Lightzy

1.4.1 bugged to all hell. unplayable.

Recommended Posts

On 31.3.2018 at 5:50 PM, LoSBoL said:

That might be because you may need to see this threw other eyes then your own. Some might find it easy, some may find it tedious or difficult, and others would find it downright impossible.

I'm in the last group, wouldn't know where to start if my life depended on it.

Well. i bet that guy who says 'im doing it stock without any mods' is the one who can do this even without using timewarp once.

And without using a monitor for display...

Without dv-readout its hard and without spreadsheets for your transfer windows its a mathematic tedious autistic nonsense to calculate your DV window.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sirad said:

Without dv-readout its hard and without spreadsheets for your transfer windows its a mathematic tedious autistic nonsense to calculate your DV window.

If you think that's something, this'll blow your mind: I can also type without looking at the keyboard. Freakin' crazy, ain't it?

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly does one go about calculating a DV window? Sounds difficult.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

If you think that's something, this'll blow your mind: I can also type without looking at the keyboard. Freakin' crazy, ain't it?

After writing 93 Emiko chapters... you wouldn't believe how fast I can type and not have to look!!!  :0.0:

Edited by Just Jim
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

After writing 93 Emiko chapters... you wouldn't believe how fast I can type and not have to look!!!  :0.0:

I can do this with a standard keyboard. But the mini-keyboard I use with my HP tablet? Naw, still have to watch where my fingers are!

Oh, and the last time I took a typing test, I was near 67 wpm.

Edited by adsii1970
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

If you think that's something, this'll blow your mind: I can also type without looking at the keyboard. Freakin' crazy, ain't it?

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly does one go about calculating a DV window? Sounds difficult.

Oh yes we all had a good laugh about that, besides you can not compare 'typing ya keyboard' against a transfer between moving planets. Even with the usual pink KSP-Worshipper-Glasses on.

So besides that, if the key to this game is overdesigning any rocket by factor 5 and fly straight to moho, then i must have missed something in this game.

If there is proper physics calculated (besides the 3 body problem, it is) why is there no proper Stock tool to use it ?

Its Possible, mechjeb (and other tools) show.

 

Edited by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Oh yes we all had a good laugh about that, besides you can not compare 'typing ya keyboard' against a transfer between moving planets. Even with the usual pink KSP-Worshipper-Glasses on.

So besides that, if the key to this game is overdesigning any rocket by factor 5 and fly straight to moho, then i must have missed something in this game.

If there is proper physics calculated (besides the 3 body problem, it is) why is there no proper Stock tool to use it ?

Its Possible, mechjeb (and other tools) show.

OK, with all due respect, this discussion has been going on forever... and has nothing to do with the original post. How did a thread about bugs swing around to the never-ending "We can't play without a mod being made stock" argument... again???

 

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

But the mini-keyboard I use with my HP tablet? Naw, still have to watch where my fingers are!

Yeah... I'm terrible on a tablet, or my phone... luckily I can talk into either, and let them do the work... hehehe.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

OK, with all due respect, this discussion has been going on forever... and has nothing to do with the original post. How did a thread about bugs swing around to the never-ending "We can't play without a mod being made stock" argument... again???

Please name the specific line of my Post where i requested a 'Mod made Stock ?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Please name the specific line of my Post where i requested a 'Mod made Stock ?'

I'm sorry... but isn't this what you just said here?

8 hours ago, Sirad said:

Without dv-readout its hard and without spreadsheets for your transfer windows its a mathematic tedious autistic nonsense to calculate your DV window.

Perhaps I misunderstood? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

I'm sorry... but isn't this what you just said here?

Perhaps I misunderstood? 

...perhaps ? Sure! But thats not the Point. Since the owner of that site is allowing critical views on the Product, i take that chance. I may get thrown poop at me, not the first time.... but... i have soap and can shower afterwards.

