SQUAD

Devnotes Tuesday: Wednesday Edition III!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NathanKell said:

AFAIK 1.0.5 already did. Can you reproduce it in stock 1.0.5?

Unfortunately I don't think I can reproduce it. I was turning off the shroud (tweakable everything) in 1.0.4 to avoid this issue. I tried the shrouds again for a week or so after 1.0.5 released and had the problem again (once) on a duna mission with multiple scene reloads. I've been turning off the shrouds again since.

Ill give it another shot and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@willysw cool. No idea how it interacts with Tweakable Everything, do please try stock. :) That *was* a specific bug I fixed during 1.0.5 dev, so I'd be disheartened to hear it returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I understand where you're coming from, but at its core KSP is still a fairly unstable game. It desperately needs bugfixes, and 64 bit is kind of a thing that modern games should have, considering that I don't think 32 bit hardware is even still in production.

I know there is so much bug in-game but this game not alpha or beta so we should expect higher.If this game be like triple A title I can say developer pushed by publisher and this cause so much problem.I hope you understand me I can download mods for new engine and thats ok but I cant download mission system ingame videos etc. I need this kinda stuff new gameplay elements.Thank you for your answer.

Edited by ktmemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ktmemp said:

I know there is so much bug in-game but this game not alpha or beta so we should expect higher.

How can we expect higher if there's no bugfixing? While I agree that a "Full Release" title should have somewhat higher standards, I think that these higher standards should have been achieved differently.

With that said, I realize that SQUAD was "locked in", if you will, to certain release dates by media groups who wanted to showcase a "complete" game.

Also, there's the whole Unity 5 port deal. This is an ideal time to squash bugs, as SQUAD is examining the entire codebase. With any luck, all the old bugs will be gone. Of course, they'll simply be replaced by new ones. :P

 

On an unrelated note, if the next Devnotes have a "V"in them that's not closely followed by an "e", I'll have to look up new and interesting ways to riot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

It is of course a good thing to see Claw officially on the team, but not even Claw can do miracles, even with full access ;)

I am certainly no miracle worker, and I'm also not the only one trying to help. It does, however, make it infinitely easier to investigate and fix bugs from the inside. It's also important to note that some bugs are impossible to fix via addon.

I've fixed a fair number of bugs already, but it's also important to realize how big of a transition it is to move to a new version of Unity. There will be some missed bugs, there always are, especially with big changes. The important step is to ensure they are as minor as possible and can be addressed quickly. The best help for us is good reporting from people. I certainly feel bad for when someone's game breaks (it's what drove me to write fixes), but I/we can't do anything to fix it without proper details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, richfiles said:

Then PLEASE add moar action groups!

Even stealing the pre-defined ones (like abort, lights, brakes, gear), I still run out! Now we have radiators, cargo bays, fairings, the version after this might have stock coms, and now we have extra actions needed for these new heat shields... Double the number of action groups, and make the default keybindings for Action Groups #11-20 be the numeric pad's 0-9 keys. That would be ideal. A.G. #1-10 would still be the numbers in the number row above the alpha keys.

Adding more features is wonderful, but we need more ways to actually control it all!

I wonder if it would be possible to code the action groups so that they only fire when the key is released instead of depressed. If so then it would be possible for the code to listen for more than one key on the number row being depressed before firing the action. Pressing "1" then releasing could deploy solar panels, but pressing "1" holding and then also pressing "2" at the same time would trigger a "12" upon release. I don't know if it would be possible for the code to record the order in which the keys are pressed so you could differentiate a 1+2=12 from a 2+1=21 and of course an 11 or 55 would be impossible but it would open up scores of extra action groups. 55 total if I've figured correctly, assuming that 1+2 = 2+1.

Edited by HvP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fairings also received a bit of attention, and the dreaded “cannot activate while stowed” issue for interstage fairings has been fixed, though it requires rebuilding your interstages to take effect"

So i may be overreacting or misreading this, if this is so, i apologise. But this means that the unintended *bug* part of the can't-activate-while-stowed "feature" has been fixed but the overall mechanic is here to stay.

So no hotstaging in 1.1? 

Nice, cool, absolutely fantastic, gg squad 10/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You don't need to go 3D. A cross section with more surface area will burn faster and produce more thrust, one with less will burn slower at lower thrust. And it can vary the amount of thrust/burn rate during the burn. See this diagram[...]

Wow, 4 and 5 there look to be about exactly what we need, especially if it comes with an increase in base thrust (as SRBs are meant to do most of grunt work low down), and 6 would be great for seperators.  I'm guessing 2 gets used for ullage motors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kujuman said:

*sigh* First off, I'm probably the person who's spent the most time working on getting realistic SRMs in game, so I (1) don't understand why you think that's what I was saying (2) do know that for SRMs to work well w/ stackable segments in game a new fuel flow mode is necessary*. Secondly, adding propellant in an SRM casing means some combination of added thrust or added burn time because one can shape the grain. Without changing the geometry of the burn surface, just adding segments increases surface area -> increases thrust, but one could also shape the grain to maintain surface area with a taller motor -> increasing burn time. "simply" is so literal.

