Devnote Thursday: Tweaking and Turning Gears

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Andem said:

So, how similar will it be to AntennaRange v.s. RemoteTech2?

I haven't used RT so I'm not sure what it'd be missing, but afaik it's far more like AntennaRange, to the extent that it's simply a different interpretation of the same mechanic (with some SCANsat thrown in, ie. KerbNet). I seem to recall one of the SQUAD staff saying antannae won't be directional.

29 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:

I don't think LS is a "missing" part of the stock KSP experience, which has many consumables that can run out, and lead to rescue missions.  If a future Squad LS were implemented as a mod, then we could choose to install the parts, or not. I think that would be the best way to go. I would further suggest new checkbox options in game settings to automatically download / install / enable official mods.

I was thinking yesterday how it'd be nice if they expanded the amount of official mods to include things like life support as mini-expansions, kinda like all the DLC you find games running about with these days. But given that various modders are already pursuing these things on their own, and to a high level of quality, there's little incentive for SQUAD taking on the workload.

[NathanKell]

3 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

What about the lock on creating maneuver nodes when out of contact?  As far as I remember there were no values in the ControlLocks enum for whether you're allowed to set a maneuver node (have they been added for 1.2?), and it feels a bit different than the other things covered by the inputlocks.

Will kOS still be able to do this and have it work if the vessel is out of contact at the time?

// (v is of type Vessel)
v.patchedConicSolver.AddManeuverNode(time);

 

Yes, the control locks are added to support this, and the locks (as I said above your post in the thread) affect the UI only.

 

@Angel-125 I just implemented a few side bits to help out, can't take credit for anything more than that little bit.

[Angelo Kerman]

2 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Yes, the control locks are added to support this, and the locks (as I said above your post in the thread) affect the UI only.

 

@Angel-125 I just implemented a few side bits to help out, can't take credit for anything more than that little bit.

Thanks! Every little bit helps.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Thought i saw some mention on landing legs/gear but cant find it. But ill ask anyway: will landing legs, feet and gear now in 1.2 be stout enough that kerbals (in some cases) make them pop by simple contact and will the legs that experience detonation on even the slowest touch downs ( less than 0.5ms) be fixed? Makes eva near landing legs and gear scary atm

I've been watching carefully for any mention about landing legs. I haven't seen anything the past couple of weeks. This will be the first thing I test. If it isn't fixed I am gonna shelve the game again. Which, in retrospect, I'm glad this bug is unsolved. It's given me an opportunity to discover some new games.

[Andem]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

I hope not.  Life support and KSP do not fit together, it adds tedium and no gameplay.

Only if you do it poorly. You're standard "Constant Fetch Quest" style of Life Support only adds tedium But there are much more interesting ways to do it.

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

The problem with "It will be optional" is that part loading is not optional and life support requires a lot of parts.  No feature that requires parts is completely optional.  As far as difference of opinions, we have that.  My opinion is no life support.

Part loading. The reason you don't think it should be an option is because it will add an entire, what, second? Another second onto the loading time! That's a really selfish justification.

[klgraham1013]

36 minutes ago, Otis said:

I've been watching carefully for any mention about landing legs. I haven't seen anything the past couple of weeks. This will be the first thing I test. If it isn't fixed I am gonna shelve the game again. Which, in retrospect, I'm glad this bug is unsolved. It's given me an opportunity to discover some new games.

I think it hasn't been mentioned because they already mentioned it was dealt with.

[Alshain]

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

Part loading. The reason you don't think it should be an option is because it will add an entire, what, second? Another second onto the loading time! That's a really selfish justification.

It's not the time, it's the RAM usage, and that isn't the only reason.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Alshain

[Hodari]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

The problem with "It will be optional" is that part loading is not optional and life support requires a lot of parts

Not necessarily.  In the simplest case, you could have no extra parts at all required and simply say each command pod has a certain number of kerbal-days of life support built in to them.  A more likely option would be having a small amount built in to each pod and then adding 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 meter generic "Life support modules" which would allow for more more extended missions.  Maybe a small radial module as well.  So that would only be 3 or 4 parts.

Now if they wanted to have separate resources for food, water, oxygen etc. and separate parts for each one at each size AND parts for recycling or extracting them from other resources, THEN it would end up being a lot of parts, but they don't need to go into THAT much detail

[AlphaMensae]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

They aren't answering the question because it's not coming in the next version.  If it were, we would have heard before QA started.

 

7 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I think it hasn't been mentioned because they already mentioned it was dealt with.

