KSP Loading... Preview: The Δv per Stage Display

[klgraham1013]

13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think a lot of us who have been playing for a long time have forgotten what it was like the very first time we played

Oh, I remember.  Thank the Kraken for YouTube, because KSP itself didn't teach me anything.  By not including everything that's important, you're hindering learning.  Does Civilization hide complex systems and menus at the beginning?  No.  Does it increase complexity by adding to those systems later in the game.  Yes.  KSP isn't unlocking additive features.  It's uncovering what was hidden for arbitrary reasons.  I'm really getting tired of the assumption that new players are somehow to stupid for numbers.  They're buying a rocket game known for generally realistic physics.  They know what they're getting in to.  I'm glad when I was growing up playing Sim City 2000 and Civilization 2 that the developers had some faith in my intelligence.

[tater]

30 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

think a lot of us who have been playing for a long time have forgotten what it was like the very first time we played or aren't thinking about the play experience for people just coming into the game without any prior knowledge of how rockets work.

Yes, and not giving them the tools to make some jumps as to what is going on makes the game harder for them, not easier.

I always suggested (for years now), that Werner should pop up for noobs and have a little blackboard showing a rocket doodle in a ballistic arc back to Kerbin with the dv readout next to it (in a drawn looking font) if the dv to sub-orbital, then one that is orbital (doodle of the rocket making a circle around Kerbin) if the dv is at least enough, or escape (arrow up and away).

That would show them what is required in a simple image.

 

[XLjedi]

@passinglurker  it has nothing to do with my saved games, or the craft that I play with. 

It has to do with the hangar of craft (see my signature) that I spent a fair amount of time creating and maintain for stock players to download. 

I don't mind Squad adding new parts and/or new variants.  I'm still waiting for them to add the two parts that are painfully missing in order to make the orange space shuttle main fuel tank!  Not to mention steerable large landing gear, and a decent Mk3 stock airplane cockpit. 

My issue is when they replace/retire an older part for no apparent reason.  The poodle and hammer engines for instance...  There's no reason the old parts cannot continue as a variant or separate part for new player installs.  But from what I've seen/read, the old part will be discontinued.  So old craft that used these parts have to be upgraded to the new part else someone with a 1.6+ install will no longer be able to download and use a 1.x design with the old part.

Sometimes the redo doesn't change the outer shape (hammer engine) of the part too much, but other times (Mk1 Capsule, and Poodle Engine) the outer shape/look of the part changed enough that it may no longer fit with how the part was placed/clipped into the design. 

I'm more an advocate of part continuity than an opponent of new parts/looks, and there's no reason @SQUAD can't add the redo's as new parts or just offer them as a new variant of the existing part.  

 

 

  

[Pthigrivi]

8 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I'm really getting tired of the assumption that new players are somehow to stupid for numbers.  They're buying a rocket game known for generally realistic physics.  They know what they're getting in to.  I'm glad when I was growing up playing Sim City 2000 and Civilization 2 that the developers had some faith in my intelligence.

True, but its also a game in which little bug-eyed aliens fly rockets around. Its a great educational tool for kids. Im not worried about insulting players intelligence, Im worried about prenting players with a bunch of data before they have a frame of reference to understand what it means. Again, Im suggesting it wouldnt be such a hardship to hold it back for the first few launches, perhaps an hour into a first-time players experience. 

[XLjedi]

@Pthigrivi I think my preference (if we are going to make it a condition dependent feature) would be to tie it to the Engineer abilities rather than the facilities.  Would be a good way to add more relevance to the various roles.  I'd appreciate my flight engineer more during the mission if he/she was back there enabling the DV info on the UI HUD.  ...but maybe allow it to be visible all the time in the SPH/VAB so we don't have to guess at (or install mods) to see the DV at design time.

[Frank_G]

On 12/8/2018 at 2:04 PM, klgraham1013 said:

Because:

• A:  "Trial and error" is fun. 
• B:  Numbers scare people.
• C:  It's to hard to beep boop.
• D:  All of the above.

There is no fun in trial and error, only good calculations or more data to take into account for the next time. Okay, there are those trials were it all goes boom... that is fun... Fly dangerous! o7

[Superfluous J]

Two points

1) I'm really enjoying this discussion.
2) I keep agreeing with both sides.

After much thought, I decided to go back to my default theory and see how it applies to this. Career should not be the default mode that new players go to, nor should sandbox. Most new players (we're all different people after all) should do science mode. It punishes mistakes far less (not at all in regards to progression) but gives a somewhat directed learning experience.

Like most things in Science Mode, I think dV numbers should (and will) be available from the start. As a seasoned player I also think they should be available from the start in my preferred mode, Career. Obviously, Sandbox should have them from the start.

So my opinion is that there should be no gating to dV, TWR or any other data.

Until one of you (again) makes me rethink it.

