Devnote Tuesday: 'Super' Tuesday!

[RW-1]

Whoo hoo! Bring it on soon!

Oh wait, Valve has a Trademark on "Arriving soon" (HL-3) ...

 

Whoo hoo! Bring it !

[Enceos]

Thank you @NathanKell for the clamshell fairings! Though they separate like vise jaws... It would look so much better if they had some angular momentum on separation i.e. ends spread faster than the roots.

 

[Daveroski]

Does the Rovemate face the right way yet?

Currently it seems to be looking out of it's bottom.

[kmMango]

Clamshell fairings and inside jokes! Love it!

[Poofer]

that " moar "  tag. Priceless.

[richfiles]

22 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Great devnotes, happy to hear 1.1 is rounding the last hairpin into the homestretch. Just too bad I still haven't heard anything about editing action groups on the fly. That's my greatest wish atm

Yeah, and MOAR action groups, at that! I would love to see the option to assign additional action groups int eh config menu, with the default being either the number pad numbers, or mod+number row numbers.

[harvell64]

Felipe should try Spinrite on that dead HDD. Best $85 anyone could spend. GRC.com

[richfiles]

On March 1, 2016 at 3:15 PM, SQUAD said:

Bill (Taniwha) has fixed an issue where extremely long-lived saves would produce negative dates. They should need be good for 142 million (Earth) years before we run into similar issues. Of course, there will be that one person who leaves timewarp on for years in real time on end, but aside from that this issue should be history.  

 So many emotions!!! Happiness, tears of joy, blissful shock!

I love the idea of running LONG games. continuous save files that have real and true progression. I was saving Outer Planets mod for when I finished my hardware controller... But also partly to wait for 1.1 and 64 bit support... The long time bug was a real threat to long spanning missions, especially if you want to send subsequent missions to follow up early missions to very distant places. This is a joy and a pleasure to hear fixed! It means I don't have to worry about "running out of time" in a long play through where I have to send a ship out vast distances. I could install some of the interstellar planet mods, and actually LET vessels travel conventionally in the background, as I play the local system. I want no warping in my KSP.

HAPPY! 

Edited March 3, 2016 by richfiles

[KerbonautInTraining]

4 minutes ago, richfiles said:

I want no warping in my KSP.

That's hardcore 

(Just to be sure, you mean no giant multi-year time warps right?)

[Bloody_looser]

3 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

That's hardcore 

(Just to be sure, you mean no giant multi-year time warps right?)

That could be a workaround for time going into negatives bug. Current ~70 years are more than enough.

[StarManta]

23 hours ago, SQUAD said:

He then turned his attention to the editors (VAB/SPH) and fixed the copying of action groups for symmetrical parts,

HAAAAAAlelujah!

[JPLRepo]

23 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Nathanael (NathanKell) added a flag in the code which allows for negative funds and science, which defaults to off, and also found some time to implement a stock option for clamshell fairings, allowing you to select those over the ‘confetti’ style fairings that we see now. On the expandability front, he added events when loading and saving protovessels, crew, protoparts and progress nodes, so we (and modders) can easily add extra saveable/loadable data to those objects.

@NathanKell So many good things to hear... all that hard work is starting to pay off... I'm thinking of the possibilities to use that negative funds and science... but so excited about ability to append savable data to vessels, progress nodes, but especially CREW nodes. Oh that is going to make my modding life so much easier. Well done guys!

Edited March 2, 2016 by JPLRepo

[Errol]

Will it ever be possible to set arbitrary axial tilts for each body in the game, or are we forever limited to zero tilt from ecliptic for all bodies?

[regex]

16 minutes ago, Errol said:

Will it ever be possible to set arbitrary axial tilts for each body in the game, or are we forever limited to zero tilt from ecliptic for all bodies?

It would take a large amount of refactoring to make that possible, according to accounts I've read.  Whether the returns are considered worth it by the dev team is ... debatable.  Personally, that would be one of the final few steps to take KSP from a mere "space toy" to a fun, accurate spaceflight simulator, but I don't think Squad will ever tackle the "elephant" (mouse) in the room, much less axial tilt.

Edited March 2, 2016 by regex

[steveroof]

Wow, really looking forward to the update. Thank you to the devs and testers.

[Monkthespy]

16 minutes ago, regex said:

It would take a large amount of refactoring to make that possible, according to accounts I've read.  Whether the returns are considered worth it by the dev team is ... debatable.  Personally, that would be one of the final few steps to take KSP from a mere "space toy" to a fun, accurate spaceflight simulator, but I don't think Squad will ever tackle the "elephant" (mouse) in the room, much less axial tilt.

I'm pretty sure that Squad never wanted to make an actual simulator in the first place. While I wouldn't mind axial tilt support at all (for modding), It really isn't needed and KSP is more of just a semi-realistic space game, and probably always will be. I think in its current state KSP is the perfect balance of approachable and daunting (like a flight sim). With the new tutorial upgrades and KSPedia or whatever its called it should be even easier for a player to get into the game.

