Sign in to follow this  
Sputnik-1

Let's Not.

Recommended Posts

I think that out-of-power issues being reported as bugs so consistently points to it being a user experience issue. There's no clear indication that a craft has transitioned to an uncontrolled state. A GUI element (low power light on the navball/dimmed navball) or light on the probe core itself would help things.

Maybe the probes should have a little power light that goes out when they run out of power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AmpsterMan

I did not say "this game is like minecraft," I said that the way this forum is working currently that it worries me that it may turn into another minecraft (Half-assed features and broken promises with arguably the worst community out there, that defends every misdirection and shoot down criticism and refuse to admit things are wrong)

You guys seem to not understand what I mean by "another minecraft." Re-read the post a few times until you understand what I mean.

An additional comment about the forums in general:

Don't say "oh no it'll be fine this game is not as accessible" it really is, especially with everyone using/recommending the use of mechjeb, and defending it as "real life astronauts use computers" and "it removes tedium"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the probes should have a little power light that goes out when they run out of power?

Might be too subtle for people to pick up on. The navball being dimmed out and some text over that saying "Out of Power" would get the message across pretty obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the probes should have a little power light that goes out when they run out of power?

Don't the batteries have those? (though the last I checked they didn't go off or change color :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue, from the perspective of one that's only been here since late 0.17, that the game is still very much evolving.

This most recent update was kind of a disappointment. It has quite a few bugs before mods even come into play, and it hurt my performance quite a bit- which normally wouldn't be such a big deal if I weren't already on a very low-end three-year-old Toshiba Satellite A660 laptop. I'm lucky to get 15 FPS normally, and it's tough to play below 7 or 8.

I have two major complaints about these forums in general however:

1.) The Bandwagon Exchange: The Spacecraft Exchange used to be full of Asparagus-staged monsters, limited only by hardware performance and rated by launch weight. People tried to outdo each other in increasingly larger launch vehicles. Then it was full of SSTO's, decried as "the pinnacle of Kerbal engineering" by many. Now it's all "VTOL Amphibious SSTO" and other cliche'd planes. I'm not saying that sharing vehicles is bad, it's just that when all of them are the same thing and can only be judged by whichever gimmick is coolest they all lose value.

2.) "It's my way or the highway!": When you're in the suggestions forum and the developer says, "We've built a FTL drive and plan to implement procedurally generated systems" the absolute stupidest thing you can say is, "That doesn't fit in with how I think KSP should be, don't implement it". Far too often have players, old and new, said things along those lines- just open up a FTL discussion thread and read through it. As participants in an open alpha, we're privileged to have a first person view towards what the developers are doing to the game, but we should NOT take that to mean we have veto power, control over what does and doesn't go into the game. It's up to the developers. They will fix bugs, address issues, and even take player suggestions about changes or additions. But they will NOT remove planned features because a few people want the game to be played their way. Avoid being entitled and closed-minded and you'll have a much more fun experience.

I'm not sorry if my being candid offends you. These are really the only KSP specific complaints I have, besides a bunch of other ones that are common to every internet community and not so much relevant to the evolution of KSP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Take ASAS for example. Its algorithm seems to be a very straightforward logic: if I've drifted off-center in the +x direction, then try to push in the -x direction until I'm no longer off-center. The problem is that it'll be pushing at full speed the whole way back to the origin, which means I'll cross the zero point with a large -x velocity, taking me far from the origin in the other direction, which'll again require a large correction back. Effectively, it's attempting to match position but not velocity. It's especially bad if you're using RCS, since it'll be trying to use full RCS thrust to correct for tiny variations in orientation. A similar problem applies to engine gimbals.

But what if the internal math were fixed, to where the system tried to zero out deviations in both position AND velocity simultaneously? What if ASAS was designed to reduce rotations as it corrected, to where it hit the origin with zero rotational velocity, and therefore no need to see-saw back and forth? (That is, far from the locked angle it puts as much rotation in as possible, but as you get closer it attempts to reduce the velocity by thrusting the OPPOSITE direction so that rotational velocity approaches zero as you reach the right orientation.) A variable-thrust RCS jet would help with this, but it's not really necessary as long as the ASAS is smarter about knowing when/if to turn off the jets. Small perturbations can be corrected through flywheels, no need to fire the RCS, but right now turning RCS on means the ship will always use them at full strength whenever it needs to make any change in orientation.

...

The point is, these things can be improved without waiting for Unity to get its act together.

I don't know precisely how the algorithm works right now but I can definitely see what you're getting at. Overcorrection has consistently been a performance issue when I try to rely on asas for much. In many cases I have had cleanly successful launches that were previously ripped to pieces by asas overcorrection. It would seem that all of the relevant data on a craft is in the game during a flight. things like mass, velocity, and momentum all have to be known by the engine for it to run the simulation right? if that information is there I can't honestly see why a more nuanced approach to asas isn't possible, more complicated to code surely, but not impossible. Maybe I don't know enough but I've been trying to think up a reason and i'm coming up empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waitwaitwait. People actually defend the wobbling attachment points? Why would you want to keep rockets and space stations that flex like that? You don't see the ISS ripping itself apart when a shuttle flies within 2km of it. It's an annoyance and an inconvenience, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waitwaitwait. People actually defend the wobbling attachment points? Why would you want to keep rockets and space stations that flex like that? You don't see the ISS ripping itself apart when a shuttle flies within 2km of it. It's an annoyance and an inconvenience, nothing more.

