Devnote Tuesdays: The "Building Buildings" Edition

[Justin Kerbice]

Felipe (HarvesteR):...

Struts and Fuel Lines no longer use their own Part extensions. Now, there is a single part extension called CompoundPart, and along with it, a new PartModule extension called CompoundPartModule. As you might imagine, CompoundPartModules require a CompoundPart type part to function. On top of these, we now have three CompoundPartModules: CModuleLinkedMesh, which takes care of keeping the visual model of the strut (or fuel line) connecting both ends of the part; CModuleFuelLine, which creates a fuel re-route when both sides are anchored, and CModuleStrut, which creates a joint between both ends.

Still not a word about the forgotten D-word ... It'll still up to motivated modders who have nothing better to do to get a partial and potentially incomplete/bad way to use these new stuff.

And does this "rush" on 0.90 would means a wish of a christmas release ? Or is it "just" a temporary motivation boost ?

If it's the 1st case, it will highly probable the bugs squashing will be not completed just to get in time... speaking of bugs, EVA ejection, weak decouplers, ... don't care about them, it's just bugs... it's annoying for many people but not important, always better to add more bugs to please the "feature hungry zombies" . It's not enjoyable but it's more than necessary !

On another note, if one reads the KSP reviews on Steam, about a third* are complaints by people who perceive that Squad does nothing and just steals from modders. They should look at this editor overhaul, I can imagine how awful it must have been to fix (I'm not implying that the editor is awful, I'm just... yeah, there are some outstanding issues that show the code is messy, if functional).

*half are by people who couldn't get their ship to fly on the first few [dozen] tries and gave up, the rest are by people turned off by bugginess or broken games

It is still better to use/integrate modders' idea or even work into the game than try to do a lame copy no one would like as even the best game developer can be beat on his/her own ground by other people, as there will be always someone better than you.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Justin Kerbice

[J.Random]

I managed to figure out the proper rotation maths to make the nodes stack-attach properly under mirror symmetry.

So, no actual mesh mirroring, just part rotation? You're making spaceplane panda sad.

[AlphaAsh]

Marco (Samssonart): This week was a busy one, I’ve been helping Chuchito wrap his head around the whole project in order to start implementing his multiplayer client into the game (chill out people, this still doesn’t mean multiplayer is coming out soon-ish). Apart from that QA for the building markers has officially started, after having some problems with the scene losing references to some game objects and scripts after having gone through git QA could start and that’s where I’m currently doing. I had to struggle a bit with Unity’s meta files in order to get git + Unity to behave.

Marco, I owe you a beer. I've been having a few problems with Kerbal Konstructs that I couldn't quite figure out and now I know to just chill. Plus my forehead can now heal and I can take the dent out the wall.

[Capt Snuggler]

Great news! very excited about the work you guys are doing.

Question: will the changes you are making to part placements and part modules allow stock hinges to exist in the KSP universe?

[Red Iron Crown]

Symmetry that works better.

Rebindable editor keyboard shortcuts.

Persistent crew assignment.

Fixed Undo/Redo.

Seriously, it's like you guys read my Christmas wishlist for the editor. My internal Hypometer is rising alarmingly.

[Starwhip]

This week, i completed the main aspects of the GUI controllers for the new editor part tab system. This was a massive task, as it replaces the old part tabs. Instead of the old tabs, you now get filters which will list parts up in ways you never were able to do before. For example, you can now list parts up by which module or resource they contain, or both if you have a lot of parts and want to narrow it down. For every filtering you have chosen, there is now an option to sort parts (and subassemblies) by name, mass and cost in ascending or descending order.

If this was not enough you can also create your own custom categories and place parts into them just like you did with subassemblies before.

AGGHHH YES! This is great, now I can make Aircraft and Rocket categories

[Whirligig Girl]

Weren't we supposed to be getting a devblog from DanRosas on the buildings by now?

[Red Iron Crown]

it means creating new types of parts that use 2-point attachments should be much, much simpler.

Missed this in my first reading. First person to make a procedural ladder using this functionality will get an internet cookie from me.

[Padishar]

Missed this in my first reading. First person to make a procedural ladder using this functionality will get an internet cookie from me.

Hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to modify the rod in a strut to include a climbable collider mesh as well as the render one...

[Caelib]

Great update. Thanks for all the hard work in getting the game enhanced/polished/updated for the next release!

[HarvesteR]

So, no actual mesh mirroring, just part rotation? You're making spaceplane panda sad.

Not sure what you mean. Mesh mirroring does in fact happen when using mirror symmetry. This mirroring is along the X axis though, so it's possible some parts are aligned in such a way that you wouldn't see it. This was the case with some spaceplane parts when we integrated the SP+ pack, but we fixed those so they would be flipped along the Vector3.right axis.

Cheers

[Padishar]

Hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to modify the rod in a strut to include a climbable collider mesh as well as the render one...

Actually I can see a few issues with this. They would need to be physically significant for a start and they wouldn't be able to safely clip through each other like they can now. Still, worth a bit of investigation, I reckon...

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually I can see a few issues with this. They would need to be physically significant for a start and they wouldn't be able to safely clip through each other like they can now. Still, worth a bit of investigation, I reckon...

Why would they need to be physically significant?

Edit: That sounded harsh, it's an honest question.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[KevinTMC]

Wonderful, encouraging, detailed, hype-stoking devnotes this week. Thank you for all the hard work.

I've got my hands full trying out the Better Than Starting Manned career right now (y'all should definitely get familiar with it, in depth, before taking another pass at improving Career Mode during beta), so it's not like I'm hard up for entertainment and challenge and new things to explore...but I'm still getting increasingly eager to see 0.90, as it promises so many awesome improvements.

