Devnote Tuesday: 1.2 is getting ever closer!

[Jovus]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

I just don't understand why they would change that.

I don't know if this is the reason, but there were some video setups in Linux where the current highlighting either wouldn't work at all or would do some truly strange things. My guess (and it is just that) is that the new method is intended to work better cross-platform, and they went with that color and intensity either because whoever was responsible for the switch liked it better, or because that's about as close as they could easily get to the old appearance.

[Temeter]

38 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:

If you watch carefully, you will see him surpassing 13+ m/s right in the place where airfield "connects" to the land.
The log says wheels first collided into the surface, thus game interpreted his moving trajectory over the said connection point as technically "landing" at 13+ m/s with these wheels.

In subsequent retesting streamer never reached 13+ m/s, let alone in this joint (or any other technical wheel "jump").

I say - not a bug. But these wheels are so weak ...

Might be, but I think there might be something else gong on. Notably, the wheel seemed to touch the body part directly when the thing exploded...

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, Jovus said:

I don't know if this is the reason, but there were some video setups in Linux where the current highlighting either wouldn't work at all or would do some truly strange things. My guess (and it is just that) is that the new method is intended to work better cross-platform, and they went with that color and intensity either because whoever was responsible for the switch liked it better, or because that's about as close as they could easily get to the old appearance.

Well, that could be, but bugs like that wouldn't typically affect color or intensity.  Any underlying method of fixing that can use the same color.

[Jovus]

That might be the same color as far as color-specified-by-devs is concerned, but rendered to look different in the final analysis due to underlying differences in the methods used.

Of course, it might not. Possibly someone just changed it because he likes this way more.

[ShotgunNinja]

I'm watching the KSPTV preview video and it mention the 'autostrut'. I was wondering what is the use-case of not using autostrut? Why is not desiderable to just have it enabled all the time?

[Mjp1050]

14 seconds in: why is the Ant engine under the Science tab?

14 hours ago, KerbMav said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

I'm watching the KSPTV preview video and it mention the 'autostrut'. I was wondering what is the use-case of not using autostrut? Why is not desiderable to just have it enabled all the time?

I was wondering something similar... If there's no performance hit, why not just enable it by default for all parts via a module manager config?

[Zaphod12]

17 hours ago, KerbMav said:

I will drop this here.

 

 

This update looks pretty good, finally we have a reason to build relay networks around Kerbin and beyond.

[Corw]

2 hours ago, Mjp1050 said:

14 seconds in: why is the Ant engine under the Science tab?

 

 

That is not science tab. That is search for 'antenna'. Search failed a bit?

[Alshain]

15 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

I'm watching the KSPTV preview video and it mention the 'autostrut'. I was wondering what is the use-case of not using autostrut? Why is not desiderable to just have it enabled all the time?

The use case of not using autostrut is not cheating.  There are differences of opinion, but some of us feel that KJR is cheating and this would be no different.  Of course 'cheating' in a single player game is defined by the player playing it, so you may not agree and that is fine, but I don't want it enabled in my game because it is cheating to me.  However, if you like the moment we have module manager compatible I will devise a patch to put in my database to do that for you, theoretically it should be pretty easy to make.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Temeter]

49 minutes ago, Alshain said:

The use case of not using autostrut is not cheating.  There are differences of opinion, but some of us feel that KJR is cheating and this would be no different.  Of course 'cheating' in a single player game is defined by the player playing it, so you may not agree and that is fine, but I don't want it enabled in my game because it is cheating to me.  However, if you like the moment we have module manager compatible I will devise a patch to put in my database to do that for you, theoretically it should be pretty easy to make.

I don't think a rocket bending around it's decoupler is very realistic.

 

 

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, Temeter said:

I don't think a rocket bending around it's decoupler is very realistic.

 

 

Well I don't think a badly built rocket being able to fly is realistic

In the real world, badly built rockets explode.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Temeter]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

Well I don't think a badly built rocket being able to fly is realistic

In the real world, badly built rockets explode.

Real rockets have struts :^D

[Alshain]

Just now, Temeter said:

Real rockets have struts :^D

Yes they do, and they aren't invisible magically attaching struts.

In any case, that is why it is the way it is.  It really doesn't matter whether you think it should be on or off, it's optional because there are differences of opinion.

[Temeter]

21 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Yes they do, and they aren't invisible magically attaching struts.

In any case, that is why it is the way it is.  It really doesn't matter whether you think it should be on or off, it's optional because there are differences of opinion.

Nah, but it can be interesting to discuss!

I certainly don't misk bending rockets. They have struts basically build into their hull, and I think invisible struts do a solid job at at least simulating it.

[OHara]

17 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

I'm watching the KSPTV preview video and it mention the 'autostrut'. I was wondering what is the use-case of not using autostrut? Why is not desirable to just have it enabled all the time?

The design challenge of making craft that are stiff enough, balancing the stiffening of struts against their drag, can be interesting and fun.  Simulating the physics and flexing between parts, of course, is more effort from the software.  Apparently I appreciated that effort, because I play KSP and never got interested in any other flight simulator (or any other PC game for that matter).

The automatic placement of invisible auto-struts will inevitably have surprising effects, giving another reason to turn them off.  (I am happier with autostrutting off globally in version 1.1.x)

On the overall topic of the thread, this upcoming release looks to be great.

