klesh Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said: I don't actually know what they refer to anything they never plan to use again but will remain indefinitely. As far as leftover stages, from what I see it's just Lunar Module Descent Stage. It's still the descent stage, its just...well... done descending. Edited March 26, 2019 by klesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, klesh said: As far as leftover stages, from what I see it's just Lunar Module Descent Stage. It's still the descent stage, its just...well... done descending. So it's an adult now. Sorry I couldn't resist the joke. Anyway, I don't really see the need to not call it Debris, or a Base, and then name that Debris or Base the Munar Module Descent Stage. Frankly I'm more cheesed that I can't classify my satellites as Satellites and instead they have to be Stations or Probes. Edited March 26, 2019 by 5thHorseman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klesh Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said: So it's an adult now. Anyway, I don't really see the need to not call it Debris, or a Base, and then name that Debris or Base the Munar Module Descent Stage. lol, funny! Thats what I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 Customizable categories and icons. No set group of categories is going to satisfy everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandProtectorDark Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 12 hours ago, razark said: Customizable categories and icons. No set group of categories is going to satisfy everyone. I'm 100% sure stock ksp already supports custom categories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 14 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said: I'm 100% sure stock ksp already supports custom categories I'd like to see some more information on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 51 minutes ago, GrandProtectorDark said: I'm 100% sure stock ksp already supports custom categories Custom part categories, yes. Custom categories for tracking station objects: not to the best of my knowledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Flying Kerbal Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 22 hours ago, klesh said: I've never heard them refer to it physically as a landing site either. A landing site would be the physical area of the Moon (or Mun) itself. 18 hours ago, 5thHorseman said: I don't actually know what they refer to anything they never plan to use again but will remain indefinitely. Oh NASA does refer to the Apollo 11 landing site quite regularly, for example here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html You know guys, it isn't actually the end of the world, certainly not in the same league as another poster who has to live with the fact that Squad is busy sorting out a bug causing exploding flagpoles while he still can't use his joystick because of another bug deemed to be of low priority. To me that's inexcusable, Squad really should know better. No, my little wish is something I would like to see in the game personally. It doesn't in any way detract from the game, it's would just be nice to be able to call a descent stage sitting on another celestial body something a little more meaningful than "Debris". As someone else suggested, maybe a few Custom Icons similar to Custom Action Groups would be possible? Anyway, I've a Kerballed vessel due in from Minmus shortly so I'd better be pop round to the KSC and make sure it lands safely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twidget_Gray Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 22 hours ago, klesh said: As far as leftover stages, from what I see it's just Lunar Module Descent Stage. It's still the descent stage, its just...well... done descending. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klesh Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 4 hours ago, The Flying Kerbal said: Oh NASA does refer to the Apollo 11 landing site quite regularly, for example here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html Yes, they're referring to the location where the Lunar Module landed. On the very page you linked they refer to the descent stage of the lunar module as "LM". Quote The footpads of the LM are clearly discernible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted March 27, 2019 Share Posted March 27, 2019 6 hours ago, The Flying Kerbal said: Oh NASA does refer to the Apollo 11 landing site quite regularly, for example here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html I didn't see any generic nouns used. All I can see is that they named the debris "Apollo Landing Site." This thread caused me to poke around in the configs and apparently ship designations are not defined there. Sadly, they seem to be coded directly into the program. So, no (easy) modding of this (Or "Satellite") in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo5144 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 do we have news of 1.7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Really would like to see launch sites placeable by the player rather than being in a predetermined location. I'm not complaining, I love seeing updates for console players being one myself. Just saying what I'm thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 On 3/14/2019 at 3:03 PM, SQUAD said: Altimeter mode toggle Aside from the visual enhancements mentioned above, we are including a long requested quality-of-life feature in this update that will allow you to toggle the altitude mode from Above Sea Level (ASL) to Above Ground Level (AGL) by simply clicking on the altimeter box. It’s important to mention that we are evaluating our players’ feedback and making some adjustments to the UI, so stay tuned! All we need now is a stock docking port alignment indicator, and my wishlist from four years ago will finally be finished. