Devnote Tuesday: We’re back!

[linuxgurugamer]

18 minutes ago, Enceos said:

You're doing something wrong. Mostly Linux players have crashes. I see people play 8 hours straight on streams without problems. Any crash I experienced was mod related.

Hogwash!

Forget my handle, I play on Windows.  I've had crashes with no mods.

I've seen streamers have crashes with no mods, on Windows

 

[Enceos]

@Gaarst @razark @linuxgurugamer If only Unity had better logging the devs could pinpoint the crashing issues faster. But unfortunately they did not develop this engine and have to work with what they got. Many crashes are too elusive and happen only on certain computers. How do you go about fixing that?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Enceos

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, Enceos said:

@Gaarst @razark @linuxgurugamer If only Unity had better logging the devs could pinpoint the crashing issues faster. But unfortunately they did not develop this engine and have to work with what they got. Many crashes are too elusive and happen only on certain computers. How do you go about fixing that?

I totally agree with you on this, I was disagreeing on the statement that it only happens on Linux.

Both Windows & Linux have drivers which control the video;  it is very possible that there is a problem with some drivers and not others;  this has happened in the past with other titles

[m4v]

11 minutes ago, taniwha said:

And all this on Linux.

Using Nvidia is cheating.

[insert_name]

9 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

There should at least be a stable release somewhere that people can rely on.

It's called 1.0.5

[razark]

10 minutes ago, Enceos said:

Many crashes are too elusive and happen only on certain computers. How do you go about fixing that?

Good question.  I don't have any ideas on that.  How do other developers go about it, or do other games deal with significant portions of their users having problems like this after release?
(Honestly, I have no idea.  I only play three or four games, KSP being the only one released in the last 5 years.)

[Enceos]

2 hours ago, razark said:

How do other developers go about it, or do other games deal with significant portions of their users having problems like this after release?

If it is a system issue Software Development companies usually gather reports with reproduction steps and full system specs, including all hardware specs, running programms, installed drivers.

When a pile of reports from different users amasses, developers can see what they have in common. If it is an engine problem they fix their engine or file a report to the engine developer. It may be a driver issue, then game devs file the report to the video card manufacturers who then update their drivers to work with certain games.

Example: Gathering the crash the reports Blizzard has found that their games constantly crash on overclocked video cards even if the card was factory overclocked. Solution they provided: downclock the card, not fix the game.

Blizzard even released a Selective Startup tool to help the players indentify the system services which cause game crashes or exclude them as a cause.

After people with selective startup filed their findings Blizzard concluded that games crash when players use overlay software and adviced them from using those.

The big difference is Blizzard and other big Gaming Companies rigg their game engines with a comprehensive logging mechanism which can gather most of the relevant data and send to the headquarters automatically, this logging algorhitm is very weak in Unity. But Unity is still the best choice for independent developers.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Enceos

[0111narwhalz]

On the subject of problems resulting from a specific OS or hardware:
My friend and I both play KSP. When at school, we play it on identical computers. The OS's are identical (OSX whatever), the hardware is identical (probably even from the same batch), the drivers are identical, the build of KSP is identical, the group of mods is identical. Still, I can fly behemoths with little problem from the gear, while he can barely get a replica jet to the end of the runway. The only problem I can see on my KSP is this: the wheels (and legs!) really, really don't like touching other crafts. EVA kerbals are "other crafts." However, when I run a kerbal (or a part) into a wheel, the two crafts usually go flying apart. Rarely does anything explode. His KSP, on the other hand, has some serious issues with wheels. The aircraft fishtail all the way down the runway, before one or more gear decides it's "overstressed" and explodes.
However, neither of us have experienced a CTD in quite some time, except when I try to turn on Edge Highlighting. Then it all goes bad.

These discrepancies may arise from our different building styles, experience, or number of sacrifices to the Kraken. In any case, you can't make a sweeping generalization that the issues are a result of a "bad computer," a Linux install, or a selection of mods. It just doesn't obtain from the evidence.

