UomoCapra

Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 is live!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Azimech said:

How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants.

We want faster horses.

Edited by HebaruSan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With regard to complexity and so forth... 

I'd maybe point to where some of the new sandbox games are going.  "Stormworks: Build and Rescue" for instance has both an "Advanced" and "Simple" career mode.  I much prefer advanced, which doesn't just require that you add a motor... you have to add an engine and then connect it with fuel lines, electrical systems, gearboxes, alternators and so forth... and then hook it up to a prop/rotor/or jet.  In this particular game, the jets are more difficult to construct than rotor/propeller craft.  They took the approach of treating the rotor/propeller as a single unit and magically managing the blade pitch.  ...but setting up the engines in advanced mode is also far more challenging.  Additionally, building jets is more difficult in that game because you have to assemble the parts of the jet: intake/compressor/combustion chamber etc.  Interesting design options there because it lets you construct a jet for a plane or a turboshaft for a helo with the same set of parts, just arranged a bit differently.

Stormworks is a bit of a different type of game though.  You get to build your craft from the inside out, which is pretty cool.  There isn't any need for part clipping cuz the building blocks are just that... little blocks.  So as for the sandbox designer player base, I would definitely not say the majority are in the camp of basic is better.  I mean in this game there are PID and logic controllers, you can make circuit boards for an autopilot system...  Did I mention you even have to create your control dashboards and hook up the dials to engines and sensors (pitot tubes for speed detection, pressure gauges, heat sensors, gyros, you name it).  I saw someone posted a little Asteroids video game cabinet to the correct scale that you could plop it down in the game room of your ship.  ...then I realized, not only was it to proper scale to your boat and avatar captain, when I walked over to the thing...  It was a working Asteroids arcade game!  There was a monitor on the thing and they used the freakin LUA language (which the game natively supports) to actually code a playable arcade asteroids game!  You can build your own radar display screens in this thing.  So no, I don't really buy any argument that says the overall sandbox player base is looking for KISS building options.  I do however appreciate that in that game they also have the "Easy Mode" that just lets engines work without having to link em up.  Of course when people build and post stuff like that, first question is always "Hey do you have a version that works in Advanced Mode?" 

For me, I like how they implemented the blades in KSP and since I play other games like Stormworks, it feels like it struck a balance for KSP players, maybe even erring a bit on the side of being simpler since we don't have such minute parts to construct craft interiors and properly scaled and functional engines.

Edited by XLjedi

Share this post


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

We want faster horses.

Obligatory mention. In order to pretend this is on-topic, I want to remember that KSP is built in C++ and C#. Two of the horses below. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits

I also would not be against a stock RSS like system by size of bodies and orbits, with rebalanced parts - as an optional selection at the start of a new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2019 at 7:45 AM, T1mo98 said:

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits.

Just because Squad shared your crafts doesn't mean they want to add unnecessary detail and complexity to every game mechanic.

Never said it was a hyper realistic aerospace simulator. [snip]

You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.

 

On 7/19/2019 at 9:17 AM, XLjedi said:

With regard to complexity and so forth... 

I'd maybe point to where some of the new sandbox games are going.  "Stormworks: Build and Rescue" for instance has both an "Advanced" and "Simple" career mode.  I much prefer advanced, which doesn't just require that you add a motor... you have to add an engine and then connect it with fuel lines, electrical systems, gearboxes, alternators and so forth... and then hook it up to a prop/rotor/or jet.  In this particular game, the jets are more difficult to construct than rotor/propeller craft.  They took the approach of treating the rotor/propeller as a single unit and magically managing the blade pitch.  ...but setting up the engines in advanced mode is also far more challenging.  Additionally, building jets is more difficult in that game because you have to assemble the parts of the jet: intake/compressor/combustion chamber etc.  Interesting design options there because it lets you construct a jet for a plane or a turboshaft for a helo with the same set of parts, just arranged a bit differently.