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/109509-user-interface-improvements/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socraticat Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 4 hours ago, Arch3rAc3 said: Lovely! And there will be people buying this with a smile on their face... On the other hand we can get no game, or no updates... My $10 doesn't even cover 1 hour of a developer's time. Not to mention the $0 I spent on the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch3rAc3 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Joessep Kerman said: On the other hand we can get no game, or no updates... My $10 doesn't even cover 1 hour of a developer's time. Not to mention the $0 I spent on the update. You mean the $0 you spent on the update that was supposed to fix a broken game but didn't? I don't know about you - if you think you should also pay for that - but for me it's pretty clear that making their own game playable is nothing less of an obligation of the developers. Not to say that it wasn't $0, but KSP was actually ~$30 (or 70BRL) when I bought it three years ago, to only have a playable-ish game this year... Also, it's funny, so your 10$ don't even cover one hour of a developer time for an eye-candy DLC, yet modders, in their free time and for free, are making better content in terms of complexity, completion and details if compared to what the mighty Devs are developing. Maybe instead of charging for stuff which are so basic that they should have already been in the core game (such as simply having more places to launch your rocket from) they should have focused on fixing what modders can't, such as the poor performance and optimization of the game in consoles (and even on PC), fixing the rest of the ignored bugs from the tracker and properly testing the game before releasing the so called "bug fixes" updates, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) On 3/30/2019 at 3:12 AM, Arch3rAc3 said: You mean the $0 you spent on the update that was supposed to fix a broken game but didn't? I don't know about you - if you think you should also pay for that - but for me it's pretty clear that making their own game playable is nothing less of an obligation of the developers. This doesn't applies as is on the real life. I had owned some cars in my life, and every one of them had (minor) flaws that sooner or later ended up with me paying someone to fixing it due premature wear. I can talk about a Brazilian very famous pickup truck that got revamped, and then the gearbox just failed on any slightly heavy use - a friend of mine bought it, mainly due the incredible endurance from mine (bought 4 to 7 years before, I don't remember). The manufacturer fixed the gearbox due the warranty, but 6 months later he realized that it was sounding weird again and would fail soon - out of the warranty. Guess what? Yeah. He sold the car for the best price he could and that's it. There're no Holly Commandment saying "Thou shall not deliver buggy softwares", unfortunately. Microsoft would not exist if such a thing exists, by the way. So your final assumption, "obligation", is not valid. That said, yeah, the developers should deliver the best game they could - or they would be, essentially, feeding the competition. Sooner or later, someone will think to himself "I can do better", and that's it. But, frankly, it's the only real worry they have - and, frankly², it's way worse than any other you were implying they should have. On 3/30/2019 at 3:12 AM, Arch3rAc3 said: Also, it's funny, so your 10$ don't even cover one hour of a developer time for an eye-candy DLC, yet modders, in their free time and for free, are making better content in terms of complexity, completion and details if compared to what the mighty Devs are developing. Unfair. Add'On authors doesn't have to guarantee minimal functionalities, don't have to pay development and publishing expenses, etc. I can tell you with a lot of authority on the field: [Add'Ons] developers have little to low "obligations" on keep things working, and some the worst KSP problems I ever saw are directly linked to Add'Ons. Their [KSP Developers] lives would be way easier without such Add'Ons breaking all the time the KSP guts (and they having to handle the fallout). [I'm a prophet, by the way ] I strongly suggest you adopt an Add'On and try to maintain it yourself, instead of doing such bold affirmations about other people's work. On 3/30/2019 at 3:12 AM, Arch3rAc3 said: Maybe instead of charging for stuff which are so basic that they should have already been in the core game (such as simply having more places to launch your rocket from) they should have focused on fixing what modders can't, such as the poor performance and optimization of the game in consoles (and even on PC), fixing the rest of the ignored bugs from the tracker and properly testing the game before releasing the so called "bug fixes" updates, don't you think? No, I don't think it. They should do whatever any serious business must do in order to stay afloat - they should do whatever leads them to a profit on the end of the month, in order to get their salaries paid. Ideally, this must be reached [accomplished - yeah, language barrier] delivering an error free product, that would satisfy all their customers - but this is an utopia. There's no way to accomplish it in any field on the Real World. So they have to make compromises. Some of these compromises bite horribly later, but Foreseeing the Future is a topic that are not, yet, taught on Universities, so sometimes we need to do our best judgment and just pray it works. Edited March 31, 2019 by Lisias Sometimes, some things than on my native language can be implicit, on English is not. So.