[MaxPeck]

10 hours ago, taniwha said:

(attribution removed because this is really for everyone)

How do you make something feature-complete without adding new stuff?

Anyway, on a more helpful note: the whole point of 1.1.3 is to improve stability (and other playability factors) as much as we can without changing the underlying engine. Changing the underlying engine, even just a minor version update, is quite contrary to not adding new stuff.

I, too, have suffered from exploding legs, disabled wheels, KSP crashing, orbit wonkiness, etc etc. But at the same time, I have progressed my 1.1 career save to where I have a few 500 point science nodes unlocked and I'm preparing a mission to Duna. And all this on Linux.

That was my quote!  You cited me without proper attribution.  I'm deducting points from your final grade, sir.

By "feature complete", I mean that all of the components of the game are intuitively playable and long-standing bugs that people have to play around are resolved.  I lurked around this game prior to 1.0 because I wasn't really interested in playing a beta.  When the game hit 1.0, within a few days I bought it.  I have been grossly disappointed.  My very first ever post here on the forums was a sarcastic request for more loading jokes, so I'd have something new to read during the many MANY restarts from crashes I was experiencing.  I was shocked that a "released game" was as busted as KSP... and then came the fixes, 1.0.X, and I calmed down, and I think 1.0.5 was as close to feature-complete as KSP has been.  Most everything worked as advertised.  Now here we are at 1.1, and there are significant portions of the game that once again require tweaks and workarounds to function.  That's not feature complete.  I hate analogies, but I'll use one anyway: if I buy a car, but I have to duct tape the door closed because the mechanisms that are supposed to do that don't work, the car isn't complete.  If I have to apply patches and workarounds, and something as critical as landing gear don't work as expected, that's a problem.  I know that the answer is (probably) some type of engine-ish thing, and I'm intelligent enough to understand what that implies, but I shouldn't have to.  A thing called landing gear should roll, and should enable and aircraft to depart and land smoothly.  It should hold you in a constant direction, and it should not explode at random, nor should it sink into or magically levitate above the runway.  Landing gear (and other things) that behave in the way they are billed are complete features.

I'll add something for the record.  I've been a pilot for 23 years.  I'm currently a college aeronautics professor.  I love airplanes, and I might even know a thing or two about them and how they fly.  I have no major gripes with the flight system, stock or FAR, simplified as they may be.  But, as I sit here right now, I'm going to tell you that in my experience as an aviator, airplanes do not work, and it's entirely because takeoff and landing are a HUGE part of flying and you cannot do either reliably.  People may be able to kludge them into working, but that shouldn't be confused with them being operational.  Part of the fun of KSP for me, and I'm basing this entirely on my own prejudices and styles, is making airplanes and flying them.  I enjoy that.  I have built several airplanes that fly fantastically, only to have takeoff failure after takeoff failure.  It kind of ruins the experience.  So for me, who spends a lot of time playing KSP from the spaceplane hangar, the game is very incomplete.

Now, having said that, I'll qualify it.  I understand the huge amount of work that's gone into, and is going into the game, and I'm entirely supportive of the good work and outstanding community feedback we get from the devs.  But when I play the game, if I have to deal with (and work around) glaring bugs as I play, such as dancing apo- and periapsis, or malfunctioning landing gear, or my current headache - science labs suddenly flying off into space at warp 6 - that game is not feature complete.  It's a work in progress.  With every devnote, and every update, I hope against hope that THIS will the THE ONE that gets the game to its full potential, but in a year+ of playing KSP, I can't say I've ever really considered the game stable.  I'm in the habit of saving frequently now, not because I'm worried about screwing the pooch and doing something wrong, but because I know at any moment the game could freeze, CTD, or do some other unexpected thing.  Just today, playing with Roverdude's awesome mods, I was trying to launch some greenhouses up to an orbiting station.  It took a dozen tries.  I have a standard lifter that will give me 15,000 DV up to 5t of payload, so I should have no problem hitting my station with it.  But it took so many tries because of crashes, random launchpad explosions, my rocket performing unscheduled disassembly in flight a few times for no discernible reason, my payload just vanishing (yeah, here one minute, gone the next).  Not one was a launch failure due to gameplay, it was all due to game failures.  That's not complete, and that's frustrating.  I don't collect logs and I don't do crash reports because what's the point?  I just restart and cross my fingers that it'll work this time.