There is a Line in this Post, who i couldn't have done any better it says:

'we're being pushed a broken product. '

This may not be absolutely correct, i would rather prefer 'we're been pushed a half done and rushed product' That may fit better. But since i have no insight what kind of code is done in what continent around our world on possibly cheapest rates, nor have i enough insight if other actually half done stuff (...) will be done maybe someday....

This is no early acess anymore. Its beeing sold as a Full priced Product and already been additionally monetarized via DLC (thanks god i get em for free...)

I could live with a statement that says 'our team is currently editing the One line in the script that causes landing gear to explode, this may take 24 months, 50 million dollars, and a team of 500 People. You players surely have some additional dollars for us ?

I never expect that all those other Yelling inconsistencys ever gets fixed, this is what we have the Holy Modders for. The modern concept of Software editing runs that way. Invest 1 Million, earn 100 Million and leave the rest for the modders. Nothing wrong with that. Playing an old 1.2.2 or 1.0.5 or 1.3.1 fully modded is still fun for me. I bet we wouldnt have gotten 1% of Moddable content even if 100% of the revenues were used for Development, This experience is like comparing Beethovens 9th against the Typical Youtube-yellers.

We, the old players who may play this game even with no support, will play our old versions, but....

....there are the new players, without the new players who buy this game at fullprice, (something gets invested in the Development, rest is for T2), development will not continue.

No new Players, no development, no new Content.

So what may happen if one buggy release gets out after another ?

I rather prefer the 'Good version, good hype, good new players' instead the other way around.

 

PS: One of the Main Reasons Computers advanced to our current Level were they were used to calculate trajectories of missiles. And this were initially and most times suborbital stuff. If anyone wants to know ask how complicated it was to calculate the paths for Voyager1/2 This is stuff that CAN MAYBE be done by Humans but, This is a Game, no example for 'trying to solve the N>2 body problem.' by whacking together boosters. this wont work.

 

Edited by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sirad said:

...perhaps ? Sure! But thats not the Point.

Ahhhh... wow... OK. I'm not sure how to respond now, other than I'm not going to participate in a rage match.

At least you're back on-topic... more or less.

Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

Ahhhh... wow... OK. I'm not sure how to respond now, other than I'm not going to participate in a rage match.

At least you're back on-topic... more or less.

Good day.

Of course, No Rage. Only a glimpse of greek myth, actually featuring Kassandra....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sirad said:

Only a glimpse of greek myth, actually featuring Kassandra....

In my universe her name is Emiko... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is if you can't do a Kerbin -> Mun and a Kerbin to Minmus -> transfer without mods, then you are overly reliant on mods.  Manually plotting a Kerbin to Moho/Eve/Duna/Jool is only a bit harder, once you know what you are doing.  (Mods like transfer window planner and kerbal alarm clock are very useful to warn you when the transfer window is getting close, but are absolutely not required).   Similarly a tool to calculate deltaV isn't required to build a craft capable of such a mission.  (You don't even need a dV map, nor do you even need to understand the concept of dV).

What is required is a willingness to experiment and test things.     If you are willing to say "I think this ship will do, let's try", you can absolutely play without even understanding what dV is. 

Looking at a lot of decisions the game designers made, (the comic way kerbals ragdoll from even minor collisions when using their jetpack to board craft on Mun/Minmus) that seems like the way the designers intended KSP to be played.  The weak joints between tanks, the lack of things like dV in the VAB, and no radar altimeter outside the internal capsule view are all consistent with that desire to produce comedic fails.  Unfortunately not everyone enjoys failing (I know I don't).  But for us there are mods that add stronger joints, dV readouts, height above ground readouts etc. 

But do not confuse a design which is trying to encourage people to have spectacular and/or comedic fails as meaning KSP is incomplete.  