Stormworks is a bit of a different type of game though.  You get to build your craft from the inside out, which is pretty cool.  There isn't any need for part clipping cuz the building blocks are just that... little blocks.  So as for the sandbox designer player base, I would definitely not say the majority are in the camp of basic is better.  I mean in this game there are PID and logic controllers, you can make circuit boards for an autopilot system...  Did I mention you even have to create your control dashboards and hook up the dials to engines and sensors (pitot tubes for speed detection, pressure gauges, heat sensors, gyros, you name it).  I saw someone posted a little Asteroids video game cabinet to the correct scale that you could plop it down in the game room of your ship.  ...then I realized, not only was it to proper scale to your boat and avatar captain, when I walked over to the thing...  It was a working Asteroids arcade game!  There was a monitor on the thing and they used the freakin LUA language (which the game natively supports) to actually code a playable arcade asteroids game!  You can build your own radar display screens in this thing.  So no, I don't really buy any argument that says the overall sandbox player base is looking for KISS building options.  I do however appreciate that in that game they also have the "Easy Mode" that just lets engines work without having to link em up.  Of course when people build and post stuff like that, first question is always "Hey do you have a version that works in Advanced Mode?" 

For me, I like how they implemented the blades in KSP and since I play other games like Stormworks, it feels like it struck a balance for KSP players, maybe even erring a bit on the side of being simpler since we don't have such minute parts to construct craft interiors and properly scaled and functional engines.

Watched a video ... really like it. Thanks.

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2019 at 1:45 PM, Azimech said:

You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.

[snip]

Personally I'm not against the idea of it, as long as it's optional. From what I've gathered you're open to this, so we can move on.

My issue is that I don't think it's the time to start tackling it yet - not when after more than six years there's still serious polishing (more complete part sets, weather/clouds) and features (life support, more planets, more systems/FTL) that have been missing from the game - features that are vastly more integral to the mechanics/logistics of spaceflight, and the game's story/identity. Features whose absence leave me feeling like I'm playing an incomplete game.

Once that's all done, by all means please, bring it on.

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best DLC and update ever, i think. Thank you, squad. But i think, rotor engines must be in "engines" section and LF rotors must have alternators

Also i'm waiting for coaxial rotors for Tu-95 and Kamov style planes and helicopters :wink:

Share this post


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

Best DLC and update ever, i think. Thank you, squad. But i think, rotor engines must be in "engines" section and LF rotors must have alternators

Also i'm waiting for coaxial rotors for Tu-95 and Kamov style planes and helicopters :wink:

You can build coaxial helos and planes with the parts as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Helo blades are not producing any pitch torque in the right direction, despite there being no issues in the roll axis. The bow and aft blades do not rotate as needed, probably due to them being programmed as wings (they only work when at the sides of the craft), leaving only the starboard and port blades to do a job which they never could. As of now, it's impossible to fly helicopters without RW.

Edit: also, their cyclic pitch is tied to their collective pitch through the authority slider, thus making it impossible to manoeuver with low collective. Any chance to change this?

Edited by DownHereInChile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2019 at 1:45 PM, Azimech said:

Never said it was a hyper realistic aerospace simulator.

But catering to the lowest common denominator - people who don't want to make an effort -  is the wrong approach with a game which arguably attracts the more intelligent part of the population.

You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.

 

Watched a video ... really like it. Thanks.

You never said it, correct, but with your proposals it seems you want to push it in this direction, which simply isn't what KSP is about. KSP is about bringing rocket science down to earth so anyone could understand it, that's why it's so popular.

[snip]

that's what we have to do, get more people interested. Introducing unnecessary realism and design details doesn't get the uninitiated interested, it would just scare them off.

Instead, the dev team should focus on other features that are astronomically more important.
 

Yes, this game has a learning curve, the worst thing we can do is increase it even further thus making the game less fun for those who don't want to spend a couple of hours tweaking their engine settings.
You said it yourself, Career and Science mode are not as important, so the proper thing to do would be to make them that, instead of abandoning them in order to focus on hyper-realism that less than 10% of the playerbase would want to make use of.

