Jump to content

Devs insight about KSP2 bug (© ShadowZone)


Vl3d
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It's info, but feel free to discuss.

The team is working on RCS visual effects (with very large mesh puffs). This lets us know how far development has reached. Devs are working on beautification.

There's an automatic drag cube renderer.

Central stack to which subassemlies attach (parent-child system similar to KSP1?).

They are keeping the wobbly part physics based on elastic attachment (because RCS blocks were dragged down but they were still pulling on subassemblies).

What else can we take away?

Edited by Vl3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Don't make a bunch of technical assumptions based on an off the cuff remark. Similar terminology could be used for communication purposes among the team members but the actual technical implementation could be quite different from KSP1.

The only thing you can take away is that they auto generate drag cubes like in KSP1 (but the implementation of that could still be wildly different from KSP 1, and they might not even be "cubes" either).

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can't remember specifics but I understand they've altered the way parenting works so you can work on multiple subassemblies simultaneously. If they're still thought of as subassemblies in flight that might have implications for things like stage recovery and component deliveries via supply routes. Or maybe they're just speaking generally and its not relevant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be fun to get more little tidbits like these.  I'd count it as a Show & Tell. Most of our S&T's are really just "show's", some more tell wouldn't be bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The team is working on RCS visual effects (with very large mesh puffs). This lets us know how far development has reached. Devs are working on beautification.

That's good

7 hours ago, Vl3d said:

They are keeping the wobbly part physics based on elastic attachment (because RCS blocks were dragged down but they were still pulling on subassemblies).

Implying that a vessel only takes damage if there are wobbly attachments? This is a prime example of a non-sequitur; damage caused by an RCS block hitting the vessel at extreme speeds will happen regardless of how wobbly the attachments are but the assumption is made that it must mean rockets will still be wobbly in KSP 2.

15 minutes ago, Ahres said:

It'd be fun to get more little tidbits like these.  I'd count it as a Show & Tell. Most of our S&T's are really just "show's", some more tell wouldn't be bad.

I agree, this was a fun read.

But then again, some bad apples will find a way to generate negativity over these tidbits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading that they were unable to fix the unity particle problem having to do with speed (trail of puffs from KSP1) and decided to go with mesh effects instead. Also reading better aero is a distinct possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...