Devnote Tuesday: 1.2 is getting ever closer!

[StrandedonEarth]

23 hours ago, SQUAD said:

we think it was maybe inspired by ‘Joliet Jake’ and Elwood:

Yes, Jake and Elwood are very inspirational

[Conventia]

42 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

For the biome maps instead, why were they linearly interpolated (filtered) in the first place I don't understand. You want to filter them when used for rendering the biome overlay on the planets. But when evaluating them to check if the vessel is in a biome, you should just do nearest sampling of a 2d array of values, without interpolation at all.

There's a way to view biomes in stock?

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Conventia said:

There's a way to view biomes in stock?

Use the debug window, there's an option in there.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Gah those new rocket engines are pretty, and the color scheme looks great too. I'm pumped for 1.2 and beyond!

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

HELLLLPPPP!!!! IMMMM GETTTIIING TOOOOOOOO EXCITEDDDDDDD 

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

-snippity- something about pbr -snip-

Beats my "since vens revamp exists they changed their minds and wanted to make fresh looking and properly balanced engines without any legacy baggage" explanation theory

[Zaphod12]

Probe telemetry? Antenna improvements?

This sounds good.

[StahnAileron]

2 hours ago, TheGuyNamedAlan said:

HELLLLPPPP!!!! IMMMM GETTTIIING TOOOOOOOO EXCITEDDDDDDD 

You're so excited you just can't hide it, huh?

Edited September 8, 2016 by StahnAileron

[TheGuyNamedAlan]

2 hours ago, StahnAileron said:

You're so excited you just can't hide it, huh?

AAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[KSK]

13 hours ago, Streetwind said:

This statement is so utterly, colossally wrong that I am sorely tempted to describe it in ways that might break the forum rules. And you know it.

Having the ability to toggle game elements via the difficulty panel is a feature, an advantage, a boon to every player. It has literally no downside whatsoever. Misconstruing that into a negative aspect IMHO takes active intent to be as misleading and disingenious as possible.

I struggle to even find a different example or metaphor to compare this to in order to highlight how nonsensical this notion is.

OK, try this then. Important note - this is directed at computer games as a whole and not necessarily at KSP.

Toggling game elements enforces mediocrity. A well thought out game feature should:

• Be so core to the game that switching it off makes the game unrecognizable or;
• Fit in or add to other game features such that the whole becomes more than the sum of its parts

Being able to toggle elements on and off via the difficulty panel short circuits both of those requirements. It introduces an attitude of 'well if we throw enough stuff at the players, they'll like some of it. And what they don't like they can switch off', rather than an attitude of 'why are we introducing this feature? How does it enhance existing features or make the game more fun as a whole*.' It actively detracts from having game elements that interact in meaningful or interesting ways - how can you do that when your game elements are intended to be stand-alone features that can be switched off as required?

Fine, you end up with a very customizable 'game'. But it's customizable in the same way that a patchwork quilt is and ends up being about as deep.

As an aside, I'm glad that Squad doesn't listen to each and every request for toggling features, otherwise KSP may as well be called Kerbal Settings Program. The options screen would have more buttons, knobs, sliders and assorted doohickeys than the Apollo command module and you'd spend more time setting the game up than actually playing it. Seriously, 'make it optional' and 'there's a mod for that' are the two most common answers to anything on this forum and (in my personal opinion), the two most irritating.

* Edit. Yes, I'm perfectly aware that fun is subjective and that different players will have different ideas of fun. But trying to be all things to all players is not the answer, otherwise you end up with a game that fails at being particularly good at anything. In other words, mediocre.

Edited September 8, 2016 by KSK

[Sirad]

So, the Rocket Part-Redesign is dropped ?

...even all those jump-in-the-face things ?

.... is it blasphemic to expect the stuff, that worked in 1.05 start to work in 1.9 again ? 

I dont Need another HL3 Promises just clear Statements.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sirad
oh i expect 1.2 to early.. and Rockets. Plane Parts we may get another 1000 i bet.

[Streetwind]

@KSK - that's arguing that as a developer you should never implement any features that aren't complete guarantees, never experiment, and never offer your customers any choice.

This is how you get Call Of Duty: Black Modern Advanced Warfare Ops VII Reloaded. Therefore, just as I disagreed with klech, I will have to disagree with you.

[KSK]

14 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

@KSK - that's arguing that as a developer you should never implement any features that aren't complete guarantees, never experiment, and never offer your customers any choice.