I don't want DLC that only caters to a small part of the playerbase and I don't want a DLC to focus purely on the stuff that doesn't matter. I want DLC that expands the game for everyone.
As I said, it's great if you want to toil about with engine fuel intake settings or whatever, but don't try to claim it's something we need or all want. It's great that you want more detail, go make a mod or something, it's the proper place for something like this. 

 
 
 
 
Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, just remember, argue the argument, not the person.  Let's not take these to a personal level ok? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, just as a reminder, please bear in mind that "don't make it personal" applies not just to individuals (e.g. a person you may be arguing with), but collectively (e.g. making assertions about wide swaths of the population).  It's not okay, for example, to say or imply that people who don't like the same things that you do are lazy or unintelligent.  Some content has been redacted and/or removed due to people apparently forgetting this.

And of course we all know that this is a sandbox game that different people use for different reasons, and enjoy different aspects.  A proposed feature that one player loves and thinks is an absolute must-have and that the game is "unfinished" without it... could be something that another player hates, and thinks it's entirely the wrong direction because "the game is about <something else>", and not only do they not need the feature, but they actively want it not to be thereAnd both of those players are "right".

Or even if both people claim to want the same thing, they may have completely different ideas of the "right way" to implement it.

Folks, there's nothing special about your personal viewpoint.  And nobody is in any position to make any claims about what's "right" for anyone else.  Nor is anyone's viewpoint more "valid" than anyone else's-- no matter what your personal history and achievements and internet points or anything else.

Any argument of the form "No, you're wrong, because you're advocating for X and KSP is really about Y" is completely pointless.  Because nobody is in any position to say what KSP is "really about".  It's "about" different things for different people.

It's fine to say "I, personally would prefer that KSP do X and not Y, because for me KSP is about X".  Please don't try to assert that your personal opinion of what's "right" is some sort of universal truth or applies to anyone other than yourself.  Because if you do, you are, 1. wrong, and 2. disrespecting your fellow players, and 3. probably going to start a flamewar.

Don't assume that your perspective is "right", or any more valuable than anyone else's.  And don't assume that anyone other than yourself wants the same thing that you do.

So please, have some perspective.  And kindly drop the being-judgmental-about-others shtick.  It doesn't help anyone and only serves to alienate people, which is sad because we're all pals here, right?

Thank you for your understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xkcd 1314

Have a good start into the next week, y'all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious solution is to have set prop units that can be tweaked if the "advanced tweakables" setting is enabled. The hard part is coming up with sane defaults for the prop units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

The obvious solution is to have set prop units that can be tweaked if the "advanced tweakables" setting is enabled. The hard part is coming up with sane defaults for the prop units.

I don't think it'd be too hard to come up with defaults for a prop disk / prop unit.

You'd have something like tweakables really similar to what the current options allow: number of blades, deployment, direction, authority, blade variant.

And just use the same resultant vector values for lift and drag that you get with the standard props.

It'd take some amount of work but I don't think it's anything too complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 10:07 PM, Bartybum said:

there's still serious polishing (more complete part sets, weather/clouds) and features (life support, more planets, more systems/FTL) that have been missing from the game

Okay for the record I do not consider the inclusion of sci-fi things like FTL to be part of "polishing" the game nor have I noticed them "missing." If you want that sort of thing you can play Elite or something. It has no place in KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, decimal-simplex said:

Okay for the record I do not consider the inclusion of sci-fi things like FTL to be part of "polishing" the game nor have I noticed them "missing." If you want that sort of thing you can play Elite or something. It has no place in KSP.

Bit hostile there but okay :/.

You've misread my comment; I consider FTL a feature, not polishing. There's a slight difference between the two that I'll elaborate on in future (I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment). If we don't get FTL then I can understand (albeit more star systems and planets will still be definitely highly desired).

Regarding something sci-fi having no place in KSP, I'd argue that given the fact we have:

1. a dead Kraken on Bop

2. an alien head and ancient Kerbal progenitor SSTV signal on Duna

3. the alien stone henge on Vall

I'd argue that the game has already shown it's somewhat okay with science fiction being part of it. In addition, when it first came out the Interstellar mod was one of, if not THE most popular KSP mod. Plenty of people could hence argue that FTL can have a place in KSP.

