Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)

[LethalDose]

THANK YOU for doing this.

The dev notes are completely devoid of useful summaries like this, and it shouldn't be left to the community to produce it. However, SQUAD continues to be useless at communication... There has been tons of *important* issues and design decisions that have been omitted from any kind of reliable text.

Anyway, I like a lot of these changes. It's actually kind of nice to be on the other side of this, normally I'm arguing SQUAD's direction is idiotic, but most of these changes are an improvement.

Their communication remains abysmal, tho.

If career mode is supposed to be hard, why is the tech tree designed as a tutorial for new players?

Because SQUAD can't manage to have a cohesive design plan.

Edited December 6, 2014 by LethalDose

[timsfitz]

It all sounds good to me.

[Sasquatch_Punter]

Because SQUAD can't manage to have a cohesive design plan.

That's silly. If part of the design plan for Career Mode is to give players a sense of progression, implementing a tech tree is the first logical step before balancing.

[montyben101]

Cool so the mk3 parts can take 2.5 meter cargo!? Also i hope they will do an IVA

Since unity is being updated im guessing that that will break saves?

[Sobanaut]

Thanks 'awfully' for this !!!! I am annoyed as well that they don't put it up somewhere else! Great news! Waiting for the update)

[Michaelo90]

I really don't like the SAS changes (all craft should have at least basic SAS) and the ridiculous limitations of tier 1 buildings, they limit the game too much for no reason.

Other than that, I really hope there are no limitations for the top tier VAB, SPH, launchpad and runway. I may not build whackjob sized things often, but I want to be able to do it if I want to!

[Avicorn]

Still no Delta-V, right? So educative...

[CaptRobau]

When doing game design - critical upgrades that are cheaply unlocked right at the start raise the question of - why the heck are you locking them in the first place?

Because there are higher difficulty settings, where it isn't so easily unlocked.

[worir4]

Thanks for this OP really help full for me. SQUAD cast is on at 12:30 am for me so i don't watch it often.

[Tex_NL]

Thanks for this OP really help full for me. SQUAD cast is on at 12:30 am for me so i don't watch it often.

I can only agree with this.

SQUAD should have made the OP. And not on some third party forum like Reddit, it should have been on THIS forum. Right here!

[Whirligig Girl]

I really don't like the changes to SAS though, I fly a boatload of unmanned probes, which will only hamper my ability to play

\Don't worry, Probes of different Tech levels have different pilot skills, so you won't be without SAS for long!

[Whirligig Girl]

I really don't like the SAS changes (all craft should have at least basic SAS) and the ridiculous limitations of tier 1 buildings, they limit the game too much for no reason.

Other than that, I really hope there are no limitations for the top tier VAB, SPH, launchpad and runway. I may not build whackjob sized things often, but I want to be able to do it if I want to!

They've said there will be no limitation on top-level buildings. (Although, you'll still want to use launch clamps on the Launchpad!)

[Waterlimon]

My comments:

-VAB limitation should be physical extents or mass, not part count. Thats just artificial.

-Exceeding limits should be allowed but it should damage the launchpad/runway over time. Hard limits are lame and not realistic.

-KXP should affect speed/accuracy, not ability.

-Building upgrades should make information more accurate not reveal it. (predict vessel path further, more precise orbit data...)

[Nemrav]

My comments:

-VAB limitation should be physical extents or mass, not part count. Thats just artificial.)

That's what upgrading the launchpad does exactly...

Anyways even my biggest ships only have 150-200 parts, so its not like its going to limit you much at all.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I dunno, putting something that weighs 100 tons on something was designed to take 10 is going to cause some serious and immediate damage..

[Superfluous J]

My comments:

-VAB limitation should be physical extents or mass, not part count. Thats just artificial.

Agreed. Why can the starting VAB make a rocket with a command pod, 48 orange tanks, and 1 engine but not something with a command pod, a single fuel tank and engine, and 48 solar panels/batteries?

Though I don't agree that the VAB should affect mass. It should only affect size and that size should be affected by the size of the buildng. Starting can be like 20x20x20 meters or less. Biggest should be 2x the size of the current VAB or more.

That's what upgrading the launchpad does exactly.

The launchpad affects mass. The VAB should affect physical size. Nothing but your computer should affect part count.

(All IMO of course)

[Pecan]

THANK YOU for doing this.

The dev notes are completely devoid of useful summaries like this, and it shouldn't be left to the community to produce it ... Anyway, I like a lot of these changes ...

Because SQUAD can't manage to have a cohesive design plan.

I like to agree with LethalDose because he's the only person that regularly insults me for not agreeing with him ^^.