[Pthigrivi]

36 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

@Pthigrivi I think my preference (if we are going to make it a condition dependent feature) would be to tie it to the Engineer abilities rather than the facilities.  Would be a good way to add more relevance to the various roles.  I'd appreciate my flight engineer more during the mission if he/she was back there enabling the DV info on the UI HUD.  ...but maybe allow it to be visible all the time in the SPH/VAB so we don't have to guess at (or install mods) to see the DV at design time.

Perhaps, but Id definitely like to have dV visible for probes as well. Honestly after going back and re-watching the video I think the display is slick and unobtrusive enough that maybe its okay to have it right from the start. So, tater and Klgraham, I think you might be right about all this. 

Is that an internet first?

[XLjedi]

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Perhaps, but Id definitely like to have dV visible for probes as well. 

Would make the difference between available probe cores more relevant too!  …if the more advanced ones included it.

[Bill Phil]

9 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

Would make the difference between available probe cores more relevant too!  …if the more advanced ones included it.

Or have a part that allows it be displayed like KER.

[passinglurker]

@XLjedi first old parts are inconsistent, unoptimized, and should be purged with fire so we will have no more of that "no reason" heresy from you/s

But really the community has been in circles over and over about the merits of revamping read old thread if you want those reasons but either way you are coming very late to the party change is here you just have to accept it.

Also on the technical side the way squad implemented mesh/texture switch what you propose with variants is impossible all variants must share either a common texture or common mesh. There is no merit to the old parts meshes or textures so they can't be used and therefore revamps have to replace them they can't simply be variants it's simply not possible with the current code.

P.s. If you insist on sharing your files as a "community service" then you should have no qualms maintaining and updating them as the game changes like modders do.

Edited December 9, 2018 by passinglurker

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 hour ago, XLjedi said:

The poodle and hammer engines for instance..

Hammer/Flea where really ugly  Unfitting for the never KSP airstyle

[XLjedi]

@passinglurker  

45 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

But really the community has been in circles over and over about the merits of revamping read old thread if you want those reasons but either way you are coming very late to the party change is here you just have to accept it. 

Which old thread would that be?  ...are there more than 10 people on it?  I'll read it.

Been playin a couple years, and first post here was March of 2017.  Do I have to predate the 1.0 release to not be late to the party?

I've also pointed out in another thread, that part continuity is also an issue in the Mission Builder Era.  Any mission with one of those old parts included will be destroyed to new installs if/when the part is deprecated.  From what I've seen, they don't just change the look/mesh of the part, they also use a new name on the actual part file.  And presumably, new installs just won't have the old part name.  So missions that people have created are being destroyed to new players as the part files change. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by XLjedi

[Lathari]

Oh, the Kerbality. Before this update news a long term wrangling over delta-v display. Now we have moved to arguing when the display should be visible. 

But I have to agree with @5thHorseman that default new game should select science mode.

Next argument: Delta-v maps in KSPedia or not?

[Superfluous J]

Just now, Lathari said:

Next argument: Delta-v maps in KSPedia or not?

Absolutely not. They should instead be in the VAB staging view as little markers showing you how far your rocket can go with the listed dV. With the ability for you to set target world and situation for each stage (i.e. stage 8 should be in LKO, 7 ejecting, 6 flying by Tylo, 5 landed on Tylo, etc) and a display of how much extra fuel you have for those goals.

But I don't really ask for much

[klgraham1013]

1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

Absolutely not. They should instead be in the VAB staging view as little markers showing you how far your rocket can go with the listed dV. With the ability for you to set target world and situation for each stage (i.e. stage 8 should be in LKO, 7 ejecting, 6 flying by Tylo, 5 landed on Tylo, etc) and a display of how much extra fuel you have for those goals.

But I don't really ask for much

I agree with this.  The KSPedia was a good idea hypothetically, but I'd wager must players don't even open it.  Give us tools, not text.

[XLjedi]

20 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I agree with this.  The KSPedia was a good idea hypothetically, but I'd wager must players don't even open it.  Give us tools, not text.

What's the KSPedia?

[Pthigrivi]

24 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

What's the KSPedia?

Exactly.

Edit, sorry thats not helpful. Its the little blue rocket book on the far right. Actually has a lot of good information but I agree with the others integrated flight planning tools would be even better. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Game design is a little different in an open world like KSP though. If you just hang out around Kerbin, of course, things get easier as you unlock more things. What increases the challenge is going out further and mounting bigger and more complicated missions to other planets. For that, you absolutely need flight planning tools like dV.

Things get easier, period.