My wish for FTL is a consequence of my wish for more star systems, because of how significantly the game would change (with respect to interstellar base and station construction). At those time periods, you're looking at multidecadal voyages and contracts being conducted while trying to manage your space agency. Sub-luminal space travel just isn't workable with multiple star systems logistically in the scope of career mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Bartybum

Na those things are kinda just fun easter eggs not really gameplay. The gameplay KSP endeavours to provide is that of conventional space exploration conforming with known physics. 

But there are mods that let you have FTL and exo-planets etc... so that’s pretty cool.

FTL is probably firmly in the realm of the impossible in reality :( 

Edited by Dale Christopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dale Christopher I'll concede, but I should express that I'm not interested in FTL for FTL's sake, but as a consequence of wanting more systems. If there was a non-FTL method that necessitated stuff like life-support, hydro/aquaponics, etc. then I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Bit hostile there but okay :/.

You've misread my comment; I consider FTL a feature, not polishing. There's a slight difference between the two that I'll elaborate on in future (I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment). If we don't get FTL then I can understand (albeit more star systems and planets will still be definitely highly desired).

Regarding something sci-fi having no place in KSP, I'd argue that given the fact we have:

1. a dead Kraken on Bop

2. an alien head and ancient Kerbal progenitor SSTV signal on Duna

3. the alien stone henge on Vall

I'd argue that the game has already shown it's somewhat okay with science fiction being part of it. In addition, when it first came out the Interstellar mod was one of, if not THE most popular KSP mod. Plenty of people could hence argue that FTL can have a place in KSP.

My wish for FTL is a consequence of my wish for more star systems, because of how significantly the game would change (with respect to interstellar base and station construction). At those time periods, you're looking at multidecadal voyages and contracts being conducted while trying to manage your space agency. Sub-luminal space travel just isn't workable with multiple star systems logistically in the scope of career mode.

Not meaning to be hostile at all - I guess I just want to voice my opinion strongly here as a counter, so as to not give the impression that FTL is something *all* players would want. Like we don't even know if FTL is something that is physically possible for space travel in the first place (in fact the preponderance of the evidence presently suggests that it's not), so putting it in this game seems out of bound. And regards to your examples I hope you'll recognize the difference between an easter egg and something that would be a core gameplay mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 12:05 PM, Vaisman said:

Best DLC and update ever, i think. Thank you, squad. But i think, rotor engines must be in "engines" section and LF rotors must have alternators

Also i'm waiting for coaxial rotors for Tu-95 and Kamov style planes and helicopters :wink:

Yes for alternators. Coaxials we can build ourselves. They're not as hard as they used to be.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, T1mo98 said:

You never said it, correct, but with your proposals it seems you want to push it in this direction, which simply isn't what KSP is about. KSP is about bringing rocket science down to earth so anyone could understand it, that's why it's so popular.

[snip]

that's what we have to do, get more people interested. Introducing unnecessary realism and design details doesn't get the uninitiated interested, it would just scare them off.

Instead, the dev team should focus on other features that are astronomically more important.
 

Yes, this game has a learning curve, the worst thing we can do is increase it even further thus making the game less fun for those who don't want to spend a couple of hours tweaking their engine settings.
You said it yourself, Career and Science mode are not as important, so the proper thing to do would be to make them that, instead of abandoning them in order to focus on hyper-realism that less than 10% of the playerbase would want to make use of.

I don't want DLC that only caters to a small part of the playerbase and I don't want a DLC to focus purely on the stuff that doesn't matter. I want DLC that expands the game for everyone.
As I said, it's great if you want to toil about with engine fuel intake settings or whatever, but don't try to claim it's something we need or all want. It's great that you want more detail, go make a mod or something, it's the proper place for something like this. 

 
 
 
 

I understand your vision. I appreciate it. And I'm on the opposite side. For years.

