Devnote Tuesday: 'Super' Tuesday!

[richfiles]

14 hours ago, regex said:

It's not so much about realism as it is about "Your opinion on realism excludes us".  Or something.  I really can't tell.

The issue is your opinion appears to be that KSP should exclusively dump the "toy" solar system for a more realistic one, and NOT give options to simplify it. Your opinion that there should not be options is what irks people. If this isn't what you mean, then the way you're saying it is making a lot of people think that.

That is unrealistic.

Nearly anyone else will say "It'd be cool if KSP added axial tilt or other cool features, as long as I can turn them on and off, or tweak them, or have mods be able to rework them, if I don't like it". You seem to be saying "I want an ultra real KSP, and KSP needs to just grow up and throw away the old simple "toy" mechanics, and stick to the realism only, and if people don't like that, too bad"

People aren't against your desire for realism. There's nothing wrong with that. They are against your desire to only offer realism, with no simplified options to chose from.

You seem to be missing the point that KSP was created by Squad to reach a wide number of players, from noobs to old pros, and everyone in between. Squad isn't going to brush aside the basic players by taking away options. That's just silly. You can add an option, and make it a choice, and the game satisfies everyone. If you add a complex feature, and take away the simpler options, you alienate the noobs and intermediate players. You would break that amazing learning curve that lets them get from the noob stage up to the point where they wanna play the way you wanna play. Choice still lets the noobs learn which way to point the pointy end. Lets the casuals make a few stations and land on Mun. Lets the pros do grand tours... and lets the hardcore players add RO mods and such. Options... Options... That is the key.

The concepts you speak of... that KSP should ditch simplicity for realism, would take out the foundation of KSP's user base. If not for that foundation of multitudes of players of all different skills, KSP wouldn't be a profitable product for Squad, and Squad would have no reason or finances to continue development. You need that toy solar system just as much as you desire RO! Those simple play options support your complex play options.

It really is choice that people are disagreeing with you over. Choice makes everyone happy. The choice to play a simple, small scale toy solar system, or the choice to play a real scale tilted simulation.

So back to the tpic of axial tilt... Yeah man! I'd LOVE support for axial tilt someday. We may never see it till a KSP 2.0 though... What I want even more than axial tilt... a stock increase in the number of available action groups.

Edited March 5, 2016 by richfiles

[r4pt0r]

Has squad mentioned exactly what performance increases we can expect with U5? I'd love to see what fps they get with a high part craft as a baseline, loaded on the launch pad in 1.0.5. vs 1.1

[AlextheBodacious]

Called it on the fairings

[juanml82]

2 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

Has squad mentioned exactly what performance increases we can expect with U5? I'd love to see what fps they get with a high part craft as a baseline, loaded on the launch pad in 1.0.5. vs 1.1

They never mentioned exactly, but here's my take on a high part craft on the launchpad:

No performance increase. A single vessel, no matter the size, will be processed in a single core, not multiple.

But, when you hit "T, Z, SPACE!!!" the aerodynamic and thermal calculations should be offloaded to a second (and third if you have it) core, so we should have an FPS increase

And, if your high part craft is still a high part craft when in orbit and you're docking it to a massive space station, before you dock it each vessel will be chewing up a different core, so we have an FPS increase.

And then you dock, they become a single vessel and it can only be processed in a single core, turning the game into an slideshow again

[regex]

7 hours ago, richfiles said:

People aren't against your desire for realism. There's nothing wrong with that. They are against your desire to only offer realism, with no simplified options to chose from.

Well, I don't drive development or design at Squad so I'm not sure why it's such a problem for me to have that opinion.  Do I really have that much weight with Squad as a customer?

[Windspren]

I like how the search engine pulls up the various SRBs when you search "moar."

[A_Burnt_Rodent]

Is Squad still against a stock Delta-v/TWR readout in the VAB?

[KerbonautInTraining]

4 minutes ago, A_Burnt_Rodent said:

Is Squad still against a stock Delta-v/TWR readout in the VAB?

It's on the 'planned features' list.

[A_Burnt_Rodent]

52 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

It's on the 'planned features' list.

Cheers! I don't suppose you know if they've mentioned making the easter egg monoliths visible again?

[richfiles]

On March 5, 2016 at 11:36 AM, regex said:

Well, I don't drive development or design at Squad so I'm not sure why it's such a problem for me to have that opinion.  Do I really have that much weight with Squad as a customer?

No, you don't, but the attitude of "KSP deserves to be the way I want it to be, to the exclusion of noobs" is exactly what you're saying. That would cut into squad's user base and their image of approachability. Even more so, it would cut into their bottom line... their income. It'll never happen. The reason people are in such a fuss with you over this, is because you're puffing your chest so hard, essentially proclaiming that you don't think those people even deserve the choice to set the game to easier options. That's being antagonistic, and that type of attitude will ALWAYS draw ire. My best recommendation is to step back and really think about what you're saying. I could not care any less how many posts you have. It doesn't excuse the attitude. I can be calm with you, cause I know you have zero chance of your wish ever being implemented by Squad.

Squad is never going to give you those options without choice, cause they will not abandon such a large segment of their user base. It'd be a disaster. Squad simply won't make that decision. It's not cause I have any influence on them... It's just economic and business sense... Common sense.

What they might do, someday... Maybe in a 2.0 version, is possibly offer more advanced options like axial tilt... But they would surely be choosable options.

[regex]

19 minutes ago, richfiles said:

No, you don't, but the attitude of "KSP deserves to be the way I want it to be, to the exclusion of noobs" is exactly what you're saying.

  I have never said nor intimated any such thing, don't put words in my mouth.

19 minutes ago, richfiles said:

Squad simply won't make that decision.

So what's your problem with my opinion, then?