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socraticat Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 31 minutes ago, Lisias said: Ideally, this must be reached delivering a error free product, that would satisfy all their customers... There's no way to accomplish it in any field of the Real World. So they have to make compromises. Some of these compromises bite horribly later, but Foreseeing the Future is a topic that are not, yet, taught on Universities, so sometimes we need to do our best judgment and just pray it works. And here's the real point. $10 is moot in comparison to the complexities and liabilities of a car, or many other products. It costs less than a LEGO set. I say the haters should go find their own game. Maybe they can have black-jack and reputable ladies too. For the money I did pay, the product works fine. It's a game about problem solving. I've successfully made a refuelable ssto that made it to eve and duna. I've mined many moons. I've caught asteroids and built space stations. All on XBox. The game is not "broken". It was. It still does sometimes "break", but solve the problem by working around the issue, ie. saving strategically. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch3rAc3 Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Lisias said: This doesn't applies as is on the real life. I had owned some cars in my life, and every one of them had (minor) flaws that sooner or later ended up with me paying someone to fixing it due premature wear. Keyword: "Wear". A software doesn't simply wear like a car, so you couldn't be more right - this doesn't applies as it* does in real life. 4 hours ago, Lisias said: There're no Holly Commandment saying "Thou shall not deliver buggy softwares", unfortunately. Microsoft would not exist if such a thing exists, by the way. So your final assumption, "obligation", is not valid. Actually, "obligation" is very valid, but for another reason. We are not talking about simple "buggy software" - every single software will have bugs. What I been talking about are game breaking problems. When the game launched, it took about 1 WHOLE year for the devs only to adress it and one more year for them to come with a fix that didn't fix half of the problems. I don't want to get all specific and cite names of other developer companies here, but there are many, many more developers of different games out there that launched games with bugs - bugs not as serious as the ones encountered in KSP, because such bugs would have been easily noticeable with 2 minutes of gameplay testing - and had been in touch with the community from launch, checking feedback and quickly resolving problems + making use of multiple suggestions by the players to increase the quality of the game (as I will touch on at the end of this comment with some examples). What's going on with Squad though is simply ridiculous. 4 hours ago, Lisias said: Add'On authors doesn't have to guarantee minimal functionalities Yet, Add'On authors - modders - have provided over and over minimal functionalities with high quality mods and proper testing before launching - it's almost like most of the modders give a bigger care for their unpaid mods than developers with their updates. Odd, so odd... 4 hours ago, Lisias said: Their [KSP Developers] lives would be way easier without such Add'Ons breaking all the time the KSP guts Except mods are not available for consoles and the game was pretty much more broken on the consoles than at any state during the PC time WITH most mods. Can't blame mods in this case. 4 hours ago, Lisias said: delivering a error free product, Not error free, playable. 4 hours ago, Lisias said: They should do whatever any serious business must do in order to stay afloat - they should do whatever leads them to a profit on the end of the month, in order to get their salaries paid. I don't mind [much] about them asking people for money for Eye-Candy DLC such as parts design improvements (although modders have made a more complete job with parts redesign/revamp in PC already with less problems...), better textures, etc. What I do mind a lot is them charging for SUPER basic features - such as, again, just more launch sites from Kerbin. These basic gameplay focused features that one would expect from the Core game being added through DLCs is simply a joke. In an idealistic situation where we could install mods compatible with KSP 1.0 on consoles I could have many more launch sites around Kerbin for free because a modder went further than the developers here - adding twice something that the developers took so long to add, costless. I much rather they chose to stay afloat by properly working at essential parts of the game instead of employing a money grabbing strategy for super basic features because they decided to give minimal care for the console version of the game for whole 3 years in the past. 3 hours ago, Joessep Kerman said: $10 is moot in comparison to the complexities and liabilities of a car, Again, it's not a car, why is this analogy even here to start with? Also, if we must talk about cars, you do know that if a serious problem occurs, car producers are mostly obliged to repay any damage caused due to their fault, right? Now, I'm not asking for money from Squad, but note that there hasn't been any consideration after 3 years of a broken game for players who bought the game when it launched - except some odd stuffed-in and quite unnecessary features such as a PAID moon launch base just to pretend we are given proper care, since, well, it's a lovely EXCLUSIVE feauture! (for the time being at least). So, again, players not having to pay for a fix for their long broken game does seem to make a bit of sense for me - especially in this situation - does it not for you? 3 hours ago, Joessep Kerman said: For the money I did pay, the product works fine It only started "working" one year ago (and "fine" is a really heavy word here), with many fixeable and easily noticeable problems still present that squad apparently didn't care so much or did the minimal effort to fix (more on this at the end of the comment again). 