Yeah. I don't have the link to the thread, but it was complaining about spaghetti wobble and a few people began to defend it as a feature because "kerbal engineers aren't too good"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the probes should have a little power light that goes out when they run out of power?

That would certainly be of some help. I think the point this thread is making is that issues can be dismissed out of hand too easily, particularly when frustrated and inexperienced users are involved. However, given the chance to discuss, we can reach interesting conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waitwaitwait. People actually defend the wobbling attachment points? Why would you want to keep rockets and space stations that flex like that? You don't see the ISS ripping itself apart when a shuttle flies within 2km of it. It's an annoyance and an inconvenience, nothing more.

No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@AmpsterMan

I did not say "this game is like minecraft," I said that the way this forum is working currently that it worries me that it may turn into another minecraft (Half-assed features and broken promises with arguably the worst community out there, that defends every misdirection and shoot down criticism and refuse to admit things are wrong)

You are right, I corrected my statement. I still think my criticism stands though.

I do however fundamentally disagree with you. You say that you fear that KSP's community might allow this game to turn into another Minecraft. I have an issue with that statement on two points

  1. How exactly is it that KSP's community is turning into Minecraft's community? You say people constantly praise and blindly defend KSP's devs, yet I (and I would wager many of the older forumites around here) would argue this has been one of the most vocally negative updates ever. If 0.20 has indeed been the turning point for KSP's development than all the negative threads would be a good thing, a sign that the community is upset about the degrading quality of the game.
  2. What is so wrong about Minecraft? What promises were unkept? What thing was not done by the devs? Furthermore what promises have the KSP devs not kept so far? What tangible things have they done to prove to you that they might be going down a path that Minecraft went down?

Furthermore I disagree with your entire premise. Do you really think a community has THAT much power over a development team? Furthermore, do you think that the community as a whole (I would assume you mean at least a plurality of the community) ALLOWED for the game to reach that state? Furthermore, do you think a community SHOULD have that much power over a development team.

I don't think this is the case at all. I think the Minecraft community as a whole didn't really care at all what came of the game or didn't like it at all. I do recall there being quite a bit of ire over the "Adventure update" or the "terrain update" etc, etc. I also don't believe a community has as much say into the development of a game, nor SHOULD it have much of a say in the development of a game at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flexing stations, nasty, I build my stations with no ASAS so as to avoid it wobbling to pieces and I don't even have ASAS on my tugs for the same reason.

I will turn my station occasionally and I use regular SAS for stability, and empty command pods for the rotational torque (control moment gyroscopes, look it up on wikipedia, magic torque comments will be deleted ;) )

ASAS, nasty stuff, you don't even want gimballing boosters as ASAS will make your launcher wobble like crazy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

You missed the point of the comment. Things in KSP wobble about a lot because of the way Unity currently handles the joints between parts, unless you strut things to ridiculous levels.

And the ISS is moving all the time. It has reaction wheels to keep it oriented a certain way, it has RCS thrusters for when the reaction wheels reach capacity, and it needs frequent station-keeping boosts either using it's own thrusters or those aboard vehicles docked to it since it is in atmosphere still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

Stations constantly adjust their orbits to STAY in orbit and to avoid debris, and constantly rotate to always be "facing" prograde.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

They regularly turn the station and use engines to change its orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed a key word: TURNED.

Shrike - your post is huge, so I'm not going to quote it.

You missed the point of what I meant about turning into another minecraft

Not that it's a commercial success, as in the money changed the game.

Not as in Dwarf Fortress is on a pedestal, as in minecraft strayed from it's vision.

Again, people missing points.

This is trying to get us to make a change to stop glorifying and blindly defending devs and shooting down criticism.

Not as much as you think. While I agree that there are times when the public opinion is completely wrong, and that people will moan and complain about any change to the established playstyles, it does not mean that straying from the original vision is a bad thing. I'd like to think I made it pretty clear that while DF is amazing and something I enjoy, I recognize that there are problems with it that became canonized because they were more entertaining or awesome (one of the primary faults being that Tarn won't work on the interface until the end... when it's pretty dang clear that he'll be dead before he'll consider it done).

You didn't call DF a half-assed game for straying from the original vision, and I have three words for you: Vampires and boogeymen.

Tarn Adams is constantly updating his vision for the game, if you read his updates; it's not a static idea, but a series of things he wants to put in, even if it requires completely rewriting the codebase in order to get closer to his new vision. I miss dungeonmasters and taming megabeasts.

Likewise, when Notch realized he'd hit gold, he changed direction and did something new that got people excited, even though it was initially feature-poor and continues to be updated by "Hey, this'd be cool!" than any grand plan.

The problem with your original post is that you staked out an unreasonable claim based entirely on your opinion, which opened up a whole can of worms that should have been left untouched.