I am a fan of astronomy and all technical stuff. I am however ... not a fan of spaceflight. For example I dislike the idea of humans going to Mars. There's enough work to be done over here.

I'd like KSP to cater to a much larger potential base ... because we need minds to confront the problems we have on this world. Not just a game but something that inspires.

Spaceflight is such a niche. It's boring, most of the time. Most people don't care.

I'd build a game based on KSP's editor and physics: racing.

Design your own engine, gearbox, chassis, aerodynamics. Race them or have a driver. Sell the designs ... bestseller on Steam.

My own mod:
 

 

Share this post


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

I understand your vision. I appreciate it. And I'm on the opposite side. For years.

I am a fan of astronomy and all technical stuff. I am however ... not a fan of spaceflight. For example I dislike the idea of humans going to Mars. There's enough work to be done over here.

I'd like KSP to cater to a much larger potential base ... because we need minds to confront the problems we have on this world. Not just a game but something that inspires.

Spaceflight is such a niche. It's boring, most of the time. Most people don't care.

I'd build a game based on KSP's editor and physics: racing.

Design your own engine, gearbox, chassis, aerodynamics. Race them or have a driver. Sell the designs ... bestseller on Steam.
 

I do understand you and I do think that there is a place in the market for a very technical game like what you propose. I happen to think that spaceflight should be among the top priorities of mankind, along with fixing the climate, so in my opinion having a game like KSP and a company like SpaceX is amazing to get young people more interested in the sector.

You say you want KSP to cater to a much larger potential base, but then I will again comment that by making a game so immensely detailed and technical it actually limits the group of people who want to play it.

You need to grab someone's attention first and slowly introduce them to the world, not drop them into it immediately and overwhelm them with graphs, diagrams and calculations. If a kid downloads the game and immediately has no idea what to do he will more likely drop the game and go do something easier and more fun straightaway than staying and learning, because he hasn't gotten a reason to be interested in it yet.

That's why I say; keep the technical stuff as a mod. If a kid downloads KSP or any other game he will first have fun launching rockets and exploding things, he will then try to actually make good designs within the game itself and eventually he will start to wonder how all the things actually work, he'll start to watch videos like Scott Manley, install RSS and RO and eventually he'll go learn all the minute details of how a rocket engine works for example. It needs to be a slow process otherwise you'll simply scare them off.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

I do understand you and I do think that there is a place in the market for a very technical game like what you propose. I happen to think that spaceflight should be among the top priorities of mankind, along with fixing the climate, so in my opinion having a game like KSP and a company like SpaceX is amazing to get young people more interested in the sector.

You say you want KSP to cater to a much larger potential base, but then I will again comment that by making a game so immensely detailed and technical it actually limits the group of people who want to play it.

You need to grab someone's attention first and slowly introduce them to the world, not drop them into it immediately and overwhelm them with graphs, diagrams and calculations. If a kid downloads the game and immediately has no idea what to do he will more likely drop the game and go do something easier and more fun straightaway than staying and learning, because he hasn't gotten a reason to be interested in it yet.

That's why I say; keep the technical stuff as a mod. If a kid downloads KSP or any other game he will first have fun launching rockets and exploding things, he will then try to actually make good designs within the game itself and eventually he will start to wonder how all the things actually work, he'll start to watch videos like Scott Manley, install RSS and RO and eventually he'll go learn all the minute details of how a rocket engine works for example. It needs to be a slow process otherwise you'll simply scare them off.
 

 

Okay ... mods it is then. Or maybe ... a specific DLC? For the console players. We can't leave them behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Azimech said:

Okay ... mods it is then. Or maybe ... a specific DLC? For the console players. We can't leave them behind.

I'd say mods, because I think the resources of a DLC could be better spend on other features first, like life-support, more complete part families, more planets and exploration, otherwise it's going to have to be a DLC way down the road in which case a mod would be faster. 

But definitely, console needs to get more support, that's probably where most of the really young audience is, judging from my own experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.