KSP Loading... A closer look into Update 1.6

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 minute ago, roboslacker said:

I am fully against stock life support.

Why tho, If it can be turned off by will (or most likely is turned off by default), then where is the harm?

[SudAntares]

3 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I would expect that any stock life support would be very similar to the USI Life Support mod (it also doesn't hurt that it was developed by Roverdude, who now happens to be a dev). Instead of tracking food/water/oxygen separately like what TAC Life Support does, I would expect the stock implementation to use just a single resource (plus maybe electricity) to keep things simple. Capsules would have some resources by default sufficient for a few days.

Just like CLLS (Closed Loop Life Support). It has a container, a smaller and a bigger generator (IRSU re-textured), and only ec needed.

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 minute ago, SudAntares said:

Just like CLLS (Closed Loop Life Support). It has a container, a smaller and a bigger generator (IRSU re-textured), and only ec needed.

But does it have a Hab-time mechanic like USI does?

[SudAntares]

1 minute ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

But does it have a Hab-time mechanic like USI does?

Hab-time? 

Maybe, but idk. Explain it, and I'll tell you it has, or no.

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 minute ago, SudAntares said:

Hab-time? 

Maybe, but idk. Explain it, and I'll tell you it has, or no.

Additionally to Food, homesickness is a thing. Crew capacity gives you a limited time until after running out, a kerbal goes homesick (they go on strike just like if you run out of food). Single seat gives you few days. More empty seats/Dedicate hab parts/parts with hab multiplier = Longer Hab-time = Longer stay in space before kerbals go on strike.

[SudAntares]

1 minute ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Additionally to Food, homesickness is a thing. Crew capacity gives you a limited time until after running out, a kerbal goes homesick (they go on strike just like if you run out of food). Single seat gives you few days. More empty seats/Dedicate hab parts/parts with hab multiplier = Longer Hab-time = Longer stay in space before kerbals go on strike.

Ay, see. Nope, CLLS doesn't have Hab-time. Something similar you can find by the way in Kerbalism or Kerbal health mods, but those are lacking of life support, as far as I know.

[Superfluous J]

I expect if they do end up tackling life support, I'll probably end up liking it even though I've not really stuck with any modded life support. I base this on how I really prefer stock ISRU and stock communications networks to anything ever done by mods. The KSP devs seem sometimes to be designing the game around what I want.

That said, I can't actually come up with a life support paradigm I'd enjoy, and I've tried most if not all of the mods out there.

[BudgetHedgehog]

On 12/14/2018 at 6:58 PM, ObsessedWithKSP said:

You mentioned it applies to visors - does it also apply to cockpit windows and solar panels (or any glass surface)? One of my favourite gifs of KSP is this one, it'd be glorious to have it stock:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

EDIT: Hoping post edits ping correctly - @nestor

I'm guessing post edits don't ping correctly (until I'm told otherwise), so @nestor? This is very important for me to know, my username is very relevant 

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, roboslacker said:

I am fully against stock life support.

Well, Squad isn't actually talking about it, just us. If it ever did happen it would I'm sure be toggleable so you wouldn't have to use it. If you never have you should try it though. It's fun and really adds a whole new dimension to the game. 

[Lathari]

9 hours ago, roboslacker said:

I am fully against stock life support.

 

[Xurkitree]

If they ever implement Life Support, I hope they don't put some sort of Habitation feature, because I hate it. Its far more complicated than the other LS variables imo and then it tends to disable your kerbals somewhat randomly. Kerbals should be okay living for long periods of time goddamit!

Edited December 17, 2018 by Xurkitree

[Curveball Anders]

15 hours ago, roboslacker said:

I am fully against stock life support.

 

15 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Why tho, If it can be turned off by will (or most likely is turned off by default), then where is the harm?

Creeping Featurism (or Feeping Creaturism) is a scary malady that tends to be propagated by almost everyone in the software industry except for Project Managers and QA Staff.

New features, no matter how optional, tends to complicate code, increase resource demands and create new unexpected (and often unwanted) application behavior.

In short, more code -> more bugs.

Mods or plugins (if there is a framework for such) is often a much better way to add optional features.

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, Xurkitree said:

If they ever implement Life Support, I hope they don't put some sort of Habitation feature, because I hate it. Its far more complicated than the other LS variables imo and then it tends to disable your kerbals somewhat randomly. Kerbals should be okay living for long periods of time goddamit!