It's hard for me to resist tweaking noses when people call out others for using strawman arguments via strawman arguments... which is why I responded, in part, with a strawman.

You opened with a clumsy analogy based on your opinion, and got smacked around a bit for it since you left the topic wide open.

What you're really complaining about is presumption by the playerbase that the designers are infallible, and that the fanbase will invariably rally around the developers even when there are serious problems. That's certainly something that happens because people will defend what they love/enjoy, and this does carry a risk of shielding the devs from legitimate criticism.

However, I don't see it as a big danger here, since people are very quick to offer technical criticism and KSP's community has such a wide range of skill levels and analytical thinking that there's a healthy mix of people trying stuff out because they don't know what shouldn't work, or because they do know what shouldn't work and try it anyway. Even disregarding the alpha status of the game, if you can enjoy the game, it's because you enjoy failing and learning. Hopefully, that should temper the dogpiling and white-knighting I've seen in other game communities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

The orbit of the ISS decays by 2km a month, the engines on the Zvezda module are fired to raise the orbit. It is also equipped with thrusters and Control Moment Gyroscopes for rotation. So yes, they do turn the station and fly it around.

Also, of course you don't see the ISS flexing randomly when a shuttle is 2km away, that is the whole point the poster was raising: the wobbling is totally unrealistic and does nothing but detract from the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space and distance is irrelevant in this situation.

Now, you do see it flexing when something docks to it. Any large structure MUST be engineered to flex. The materials simply are not rigid enough. The ISS most certainly does flex a bit. But then again, you don't see them trying to turn the station around or fly with it... It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

As others have mentioned, the ISS is only "stationary" in its orbit because it is constantly moving and being boosted into higher orbits.

You also ignore the fact that docking can be used to make anything other than a station. Think a generation ship, a LOR-type spacecraft, or simply a large mothership. Those are definitely meant to move around, and even with wide-spaced quad-node or hex-node docking they tend to have an unacceptable amount of wobble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a station... It's stationary in its orbit...

Except its not, its in low-earth orbit with a decaying orbit. so they actually have to fix the orbit by moving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Sal was saying, speaking of missing the point, is that they don't try and use the ISS to try and fly to mars or jupiter. :lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, kerbal space program is the new minecraft. I predict so KSP will become very popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you don't see it flexing even when a shuttle flies within two feet of it. That's because there's no air in space

That's exactly the point I'm making. The ISS doesn't do that. However stations in KSP do exactly that, and you have to time-warp to reset the physics so something doesn't break off. It's totally unrealistic and unnecessary, and should be fixed.

As for the station not moving... well, about a half dozen people already said what I would have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOLY SMOKES! I didn't know "Magic torque" was actually real! Totally learned something new. :)

After spending the time to read this whole thread, I don't know if I have anything to contribute other than to say that I hope that this game turns out to be awesome, and doesn't get derailed by any one of a thousand different things that could happen to it along its journey. I think the best thing any member of the community can do is try to be the most constructive and informative he can be, and for the devs to assimilate all that information, combine it with their existing objectives, and press on to make the best game they can make.

And, dang, this whole Control Moment Gyroscope thing is amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't even talking about you. I think you've always been a good forum poster, but you DO shield the developers a bit too much. It's fine to like them, but when you all out whiteknight guard them from getting their feelings hurt, it leads to threads like this. Hopefully the half of the forum who is doing the bootlicking will take this to heart and change there ways.

:0.0: I didn't even know people noticed me in these forums :sticktongue:. Perhaps you're right. I just think that they have a good head on their shoulders and are much better than most other development teams I have encountered (not much I must admit). A reason I might not offer much criticism of them is because I am actually not that technically savvy. So even if I did spot a problem, I would have no idea how to even suggest fixing it (or even be able to discern if it is a bug or me just derping it up). Also I don't complain much about anything in real life so that might seem like I white knight for them as well.

But see, your criticism of me is the one I think should be levied toward the devs. You didn't insult me and you didn't form your opinion on me based on just a few posts. That is kinda why I might get a little involved with defending the devs. Much of the criticism levied toward them is overly harsh and based on perceived wrongdoing or some such. An example of something I would consider good criticism is all those people who have been talking about performance reduction with the new machine. I haven't noticed much ire over it just some disappointment. Same thing with the reduced textures of planets. It was something the devs attempted, and I think it is something that they didn't really implement correctly or shouldn't have done at all. Yet here came Nova and said that he might have derped a little and it might be reverted or fixed. How many other devs do that? How many PEOPLE in general do that?

I guess I admire the humility of the devs, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLY SMOKES! I didn't know "Magic torque" was actually real! Totally learned something new. :)

After spending the time to read this whole thread, I don't know if I have anything to contribute other than to say that I hope that this game turns out to be awesome, and doesn't get derailed by any one of a thousand different things that could happen to it along its journey. I think the best thing any member of the community can do is try to be the most constructive and informative he can be, and for the devs to assimilate all that information, combine it with their existing objectives, and press on to make the best game they can make.

And, dang, this whole Control Moment Gyroscope thing is amazing!

Go and watch

for some more information on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this