.png.8a02dc4b5b2b6bbe9d80ea0f75bcf7d3.png)
Violent Jeb
-
Posts
300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Violent Jeb
-
-
It all depends on the circumstances. If you felt like you were securely employed and you were "let go", then it "feels" like being fired.
Regardless, we'll probably never know the truth about that situation. It is clear to me, that regardless of the context, the sales figures say there could / should be double the number of hands working on this.. but what do i know.
well since you asked, what I do know, is that between the bad press, the droves of new users with unplayable games, and the fact that all this is likely going to remain so for weeks, it sounds like someone is going to have a very good Q2. Perhaps the next update will be prompt and in good order (if the console release doesn't come and sweep all of us under the rug).
-
On 5/6/2016 at 5:00 AM, mk1980 said:
i don't really agree with the whole "hard mode is too grindy" idea. it can feel grindy if you try to finish the tech tree before you even consider going to other planets, but the game sure doesn't *force* you to play that way.
contracts for other planets give *a lot* more cash than simple mun/minmus trips, and you get a lot more science points for doing experiments on bodies outside the Kerbin SOI.
i think the "grindyness" (is that even a word?) is mostly self imposed. you can actually do missions to duna or gilly or something without going beyond the 90 science point tech level, so there is actually no need to grind science/money from 15 different moon biomes if you choose to go interplanetary early.
there's also no real need to grind 30 different KSC biomes if you choose to go to the mun/minmus early.
i think that's also the way the game is actually intended to be played on harder settings - you get lower rewards for easy tasks, so you are encouraged to do harder tasks instead.
at least, that's my point of view on that matter.
This is incorrect.
Even if you COULD build an interplanetary ship with no funds and tier 1 everything, under 30 parts, etc. It's going to use up all your starting cash, and contracts will not generate for interplanetary until you have the required rep THEREFORE you will have no cash to do the next mission even if you do succeed in getting a few hundred science to make your ships not be 10 piece monstrosities for the next 2 hours.
Seriously, send me some pictures or a video of your "hard mode doing whatever you want in 3 contracts game". Have you even tried it?
It bugs me when people try to sidestep the literal design problems in the career mode with completely fabricated claims, which in effect encourage the devs to keep it broken.
-
Flags or it didn't happen
-
8 minutes ago, stk2008 said:
Hmmmm hope they brng out a patch soon just to stop the crashing.
I purchased my son a copy of KSP and the crashing is making it unplayable for me and him so I have purchased a game for him he cant even play
I hear you I have my own copy that is touch and go. We (as others who bought the game) are trying to keep the devs informed. If you feel passionately, i believe you are entitled to a refund before a certain point.
-
They're on vacation so I wouldn't expect another patch for 3-4 weeks, and what it will cover (besides wheels and landing gear), is anyone's guess. (and we're not supposed to ask)
-
I don't think "time" mechanics will make the game harder. More like, hard mode: now you miss the first dozen launch windows!
There are mods for time researching but i don't see that as making the game more difficult.
I agree that hard mode is grindy, but adding a waiting mechanism doesn't fix it. The costs of new hires needs to be lowered across the board. At this point i think "light touch" is probably the best way to tweak the career. Little changes to costs and rewards, and review changes carefully for improvement. one thing i noticed is the 2 person mk1 passenger module is way OP compared to the landing can. Less weight per kerbal, cheaper, higher tolerances all around. can't be controlled directly but for moving teams of units its a no brainer. Just an example of some of the changes that need be made.
What would make the game physically harder to play and perform..?
•no SAS at all (or put it high the tech tree)
•weakened / realistic reaction wheels & RCS
•non-infinite astronaut RCS
•hotter re-entry (i believe they already have this slider)
•I also like the idea from the ingitor[sic] mod where your engines can only be started a limited number of times.basically things that are realistic which typically complicate things. You could integrate remote tech requirements for unmanned crafts, stipulate failure without electric charge, any number of things.
-
33 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
Only thing they can do is ignore it, muddle along and hope it will pass.
Is this not the development MO?
I've never been part of an early access before this, never will again, but I've almost never seen squad pander to or directly acknowledge.. basically anything.
Sounds like a corporation funneling all the money to the top imo. But i also think this deserves its own thread.
I think the sad reality is that this game is the sims 4 and i'm waiting for cities skylines really. like people have said this game has sold the majority of its copies; its too late for much to change. One last huzzah to get the console approval stamp, and then push toys.
-
2 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:
Something that lines up perfectly on kerbin won't line up the same on the mun unless the two masses are equal.
1 hour ago, Rune said:I beg to differ..The trick are the corridor sections between them, which have a bit of play to take care of terrain irregularities, and locking the suspension on all legs. And if after that a port won't connect on the first try, working the legs on/off will usually do the trick. Building modules of roughly the same size also helps, of course.
So just like i said, it works but there are a bunch of caveats and it's a pain in general.
What do you beg to differ about exactly..?
Sure, you can make it work, you need to plan for every different thing, etc etc.
-
KAS is the most "realistic" way to make this happen. I can't imagine trying to dock two massive objects on a non-breathable body IRL, without anything more than decouplers. At the very least, there should be connectable tubes or some other structure for kerbals to move from one module to the next, which would be attached via EVA.