So, Devs, in the unlikely chance that you're actually reading this, you're doing good work.  Keep doing good work.  And then do more good work.  Get this game to where it so deserves to be.  We're all counting on you.  

Edited May 27, 2016 by JJE64
shameful typos

[lextacy]

On 5/25/2016 at 8:06 PM, JJE64 said:

That's not really locking in the design then.  LOL.  I swear KSP is the textbook outcome of feature creep.  If KSP were a house, it would have 7 floors, only the first 3 would have windows, the front door would require a locksmith to open, and the top 4 floors would be in a perpetual state of construction, but yet never any nearer to completion.  And it wouldn't take long until plans would be announced for an 8th floor!  

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the fantastic job the devs have done getting us here, and for a labor of love, KSP is an incredible product.  But the production seems very unfocused at times.

reminds me of this *cough* EA *cough* company "electronic farts"

[BeeGeenie]

Cheeze and Crackers, what has this thread become?

I was expecting more people welcoming the team back. Instead I read 10 pages of bile.

"Leave Britney alone" you guys. She just got back from vacation and she doesn't need this drama. She's got a lot of code to deal with right now. 

[Padishar]

2 hours ago, JJE64 said:

I don't collect logs and I don't do crash reports because what's the point?

Was this rhetorical?  If not, then, because sometimes, a well made crash (or other bug) report can often provide the developers with the information they need to diagnose and fix the problem...

[p1t1o]

I didnt know this for some time, but it may or may not be enlightening to others.

From the wiki:

" The main business of Squad is to provide digital and interactive services to customers like Coca-Cola, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Samsung and Nissan, including creating websites, guerrilla marketing, multi-media installations, and corporate-image design. They have developed software for different applications, some of which were video games."

"Part of Squad's enticement to join is that each employee will, at some stage, be able to make their dream pitch to the company. If the pitch makes business sense, then the company will support it. With the success of KSP, Squad is starting to branch out into other areas, such as record-producing, and away from pure marketing."

They are not like Rockstar, or EA or any other big name video game producer. KSP is their first real video game.

Relevant to any "This company does it this way, why did squad do it that way?" discussions.

 

[KerbOrbiter]

Quote

We’re currently making an inventory...

*hype* Stock KIS is real!

Quote

...of the most promising discussions from the community and seeing what we can bring to the game.

*hype down*

(just joking )

[Frank_G]

Welcome back! 

[taniwha]

7 hours ago, JJE64 said:

That was my quote!  You cited me without proper attribution.  I'm deducting points from your final grade, sir.

You may have the points

Unfortunately, your meaning of "feature complete" is not very accurate. Feature complete is all the intended features are there, though they may need polishing. So what you really mean is "polished" rather than "feature complete".

Now, no matter what definition of "feature complete" you use, trying to apply the standards you use for games like Dark Souls (I recently watched a play-through), Invisible Inc., Tomb Raider 2013 or Shadwen (I'm playing the latter three currently when I need a break from KSP) just does not make sense. As NathanKell said in the latest squadcast, most games just don't compare to KSP. Sure, their art assets are amazing (amusing point: because I can read and understand Japanese, I probably get a lot more out of TR2013 than most players), but their game mechanics are... spartan (for want of a less derogatory term). KSP is incredibly complex.