Edited by AVaughan
Editing
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

All I can say is if you can't do a Kerbin -> Mun and a Kerbin to Minmus -> transfer without mods, then you are overly reliant on mods.  Manually plotting a Kerbin to Moho/Eve/Duna/Jool is only a bit harder, once you know what you are doing.  (Mods like transfer window planner and kerbal alarm clock are very useful to warn you when the transfer window is getting close, but are absolutely not required).   Similarly a tool to calculate deltaV isn't required to build a craft capable of such a mission.  (You don't even need a dV map, nor do you even need to understand the concept of dV).

What is required is a willingness to experiment and test things.     If you are willing to say "I think this ship will do, let's try", you can absolutely play without even understanding what dV is. 

Yeah... But in all fairness, as far as myself... I think the reason I can do this so easy is just experience... I just need to take a quick glance at where the planets (or moons) are to know when and where to set up a maneuver. And I can pretty much eyeball a ship the same way... I don't need a dV readout, I can throw one together and know pretty much if it'll make it where I need it to go or not. But I'm no big math genius, it just comes from playing too many thousands of hours of KSP.

If the dev's do add a readout, i'm not entirely against it. I've said many times before, just add an off/on feature so I don't have to use it, and everyone's happy.

Edited by Just Jim
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

But do not confuse a design which is trying to encourage people to have spectacular and/or comedic fails as meaning KSP is incomplete.  

Can you please supply my with a source where the developers just stated this Point ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Can you please supply my with a source where the developers just stated this Point ?

I don't have a source, but those are my impressions from looking at the decisions the designers made.  I think the intention is for players to have fun whilst trying and failing (and sometimes succeeding).  (Think about games like platformers.  I hate them, but for people who do enjoy them they would probably be no fun if you never missed a jump and always waltzed through a level on the first attempt).

Just consider things like Mun landings in stock.  How much easier would they be in stock if you had a nice display with height above ground, time to impact, and how many seconds you need for your deceleration burn.   If the game designers wanted us to stick our Mun landings the first time, then readouts with that sort of information would be part of stock.  Instead we get an altitude readout, and a descent rate that is just barely useful, and stock players rely mostly on just eyeballing things, perhaps adding lights to their landers to help gauge height above ground.

Edited to add: 

Also look at the crashed on the Mun main menu screen, the humour in the loading screen messages, and in the mission and part descriptions.  This is not a game that takes itself too seriously.  It's a fun game about spaceflight where things are expected to go wrong on a regular basis.

 

Edited by AVaughan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

I don't have a source, but those are my impressions from looking at the decisions the designers made.  I think the intention is for players to have fun whilst trying and failing (and sometimes succeeding).  (Think about games like platformers.  I hate them, but for people who do enjoy them they would probably be no fun if you never missed a jump and always waltzed through a level on the first attempt).

Just consider things like Mun landings in stock.  How much easier would they be in stock if you had a nice display with height above ground, time to impact, and how many seconds you need for your deceleration burn.   If the game designers wanted us to stick our Mun landings the first time, then readouts with that sort of information would be part of stock.  Instead we get an altitude readout, and a descent rate that is just barely useful, and stock players rely mostly on just eyeballing things, perhaps adding lights to their landers to help gauge height above ground.

That would make sense, except that having that information doesn't guarantee success in any way. Players would have to use the information properly and put in the correct inputs. There's still plenty of room for mistakes. I've failed plenty of landings, or had something go wrong, even with that information.

But what makes no sense to me is that the game does provide altitude above ground. But only in IVA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

But what makes no sense to me is that the game does provide altitude above ground. But only in IVA

And orbit info, but only in map mode. Where you can't stage and the navball is hidden by default.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sirad said:

Oh yes we all had a good laugh about that, besides you can not compare 'typing ya keyboard' against a transfer between moving planets. Even with the usual pink KSP-Worshipper-Glasses on.

So besides that, if the key to this game is overdesigning any rocket by factor 5 and fly straight to moho, then i must have missed something in this game.

If there is proper physics calculated (besides the 3 body problem, it is) why is there no proper Stock tool to use it ?