This is how you get Call Of Duty: Black Modern Advanced Warfare Ops VII Reloaded. Therefore, just as I disagreed with klech, I will have to disagree with you.

Not at all.  It means giving yourself the freedom to include features that work with your vision of the game and that work with other such features to produce a better game. It means having the freedom to make those features work together the way you want to, without hamstringing yourself by insisting that they need to be switched off as required. It's about having the confidence and the ability to make the game you want.

 As the saying goes - a camel is a horse designed by committee. Likewise, a game that's driven by its playerbase is a mess.

[Streetwind]

...Umm. What? o_O I don't follow.

Your logic chain, to me, looks like this:
1.) There is a game
2.) Developer implements a feature according to their vision
3.) Because of this, it is a good feature
4.) Player asks if this feature can be turned off, because they don't like it
5.) Developer says no --> feature remains a good feature because it is the developer's vision
6.) Developer implements toggle to turn it off --> feature transforms into a bad feature because it can be turned off at the request of the playerbase, who clearly have no idea what they like

So the exact same thing is simultaneously a good feature and a bad feature, and the only thing that makes a difference is whether or not the developer forces the players to accept it? And the way to make it a good feature is to do the exact opposite of your initial gut instinct when reading that sentence?

No, I don't follow you at all.

[KSK]

58 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

...Umm. What? o_O I don't follow.

Your logic chain, to me, looks like this:
1.) There is a game
2.) Developer implements a feature according to their vision
3.) Because of this, it is a good feature
4.) Player asks if this feature can be turned off, because they don't like it
5.) Developer says no --> feature remains a good feature because it is the developer's vision
6.) Developer implements toggle to turn it off --> feature transforms into a bad feature because it can be turned off at the request of the playerbase, who clearly have no idea what they like

So the exact same thing is simultaneously a good feature and a bad feature, and the only thing that makes a difference is whether or not the developer forces the players to accept it? And the way to make it a good feature is to do the exact opposite of your initial gut instinct when reading that sentence?

No, I don't follow you at all.

More like:

1.) There is a game
2.) Developer implements a feature D according to their vision
3.) Feature D synergizes with other features A, B and C. (Yes, synergizes is a horrible buzzword but its appropriate here). Feature D is therefore a good feature.
4.) Player asks if Feature D can be turned off, because they don't like it.
5.) Developer says no --> feature remains a good feature because it synergizes with A, B and C, thus resulting in a better game.
6.) Player base goes nuts. Developer caves in to demand, implements toggle to turn off feature D, thereby also diminishing features A, B and C. Toggle for feature D is therefore a bad thing.

7.) Developer builds another game. Doesn't bother with nicely synergizing features A, B, C and D which together, offer deeper, more compelling gameplay. Includes features W, X, Y and Z instead which are designed to be optional from the outset (to keep the players happy, right?) but the lack of any meaningful interactions between W, X, Y and Z makes for a shallower game.

Edit: Your point 6 is absolutely correct. The playerbase has no idea what it likes because the playerbase isn't a single entity but a group of people with different opinions. Therefore doing something solely at the request of the playerbase is a stupid move.

Edited September 8, 2016 by KSK

[p1t1o]

21 minutes ago, KSK said:

More like:

1.) There is a game
2.) Developer implements a feature D according to their vision
3.) Feature D synergizes with other features A, B and C. (Yes, synergizes is a horrible buzzword but its appropriate here). Feature D is therefore a good feature.
4.) Player asks if Feature D can be turned off, because they don't like it.
5.) Developer says no --> feature remains a good feature because it synergizes with A, B and C, thus resulting in a better game.
6.) Player base goes nuts. Developer caves in to demand, implements toggle to turn off feature D, thereby also diminishing features A, B and C. Toggle for feature D is therefore a bad thing.

7.) Developer builds another game. Doesn't bother with nicely synergizing features A, B, C and D which together, offer deeper, more compelling gameplay. Includes features W, X, Y and Z instead which are designed to be optional from the outset (to keep the players happy, right?) but the lack of any meaningful interactions between W, X, Y and Z makes for a shallower game.

Edit: Your point 6 is absolutely correct. The playerbase has no idea what it likes because the playerbase isn't a single entity but a group of people with different opinions. Therefore doing something solely at the request of the playerbase is a stupid move.

6, B) Playerbase now dislikes feature A, B and C as those features are no longer supported by feature D.

6, C) Playerbase insists that features A, B and C be changed to work better without feature D.

6, D) If dev. cave to popular demand, feature D now no longer synergises in the saem way, it is still a good feature, but not exactly what the devs. wanted and not quite as good as before.