Yes, that was one of the first things that was tackled with the switch to Unity 5.4 and the new Vehicle Physics Plus modules. Wheels and legs are working again, and @Arsonide has removed all of the workarounds (except for the auto-strutting, which now has a new purpose  ) put into the 1.1 patches as they aren't needed anymore.

The dev notes are always about what's currenly being worked on, not stuff that has already been completed.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Laguna

[Andem]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

It's the time, it's the RAM usage.

Alright.

A stock game of Kerbal Space Program will boot up in roughly 1 minute and 30 seconds.

RAM usage is basically irrelevant if you're using the 64bit version. You adjust the system requirements slightly. 

[Alshain]

13 minutes ago, Andem said:

Alright.

A stock game of Kerbal Space Program will boot up in roughly 1 minute and 30 seconds.

RAM usage is basically irrelevant if you're using the 64bit version. You adjust the system requirements slightly. 

Not everybody can make use of the 64-bit version.

[Andem]

22 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Not everybody can make use of the 64-bit version.

Oh, I'm well aware. But behaving like the 32bit version runs just fine and dandy now without any issues is silly. There is a limit to what you can do with a 32bi application. If that's what's going o stop you from making a full game, you might as well stop development.

51 minutes ago, Alshain said:

and that isn't the only reason.

Please note:

 

1 hour ago, Andem said:

Part loading. The reason you don't think it should be an option is because it will add an entire, what, second? Another second onto the loading time! That's a really selfish justification.

My point was, that's a excrementsty justification for your opinion.

[lrd.Helmet]

regarding life support, 
Honestly it would make me quit the game and probably ask for a refund. KSP is about orbital mechanics and getting somewhere (and engineering challenges), it ain't about managing the kerbals on board. 

You could say life support modules add engineering challenges, but it would only end up in some parts that you would add or you'd have to fly up to your craft to resupply. I don't see the "fun" in that, if you do then I suggest you take a look at the mod section. Atleast that's what I do, I have a boatload of mods running, but although I love all of them. Probably none of them are fit for vanilla. It is just the way it is. Some things are fit for stock and some aren't, Life support is one of those things. 

Ps: I also have doubts about the comm system. I'd love to have a more fleshed out career first. And the planets should be more interesting...

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

Oh, I'm well aware. But behaving like the 32bit version runs just fine and dandy now without any issues is silly. There is a limit to what you can do with a 32bi application. If that's what's going o stop you from making a full game, you might as well stop development.

So you are saying they should drop 32-bit support?  That isn't happening.

 

3 minutes ago, Andem said:

Please note:

 

My point was, that's a excrementsty justification for your opinion.

I can't find a definition of "excrementsty".  I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[klgraham1013]

11 minutes ago, Alshain said:

So you are saying they should drop 32-bit support?  That isn't happening.

Yes. *snark* ...but I get they won't.  I'm just really ready for that line in the sand to be drawn.  There's really no reason anyone should be on 32-bit anymore.

<- Grumpy semi-old man.

Edited August 26, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, klgraham1013 said:

Yes. *snark* ...but I get they won't.  I'm just really ready for that line in the sand to be drawn.  There's really no reason anyone should be on 32-bit anymore.

That may be, but people have bought the game under the impression it will work for them on 32-bit systems and it's a bit late for the line to be drawn now.  Maybe KSP2 can be restricted to 64-bit and have all the parts they want, but the systems specs are set and you can't rip the carpet out from underneath people who have paid for the game.

[mcirish3]

7 hours ago, Alshain said:

Professional testing company.  Now we are talking here.  I can not be more pleased to hear that.

Does that mean you are going to change your steam review?

[klgraham1013]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

That may be, but people have bought the game under the impression it will work for them on 32-bit systems and it's a bit late for the line to be drawn now.  Maybe KSP2 can be restricted to 64-bit and have all the parts they want, but the systems specs are set and you can't rip the carpet out from underneath people who have paid for the game.

I understand.  I was surprised to find out Unity was 32-bit.  That seemed crazy to me.  I swear, I made the switch a decade ago, and I didn't spend thousands to do it.

Edited August 26, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Spartwo]

15 minutes ago, Alshain said:

So you are saying they should drop 32-bit support?  That isn't happening.

 

I can't find a definition of "excrementsty".  I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I believe the word that sounds like sheet gets corrected to that. Lemme try. excrementsty

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, mcirish3 said:

Does that mean you are going to change your steam review?