[YellowApple]

On 3/5/2016 at 5:53 AM, juanml82 said:

But, when you hit "T, Z, SPACE!!!"

This captures my prelaunch checklist quite perfectly.

A bit disappointing that the parallel calculations are craft-level rather than part-level, but oh well.  I'm sure calculating each part in parallel would be much more difficult to do reliably due to all the collisions and such.

[richfiles]

On March 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, regex said:

I never said anything about optional.  My thoughts on the matter are that KSP should go for realistic wherever possible and deal away with the elephant in the room that is a toy solar system.  Axial tilt should be included by default as well as a choice of launch sites at different latitudes that players can choose to tailor the difficulty.

I want to see a commitment to a hardcore spaceflight simulator where the player engineers their own craft to see how it fares against the great black desert, not some watered-down toy with "difficulty options" and I certainly don't care how palatable that is to other players.  Whether Squad takes me up on that challenge is their own choice.

No, I am not putting words in your mouth. You did that all on your own! 

"I never said anything about optional."
"KSP should go for realistic wherever possible and deal away with the elephant in the room that is a toy solar system."
"I want to see a commitment to a hardcore spaceflight simulator" ... "not some watered-down toy with 'difficulty options'"
"I certainly don't care how palatable that is to other players."

Your quotes, not mine... If you genuinely can't see how that rubs some people the wrong way, then I can't help you.

Edited March 7, 2016 by richfiles

[regex]

4 minutes ago, richfiles said:

Your quotes, not mine...

I've never said "KSP deserves to be the way I want it to be, to the exclusion of noobs".  New players are awesome, I love 'em, and everyone was one once.  I assume you meant "newb", right?  Do you think new players can't handle a detailed sim game?  I wonder how they sell in the first place...

Edited March 7, 2016 by regex

[Boris-Barboris]

2 hours ago, regex said:

 Do you think new players can't handle a detailed sim game?  I wonder how they sell in the first place...

One out of a thousand. And they sell terribly.

[Temeter]

28 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

One out of a thousand. And they sell terribly.

Outside of racing sims. But they are also a lot easier than rockets, and people tend to understand the basics as to how cars works.

[Boris-Barboris]

6 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Outside of racing sims

I would still say those racing sims sell terribly in comparison to typical arcade NFS\TDU\whatever release. There obviously are successfull simulators, but they are usually either re-sold to old fanbase, accumulated for over than a decade (wich is, probably, the best way for a sim so survive), or are representing a very intuitive and fun subject area. A sim with typical content of staring on the LCD panels with orbital readouts is even trickier thing to sell, than some ship sims, wich are usually demonstrating "Titanic" economy.

[r4pt0r]

If hardcore sims sold better I could upgrade from playing 12 year old IL-2. Unfortunately the kind of flight sim games I want made always end up being watered down and arcadey like war thunder or world of planes, that are just pay to win or shallow gameplay with no deep dynamic single player mode. Even the later IL-2 games lost the depth and realism of the older sim.

 

I've come to terms with having interest in a very niche genre of game. Oh well.

Edited March 7, 2016 by r4pt0r

[KasperVld]

7 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

If hardcore sims sold better I could upgrade from playing 12 year old IL-2. Unfortunately the kind of flight sim games I want made always end up being watered down and arcadey like war thunder or world of planes, that are just pay to win or shallow gameplay with no deep dynamic single player mode. Even the later IL-2 games lost the depth and realism of the older sim.

 

I've come to terms with having interest in a very niche genre of game. Oh well.

A bit off-topic, but have you tried DCS World?

[Temeter]

1 hour ago, KasperVld said:

A bit off-topic, but have you tried DCS World?

I've seen youtube videos of that game. Like a speedrun of someone who managed to start a heli in only 3 minutes. :3

[r4pt0r]

2 hours ago, KasperVld said:

A bit off-topic, but have you tried DCS World?

I did fiddle around with the free version, that has an su-25 and a tf-51 but I couldnt get into their pricing and content system. I  like flying different planes in combat sims, I have a favorite fighter from each major combatant from WW2, and various jets that I love.

So when I see they offer:
A-10A --- $10
A-10C --- $40
A-10C :enemy within campaign --- $10
MiG-15 ---$50
F-86F ---$50
and various others ranging in the 10-50 dollar area


It will cost 100 dollars to play both sides of the Korean War? 60 to have all the A-10 content? $130 to play 3 different ww2 dogfighters? That kills the wallet. Unless I am vastly misunderstanding their system here, its hard to justify for me.


I've been lurking during steam sales though. Might just get one of them eventually. Appreciate the mention bud.


/Back to topic

[Frybert]

3 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

If hardcore sims sold better I could upgrade from playing 12 year old IL-2. Unfortunately the kind of flight sim games I want made always end up being watered down and arcadey like war thunder or world of planes, that are just pay to win or shallow gameplay with no deep dynamic single player mode. Even the later IL-2 games lost the depth and realism of the older sim.

 

I've come to terms with having interest in a very niche genre of game. Oh well.

 

3 hours ago, KasperVld said:

A bit off-topic, but have you tried DCS World?

Let me plug Rogue System real quick while we're on this train of thought. Ok I'm done.

[regex]

6 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

I've come to terms with having interest in a very niche genre of game. Oh well.

Yeah, me too.

2 hours ago, Frybert said:

Let me plug Rogue System real quick while we're on this train of thought. Ok I'm done.

I am so looking forward to that.

[KerbonautInTraining]

All aboard the teeny tiny hype train leading to the next devnotes

[SgtSomeone]

43 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

All aboard the teeny tiny hype train leading to the next devnotes

I've refreshed the site an embarrassingly large number of times today. 
_{I know it doesn't normally come out for a couple hours, but what if... it does!?}