Devnote Tuesday: "Point sharp end towards space"

[Thomas988]

Hell, I'd buy the box and put it on a shelf so I can say "yeah bitches, I played that when it was still version 0.18"

^ This. So many this's.

[dryer_lint]

New Chase Cam sounds awesome. Congratulations guys!

[Rune]

Managing the forums was already my responsibility, so that's something I didn't inherit from Rowsdower. Although I must say that I aim to be around here a bit more often than the last few weeks if I can find the time.

P.S. your signature is a bit outdated since.. yesterday

[Dispatcher]

<figure class=""></figure>Felipe (HarvesteR): Many tweaks and additions to talk about this week. ... Alex (aLeXmOrA): Been working on web tasks for other Squad projects. Mike (Mu): The aero update continues unabated. I have reworked the atmospheric model into something a little more based on reality, this makes for easier balancing and configuring of other atmospheres. It now includes temperature into the equations and has a much more realistic pressure/density curve. ... Marco (Samssonart): Maxmaps and I reviewed the Reddit feedback we got on how the community thinks we should go about overhauling the tutorials and we began working on it accordingly... Jim (Romfarer): ... This means the tests have to run every time you attach and detach a part and in the case of stack resource flow the system has to check for every resource container, and then trace back from the consumers which of these containers are not being drained. Max (Maxmaps): I’ve been working closely with Samssonart to improve our tutorials, and also overseeing everything regarding the aero update, which turned out to be larger and far cooler than originally planned. This is a good thing. ... Ted (Ted): ... I’ve been spending the past day setting up an OSX testbed here in order to further address any OSX issues that our players are encountering. Having rarely used OSX/Apple products before, I’ve been struggling with the Windows/Linux mindset but thankfully seem to be shaking it. ... Rogelio (Roger): ... Now we’ve been working on the video for the 1.0 v, I think it will be so hilarious ... Kasper (KasperVld): I’ve started to look after many what used to be Rowsdower’s tasks ... been a mountain of work that resulted in a few very early mornings and late nights, but that was to be expected. We have a contest planned for this Valentine’s day, so keep a look out for when that drops!

All very welcome news. Thank you all for all of your hard work. I'm looking forward to enjoying the game even more, after 1.0 is eventually out!

[basic.syntax]

Whelp, there go ALL MY MONIES. So are there going to be different physical releases, like a "HALO Legendary" style?

I don't know if there might be a physical box version of KSP, but, I think merchandise deals that Max refers to, will be in the category of toys, models, figures, Mün rocks...

[BudgetHedgehog]

Just thought - will the new engine code be backwards compatible with mod engines, like from KW or NovaPunch? Would they need to change anything or will it take the existing values and use them properly?

[boredAnswerGuy]

I recommend that the engineering-audits that Romfarer is working on be performed not in real-time, but only at the request of the player by pressing an audit button. It should be like how the vehicle is not saved in real time, but only when the player presses the "save" button.

This would solve the performance issue, and it would be very similar to the Critical Design Review that all rockets and spacecraft are subjected to before construction. NASA's SLS rocket recently passed its review. Read about it here: http://www.nasa.gov/sls/core-stage-review-2014.html

If the real-time audits cause any perceptible lag, the frustration would quickly negate any utility the feature may add.

Several people have made this suggestion already, but I felt it was important to re-iterate their concerns.

[FlowerChild]

So it does work? You can just add the number in the config? That is really awesome to know.

If I remember right (it's been awhile), yeah, the stock ISP curve can support numbers beyond 1 atm.

Actually, here's the relevant modification I make to the aerospike for reference via a MM config:

	@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
	{
		@atmosphereCurve
		{
			@key,0 = 0 385
			@key,1 = 1 375
			key = 5 320
			key = 15 0.01
		}
        }

So I've set it to essentially zero out down at the "surface" of Jool or what have you (15 atm), whereas other engine types I generally have zero out below 5 atm so they're not effective on the surface of Eve.

[micha]

Stoked about this week's DevNotes, lots of great stuff in there!

But just reiterating what I've said the last couple of weeks (and was mentioned a few times above already): please make the engineer's report optional and/or manual!!

I'm talking about the "engine has no fuel" bit, not about a possible dV readout like Kerbal Engineer mod - the latter should be updated constantly.

Anyway, keep up the great work!

[greg12]

Because the docking mode is kind of useless, the devs could replace it with the Docking Port Alignment Indicator mod. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43901-0-90-Docking-Port-Alignment-Indicator-%28Version-5-1-Updated-01-10-2015%29

[regex]

Marco (Samssonart): Maxmaps and I reviewed the Reddit feedback we got on how the community thinks we should go about overhauling the tutorials

ehehehe.jpg

Missed that one, nice jab at us forum-goers.

[FlowerChild]

Because the docking mode is kind of useless, the devs could replace it with the Docking Port Alignment Indicator mod. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43901-0-90-Docking-Port-Alignment-Indicator-%28Version-5-1-Updated-01-10-2015%29

Or just ditch the docking mode entirely. I manually dock frequently, with no additional aids, and I don't think I've ever switched over to docking mode other than an initial "what does this do?" when I first started playing.

IMO, it's just additional UI "static" that really doesn't serve any purpose other than to confuse people about what they're supposed to do with it, and why their controls are no longer behaving the same way.

Edited February 11, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Woopert]

Great to hear about the mass flow / thrust fix. But what about fixing the symmetry bug? Has there been any mention of addressing this? I almost lost a craft I'm working on from it and every time I duplicate some parts it happens.

I mean, this is pretty ridiculous, sorry guys.