If the game starts getting back to a stable point, yes.  I actually do keep up with my Steam reviews for games that are in flux due to active development.  I change them back and forth as the current released version warrants.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Alshain

[Andem]

19 minutes ago, Alshain said:

So you are saying they should drop 32-bit support?  That isn't happening.

*Meanders around strawman and continues to something that's actually valid*

19 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I can't find a definition of "excrementsty".  I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Ugh. I type too quickly, what it should say is "crappy"

--EDIT--

Nope, it's the forum. For god's sake.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Andem

[passinglurker]

@Andem life support isn't so simple modders have yet to find a clear answer on how to implement it yet.

Classic ironman TAC style lethal life support is definitely not any more than niche minority of players cup of tea. like other hardcore "never gonna happen in stock" realism mods it consumes and dominates the game play so that designing around and micro managing it  all is an almost full time gig(this is kerbal space program not kerbal meal manager). so serious life support is flat out never going to happen (or riot)

Mean while there is more casual and forgiving nonlethal life support like usi and snacks they showed promise in theory but in practice they proved easy to game and ignore defeating the purpose of having life support(just lock the cabinet and open it at the destination and you have almost unlimited range). In other words they were too far in the other direction.

Any life support that revolves around the constant tick down of a resource like some sort of solar panel proof batteries simply doesn't seem like it will work any better than as a passing novelty because it's either to hard core for most or laughably ignorable.

For stock they'd have to think outside the box. Like having certain kerbal actions take a set amount of snacks ("want to fix a wheel? Ok that'll cost you 10 snacks" sort of deal), or forgetting actual life support entirely and just have the contract system push for mock "resupply" missions to create the illusion of playing with life support. And I doubt they'd want to commit to a plan like that without seeing some play testing first.

[Alshain]

 

Just now, Andem said:

*Meanders around strawman and continues to something that's actually valid*

You misunderstand, I was asking.  Hence the question mark.  Your point was confusing and I needed clarification.  Not quite a strawman.

[Andem]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

@Andem life support isn't so simple modders have yet to find a clear answer on how to implement it yet.

Classic ironman TAC style lethal life support is definitely not any more than niche minority of players cup of tea. like other hardcore "never gonna happen in stock" realism mods it consumes and dominates the game play so that designing around and micro managing it  all is an almost full time gig(this is kerbal space program not kerbal meal manager). so serious life support is flat out never going to happen (or riot)

Mean while there is more casual and forgiving nonlethal life support like usi and snacks they showed promise in theory but in practice they proved easy to game and ignore defeating the purpose of having life support(just lock the cabinet and open it at the destination and you have almost unlimited range). In other words they were too far in the other direction.

Any life support that revolves around the constant tick down of a resource like some sort of solar panel proof batteries simply doesn't seem like it will work any better than as a passing novelty because it's either to hard core for most or laughably ignorable.

For stock they'd have to think outside the box. Like having certain kerbal actions take a set amount of snacks ("want to fix a wheel? Ok that'll cost you 10 snacks" sort of deal), or forgetting actual life support entirely and just have the contract system push for mock "resupply" missions to create the illusion of playing with life support. And I doubt they'd want to commit to a plan like that without seeing some play testing first.

Yeah, about USILS. Configurability. 'Nuff said. I can make it do whatever the hell I want!

6 minutes ago, Alshain said:

 

You misunderstand, I was asking.  Hence the question mark.  Your point was confusing and I needed clarification.  Not quite a strawman.

My point was, cut the dead weight. In this discussion, the dead weight you pointed out was the 32bit version. If having a 32bit version i going to make further development impossible, GET RID OF IT! As of now, there isn't any reason too, there's still enough wiggle room for development. But at some point, the 32bit version will have to go. No reason to handicap yourself.

[Alshain]

7 minutes ago, Andem said:

Yeah, about USILS. Configurability. 'Nuff said. I can make it do whatever the hell I want!

My point was, cut the dead weight. In this discussion, the dead weight you pointed out was the 32bit version. If having a 32bit version i going to make further development impossible, GET RID OF IT! As of now, there isn't any reason too, there's still enough wiggle room for development. But at some point, the 32bit version will have to go. No reason to handicap yourself.

Wait, so you did say get rid of it and you called it a strawman?  You aren't making any sense, rofl.  I've already covered the issue with 32-bit, it's not going anywhere because Squad has already made a promise to people who have bought it.  There isn't enough wiggle room in 32-bit.  They have to pick and choose which parts to add, there is indeed more room right now, but I would like to see a whole host of other stuff before pointless life support modules.  So adding it would indeed take up space that shouldn't be wasted in the stock game.