6, E) Less vocal, and much larger, proportion of playerbase is now disappointed by features A through D. Smaller, more vocal playerbase is slightly appeased but is discussing features E through G that could replace or augment features A through C in the absence of a properly working feature D.

6, F) Now, no one actually hates the game, but there are very few people who are not disappointed in some way, and development is slowed to a crawl by all of the feature tweaking.

[Daveroski]

If the standard game started a with completely realistic scenario where Kerbin was a copy of earth and Ironman was the order of the day... I'd scream Battle! and have colonies on Eve and Lathe... eventually.

I often like it to be difficult. A Challenge.

But not all the time.

I like that I can change my starting options.

I don't mind having to set up the configuration of a game before I start playing. Right now there are not so many options to make it take too long.

If setting up game configuration became a chore, I'm sure Squad would add another feature to simplify the process such as the ability to save configurations and load them up as required. However I think that the configuration would need to be a lot more complex than it is right now to warrant such a step even though creating such a feature would be relatively easy.

Being able to turn a feature off and on is always a good thing because options are always good.

If there isn't an option for a feature then I am quite willing to trust the developers judgement on this simply because they haven't done a half bad job so far.  They listen to us and chunter among themselves to decide if what we are saying holds water. If they think it does they usually act on it and they do it in a way that gives the benefit without upsetting those that didn't ask for it or particularly want it.

But really chaps.. complaining because something you don't like is available to those who do like it, even though you don't have to have it in your game because it's optional, is beneath you.

Some are disappointed that the feature they wanted to see isn't going to make it into the next version.

Like many of you there are features that I would like to see in game but will have to wait until another time. I say this knowing that there are only a limited number of 'other times' and that the features that will make this game perfect for me may never actually make it into the game at all. Plugging those features in this post would be beneath me.

I love the game as imperfect as it is and want good things for it as I am sure you do too.

I love the community built around KSP. I have seen a great many communities and the whole world could learn from this one.

PS. To those who know me, yes it looks like they got my medication right this time.

 

[Streetwind]

32 minutes ago, KSK said:

6.) Player base goes nuts. Developer caves in to demand, implements toggle to turn off feature D, thereby also diminishing features A, B and C. Toggle for feature D is therefore a bad thing.

Ah, see, this is where we lost each other.

The original claim that started this discussion was not "the toggle for this feature is a bad thing". It was, quite literally, "the feature itself is bad just because it has a toggle instead of being mandatory". And that was the thing I objected so vehemently to, because it is profoundly illogical.

[Conventia]

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Ah, see, this is where we lost each other.

The original claim that started this discussion was not "the toggle for this feature is a bad thing". It was, quite literally, "the feature itself is bad just because it has a toggle instead of being mandatory". And that was the thing I objected so vehemently to, because it is profoundly illogical.

I don't remember what the original quote was and it's largely irrelevant, since the reasonable concern isn't that the feature is bad because it has a toggle. It is that resources were spent on a feature which is expected to not be used by some subset of the player base, when there are features which could have been implemented instead, that more players would take advantage of. Note, this isn't really my opinion, but it is the 'obvious' tradeoff involved here.

[Red Iron Crown]

"Opportunity cost" is the phrase you're looking for.  

[Curveball Anders]

From the view of a software designer (and project lead/owner) I loathe user options.

It messes up coding, QA, distribution, customer support and yada yada yada.

But the problem is that those annoying users are using all kinds of different hardware, different operating systems, different network access and worst of all:

They all use the software in totally different ways!

Some complain over bad graphics, some turn graphics down since they don't bother about graphics. Some want to whack something together, and possibly make it fly, while some plan and design every mission down to minute detail making sure that every thing works just right.

Some want long term game play, some just want to waste an hour (or 5) lobbing off a rocket.

And satisfying as many of those different users as possible is what every executive producer has to face.

You'll always have to annoy some, and drive some off, but you'll have to try and manage that balance.

 

[passinglurker]

I thought they implemented the toggle in order to let people  slot in their own telemetry systems like remote tech still.

Also there is turning it off to run old saves until your new comms satellites have been quickly cheat menu'd into place.

Finally I find the whole "assume players are game ruining jerks" attitude rather counter productive. Imagine if you were the gm of a table top game if you always assumed things you're players wanted was part of an elaborate scheme to ruin your vision of an adventure you'll forget that the whole reason you started this game was too show them a fun time.