[MidwestB]

I use the current chase cam for all of my docking. It really helps keep the orientation of my RCS aligned with my controls. If it's now aligned to my velocity vector, will it flip around the ship if I thrust backwards to align better with a station? That's the first 1.0 update I've heard that's bumming me out, but I'm willing to give it a chance when it's released

[Superfluous J]

<b>Jim (Romfarer):</b> I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions about the Engineer’s Report design concern feature. Last week I said I was concerned about performance on some of the tests. The design concern feature is not a list of parts a vessel has and has not. It is a set of tests which analyze your vessel for possible issues you may run into. For example a big part of these tests are dealing with resource flow and will prompt when you have resource containers which are not being drained, consumers (such as engines) not getting the fuel they need, etc. And for every of these tests the parts in question are highlighted. This means the tests have to run every time you attach and detach a part and in the case of stack resource flow the system has to check for every resource container, and then trace back from the consumers which of these containers are not being drained.

Why not have it run when the launch button is pressed or through a separate button? That way there is less concern about performance.

I also don't understand why this can't just be a part of the launch button? I will be very annoyed if I place a capsule and warnings go off about 30 different things my ship doesn't have.

Took you guys long enough. How long did that take to code and spot-test, two or three hours?

I know. It's almost as if it was a noncritical bug that could wait until all features were implemented, or something.

Missed that one, nice jab at us forum-goers.

Yeah. I'm starting to wonder why I reply to them here. I should just copy my posts and put them on Reddit so there's at least a chance they'll be read.

[regex]

I know. It's almost as if it was a noncritical bug that could wait until all features were implemented, or something.

Or, you know, they could have acknowledged it as an issue and said "yes, we're going to fix that later" on the non-existant public roadmap, or hell, even on their own bugtracker (where my bug report about it was closed).

[NathanKell]

Yes, the last time this came up it was deemed "feature, not bug." Had they said "yeah, it's a bug, we know it takes 5 minutes and two lines to fix, but it's just not a big deal right now" that would be different.

That said, I am exceptionally happy that it is finally being fixed, and I think it will lead to much more interesting design choices regarding engines. Ditto for cameras.

FlowerChild: Don't forget to add tangents (see Cpt. Kipard's big sticky in Addon Dev for a link to Taverius's thread) as otherwise you'll get ease-in/ease-out between each key and that's bad.

Red Iron Crown: Hah, you beat me to it! Death to 9.82!

On a cautionary note, I do hope pressureCurve support is maintained; as others have noted, a pure scale height system does not give the flexibility we need.

[Bandock]

Let's add more fun by adding wind to the mix (due to introduction of proper aerodynamics)!

*Jebediah starts seeing rockets crash down before ever getting a chance to fly caused by wind conditions.*

[Superfluous J]

Or, you know, they could have acknowledged it as an issue and said "yes, we're going to fix that later" on the non-existant public roadmap, or hell, even on their own bugtracker (where my bug report about it was closed).

Yes, the last time this came up it was deemed "feature, not bug." Had they said "yeah, it's a bug, we know it takes 5 minutes and two lines to fix, but it's just not a big deal right now" that would be different.

I did not know that. I take it back.

Maybe they said something on LinkedIn and we missed it...

[regex]

Maybe they said something on LinkedIn and we missed it...

Right? 10c

[cjdunn]

Because the docking mode is kind of useless, the devs could replace it with the Docking Port Alignment Indicator mod. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43901-0-90-Docking-Port-Alignment-Indicator-%28Version-5-1-Updated-01-10-2015%29

Yep, I second this. And the indicator could be improved based on pilot XP level: alignment, alignment + velocity, et cetera, all the way to auto-dock.

[Robotengineer]

I did not know that. I take it back.

Maybe they said something on LinkedIn and we missed it...

Probably AOL. Or Yahoo. Is there a KSP Yahoo group? Or are Yahoo groups dead?

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Managing the forums was already my responsibility, so that's something I didn't inherit from Rowsdower. Although I must say that I aim to be around here a bit more often than the last few weeks if I can find the time.

P.S. your signature is a bit outdated since.. yesterday

[basic.syntax]

Or, you know, they could have acknowledged it as an issue and said "yes, we're going to fix that later" on the non-existant public roadmap, ....

The 'public' roadmap, is maintained by... the public, here. I think it's as good as we are going to get AND, It has an entry about throtle isp, linking to an old forum post by C7, that I can't access.

Squad won't (and few other developers do) make promises about features too far in advance of implementation, it ends up creating "but you said!" drama, if bumps in the road preclude going in the previously stated direction. Such like we are having over the dV announcement, a feature they were against making stock, for quite a while.

The roadmap laid out on 23 January, was eye opening, for this reason. It concluded with the caveat we should always keep in mind, before the latest update is actually in our hands :

As always, we ask you to please keep in mind that the items above are not a commitment on our part. Plans can and do change as development progresses, and this update is no different.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I recommend that the engineering-audits that Romfarer is working on be performed not in real-time, but only at the request of the player by pressing an audit button. It should be like how the vehicle is not saved in real time, but only when the player presses the "save" button.

This would solve the performance issue, and it would be very similar to the Critical Design Review that all rockets and spacecraft are subjected to before construction. NASA's SLS rocket recently passed its review. Read about it here: http://www.nasa.gov/sls/core-stage-review-2014.html

If the real-time audits cause any perceptible lag, the frustration would quickly negate any utility the feature may add.

Several people have made this suggestion already, but I felt it was important to re-iterate their concerns.

I see the concern. I suppose it depends how intensive the calculations are. If they're not intensive at all, I'm not sure whether it's a big deal. (though I suppose I can see people being annoyed with it changing as they're building the ship). I suppose if there is a button for it, perhaps it should trigger on save and launch button clicks too. I'm guessing their concern is if you leave it as just a button, the players who need it most (new players) may not even notice it.