Its Possible, mechjeb (and other tools) show.

 

My "typing" comment was somewhat in response to your "playing without a monitor" comment, but also somewhat serious. It's an example of memory (though a bit extreme, I'll admit, just for kicks). Let me ask you; have you ever performed an orbital rendezvous? I'll assume you have. Did you use a mod or calculator of some kind? Or did you just eyeball it and play around with a maneuver node until you got it right? Transfers are the same thing. They are simply on a much larger scale. I did not say this was easy (I myself admitted it can be tedious). I did not say this is how I play now. I said this is how I played my entire first year. Some comments and even entire posts were deleted from this thread, so I don't know if you read them all. I have many posts in many different threads where I talk about KAC being my one and only mod. I installed it about a month after I began playing, and have had it ever since. I was playing for about a year when I discovered this forum, and someone casually mentioned in a thread about transfers that KAC could plot them for you. I had no idea. I thought it was just for keeping track of SOI changes and maneuver nodes. I had it all that time and never explored its functionality at all (how's that for stupid?). I played that way for all that time because I thought that's how you were supposed to play. And I can still do it now, if need be. The experience taught me an awful lot.

Here in this thread, I was originally responding to comments saying it is impossible to play that way. It is obviously not. There were also comments saying it wasn't any fun. I disagree with this as well. We all decide for ourselves what's fun and what's not, so I can't speak for anyone else, but I had an absolute blast playing that way. And I never felt limited in any way. I learned a ton, and traveled to and landed on every body that can be landed on (I don't remember if I had done my first Eve ascent yet or not; it was right around that same time).

I was also responding to specific examples that were given. I said that they were bad examples and I stand by it. The 2 examples were Jool and Moho. I said that Jool is the one planet I can hit on the first try every time without a transfer tool. I stand by this as well, and I'm not sure why anyone would find this hard to believe. Any experienced player knows that Jool is by far the easiest planet to hit, because of its huge SOI. When I was still eyeballing transfers, Jool was my favorite planet to travel to. Not just because of all the moons and how cool it looks, but because it was so easy. I could certainly be wrong, but I believe anyone who says they can't do this has probably never really tried.

The other example given was Moho. I said this was a bad example and, again, I stand by it. Of all the planets, Moho is the only one I have never used an alarm for. I thought there were 2 agreed upon "best" ways to go to Moho. Either the bi-elliptical transfer, or the flyby of Eve. I set an alarm for Eve on occasion, but I usually don't bother because I don't wanna wait for a year for Eve to swing around. So I simply burn for the sun, then lower my orbit. At that point, it is very much like a rendezvous. If you've been to Moho, you know it is moving extremely fast. It only takes an orbit or 2 before you can get a good encounter. This as well, I can't see how anyone would label "difficult" or "impossible". None of this, however, should be interpreted as me saying that eyeballing transfers is as easy or efficient as using a transfer tool. I am simply saying that it is entirely possible to play that way; even for a new player.

Now, about the Delta V stuff. You're comment about building a ship 5 times larger than it needs to be is a clear indication that you have no idea what the trial & error method entails. It is not about over-engineering. It is (mostly) about guesswork based on experience. You build a ship you think will be about right, based on everything you've learned. You launch and see how well it performs. Did you have too much or not enough? Was the lander under or overpowered? How was your transfer stage and your lifter? You make the necessary adjustments and launch again. It is extremely satisfying when it now performs much better. And when you nail it on the first try, it leaves you with a true feeling of accomplishment. I am certainly not the only one who plays this way. So when people say it's "too hard" or "impossible" to play without info mods, and they should therefore be stock (which I am not opposed to), I always feel the need to say that it is entirely possible, and a lot of fun besides. But we certainly don't need to agree on the point. We can simply go our separate ways, play the way we play, and leave it at that.