[pellinor]

Not sure what you mean. Mesh mirroring does in fact happen when using mirror symmetry. This mirroring is along the X axis though, so it's possible some parts are aligned in such a way that you wouldn't see it. This was the case with some spaceplane parts when we integrated the SP+ pack, but we fixed those so they would be flipped along the Vector3.right axis.

Cheers

So this is part of the new editor logic? I just tested it in 0.25 with a barometer, which has an asymmetric mesh (so mirror flipping it on any axis would be obvious to see). When putting one on in the SPH with mirror symmetry I end up not with a mirror image but with two identical copies.

[Rowsdower]

Weren't we supposed to be getting a devblog from DanRosas on the buildings by now?

It's still being worked on, Gregrox. Dan's been working in the cave for the last few days.

[r4pt0r]

It's still being worked on, Gregrox. Dan's been working in the cave for the last few days.

GET THE MAN A COMPUTER THEN! poor chaps been in damp darkness scrawling binary on cave walls.

[Wavechaser]

0.25.0 is still not as stable as expected. But it already astonishing to me, and most people I know.

[Franklin]

Good devnotes. Still really wish we had more insight into what QA is saying/debating on everything, especially the XP system. Is there like a forum or something we can be a fly on wall at?

[Padishar]

Why would they need to be physically significant?

Edit: That sounded harsh, it's an honest question.

Hehe, didn't really sound harsh to me but it did make me think and, I reckon you're right (not that you actually claimed they didn't) and they probably don't need to be, after all, the normal ladder parts have been PhysicsSignificance = 1 for a while now. I still think clipping issues could still be a problem. You can't run through the climbable flag poles so I guess they would have to be "solid" to collisions which might cause problems if all struts were made climbable. Still a separate "strut ladder" part would be very handy and if the clipping wasn't a problem you could make funky spider-web type structures that could be climbed all over...

Good devnotes. Still really wish we had more insight into what QA is saying/debating on everything, especially the XP system. Is there like a forum or something we can be a fly on wall at?

The trouble with that is that people wouldn't be flies on the wall, they would argue about what was being discussed in the main forum and it would probably get rather heated...

[Laie]

Good devnotes. Still really wish we had more insight into what QA is saying/debating on everything, especially the XP system. Is there like a forum or something we can be a fly on wall at?

The trouble with that is that people wouldn't be flies on the wall, they would argue about what was being discussed in the main forum and it would probably get rather heated...

Sadly yes. But then again, this wasn't to my liking, either:

Ted (Ted):After providing in-depth feedback on the Roles/Traits system (whether a Kerbal is a Pilot, Engineer, etc.) we moved on to brainstorming what effects the different roles should have on gameplay and the scope these effects should have. This feedback was more comprehensive and is still pending a good ol’ chin wag on the development side.

There was a lot of brainstorming on this forum and several very good ideas have been tossed around. Now, these ideas may be out of bounds / beyond the scope of everything. But Ted sounded as if he wasn't even aware of the players' suggestions. The forum can create a lot of heat, but it's also a huge brainpool that *wants* to be tapped.

[NathanKell]

Not sure what you mean. Mesh mirroring does in fact happen when using mirror symmetry. This mirroring is along the X axis though, so it's possible some parts are aligned in such a way that you wouldn't see it. This was the case with some spaceplane parts when we integrated the SP+ pack, but we fixed those so they would be flipped along the Vector3.right axis.

Cheers

Is this current, or as of .90? If current, then I gather the landing gear aren't set up with the X axis being what one expects?

[Franklin]

The trouble with that is that people wouldn't be flies on the wall, they would argue about what was being discussed in the main forum and it would probably get rather heated...

Sure, but as long as all arguements are presented evenly I don't see an issue. I guess my concern is more so is how is a QA member picked? Is it representational? How many are there? Who are they? etc. I mean, a lot of us don't really have much insight into what decisions are made until they're made and what's gleaned from the weekly devnotes, which is what causes a lot of the heat: being left out of the decision making process.

There was a lot of brainstorming on this forum and several very good ideas have been tossed around. Now, these ideas may be out of bounds / beyond the scope of everything. But Ted sounded as if he wasn't even aware of the players' suggestions. The forum can create a lot of heat, but it's also a huge brainpool that *wants* to be tapped.

Exactly.

I'm not suggesting all of Alpha Team should also be the QA team but like, who is my local QA representative and what is their mailing address, you know? How do we know they represent "us"?

[hermes47]

Sure, but as long as all arguements are presented evenly I don't see an issue. I guess my concern is more so is how is a QA member picked? Is it representational? How many are there? Who are they? etc. I mean, a lot of us don't really have much insight into what decisions are made until they're made and what's gleaned from the weekly devnotes, which is what causes a lot of the heat: being left out of the decision making process.

Exactly.

I'm not suggesting all of Alpha Team should also be the QA team but like, who is my local QA representative and what is their mailing address, you know? How do we know they represent "us"?

Ted wrote a bit of an article about the QA and experimental teams, what they do and how they work. Found here. May also be good to poke through his blog posts as well.

As for who they are, it's not a secret or anything. Just look at the in game credits or the credits in the read me.

[Ted]

There was a lot of brainstorming on this forum and several very good ideas have been tossed around. Now, these ideas may be out of bounds / beyond the scope of everything. But Ted sounded as if he wasn't even aware of the players' suggestions. The forum can create a lot of heat, but it's also a huge brainpool that *wants* to be tapped.

Yupp, there were in fact dozens of fantastic ideas and engrossing discussion taking place around the community that I read. I even saw a post from someone on reddit where they suggested trait/role effects and went into the detail and reasoning behind each one; excellent stuff. In hindsight I probably should have mentioned that we take into consideration the suggestions and brainstorming that comes out of the community. Like you say, it's a huge brainpool.