I do agree that USI's Habitation mechanic is slightly more complicated than a stock one would want to be, but having a habitation variable is what makes habitation modules and centrifuges integrated components of gameplay rather than just expensive window dressing. It's the reason to build a base or a space station or to bring real crew compartments instead of flying someone to Duna or Jool in command chair. So long as its dead simple and easily readable in the VAB (and of course with toggleble consequence options) it makes the game much more real. It might even be nice if habitation was additive--giving bonuses to experience rewards for happy kerbals rather than kerbals striking when they're unhappy. All this would probably be better as a space exploration DLC though, with some fancy reactors and VASIMR engines and so on. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[T1mo98]

52 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

 

Creeping Featurism (or Feeping Creaturism) is a scary malady that tends to be propagated by almost everyone in the software industry except for Project Managers and QA Staff.

New features, no matter how optional, tends to complicate code, increase resource demands and create new unexpected (and often unwanted) application behavior.

In short, more code -> more bugs.

Mods or plugins (if there is a framework for such) is often a much better way to add optional features.

So don't add features to a game because it makes things more difficult? That would be a pretty excrementsty developer if you ask me.

Also, I don't want to rely on mods to get new features. Mods can become outdated or discontinued, a core game feature will always stay available and functional. 

[Superfluous J]

13 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

So don't add features to a game because it makes things more difficult?

No, but it's a factor when deciding whether or not to add a feature. And the more features you already have, the more of a factor it is.

And KSP has a lot of features.

[roboslacker]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

It's the reason to build a base or a space station or to bring real crew compartments instead of flying someone to Duna or Jool in command chair.

Sending Kerbals on decade long voyages in command chairs is very Kerbal.

[Foxster]

I would like to go on record to say that I'm against any plans that Squad may or may not have to implement dancing unicorns in KSP!

If people want dancing unicorns in their game then let them download the DancingUnicorn Revisited mod, not clutter up the purity that is stock KSP. 

In general principle I'm also against the inclusion in stock KSP of giant killer wasps, space brothels and people from Belgium. 

[/satire]

Edited December 17, 2018 by Foxster

[Azimech]

Don't know if this is a thing but I'd rather see 1.6 arrive in 2019 instead of somewhere next week or so. Imagine releasing it just before the holidays and (worse case scenario) having a bugfest from here to the Mun. No time for a quickfix, people unhappy about their favorite mods not being updated etc.

[Xurkitree]

3 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Don't know if this is a thing but I'd rather see 1.6 arrive in 2019 instead of somewhere next week or so. Imagine releasing it just before the holidays and (worse case scenario) having a bugfest from here to the Mun. No time for a quickfix, people unhappy about their favorite mods not being updated etc.

It going to arrive in January, confirmed from the announcement that they're moving to quaterly updates every 3 months. 1.5 was in oct right?

[Pthigrivi]

19 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

Sending Kerbals on decade long voyages in command chairs is very Kerbal.

True, but so were asparagus abominations and other un-aerodynamic designs encouraged by the old unrealistic aero model. Foxster is right though this is all pie in the sky and not really relevant to 1.6.

[GrandProtectorDark]

Well At least let us hope that we don't end up with 1.6.7 this time.

1.4.x was already a "fun" adventure for both users and modders

Edited December 17, 2018 by GrandProtectorDark

[RealKerbal3x]

17 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Well At least let us hope that we don't end up with 1.6.7 this time.

1.4.x was already a "fun" adventure for both users and modders

With the new release system they've just implemented, hopefully not. I believe the .x updates will now be focused on specific critical or game-breaking bugs, and hopefully we won't see too many gamebreakers in 1.6.

[klgraham1013]

34 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Don't know if this is a thing but I'd rather see 1.6 arrive in 2019 instead of somewhere next week or so. Imagine releasing it just before the holidays and (worse case scenario) having a bugfest from here to the Mun. No time for a quickfix, people unhappy about their favorite mods not being updated etc.

They did this for one of the releases.  It didnt go so well.

[Tyko]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:23 PM, Maxsimal said:

On 12/12/2018 at 12:36 PM, Tyko said:

Love the new designs. The MH engine re-spec is really exciting!

@RoverDudeAny chance you can share the new MH engine specs? 

There's a dev blog coming up shortly that has all the relevant stats, I believe it'll be posted pretty soon, just needs to be vetted by the comms team. 

@Maxsimal Did the dev blog go out with the stats in it somewhere other than KSP forums? Maybe I missed it?

[pandaman]

19 hours ago, roboslacker said:

I am fully against stock life support.

Why?

I completely understand that it may not appeal to you, but what's so bad about it having an 'on/off' toggle?