[nightingale]

Just now, Monkthespy said:

I'm pretty sure that Squad never wanted to make an actual simulator in the first place. While I wouldn't mind axial tilt support at all (for modding), It really isn't needed and KSP is more of just a semi-realistic space game, and probably always will be. I think in its current state KSP is the perfect balance of approachable and daunting (like a flight sim). With the new tutorial upgrades and KSPedia or whatever its called it should be even easier for a player to get into the game.

I'd love to see an axial tilt on Kerbin as part of a difficult setting.  Easy mode = no axial tilt, Hard Mode = with axial tilt.  Being familiar with Unity, I would expect it wouldn't be that hard, just a question of setting up the appropriate rotation transforms/Quaternions.  Being familiar with software development, I can also imagine why it might be hard (tons of little things assuming no axial tilt).

[NathanKell]

@nightingale it's the latter. Shedload of code takes rotation as an angle not a quat.

[regex]

 

Quote

While I wouldn't mind axial tilt support at all (for modding), It really isn't needed

Debatable, for many reasons.

Edited March 2, 2016 by regex

[Monkthespy]

13 minutes ago, regex said:

 

Debatable, for many reasons.

I mean, why would it be needed? As a game, it functions perfectly as a semi-realistic sandbox space game. Why would it need tilt?

[regex]

Just now, Monkthespy said:

I mean, why would it be needed? As a game, it functions perfectly as a semi-realistic sandbox space game. Why would it need tilt?

To make it more realistic.  Because "semi-realistic" isn't good enough.  KSP deserves better.

[Monkthespy]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

To make it more realistic.  Because "semi-realistic" isn't good enough.  KSP deserves better.

I really don't see your point. The game isn't designed to be a simulator, maybe just something close to one. People won't find axial tilt 1. approachable 2. understandable at first. Axial tilt could be used as a gameplay mechanic on maybe a few different planets, like a moon where its more difficult to take off and land because of the tilt. However, just in general, the tilt just isn't needed.

I don't think KSP deserves better either. If you want a space-sim, you go play Orbiter or something like that. KSP is its own little thing, and it should be.

EDIT: Or use Realism Overhaul, which is the reason why I think KSP should get tilt support, but isn't needed as a gameplay mechanic.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Monkthespy

[regex]

13 minutes ago, Monkthespy said:

The game isn't designed to be a simulator, maybe just something close to one.

That's obvious.  I would really like to see it as such, however unlikely that be.

Quote

People won't find axial tilt 1. approachable 2. understandable at first.

This is literally the same argument used to defend KSP's information starvation paradigm and I find it particularly bad because it is purely a matter of opinion.  Some people find complexity engaging, some don't.

Quote

Axial tilt could be used as a gameplay mechanic on maybe a few different planets, like a moon where its more difficult to take off and land because of the tilt. However, just in general, the tilt just isn't needed.

Sure it is.  it provides challenge, planning considerations, and a real-world analogue.  KSP is short on challenge and planning, and long on grind, especially once you've played long enough.

Quote

If you want a space-sim, you go play Orbiter or something like that. KSP is its own little thing, and it should be.

That's a stupid argument.  Orbiter doesn't have a Linux client or a VAB/SPH.

Quote

EDIT: Or use Realism Overhaul

I already do use RO.

[Guest]

On 3/1/2016 at 7:21 PM, worir4 said:

Guys, clamshell fairings are coming! You can take off those protest banners from your signatures now. 

Still nothing about the "Cannot activate while stowed" annoyance...

[Monkthespy]

Just now, regex said:

That's obvious.  I would really like to see it as such, however unlikely that be.
This is literally the same argument used to defend KSP's information starvation paradigm and I find it particularly bad because it is purely a matter of opinion.  Some people find complexity engaging, some don't.
Sure it is.  it provides challenge, planning considerations, and a real-world analogue.  KSP is short on challenge and planning, and long on grind, especially once you've played long enough.
That's a stupid argument.  Orbiter doesn't have a Linux client or a VAB/SPH.
I already do use RO.

Hey, I didn't try to call your arguments stupid.

With complexity, that is entirely true. Some people find it engaging others do not. However, players can go out and find that complexity if it is properly used as a gameplay mechanic.

Like I said, I'm not saying they shouldn't add axial tilt (I hope I got that point across). I would not mind support and a few planets or such could be done with it to add a new mechanic. I'm just saying it isn't needed for the purpose of realism. If we're going to start adding mechanics for the sake of realism,  you might want to scale the planets back up to at least 6.4. Except, I don't think I personally like that decision on a gameplay level; the game is balanced very well as it is (in terms of planet size). In terms of planning, there is better ways of adding more planning to the game but I won't get into it.

I have to go, so I'll just say this to recap my points: axial tilt should be supported, but isn't needed based on a gameplay standpoint unless they use that mechanic to their advantage, by adding something like new moons or planets using the tilt. On this point, the mechanic shouldn't be added based on the idea of realism, and with planning there is better ways to do it. Have a good night.