How many other games scale from sub-centimeter to super-gigameter? Have no restrictions other than those imposed by Newton, Kepler, etc? Actually implement those restrictions to a high degree of accuracy? (note: sure, patch conics aren't how things really work, but they were good enough for the Apollo and Voyager missions!). KSP lets you build and pilot rockets, planes, boats, "cars", submarines, trains (hi, Overlander!). Rendezvous vessels in orbit and build space stations (or monstrous rockets to do a Jool-5). In other words, KSP gives you freedom of which most games can't even conceive, let alone dream. And then you can add mods.

NathanKell mentioned that KSP's complexity is both its strength and its weakness. I say he hit the nail on the head, Karate Kid II style. It is KSP's complexity that gives it the above freedom and is why I make the claim that KSP is not a game (nor is it a simulator). I do not know what KSP is, but for those who want to insist that KSP is a game, I say this: KSP is not a game, KSP is a new game every day (to borrow from Lego's "Lego is a new toy every day"). However, KSP's complexity comes at a hefty cost: it pushes the underlying engine (Unity) beyond its limits (eg, Unity's wheels were designed for racing games where gravity is 1g and down is down), and it pushes us devs to our limits (NathanKell's quip about a 60h day not being inconceivable is too close to the truth for comfort: I've come close to doing it (once, many many moons ago)).

I guess that got a bit long. The tl;dr is this: calm down and hold your horses. Yes 1.1.2 has some pretty serious issues, but when you consider what KSP is, they are mere blips. We will do our best to fix as much as we can in a reasonable time frame without adding new features (and a new engine version counts as a new feature), but sadly this means that some issues will have to remain unfixed (though we may find bandaids) until we can update the engine.

Also, keep this in mind: most of us devs either were KSP players, or still are. We became devs because we love KSP.

[Enceos]

@taniwha That's the most reasonable post in this thread ♥ 好き

[TiktaalikDreaming]

25 minutes ago, taniwha said:

You may have the points

Unfortunately, your meaning of "feature complete" is not very accurate. Feature complete is all the intended features are there, though they may need polishing. So what you really mean is "polished" rather than "feature complete".

Now, no matter what definition of "feature complete" you use, trying to apply the standards you use for games like Dark Souls (I recently watched a play-through), Invisible Inc., Tomb Raider 2013 or Shadwen (I'm playing the latter three currently when I need a break from KSP) just does not make sense. As NathanKell said in the latest squadcast, most games just don't compare to KSP. Sure, their art assets are amazing (amusing point: because I can read and understand Japanese, I probably get a lot more out of TR2013 than most players), but their game mechanics are... spartan (for want of a less derogatory term). KSP is incredibly complex.

How many other games scale from sub-centimeter to super-gigameter? Have no restrictions other than those imposed by Newton, Kepler, etc? Actually implement those restrictions to a high degree of accuracy? (note: sure, patch conics aren't how things really work, but they were good enough for the Apollo and Voyager missions!). KSP lets you build and pilot rockets, planes, boats, "cars", submarines, trains (hi, Overlander!). Rendezvous vessels in orbit and build space stations (or monstrous rockets to do a Jool-5). In other words, KSP gives you freedom of which most games can't even conceive, let alone dream. And then you can add mods.

NathanKell mentioned that KSP's complexity is both its strength and its weakness. I say he hit the nail on the head, Karate Kid II style. It is KSP's complexity that gives it the above freedom and is why I make the claim that KSP is not a game (nor is it a simulator). I do not know what KSP is, but for those who want to insist that KSP is a game, I say this: KSP is not a game, KSP is a new game every day (to borrow from Lego's "Lego is a new toy every day"). However, KSP's complexity comes at a hefty cost: it pushes the underlying engine (Unity) beyond its limits (eg, Unity's wheels were designed for racing games where gravity is 1g and down is down), and it pushes us devs to our limits (NathanKell's quip about a 60h day not being inconceivable is too close to the truth for comfort: I've come close to doing it (once, many many moons ago)).

