Devnote Tuesday: 'Super' Tuesday!

[regex]

21 minutes ago, Monkthespy said:

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

You didn't make an argument, you made a suggestion that I basically "<word> off to some other game".  That's stupid.  E: Oh, I called it an "argument", oh well.  Telling people to "GO PLAY ORBITER" as a means of shutting down discussion on realistic elements in the game is probably the most odious thing I've seen on these boards.

Quote

I'm just saying it isn't needed for the purpose of realism.

And I am.

Quote

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.

A system that followed the laws of physics would be preferable to super-dense planets and stars that simply cannot exist.  Even 6.4x doesn't afford that.

Quote

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).

I disagree completely.

Edited March 2, 2016 by regex

[sal_vager]

Can you two stop arguing and check out the article ?

[Errol]

Axial tilt, space center not on the equator and inclination of the mun would all go a long way in helping to visualize just what was happening on apollo. The navigational challenge is what I am interested in, not so much the rescaling stuff, which is why I asked about this in the first place. From an engineering stand point it isn't just more fuel, it is the sas/rcs or what ever and the orbital mechanics. RO is interesting, but I'd rather play at stock scale, so that all the dV charts and maps still apply, minus the fuel need for plane matching. 

[Claw]

2 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

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

That was two weeks ago: 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Claw said:

That was two weeks ago: 

YEEEEEEEEEES

[StrandedonEarth]

9 hours ago, Claw said:

I know there are some attachment issues (which have been fixed), but I'm not sue about the spontaneous detachment. Do you have an example of that somewhere? It may be related, but I'm unfamiliar with the detachment specifically.

 I found a thread describing the general service bay bug. While I haven't had my ship vibrate, I have had the service bay detach from the parts above it, as in this screenshot, where you can see the lab has shifted off the bay:

This is in 1.04, btw. Another ship, in the same career, had a similar issue. When I first launch KSP and then load the named quicksave to the bugged point, when the physics kick in the ship gives a shake and then everything falls off the HH can above the service bay. When I quickload it again from there, the ship holds together.

Then again, that career later ran into some different bugs, causing me to abandon that install completely, which was unfortunate, as the system was really starting to get quite busy. 

This is the bug that I'm hoping is fixed, and I had thought it was already a known issue.

[Claw]

2 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

While I haven't had my ship vibrate, I have had the service bay detach from the parts above it

Thanks for the link to the bug thread. I don't recall seeing issues like your posted screenshots, so I've not investigated that bug. What I really need at this point is a ship to investigate. Either a .craft or a .sfs. Unfortunately there aren't any in the linked thread.

[StrandedonEarth]

19 minutes ago, Claw said:

Thanks for the link to the bug thread. I don't recall seeing issues like your posted screenshots, so I've not investigated that bug. What I really need at this point is a ship to investigate. Either a .craft or a .sfs. Unfortunately there aren't any in the linked thread.

SFS file

Craft File - this one craft file seems to have both ships that came apart on me. The service bay assemblies appear to be identical, so it was probably something that got clipped in there. The only mods were informational aside from the Asteroid day mod, but I don't think there're any parts from that on this craft. (I could be wrong, I haven't touched that install in months). But that miner had no problems until after landing on Ike several times.

[Claw]

Just now, StrandedonEarth said:

this one craft file seems to have both ships that came apart on me

Thanks, I will try and take a look.

[StrandedonEarth]

13 minutes ago, Claw said:

Thanks, I will try and take a look.

My mistake. While the miner is definitely the bad one, the lab that fell apart on Minmus has a different service bay loadout, but it can be found in its fallen state in that sfs file.

That's what I get for trying to dig through old installs while trying to make dinner. I end up doing neither well... *runs to stove*

[richfiles]

11 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

That's hardcore 

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

I mean mods that add "future tech"... No literal warp drives. Time warp is just faster waiting, but it still requires you to plan for in game real transit times... That's what I meant by "conventional" transit. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. Oops!

To play a TRUE no time warp game though, you'd probably crash into a Kraken before crashing into a Mun!  

That being said, I guess I kinda DO play like that though. I do not warp through long planetary transfers...

Honestly, instead of time warping through my planetary encounters when I ran run MOAR launches in LKO, or do stuff around Mun or Minmus, or run parallel planetary transfers. The most time warping I actually tend to do would be a trip between Minmus and Kerbin... I RARELY time warp at scales outside of local SoI. I plan missions so I won't have scheduling conflicts (two vessels needing to do burns at the same time), but I run plenty of parallel missions. I believe I'm still on my first year, and have missions headed to both Eve and Duna. Kerbal Alarm Clock is my friend! 

Thanks to my multitasking in the tracking center, I have simultaneous missions to Duna, ike, Eve, and Gilly, multiple rescues, multiple stations, etc. I think I  I always ran simultaneous missions to "conserve" my finite in-game time... I don't have to worry about that anymore... But I ain't gonna stop! 

Quote

LOL   "At age 86, this gentleman has achieved a so-called Grand Tour of his favorite 'video game', Kerbal Space Program - a quaint looking simulation of early space-flight.  He required a bit of assistance with the final portion of his great mission, from his grandson - seen here helping with flight checklists. Having clocked in over 2,000,000 hours to complete this task, his gratitude to wife and family were immense."

Oh God! That's too funny! I never meant that, but I am so happy with the silliness this misunderstanding has resulted in! 