The biggest challenge with AdvSRBs was trying to get KER or MJ to understand the custom fuel flow for custom engines, because mod makers don't have all of the fuel flow modes that reasonably exist, and they can't teach the game new ones in a simple way.

*Which was the point of the post

Sorry, I really did misunderstand you. Even if you did have a new fuel flow mode, though, KER and MJ wouldn't necessarily understand the implications of a custom burn profile. Instead of the complications associated with stackable segments, I'd simply take a more powerful booster past the Kickback, but I think a better burn profile would really be an absolute must at that point (it is already for the KB unless you're launching 1000T behemoths and the KB is just one insignificant part of the whole thing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Archgeek said:

Wow, 4 and 5 there look to be about exactly what we need, especially if it comes with an increase in base thrust (as SRBs are meant to do most of grunt work low down), and 6 would be great for seperators.  I'm guessing 2 gets used for ullage motors.

I'm reasonably confident that 2 is what we have right now. Remember, the graphs are thrust versus time, not thrust-to-weight ratio versus time. I would be extremely interested to see a graph of a shuttle SRB thrust-to-weight ratio versus time. I've seen the thrust versus time graph, but I don't have the knowledge I'd need to turn that into a TWR graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, godefroi said:

I'm reasonably confident that 2 is what we have right now. Remember, the graphs are thrust versus time, not thrust-to-weight ratio versus time. I would be extremely interested to see a graph of a shuttle SRB thrust-to-weight ratio versus time. I've seen the thrust versus time graph, but I don't have the knowledge I'd need to turn that into a TWR graph.

Assuredly, considering our engines are constant fuel-flow with thrust modified by Isp.  Indeed,  that's why I figure the tailing off thrust o'er time of 4 and 5 to be about what we need.  Even if they wouldn't fix the TWR graph, they'd at least flatten it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Archgeek said:

Assuredly, considering our engines are constant fuel-flow with thrust modified by Isp.  Indeed,  that's why I figure the tailing off thrust o'er time of 4 and 5 to be about what we need.  Even if they wouldn't fix the TWR graph, they'd at least flatten it a bit.

Indeed. The way it is now, by burnout, the TWR is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, kujuman said:

*sigh* First off, I'm probably the person who's spent the most time working on getting realistic SRMs in game, so I (1) don't understand why you think that's what I was saying (2) do know that for SRMs to work well w/ stackable segments in game a new fuel flow mode is necessary*. Secondly, adding propellant in an SRM casing means some combination of added thrust or added burn time because one can shape the grain. Without changing the geometry of the burn surface, just adding segments increases surface area -> increases thrust, but one could also shape the grain to maintain surface area with a taller motor -> increasing burn time. "simply" is so literal.

In real life, the burn rate of solid propellant formulations can be modified with the addition of a catalyst or a suppressant.  It's not all done with geometry.  Manipulating the geometry of the burn surface alters the shape of the thrust curve.  The burn can progress faster or slower by exposing more or less burn surface.  However, the rate at which a unit area of surface burns away depends on the formulation of the propellant, and also the chamber pressure.  Geometry and propellant formulation work hand-in-hand to get the desired thrust curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rumor has it that 1.1 has been in the can for weeks now and you're all just lounging about on piles of money while you whip us into a frenzy with these faux dev notes. And when I say "rumor has it," I mean, "I'd be willing to spread that rumor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Perry Apsis said:

Rumor has it that 1.1 has been in the can for weeks now and you're all just lounging about on piles of money while you whip us into a frenzy with these faux dev notes. And when I say "rumor has it," I mean, "I'd be willing to spread that rumor."

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!  Truly laughed out loud in semi evil tone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Virtualgenius said:

Will we ever get normal fairings back or stuck with procedural

There were never normal fairings, just the procedural. If you want normal fairings, look for a mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Virtualgenius said:

Will we ever get normal fairings back or stuck with procedural

Yes! I want the old fairings back. The ones that didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2016 at 2:00 PM, SQUAD said:
 

Joe (Dr Turkey) is working or at least that’s what he said in Las Vegas getting ready for the DICE Awards.

 

LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RenatsMC said:

Waiting for next dev notes :) 

Gonna have to wait the better part of 3 days from now. I get to read the devnotes Wednesday morning here in Texas. Timezones are so complicated :huh:

(Or, rather, I refuse to take the time to understand them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Gonna have to wait the better part of 3 days from now. I get to read the devnotes Wednesday morning here in Texas. Timezones are so complicated :huh:

(Or, rather, I refuse to take the time to understand them)

Yea still, every devnote it's worth to wait :) 

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.