I guess that got a bit long. The tl;dr is this: calm down and hold your horses. Yes 1.1.2 has some pretty serious issues, but when you consider what KSP is, they are mere blips. We will do our best to fix as much as we can in a reasonable time frame without adding new features (and a new engine version counts as a new feature), but sadly this means that some issues will have to remain unfixed (though we may find bandaids) until we can update the engine.

Also, keep this in mind: most of us devs either were KSP players, or still are. We became devs because we love KSP.

I'd like to like this some more please.

Well said.

[2001kraft]

Awesome! Can't wait till the Mac version is no longer glitched.

[tater]

Other than the non-Mac specific exploding legs, my Mac version is running pretty well. I never "upgraded" to El Cap, though (frankly I wish I had only gone as far as Mavericks).

[linuxgurugamer]

8 hours ago, Padishar said:

Was this rhetorical?  If not, then, because sometimes, a well made crash (or other bug) report can often provide the developers with the information they need to diagnose and fix the problem...

Hmmm.  As a mod developer, unless a bug is very obvious, I need the logs.  No logs = no support.  I don't need to waste my time trying to replicate a problem which may be dependent on an environment, on other mods installed etc.

[The_Rocketeer]

3 hours ago, taniwha said:

You may have the points

Unfortunately, your meaning of "feature complete" is not very accurate. Feature complete is all the intended features are there, though they may need polishing. So what you really mean is "polished" rather than "feature complete".

Now, no matter what definition of "feature complete" you use, trying to apply the standards you use for games like Dark Souls (I recently watched a play-through), Invisible Inc., Tomb Raider 2013 or Shadwen (I'm playing the latter three currently when I need a break from KSP) just does not make sense. As NathanKell said in the latest squadcast, most games just don't compare to KSP. Sure, their art assets are amazing (amusing point: because I can read and understand Japanese, I probably get a lot more out of TR2013 than most players), but their game mechanics are... spartan (for want of a less derogatory term). KSP is incredibly complex.

How many other games scale from sub-centimeter to super-gigameter? Have no restrictions other than those imposed by Newton, Kepler, etc? Actually implement those restrictions to a high degree of accuracy? (note: sure, patch conics aren't how things really work, but they were good enough for the Apollo and Voyager missions!). KSP lets you build and pilot rockets, planes, boats, "cars", submarines, trains (hi, Overlander!). Rendezvous vessels in orbit and build space stations (or monstrous rockets to do a Jool-5). In other words, KSP gives you freedom of which most games can't even conceive, let alone dream. And then you can add mods.

NathanKell mentioned that KSP's complexity is both its strength and its weakness. I say he hit the nail on the head, Karate Kid II style. It is KSP's complexity that gives it the above freedom and is why I make the claim that KSP is not a game (nor is it a simulator). I do not know what KSP is, but for those who want to insist that KSP is a game, I say this: KSP is not a game, KSP is a new game every day (to borrow from Lego's "Lego is a new toy every day"). However, KSP's complexity comes at a hefty cost: it pushes the underlying engine (Unity) beyond its limits (eg, Unity's wheels were designed for racing games where gravity is 1g and down is down), and it pushes us devs to our limits (NathanKell's quip about a 60h day not being inconceivable is too close to the truth for comfort: I've come close to doing it (once, many many moons ago)).

I guess that got a bit long. The tl;dr is this: calm down and hold your horses. Yes 1.1.2 has some pretty serious issues, but when you consider what KSP is, they are mere blips. We will do our best to fix as much as we can in a reasonable time frame without adding new features (and a new engine version counts as a new feature), but sadly this means that some issues will have to remain unfixed (though we may find bandaids) until we can update the engine.

Also, keep this in mind: most of us devs either were KSP players, or still are. We became devs because we love KSP.

@taniwha this ^^ is superb, I tried to convey this exact same point here (before I saw your post) but you did a much better job.

[KSP Bro AE]

Implement multiplayer PLEASE!