3 hours ago, Joessep Kerman said: I've successfully made a refuelable ssto that made it to eve and duna. But you didn't transmit science; had you done so, your whole game would have been broken, forbidding Kerbals of going EVA ever again due to a long reported ladder bug that apparently has only been half-fixed of yet. In turn, this forbids me from playing immersively with a Hard settings that requires lots of science transmission and minimal use of Kerbals in dangerous situations - because, no Kerbal Respawn. I haven't been able to properly play the game as of yet, with my latest save breaking one more time due to this same bug after many hours of gameplay. If you're fine with it, great. I'm honestly not, and any serious developers would have this fixed a lot sooner (but pretty much every other serious developer wouldn't have left their players in the dark after a whole year just as well). Now for some examples of their amazing care for our platform: (April 17, 2018). I detailed the whole problem with the trim system they created (and apparently didn't test) for the xbox version + many ways to fix it. What did the devs do? Did they implement a different system for trimming? Did they manage to separate trim inputs between the 3 axis? Did they make trim dependent on the orange arrow (control surface movement indicator) position instead of the physical analogue stick position so you wouldn't have problems when a re-trim was needed? NO! They went with the laziest possible option and created a "Disable Trim" toggle function in the menu's controls settings, pretty much not fixing the trim system they implemented, but allowing you to disable it completely and not make use of trimming because it doesn't work. So as of yet, you either have a non-functional trimming that messes up with your controls or you don't have a trimming system at all. Who cares about actually making it functional, right? and then posted in the suggestions section again No answer from the devs. No "Max physics delta-time per frame" settings implemented (like I had and used back on my low-end PC to make the game playable). No apparent effort for a fix or a workaround. Even when I'm launching biggers rockets - which start making use of the bigger engines fitted for the X200 series of fuel tanks - for 99% of the launch and ascent my time/perfomance indicator is between the Red and Yellow with FPS down to the 20's. But apparently this is not as important and adding more colors to parts and asking for money. One of the most annoying yet easily fixable (and a lot more easier noticeable) problem present on the consoles - requiring, as a quick workaround, only the use of a different key/button to interact with the Crew Hatch vs interact with any part on the ship - because having to click on that tiny part with the super innacurate cursor controlled by an analogue stick while everything is shaking and at 20 FPS was not hard enough by itself already. The thread received no attention at all. Devs probably never went as far on their tests as trying to launch a rocket and having to click on an science experiment close to the command pod to notice this bug... The lovely action (bugs) groups, which were broken after one of the few 2018 updates. Although my thread was started in March 4th, the bug was reported 7 months ago in the tracker https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/19997 3 upvotes, plus edited 4 months ago, yet it's considered low priority and the %done is 0 (ZERO). Apparently more parts painting types and charging for basic features have a higher priority than a bug like this one (which is still present for a matter of fact)... And then people ask me why I don't just report bugs instead of ranting here. Seems like bug reporting (and in depth suggestion of how to fix some of the problems) is pretty useful, right? What a joke. At least we get to pay for a DLC... Edit: + a bit more on the game problems and where the development focus should be: Edited March 30, 2019 by Arch3rAc3 Grammar; video link; more typos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Arch3rAc3 said: Keyword: "Wear". A software doesn't simply wear like a car, so you couldn't be more right - this doesn't applies as it* does in real life. Yes, software does wear. We call this "bit rotting" on the trade. Every time you update your O.S., you are changing it in a way the Developers didn't tested it - as the update wasn't available when they did. If you ever had to work with Java and MacOS, you would be aware of the huge disregard Apple has to "legacy" support - being "legacy" anything that was shipped before the update. 6 hours ago, Arch3rAc3 said: Actually, "obligation" is very valid, but for another reason. We are not talking about simple "buggy software" - every single software will have bugs. What I been talking about are game breaking problems. When the game launched, it took about 1 WHOLE year for the devs only to adress it and one more year for them to come with a fix that didn't fix half of the problems. No, it's not. They have Limited Liability. I take from your last post you bought KSP for 70BRL, então você é brasileiro como eu, estou certo? ("so you are Brazilian as me"). You need to be aware of "falsos cognatos" (false cognates or false friends). Obligation is not always used in the exact same way we do with "obrigação". I think that "liability" is close to what you are meaning. 