Edited March 3, 2016 by richfiles

[Kobymaru]

8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

 I found a thread describing the general service bay bug. While I haven't had my ship vibrate, I have had the service bay detach from the parts above it, as in this screenshot, where you can see the lab has shifted off the bay:

This is in 1.04, btw. Another ship, in the same career, had a similar issue. When I first launch KSP and then load the named quicksave to the bugged point, when the physics kick in the ship gives a shake and then everything falls off the HH can above the service bay. When I quickload it again from there, the ship holds together.

 

Then again, that career later ran into some different bugs, causing me to abandon that install completely, which was unfortunate, as the system was really starting to get quite busy. 

This is the bug that I'm hoping is fixed, and I had thought it was already a known issue.

What happened to me once was, that because the inside/outside nodes of the service bay are so close together, that I attached the MPL to the inside of the service bay. This led to shakiness and random disassembly. I did some savefile editing and it turned out to be sturdy as a rock.

Is that possibly what happens to you here as well?

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

Is that possibly what happens to you here as well?

Quite possible

[Starwaster]

15 hours ago, regex said:

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

That supposes that everyone can agree that semi-realistic isn't good enough. They can't.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

What happened to me once was, that because the inside/outside nodes of the service bay are so close together, that I attached the MPL to the inside of the service bay. This led to shakiness and random disassembly. I did some savefile editing and it turned out to be sturdy as a rock.

Is that possibly what happens to you here as well?

I got into problems with the service bays because I had stuff on the outside. 3 2.5 meter stacks, even separated a bit doors was not close to hitting anything but ship stil broke up. Same with side stacks below 

[regex]

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

That supposes that everyone can agree that semi-realistic isn't good enough. They can't.

I thought it was understood that I could have an opinion about a game I very much enjoy?  Am I not allowed to have an opinion, strong as it may be?

[Starwaster]

27 minutes ago, regex said:

I thought it was understood that I could have an opinion about a game I very much enjoy?  Am I not allowed to have an opinion, strong as it may be?

I never told you not to have an opinion. But your opinion is an opinion and not accepted fact. You're trying to justify one opinion with another. If you want to convince people that axial tilt should be in and they ask you why it should be in, there has to be something more compelling than 'it's debatable', 'it's debatable because it's debatable' and 'because I like realism'

Hell I want axial tilt in the game too but from a purely devil's advocate position, I'm not seeing a compelling argument here.

[regex]

4 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

I never told you not to have an opinion. But your opinion is an opinion and not accepted fact.

No, really?  Wow, all this time I was operating under the assumption that my opinion was pretty much the way that KSP was going to be developed.

Quote

If you want to convince people that axial tilt should be in and they ask you why it should be in, there has to be something more compelling than 'it's debatable', 'it's debatable because it's debatable' and 'because I like realism'

So other considerations like planning, increased challenge, and more realism aren't good enough?

Edited March 3, 2016 by regex

[KerbonautInTraining]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

So other considerations like planning, increased challenge, and more realism aren't good enough?

Some people don't want increased challenge and realism. I love RO, but figuring out launch windows and plane alignments gets old pretty quick. 

I /really/ like the ability to time warp the xfer window and then launch whenever during that time. 

[regex]

2 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Some people don't want increased challenge and realism. I love RO, but figuring out launch windows and plane alignments gets old pretty quick.

That's no reason for me to not hold an opinion contrary to yours. E: Or to argue for more realism in a game.

Edited March 3, 2016 by regex

[TyrannoFan]

1 minute ago, regex said:

That's no reason for me to not hold an opinion contrary to yours. E: Or to argue for more realism in a game.

What are you even on about? No one is saying that you shouldn't hold an opinion of your own.

[Papa_Joe]

22 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

@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!

I echo JPLRepo's sentiments.   Great additions.   Can't wait to apply some of the new events!

[richfiles]

4 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Some people don't want increased challenge and realism. I love RO, but figuring out launch windows and plane alignments gets old pretty quick. 

I /really/ like the ability to time warp the xfer window and then launch whenever during that time. 

 

4 hours ago, regex said:

No, really?  Wow, all this time I was operating under the assumption that my opinion was pretty much the way that KSP was going to be developed.

So other considerations like planning, increased challenge, and more realism aren't good enough?

I think the point is that KSP already has difficulty settings that are customizable. any argument against adding features as "too unapproachable", or "too hard" for some people is irrelevant!

Why? Difficulty settings. These features can be turned on when creating a new save, by those advanced players that WANT the challenge. Same way as reentry heating now, and coms in 1.2 is expected to work. You literally can not make the argument that it would be too hard, or too unapproachable, if it's not a default setting for easy gameplay modes. By the time you get to that conclusion, you are literally arguing for features to simply not be added to KSP, "cause reasons". Unfortunately, those reasons are entirely fabrications in your head. If a person is playing KSP and failing, they maybe should try an easier setting to start with.

I agree that adding additional features, including additional degrees of complexity, like axial tilt and coms would/will be great... and if you don't like it, disable those options, or maybe tweak them to be milder, if possible.

Edited March 3, 2016 by richfiles

[KerbonautInTraining]

@richfiles

To be fair, I know we have difficulty settings but not any that change the layout of the solar system.

I didn't realize @regex meant it would be optional... whoops

[regex]

 

1 minute ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

@richfiles

To be fair, I know we have difficulty settings but not any that change the layout of the solar system.

I didn't realize @regex meant it would be optional... whoops

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.

If you don't want to argue with me on matters of opinion stop quoting my posts because I will take that as an indication that you want to specifically address my opinion rather than simply state your own.  How much "realism" or "difficulty" belongs in KSP is most certainly a matter of opinion, with Squad being the ultimate arbiter.  All we can do is make our opinions known.