Apologies for the incredibly late reply. Had most of this typed out hours ago, but work got crazy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

Let me ask you; have you ever performed an orbital rendezvous?

Thats the Point. I learned how to do orbital maneouvering and docking watching how mechjeb is doing it. So for me the game started easy and i had a learning curve. Now i know hot do dock, how to transfer and how to land. Even by eyeballing if i must, but i dont wanna. Tedious nonsense. There are quite plenty enough things left over in this game where a player can fail comically without the tedious nonsense to eyeball something like assembling a station around Earth in full size RSS. I would do if the NASA too would eyeball their rendezvous maneouvers. but----

A few posts ago some were mentioned..., radar altimeter only in iva, orbit info only in map mode, precice burns possible while its impossible to detect how much DV the rocket has. I guess (well there are quite a lot of posts here where 'guessing' is enhanced into a 'science') that this was not intentionally planned. It was left out because i 'guess' the wide river of Early acess money was flowing elsewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Thats the Point. I learned how to do orbital maneouvering and docking watching how mechjeb is doing it. So for me the game started easy and i had a learning curve.

I would say this is why you think these things are difficult. Instead of learning to do them, you put the game on autopilot and watched. This is why I always respond in these threads. I've seen many new players ask for advice in the Gameplay Questions forum, and the first thing they're told is "install Mechjeb or KER, the game is unplayable without them". It is dead wrong and, in my opinion, detrimental to the player's development. Maybe at least try the game first? Are you of the believe that games should be easy? Or do you think it should take some time to learn the skills necessary to become good at it?

18 minutes ago, Sirad said:

I would do if the NASA too would eyeball their rendezvous maneouvers. but----

If you are comparing your video game experiences to NASA, that might be where things began to go wrong for you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sirad, I'd like to apologize now if my comment above was a bit harsh. I don't mean to knock the way you play. We all play differently, and one way is as good as any other. If you learned via Mechjeb, then so be it. There's no way to say something is right or wrong in this game; just whether it's fun or not. If you're enjoying the game, that's all that really matters. I just get a bit heated when I hear that the stock game is not playable or fun. Has nothing to do with you personally. Plus I work 12 hour days, so maybe I'm just tired. :)

Anyway, time to pass out. Hope all goes well, happy landings and whatnot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I would say this is why you think these things are difficult. Instead of learning to do them, you put the game on autopilot and watched. This is why I always respond in these threads. I've seen many new players ask for advice in the Gameplay Questions forum, and the first thing they're told is "install Mechjeb or KER, the game is unplayable without them". It is dead wrong and, in my opinion, detrimental to the player's development. Maybe at least try the game first? Are you of the believe that games should be easy? Or do you think it should take some time to learn the skills necessary to become good at it?

Never, ever put your own line of 'how you are doing something'  upon others and force anyone to do as you did. This is not objective. How anyone gets to that Point where he is able to 'eyeball stuff' is upon anyone self. No need to force others thru tedious trial and error stuff. this is a game at all and no exercice in 'masochistic behaviour' If i want to be masochistic i try dark soul with bare hands. I can eyeball NOW if i overdesign the rocket but thats no sucess but this is my opinion....

There is so much art in that game just by designing a rocket that there is no need to uselessly harden the use of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sirad said:

Thats the Point. I learned how to do orbital maneouvering and docking watching how mechjeb is doing it. So for me the game started easy and i had a learning curve. Now i know hot do dock, how to transfer and how to land. Even by eyeballing if i must, but i dont wanna. Tedious nonsense. There are quite plenty enough things left over in this game where a player can fail comically without the tedious nonsense to eyeball something like assembling a station around Earth in full size RSS. I would do if the NASA too would eyeball their rendezvous maneouvers. but----

 

NASA wouldn't let *you* design the rocket to start with, so your point is a bit moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sirad said:

Can you please supply my with a source where the developers just stated this Point ?

Most of the dev posts from back in the day.   Dig and ye shall find. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.