Making things harder by making more complex Rube Goldberg designs with no game requirement to do so (like life support, crew comfort, redundancy, etc) is not the career game getting harder. By the time Duna is in a good spot to go there at all the first time, the player already has unlocked nearly everything. I just played through a 3.2X planets, 6.4X distances career tree (stock-stockalike parts) I have almost 100% of the tree unlocked, with a crew vehicle (overbuilt) on Duna, a probe landed on Eve, and vehicles OTW to Jool and Dres (at this scale transit times are huge). Landing on Minmus basically unlocked everything (I've lofted labs for contracts, but not used them at all to farm science).

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I think a lot of us who have been playing for a long time have forgotten what it was like the very first time we played or aren't thinking about the play experience for people just coming into the game without any prior knowledge of how rockets work. Staging is new, gimbaling is new, aerodynamics are new, gravity turns are new. I think there's a legitimate value to keeping screen clutter way down so folks can focus on what's immediately necessary to learn. Upgrading the VAB can happen pretty easily after the 3rd or 5th launch, right around the time when new players might start thinking about landing on the mun and making more reliable, more efficient rockets. 

WRT career, I think of 2 people. One who has never played, and one who wishes an interesting replay. Both are lousy right now.

Keeping information away from people isn't helping them at any level.

 

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean the way I play and I'm sure you and Klgraham play it seems obvious to have dV the whole time. I'm more thinking about the broader play experience for everyone. 

So am I.

Merely knowing that you need to stack up 4500 m/s to reach orbit is incredibly useful, and very usefully steers new players. They can see where adding mass (or moar boosters) helps, and where it hurts. There's no good argument for hobbling new players, I've seen the "trial and error" in practice (watching kids and adult noobs play), and it's not useful. The difference between trial and error and science is keeping notes. Delta V is the "notes."

[theJesuit]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

<snip> Landing on Minmus basically unlocked everything (I've lofted labs for contracts, but not used them at all to farm science).

Have you tried moving Minmus to the orbit of Eeloo, which IMHO makes the most sense for what it is?  Minty snowball.

That way, regardless of play, you can't max out the tech tree so easily.  Imagine if Earth are a Minmus equivalent.  We'd have warp drive by now!

Peace.

[tater]

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

After much thought, I decided to go back to my default theory and see how it applies to this. Career should not be the default mode that new players go to, nor should sandbox. Most new players (we're all different people after all) should do science mode. It punishes mistakes far less (not at all in regards to progression) but gives a somewhat directed learning experience.

I'd agree with this, except career punishes nothing at all for the majority of players. The only way to be punished would be no reverts or quicksaves at all, which results in a non-zero chance of losing in the early game. By the time you start reaching anything past LKO, that's not even a problem, you can't lose funds fast enough to have any problems.

That said, I agree with science mode being the way to go entirely.

[theJesuit]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I'd agree with this, except career punishes nothing at all for the majority of players. The only way to be punished would be no reverts or quicksaves at all, which results in a non-zero chance of losing in the early game. By the time you start reaching anything past LKO, that's not even a problem, you can't lose funds fast enough to have any problems.

That said, I agree with science mode being the way to go entirely.

I'd really like a science mode that upgrades the KSC based on progression...  I wonder if that is possible?

[tater]

27 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

What's the KSPedia?

I never use that, either, but more importantly, what science gathering (and career/science modes in general) lacks is "fog of war." Nothing is unknown in KSP with any effort. Assuming KSPedia has info on planets, then it's right there. What would be far better would be for you to start only knowing what you could know from Kerbin. So Duna would be a redish ball, the moons of Jool? Dots. The surface of Eve? ? You gain data by getting it yourself. As you visit places, you unlock data on where the atmosphere actually ends, etc. An idea I had was that you'd have a tool like the atmospheric trajectories mod, but it only unlocks when you do specific science at a given planet.

2 minutes ago, theJesuit said:

I'd really like a science mode that upgrades the KSC based on progression...  I wonder if that is possible?

You could give yourself max funds, and otherwise play career?

[theJesuit]

1 minute ago, tater said:

You could give yourself max funds, and otherwise play career?

I guess, making all parts/ resources cost nothing, and manipulating contracts to give zero funds, only rep and Science!.  Leaving, or tweaking the World Firsts contracts to be the only fund producers.  Then the only thing you have to spend funds on would be the buildings and the purchase of kerbonauts.  To get a bigger VAB and luanchpad you need to probe the mun.  To get a bigger tracking station you need to send a craft out of the SOI.  To upgrade the Astronaut complex you need to do an EVA in orbit etc.

This may be off topic now.  Sorry mods.

[Pthigrivi]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

Keeping information away from people isn't helping them at any level.

If you keep reading you'll notice I agree with you.   My concerns were about the level of unnecessary visual clutter causing distraction to players dont know what staging even is yet, that we allow them in the first hour to get a handle on things like flying straight without flipping and hitting the space bar at the right time before we load on a lot of information they dont quite need yet. Looking more closely at how Squad has laid things out Im not so worried about that. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Pthigrivi