[RoverDude]

15 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

For the biome maps instead, why were they linearly interpolated (filtered) in the first place I don't understand. You want to filter them when used for rendering the biome overlay on the planets. But when evaluating them to check if the vessel is in a biome, you should just do nearest sampling of a 2d array of values, without interpolation at all.

I think you're mixing things up a bit

There's the interpolation Unity does as it slaps the texture on, which is purely visual (you can see it in the resource map, or when you use the biome cheat), then there's the asset itself, which is generated from a palette of colors based on an original image.  The former has zero effect on biomes.  The later is what we care about, and is effectively the same as your '2D array of values'.  

But here's the rub.  To get to that final data set, you have to assume that the source image has no anti-aliasing, and that the source height / width are the exact size of the 'array'.  And of course you have to assume that the source image is even accurate (since some, like Minmus, were generated programatically off of a height map, and not hand-drawn).  Any error along the way will cause weirdness in your '2D array'.  

For example.  Kerbin was very rough (the source image itself has 'tundra' all over the place because it looks like it was posterized out of a terrain map.  The Mun had some really bad anti-aliasing in the source image (and a nasty 20+ pixel gradient around the poles which did not help matters), Minmus was clean - except for some 'flats' biomes being in places they should not, etc.  All of these are issues that have to be sorted before the asset can be compiled (i.e. generating the '2D array of values').

 

[Mycroft]

21 hours ago, klesh said:

 

The botched console release.  Things like KerbNet, implementing it into the scanning, 3,000 green lines all over the map (yes, I know that shot is a stresstest).  I dont recall hearing overwhelming cries for remote tech to be made stock; I never used it as a mod myself.  Things like an art pass on rocket parts not happening, but instead a fuel flow setup that you should really be able to figure out on your own.  At this point we're well past 1.0, yet arbitrary items are still being added out of the blue, while long sought after things like an delta v computer arent developed.  "mod it in" no longer works as consoles can't mod.  

Its like development is a relay race, and everyone who gets the baton takes us into strange new directions.  You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off.  

"You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off." This is the original quote that started the whole shenanigan. And I believe that it is exceedingly important, because if you, @KSK, want to take klesh's side, you might want to know what he stands for. People start out saying that the feature is bad because it has a toggle, and then, once they discover that position is indefensible, they revert to saying that the toggle itself is bad. @KSK, I think that you started out saying that too many toggles, i.e. 'Kerbal Settings Program' is bad, and I would actually agree with you. But the fallacy you seem to be making is the whole to parts fallacy. This is basically assuming that because too many switches are bad, therefore (the unspoken middle term that this syllogism implies) most if not all switches are bad, therefore this switch in particular is bad.

No.

No matter how anyone tries to slice it, the fact that too many switches are bad does NOT and never, ever will mean that this switch in particular is bad. Ever! 

To illustrate, I'll take this assumption and put it in a different context so you can see just how absurd it is. Too much water will kill you, right? This assumption would be like saying that since too much water will kill you, therefore this particular glass I'm holding will kill me, so I better not drink it. Whoever uses that assumption will end up very wrong and very dead. Now you can go to town and present all kinds of evidence that this switch in particular is bad, but please do not say it follows from the fact that too many are bad. My argument is not directed at ksk, it is directed at his unfortunately faulty logic. 

It really annoys me when people badmouth the dev team in front of everyone else. I believe that we ought to start off by appreciating the fact that KSP is here to play at all. I, for one, did not install those mods because I heard they had been stockified in 1.2. I am looking forward to the release, and I think that remote tech will add a great deal of realism to career game play. Has anyone thought that the toggle feature might be because remote tech would be annoying in Sandbox? I mean that would majorly suck if remote tech had to be used in Sandbox mode. That would be a direct consequence of what @KSK reportedly wants.

He didn't mention sandbox, so we are left to assume that therefore the fact that remote tech, if installed like he wanted, would be game wide. That I don't want. I personally think that the toggle is a very wise decision on the part of the dev team. It satisfies the demands of both sides (the realism and fun sides). It's just that a third side decided to form since they 'didn't like the toggle'. People find problems with everything others do, no matter what anyone does. Somebody always finds SOMETHING to dispute. Now if you actually want my personal opinion, I just think that the toggle is a wise idea, just please don't try to compromise too much. I leave it to SQUAD to decide what is too much, since I think that they are more than capable of doing so.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Mycroft

[Daveroski]

This is Rocket Science! Orbital Dynamics!

I want lots of toggles and dials and screens and little printouts and those little yellow lights that flash in a real friendly way.

How can any of you not like toggles?