Because of the way that stock treats modular basebuilding (as a nigh impossible, fruitless task), I usually don't bother. I send down single all-in-one units, which may or may not return afterwards. I am also perpetually sad.
-
In principal it works but in practice the suspension changes dramatically in different gravity. Something that lines up perfectly on kerbin won't line up the same on the mun unless the two masses are equal. Having boosters or extra legs on your "transport rover" helps so that you can get aligned, but it's not fool proof. I've been out by half a decoupler more than once, so ymmv. Ultimately, i imagine using hyperedit to "test" the base before launching is the safest bet, but there is no universal solution.
-
Many the MK1 parts had drag reduced. They move faster through the atmosphere. I also found the sub-orbital mission difficult, mainly for not taking these things into account.
In order to pass the mission you need to reach 70km up. even if you just scrape that point you need a serious amount of horizontal thrust to make up for it. If you can get to orbit with ~3600 dv, then a ship will need ~3300 to reach 70km and return safetly.
Ofc, there's always the possibility of launching [almost] straight up, touching 70, and burning retrograde to survive the return trip. No idea how much more or less dv that would require, but you might be able to do away with drogues if that's your thing.
It's more complicated than before, but I suppose it's good because it gives you an opportunity to play with flight patterns and get a hands on feel for the atmosphere and how it reacts.
I also particularly like that re-entry is not easy and keeps you on your toes now. As i mentioned elsewhere, drogue chutes and a heatshield should be mandatory for re-entry as is.
-
Wow this is cool. Just saw it on CKAN. Great Idea
-
I set the front wheel friction to 0 to avoid phantom forces.. In testing, the craft begins to drift around 1 (default) and above. When cruising at the threshold of spinning out, the instant the front wheel is set to 0 the control went back a la 1.0.5, just straight. That was the single biggest factor on my configuration above. I'm going to do some more testing over the weekend using the starting runway, and some new wheel configurations.
It almost seems like these wheels are just massively customizable for different bodies/circumstances. I'm willing to bet when i get wheels on the mun i'll be using different settings, which is probably the logic behind it. Though i don't think that's necessarily a good thing for the average player who just wants to throw on a set of wheels and go.
Yousa Gonnaneed to make a few new pages on the KSPedia!
-
[redacted, done contributing]
-
3 minutes ago, Alshain said:
They are also cheap, that makes them good for augmenting lift and range capabilities of an existing lifter. I've found in my lifter designs that the SRB's scale nicely. I have designs up to 10 ton payload capacity that just add larger SRB's as they go higher in capacity (2 SRB's and 2 LFO stages stacked). After that, might as well go with Size 2 as it will end up cheaper using a Poodle/Skipper center stack.
Yes i know they're substantially cheaper. I'm just saying that USUALLY, trying to accomplish orbit, with mass and part counts as the limiting factor (tier 1 facilities), SRBs pale in comparison to LFO, esp for dv vs. mass. They're great for keeping the initial stage with a decent TWR. but i'd never put a radial set of 6 on anything. If I need 6+ SRBs i'm just making things too complicated. No more jokes for me!
-
SRBs are criminally low power. pretty sure you could lift that entire thing with 4 lvt-30s or a mainsail. and then you could add 2 SRBs for show.
Rockomax needs a class action kerbal lawsuit for failing to deliver things to space with SRBs is what I think.
7 minutes ago, Bloody_looser said:And it's kinda not good, y'know, we're kinda in 'released' game.
Game was "kinda" released when it was in early access. I think its going to be "kinda" released for some time. that is generally well known information at this point.
-
5 hours ago, Ted said:
but this takes time and a lot more hard work from a team that has been pushing to the limit on that.
Take your time guys, its a marathon not a sprint.I am sure you will get it sooner or later. :]
Anyway, here are my general observations from wheels in 1.1.1
•Wheels seem relatively stable under ~35 m/s (126 km/h).
•Above ~35 m/s threshold the LY05 is very prone to destruction from "overstress", even with minimal planes.
•Distributing weight is key for stability and wheel survival. I managed to get airborne last night on the lvl 1 runway after roughly an hour and I settled upon a 7-wheeled plane I would almost venture to say that the wheel tolerance for weight should be increased a tad. I will put up pics when i'm at my gaming pc but I left the runway on wheels moving 80 m/s.
•Suspension seems to help steering wheels "adjust" to ground imperfections while remaining straight above 35 m/s
•Even with proper weight distribution, crafts are extremely prone to drift and spinning at high speeds.
•At speeds above 25 m/s (90 km/h), the steering is far too touchy. People have mentioned a damping mechanism to solve this. It is worth mentioning that the behavior almost feels like you are driving a car with extremely narrow tires.
In the meantime, I was able to maintain control by disabling steering and then turning only with control surfaces/sas while in "fine tune mode".
I feel like with a big wide front tire and more weight tolerance I could get into the air on 3 wheels, so, it's getting there.
