simplemunrockets Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 New stock parts are coming, which probably means a super efficient ion engine thingy-ma-ding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviantdigi Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 What about optimization? I'm not a game dev, may be to early to suggest as new content is coming out. But I would be more excited to hear about improvements regarding FPS lag, over vBulletin implementation, cockpit views and scenarios. I do like the progress you have made towards fixing bugs etc. Windows 7 64AMD Phenom 9150e Quad 1.80GHz4 GB RamRadeon 6770HD 1GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atimed Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Nova,can i ask?Is possible to get to one from this planets/moons with stock parts?Yes, but that will need a large powerful rocket, with a lot of Delta V potential.. Probably <30'000..Hard,Laggy.. but possible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paprika Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 What about optimization? I'm not a game dev, may be to early to suggest as new content is coming out. But I would be more excited to hear about improvements regarding FPS lag, over vBulletin implementation, cockpit views and scenarios. I do like the progress you have made towards fixing bugs etc. Windows 7 64AMD Phenom 9150e Quad 1.80GHz4 GB RamRadeon 6770HD 1GBI play this on my laptop so this would make me a happy bunny too, however I think they said they're focusing on making things work first, and then optimising later. I'm happy to wait though, I'm used to laggy games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The standard procedure in game development is to build the bulk of the game during the Alpha stage (where Squad is currently), work solely on bugs during Beta, and finally release the 1.0 version.It'll be during Beta that performance efforts will be undertaken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketscienist Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 10x phisical time warp is really great for engines with low thrust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadownailshot Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The standard procedure in game development is to build the bulk of the game during the Alpha stage (where Squad is currently), work solely on bugs during Beta, and finally release the 1.0 version.It'll be during Beta that performance efforts will be undertaken This is true, just ask CCP, they've been in beta for 10+ years. Back on topic though (sorry about that) I will be perfectly okay if this update doesn't improve performance. I can't see it causing any more lag. .16 improved performance with the new particle effects and larger, more powerful parts (you now have to use less stuff to do that same stuff as before). This update doesn't have anything slotted that would do something like that. The only thing I could see that would detract from performance are the physical time warp modes and the IVAs, but probably only while in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceassasin Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Nova will the new sun object affect the game performance wise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfree97 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Don't think it should do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhnifong Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 So, since the sun is a mass of incandescent gas (or a miasma of incandescent plasma) I wonder if the sun uses the same class as the gas giant.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazon Del Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I just had a lovely thought for a planet/asteroid/mun to be added when heat (from Kerbol) is implemented.Tide lock it (or perhaps not for maximum evil), and place it so close to the sun that the only real way to land on itwithout burning up is to come straight down in its shadow, no gentle de-orbit burns because if you move around tothe Kerbol-side, then you will burn up. I figure that designing a rocket with the fuel to do this is not a big thing.What would be the main challenge of ever landing there, is getting your orbit right.Secondary idea:Same as above, but do not tide-lock it, give it an hour or so rotational period, but provide a lot of caves thatthe landers can take refuge in. This provides a secondary challenge, that if you want to survive, you will needto be able to take your ship and move it under cover.Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfree97 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I just had a lovely thought for a planet/asteroid/mun to be added when heat (from Kerbol) is implemented.Tide lock it (or perhaps not for maximum evil), and place it so close to the sun that the only real way to land on itwithout burning up is to come straight down in its shadow, no gentle de-orbit burns because if you move around tothe Kerbol-side, then you will burn up. I figure that designing a rocket with the fuel to do this is not a big thing.What would be the main challenge of ever landing there, is getting your orbit right.Secondary idea:Same as above, but do not tide-lock it, give it an hour or so rotational period, but provide a lot of caves thatthe landers can take refuge in. This provides a secondary challenge, that if you want to survive, you will needto be able to take your ship and move it under cover.Thoughts?Not sure if caves are possible with the current terrain engine. It'd be interesting to try and land on it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigga Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Tide lock it (or perhaps not for maximum evil), and place it so close to the sun that the only real way to land on itwithout burning up is to come straight down in its shadow, no gentle de-orbit burns because if you move around tothe Kerbol-side, then you will burn up. I figure that designing a rocket with the fuel to do this is not a big thing.What would be the main challenge of ever landing there, is getting your orbit right.I can't see how this would work. The planet wouldn't be big enough to block out Kerbol until you're very close to it so the shielding effect would only cover a tiny proportion of the distance you had to travel.I'd also be surprised if concavities are supported by the terrain engine, or ever will be. They make the whole thing an awful lot more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willitstimothy Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Not sure if caves are possible with the current terrain engine. It'd be interesting to try and land on it though.If they can make Mun arches, I don't see why they can't make caves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vostok Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) If they can make Mun arches, I don't see why they can't make caves.The mun arch is an object, much like the monolith or the VAB and the surreounding water towers and gantries. It is not part of the terrain. If squad were to make the terrain solely out of objects, it would be an enormous load on your PC, and completely impractical, as it would eliminate the procedural generation aspect of the terrain, and since unity loads every object on startup, the game would load every single terrain tile at the start of the game, meaning either that the terrain would all look the same, or the game would run about as fast as a backwards snail on glue, due to loading hundreds of different terrain tile objects all at once. Edited August 16, 2012 by Vostok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxMurder Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The arches are just meshes like buildings, munoliths, rocks etc... To make caves or a re-write of the terrain engine would likely need to be undertaken. Not worth it IMO.EDIT: Ninjad! Darn you vostok! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beastcat Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The mun arch is a separate object which is on top of the terrain. It is not a part of the terrain. Caves would go into the terrain, that's completely different.Edit: Double Ninja'd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arp2600 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Not completely different. The current terrain engine essentially means that we can't have any overhanging slopes. So if instead, we had a large and very steep sided crater, we could inlay an object into this crater, this object being our terrain tile with a cave system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
707-Engineering Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 This might be getting a little offtopic, but nothing is stopping them to add a mountain with a cave, on top of the existing terrain. like a building.more on topic, is there any news on the propotions of land present on the sea moon of the gas giant? or any stock "floaters" to land on a sea planet?edit: mnad ninja's !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koschei Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well, there is a mod out there for part gravity - if Squad could take the concept and polish it up a bit, they could just be giant parts, but the GUI part would have to be implemented. At least the smaller ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglasdtlltd Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) What about optimization? I'm not a game dev, may be to early to suggest as new content is coming out. But I would be more excited to hear about improvements regarding FPS lag, over vBulletin implementation, cockpit views and scenarios. I do like the progress you have made towards fixing bugs etc. Windows 7 64AMD Phenom 9150e Quad 1.80GHz4 GB RamRadeon 6770HD 1GBWindows 7 64 bitAMD FX 4100 (Quad Core) 4.2Ghz16gb RAMGeforce GTX 560Trust me, I even get lag, but that's only during loading. They should be adding loading screens in one or another update if I'm correct; but that is a long ways off. Edited August 17, 2012 by Douglasdtlltd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickenbacker Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Ugh, I hate lens flares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSubstance Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15757-KSP-0-17-UpdateThat is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paprika Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/showthread.php/15757-KSP-0-17-UpdateThat is it. Thought that was going to be a 'It's ready!' thread for a second there. Now I'm sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beastcat Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Windows 7 64 bitAMD FX 8120 (Eight Core) 3.8Ghz16gb RAMRadeon HD 6950 (Will upgrade when RH 8000 Series comes out)Runs pretty smooth, but also lags when leaving planets or switching spacecrafts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts