reason if you angle the wheels they seem to semi-submerge through the terrain. If you remember, I built my own wheels out of Procedural Parts and my own extension to that mod on my Porsche 911, and they performed fine, grip was purely a matter of mass and surface area, although lower than real life rubber tires. We wouldn't need a new wheel module if Squad would introduce different material types with different properties including friction - if you ask me not so hard to do (see my "Other Materials" mod) but remembering a discussion we had in the past - probably something for an expansion or a new product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
katateochi

katateochi

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Roving over a very small gap right now will show you its not a wheel, its a single point. if that makes sense.

ah yes, the barely visible/invisible terrain ridges of doom, the bane of high speed rovers.  Really hope wheels can roll over those now rather than skating into/under them!
I'm also very interested to see how they can cope with climbing over obstacles and how behave if they are clipped into each other.

11 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

This is true for the small rover wheels (my fav) I assume it is the same for the larger wheels.

Yar, it is

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Friend Bear

Friend Bear

Posted
Posted

All awesome stuff!

However, I am curious about the telemetry and satellite work. Is it pushed back because of difficulties or work load? (as you can tell, I am curious about when it is potentially applied to a patch).

I'm so excited for it and am waiting to start my next big game once that is out since I can only imagine how weird it will be to incorporate that to an ongoing campaign down the road.

 

Keep up the good work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted
Just now, Azimech said:

Yes, single point colliding with the surface. The reason if you angle the wheels they seem to semi-submerge through the terrain. If you remember, I built my own wheels out of Procedural Parts and my own extension to that mod on my Porsche 911, and they performed fine, grip was purely a matter of mass and surface area, although lower than real life rubber tires. We wouldn't need a new wheel module if Squad would introduce different material types with different properties including friction - if you ask me not so hard to do (see my "Other Materials" mod) but remembering a discussion we had in the past - probably something for an expansion or a new product.

LOL, yes we will have to agree to disagree on the materials matter. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, John FX said:

One test I would do with wheels is to run one against the other and see if structural panels can be flung from them using their driving force.

 

That and loads of drifting.

If I visualize this correctly ... you mean two wheels with a loose structural panel in between?

Edited by Azimech
Link to comment
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...