[Wyzard]

There's been a lot of discussion about the uncertain status of the "rocket part overhaul", but no one seems to have mentioned the thing that surprised me the most:  the unfinished work is apparently just new textures and models.  Appearance changes are nice, but I'd been thinking 1.2 was planned to have actual part changes relevant to rockets, like the monopropellant tank capacity adjustments that were deferred from 1.1.  (And I was really hoping for some stock LF-only fuel tanks meant for rockets, to go with the LV-N; using the aircraft ones is a little awkward.)

Anyway, KerbNet seems pretty interesting and I'm looking forward to trying it out — though I'm feeling hesitant about the space station I'm about to send to Duna in 1.1, in case 1.2 makes me wish it had a different antenna.  Is there an explanation somewhere of how the existing antenna types will work in the new system, in terms of capabilities and communication range?

The thing I think I'm most interested in, though, is the changes in intercept calculation.  I've been frustrated on a number of occasions by the intercept markers flickering back and forth between two different positions, making it impossible to tell which one is the "real" one.  It sounds like that may now be a thing of the past, and I'll be very glad if so.

[0111narwhalz]

20 hours ago, ShotgunNinja said:

what is the use-case of not using autostrut?

One word:
Suspension.

It has been an ongoing project of mine to build interesting suspension setups to afford my vessels extraordinary travel. However, in 1.1.x, the autostrut killed my dreams of this. It is impossible to achieve, even using Infernal Robotics docking washers, because it's basically placing a strut between them. Therefore, the first thing I will do is steal Alshain's MM patch and change a "True" to "False."

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Wyzard said:

There's been a lot of discussion about the uncertain status of the "rocket part overhaul", but no one seems to have mentioned the thing that surprised me the most:  the unfinished work is apparently just new textures and models.  Appearance changes are nice, but I'd been thinking 1.2 was planned to have actual part changes relevant to rockets, like the monopropellant tank capacity adjustments that were deferred from 1.1.  (And I was really hoping for some stock LF-only fuel tanks meant for rockets, to go with the LV-N; using the aircraft ones is a little awkward.)

Remaking the existing parts was all we ever expected from it.  I'm not sure it matters, it's now dubious as to whether that revamp is going to happen at all.

[Temeter]

6 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Remaking the existing parts was all we ever expected from it.  I'm not sure it matters, it's now dubious as to whether that revamp is going to happen at all.

Actually, on what is that thought the overhaul might not happen based?

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Actually, on what is that thought the overhaul might not happen based?

Reading between the lines.  Game companies don't release their assets unless they don't intend to use them (usually not even then).  If those engine assets get released I can almost promise they will never be stock.  On top of that we've heard nothing else about them, even the language in this DevNote would seem to suggest it isn't being worked on any longer.  Everything points to a high likelihood that they have reversed their direction on the revamp.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Temeter]

22 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Reading between the lines.  Game companies don't release their assets unless they don't intend to use them (usually not even then).  If those engine assets get released I can almost promise they will never be stock.  On top of that we've heard nothing else about them, even the language in this DevNote would seem to suggest it isn't being worked on any longer.  Everything points to a high likelihood that they have reversed their direction on the revamp.

It is a bit weirdly formulated, feels as if they have some lock on what they can tell about the revamp or not (probably the case), but on the other hand 'these parts didn’t make it to this release' does carry the implication that they might come with the next one, when they originally planned to release some parts early.

Maybe they just want to release those beacuse they think it's a cool thing to do? Just cutting the development and not saying anything would be very weird and a bit dishonest.

EDIT: Just to say, Squad is small enough to make some unusual things like releasing assets, while they sometimes are just a tiny bit too secretive for their own good (assuming they aren't doing this to wait for some big announcement).^^'

Edited September 11, 2016 by Temeter

[Wyzard]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

Game companies don't release their assets unless they don't intend to use them (usually not even then).

Well, they also get released as part of the game.  I mean, if they'd finished the part overhaul, you'd be getting the same files as part of the 1.2 download.

If a working engine consists of a model plus a config, and they're now releasing the model without the config, that doesn't necessarily indicate that there won't be a config later.  It's just letting modders get a head start on the same sorts of things they can already do with all the game's other part models.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

@Arsonide

Would it be possible to change the survey-missions to take place over an actual biome instead of an imaginary "site".
This way you could remember if you had done the science there before instead of going to biomes over and over again that are already deprived of availlable science points.

I am hoping for a better implementation of fineprint in stock KSP, it still feels a bit rushed and cumbersome.

[Terwin]

2 hours ago, Wyzard said:

There's been a lot of discussion about the uncertain status of the "rocket part overhaul", but no one seems to have mentioned the thing that surprised me the most:  the unfinished work is apparently just new textures and models.  Appearance changes are nice, but I'd been thinking 1.2 was planned to have actual part changes relevant to rockets, like the monopropellant tank capacity adjustments that were deferred from 1.1.  (And I was really hoping for some stock LF-only fuel tanks meant for rockets, to go with the LV-N; using the aircraft ones is a little awkward.)

If the only changes are models and textures, and the models are done, then it should only be a small amount of work to finish with no real QA impact, on the other hand, if there are new or adjusted engines, then there would need to be several balance passes to make sure they don't have something over or under powered for it's job.

I think the 'did not make it into this version' combined with the textures suggesting new engines pretty strongly indicates that they have new/changed engines in the works and they are doing their best to make sure everything is balanced before they release them(this is no longer early access after all, and if they need to go back and significantly change an engine that they add, there will be plenty of uproar over it).