6 hours ago, Arch3rAc3 said: I don't want to get all specific and cite names of other developer companies here, but there are many, many more developers of different games out there that launched games with bugs - bugs not as serious as the ones encountered in KSP, because such bugs would have been easily noticeable with 2 minutes of gameplay testing - and had been in touch with the community from launch, checking feedback and quickly resolving problems + making use of multiple suggestions by the players to increase the quality of the game (as I will touch on at the end of this comment with some examples). What's going on with Squad though is simply ridiculous. I acknowledge that a lot of silly bugs went trough on the 1.4 series, and that 1.5.0 was launched prematurely (they had to launch 1.5.1 in a rush). I expect you to acknowledge that they are building a Q/A team now, not to mention the apparent transition to Private Division. This should met your expectations on future releases, as well raise their operating costs. So I expect they will charge you (and me) a bit more than they had done in the past. You can't have the cake and eat it too. All of that costs money. 6 hours ago, Arch3rAc3 said: Yet, Add'On authors - modders - have provided over and over minimal functionalities with high quality mods and proper testing before launching - it's almost like most of the modders give a bigger care for their unpaid mods than developers with their updates. Odd, so odd... You are barking on the wrong tree, dude. And no, almost every single Add'On I used on the last 13 months are usually shipped with some minor glitches, or are suffering from "Bit Rotting". Or plain crashed the whole game. But I will not enable you on this line of arguing. It's just too basic and evident. There're glitches everywhere, and I don't plan to be impolite by mentioning just a few Add'Ons, as they would be significantly "worse" than others, and I just don't have the whole month in order to list them all here. Edited March 31, 2019 by Lisias "My God, it's full of tyops..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eaten by Black Hole Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 any news with 1.7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chel Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Eaten by Black Hole said: any news with 1.7? Not really, but keep checking Announcements and Daily Kerbal every few days to see if there's been any news for 1.7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Horizons Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Nice update, i think the mun site is a little cheaty... maybe make it so you have to visit the mun 5 times before you unlock that good remodels the agl altimater is such a good feature for stunting and flying reaaaaaaaaly low cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 Some posts have been removed from this thread. Bickering between people who play on different platforms doesn't make the situation better for either side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch3rAc3 Posted April 1, 2019 Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) On 3/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Lisias said: Every time you update your O.S., you are changing it in a way the Developers didn't tested it - as the update wasn't available when they did. Fair point. What I tried to say - and failed quite badly to - was that in this case, the problems we've been having are surely not related to software wear/bit rotting, but lack of proper testing and attention plus some serious technical debt (as explained in the video I linked in the previous comment). On 3/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Lisias said: You need to be aware of "falsos cognatos" Thanks! But I believe I actually meant obligation, as in someone being morally required to do something instead of legally (although obligation may also have a legal meaning close to liability, no? https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/obligation). Anyhow, if it makes it any clearer: I don't think the developers making their game playable is a favour or something we should be charged for, but actually nothing more than an obligation - especially when these bugs are not only showing up after OS updates, but are present from the moment they launch an update. I'm not sure how limited liability applies here though as in how broken the game must be for the devs to be legally forced to do something or not. On 3/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Lisias said: I expect you to acknowledge that they are building a Q/A team now, not to mention the apparent transition to Private Division. I don't want to get my hopes up after so many let downs, but I'll have an eye open for what's coming. They are, at least, communicating more frequently with the console community, so that might a starting step. Still, we have quite some open problems and suggestions given - some listed, again, in my previous comment, on the bottom - that the devs seemingly ignored (purporsely or not) or fixed the cheapest way possible. I'd rather see them starting to adress those and to properly manage their own bugtracker page (which they asked us themselves to help on, but then resumed on forgetting to update their fixed/confirmed bugs status and bug fixing progress percentage) than to promise/anounce currently non-essential low priority features. 4 hours ago, Red_Horizons said: the agl altimater is such a good feature for stunting and flying reaaaaaaaaly low cool Would be cooler if it was present in the console version... Edited April 1, 2019 by Arch3rAc3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.