Despite MANY hints Squad continue to believe video is the way to communicate, which it isn't for lots of reasons that they exemplify :-(

On the other hand I wouldn't be quite so hard on Squad as LethalDose is - they do TRY to communicate, and have demonstrated several times that they listen, which is a lot more than most other development teams.

Expecting the tech-tree to change quite a lot during/after Beta, so that it makes some sort of sense.

Probe-core 'progression' does make sense, automated heading-control and guidance with gyros, etc. IS (not was) one of the hardest engineering tasks for unmanned vehicles. High-speed computer-control makes the likes of UAVs possible but UCAVs are still (*whisper* "as far as we know") completely outclassed by pilots in the cockpit.

The important point remains:

SANDBOX is how to start and experiment.

SCIENCE mode (if something like it continues to exist) is just there for historical reasons.

CAREER is 'the' game, with all the difficulty you might want. Maybe.

Career/science mode never has been a good introduction for newbies and now, explicitly, it isn't intended to be. The fact that it was labelled as such (and the tech-tree so screwed-up) IS evidence of a lack of a "cohesive design plan" by Squad (but also that they are paying-attention to what people want and changing their plans as they go - KSP is in development, including what the final product will look like. Getting close to 'done' though; which is both good and bad).

Edited December 6, 2014 by Pecan

[woodensen]

OP you have all my thanks for compiling the updates on the experimental phase.

A quick question, do we upgrade buildings with money (funds) only, or with science points also?

[BudgetHedgehog]

OP you have all my thanks for compiling the updates on the experimental phase.

A quick question, do we upgrade buildings with money (funds) only, or with science points also?

I believe Max said just money. If Science is needed as well, it either wasn't mentioned or I was too busy typing to concentrate on it. Pretty sure it's just money though.

[boxman]

Must say I am kinda dissapointed in lack of unity 5 mention considering there is now a beta they can access. Was said earlier that once they get access to unity 5 this would be number one priortiy with everything else being basically on hold. I really hope they have not changed their mind about porting it to unity5.

Also still no mention of the new hidden tweakables like ball bearing/motor..

[Thomas988]

0.90 looks great, and I am more pumped than most updates for this! However, I do have two things to say for myself.

First off, as many people have said before me, the VAB should limit mass, not part count. A part count is forced, and in many cases makes no sense. Mass limitation is is logical; i highly doubt a barn could hold up a Joolian transfer spacecraft loaded with landers and probed, but perhaps a larger, more advanced building could. What would be even better would be building area constraints, starting small then upgrading larger and larger, allowing bigger and more complex spacecraft.

Secondly, what exactly is happening with the internal building scenes? Are they the same scene? Are the VAB and SPH going to have the same internal look? If so, I'm against that. I love the distinct looks between the SPH and VAB, and while toggling between the two buildings' building mode is amazing, merging the scenes together does not seem good in my world. Then again, I may be reading this wrong and sounding like a complete madman.

Everything else, though, looks terrific, and will breathe new life into both career and sandbox mode. Great work as always, Squad!

[woodensen]

I believe Max said just money. If Science is needed as well, it either wasn't mentioned or I was too busy typing to concentrate on it. Pretty sure it's just money though.

I see. Thanks once again for your initiative informing us all in the hype-train.

[BudgetHedgehog]

@Thomas988: Im not crazy about the VAB limits, but the launchpad already limits mass. I'm thinking size restraints would be more ideal, but a lot more difficult to code.

The editors.. they're now the same thing in function only. You'll still get the SPH background in the SPH, likewise for the VAB. However, they share the same building code which is less things for the game to load (so far, it's had to load basically the same thing twice).

[vetrox]

Well what a lucky surprise. I notrmally do a quick login to the forum and check the little "latest articles" box to determine if I should expect an update or not. Today I'm stuck at work and just happen to be browsing the forums properly onyl to discover that I had to hear about the updoming update from a community member (+1 rep btw!) I think thats a little silly.

Although im a little miffed about that I'm super excited about the coming update. I dont have a bad thing to say except the obligatory "what? Still no DV readout?"

[klgraham1013]

So DV readouts. Whenever I introduce someone to the game. (For instance, my nephews both bought it.) I immediately install Engineer and Alarm Clock. They know what kind of game they're getting into. They've heard me talk about it. Better to teach them how to understand and utilizes the information they need then to have them walk blindly into exploding rockets and frustration. How many, do you suppose, bought KSP on Steam, tried it once, flew straight up, had no clue why they didn't make it to space or how to improve their design? How many of those people just gave up with a bad impression of the game?