[KSP Bro AE]

6 hours ago, taniwha said:

You may have the points

Unfortunately, your meaning of "feature complete" is not very accurate. Feature complete is all the intended features are there, though they may need polishing. So what you really mean is "polished" rather than "feature complete".

Now, no matter what definition of "feature complete" you use, trying to apply the standards you use for games like Dark Souls (I recently watched a play-through), Invisible Inc., Tomb Raider 2013 or Shadwen (I'm playing the latter three currently when I need a break from KSP) just does not make sense. As NathanKell said in the latest squadcast, most games just don't compare to KSP. Sure, their art assets are amazing (amusing point: because I can read and understand Japanese, I probably get a lot more out of TR2013 than most players), but their game mechanics are... spartan (for want of a less derogatory term). KSP is incredibly complex.

How many other games scale from sub-centimeter to super-gigameter? Have no restrictions other than those imposed by Newton, Kepler, etc? Actually implement those restrictions to a high degree of accuracy? (note: sure, patch conics aren't how things really work, but they were good enough for the Apollo and Voyager missions!). KSP lets you build and pilot rockets, planes, boats, "cars", submarines, trains (hi, Overlander!). Rendezvous vessels in orbit and build space stations (or monstrous rockets to do a Jool-5). In other words, KSP gives you freedom of which most games can't even conceive, let alone dream. And then you can add mods.

NathanKell mentioned that KSP's complexity is both its strength and its weakness. I say he hit the nail on the head, Karate Kid II style. It is KSP's complexity that gives it the above freedom and is why I make the claim that KSP is not a game (nor is it a simulator). I do not know what KSP is, but for those who want to insist that KSP is a game, I say this: KSP is not a game, KSP is a new game every day (to borrow from Lego's "Lego is a new toy every day"). However, KSP's complexity comes at a hefty cost: it pushes the underlying engine (Unity) beyond its limits (eg, Unity's wheels were designed for racing games where gravity is 1g and down is down), and it pushes us devs to our limits (NathanKell's quip about a 60h day not being inconceivable is too close to the truth for comfort: I've come close to doing it (once, many many moons ago)).

I guess that got a bit long. The tl;dr is this: calm down and hold your horses. Yes 1.1.2 has some pretty serious issues, but when you consider what KSP is, they are mere blips. We will do our best to fix as much as we can in a reasonable time frame without adding new features (and a new engine version counts as a new feature), but sadly this means that some issues will have to remain unfixed (though we may find bandaids) until we can update the engine.

Also, keep this in mind: most of us devs either were KSP players, or still are. We became devs because we love KSP.

When will Squad implement multiplayer? (aprox. in years) I know we have DMP, but the server only works in LAN, and it is very VERY buggy. PLZ. Multiplayer in KSP would take the game from the level it is to something greater. (I'm being too dramatic) I'm not asking for an MMO, but something like Minecraft's multiplayer, with WAAY simpler server setup. 

[Padishar]

12 minutes ago, KSP Bro AE said:

Implement multiplayer PLEASE!

1 minute ago, KSP Bro AE said:

When will Squad implement multiplayer? (aprox. in years) I know we have DMP, but the server only works in LAN, and it is very VERY buggy. PLZ. Multiplayer in KSP would take the game from the level it is to something greater. (I'm being too dramatic) I'm not asking for an MMO, but something like Minecraft's multiplayer, with WAAY simpler server setup. 

I hope that Squad don't even consider including any multiplayer related changes into KSP until 1.3 at the very earliest and, preferably, not until 1.5 or even later.  There are too many bugs and inefficiencies in the current code to risk making changes that will, almost certainly, be even more likely to introduce new, weird and wonderful, bugs than the Unity 5 update has.  There is still huge potential to significantly increase the performance of KSP and improve the scalability with large vessels/savegames and, in my opinion, this should be done before adding more code that will tend to stress exactly these aspects...