I suppose it is also worth mentioning that travelling at 126 km/h on grass with an open wheeled concept vehicle IRL is very likely to make you spin out and crash. so, if anything we are looking for "less realism" to make wheels fun at reckless, breakneck speeds.
-
Ugg this idea is awesome, would be a must-have mod.
-
4 hours ago, ghost_sox said:
... the bugs, the crashes, the issues, and from what I read about update 1.1, most mods don't work anymore.. It's not about the money, it's about value and something unfinished, still being developed, still has problems, and still broken in some ways (look at the 64 bit version crashing randomly to desktop often).... that IS NOT worth $40.00. I would pay the $40.00 if the game was FINISHED and free of bugs and crashes. Again... it's not the $17 difference, it's the principle.... paying full price for an unfinished product. (see below).
blah blah, "from what i read"..
How about you play the game? The people complaining in many cases understand subtle nuances that affect their ability to play. It doesn't mean it's game breaking. I've put at least 20 hours into 1.1 now, experienced virtually no issues. With each new version mods need to be updated, so that's not even an argument.
FWIW, a Full price for a video game is at least 59.99, so i don't think this game is "full priced." Not only that but people around here are regularly getting 100+ hours into this game, so with that in mind i fail to see many other forms of entertainment with that kind of value. Not only that but it's basically like a hey i'd rather nickle and dime the dev 17$ because its not even about the money.
Quote.. I can see that voicing an opinion isn't very welcome in this community so I will be keeping my posts rare and keeping my opinions even more rare. We can all stop with the nonsense now
Personally i don't want to hear your opinions. If you think the game isn't good value but have never played it your "opinions" are basically just re-worded versions of other peoples opinions, and are meaningless in any context.
AFAIK, this business of releasing unfinished products and selling them legitimately is largely a video game phenomenon. Certainly not exclusive to this one. Choose a different hobby maybe?
No, you couldn't sell cars that way,
you couldn't repair computers that way.
You couldn't serve food that way.
You couldn't sell music that way. Hey check my early access music album, it's just the drum samples now but hey it'll improve over a few years.I personally find it abhorrent and distasteful, but it is a sign of the times, and the nature of technology where we can update things post release. Some people see it is "carrying on after completion", but it is absolutely an excuse to sell an unfinished product. In the case of KSP, it may never be finished to the extent many of us would like it, but IMO SQUAD is head and shoulders above most other developers riding the "selling unfinished product" game.
Finally, since you know the game is incomplete, and will likely remain incomplete, it is in your best interest (and the best interest of others on the fence) to buy it before the unfinished product takes another price hike (which i imagine it just might after console release).
-
I will check it out, thanks! I also haven't really tried turning everything up to max. My PC should be able to handle it.. i'm just used to the ways of <1.0.5
-
23 minutes ago, String Witch said:
I'm running Scatterer and PlanetShine but even under that I noticed the ambient light seems to have been improved
I agree with this in general
However, IVA view reveals some very strange shadow issues, light seems to enter through the sides of the pod.
-
30 minutes ago, ringerc said:
Please tell me this includes a fix for the claw kraken? It's been messing up my plans for a giant orbiting asteroid base for ages...
klaw is actually a tad worse at the moment. Hopefully 1.1.1 tomorrow *crosses fingers*
overall though, I have been quite happy with 1.1 also and can't keep from playing.
-
Yes, the MK1 parts in particular had tweaks, primarily drag / aero and now you'll plummet through the atmosphere with even a few extra empty tanks. You'll want to leave everything behind that you don't need before you attempt re-entry. Either remove experiments from modules (putting data/science in the pod) or transmit them. Note the MK1 Pod with nothing but a heat shield is quite aerodynamically stable and should have no problem slowing down on its own, at least reasonably within kerbin's sphere of influence. Here's some other suggestions;
- Drogue chutes are able to deploy quite a bit higher up and with higher speed, they will slow you down enough for your main chutes (provided you can slow down enough to get them open).
- Heat shields should be necessary with 100% re-entry heat. It's re-entry. It's definitely possible to bring an MK1, 2 goo cans, a set of drogues and a small chute in without a heat shield from LKO, FWIW, but you should get in the habit of packing one anyway.
- Retro-burners or saving a bit of fuel in the last stage can slow you down dramatically. Even 300 dV is going to make most life-threatening entry a painless one. for that matter, gimballing engines can help you keep control when you're coming back in, even w 5-10% retro-thrust.
- Finally, if you're bringing in top-heavy payloads without service bays, you may want to consider RCS to "strong-arm" yourself retrograde, to keep your instruments in a non-obliterated state.
Stock aero makes re-entry somewhat nerve-wracking again in 1.1 (so that's good), they may only need to tweak those settings to ease up slightly, but otherwise it's a nice challenge. I suppose its also worth mentioning that the expanding heat shield is allegedly OP and should keep most anything safe from burning up (haven't unlocked it yet to try)
-
7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:
One of the biggest issues I've seen is that the community is changing (and I was just discussing this with @sal_vager yesterday).
When KSP first got started, those who came to the game where those who were willing to put up with the issues, and had the ability to solve problems independently. Slowly the game and the community matured. Currently however, the community has changed with new life. You will notice yourself, a lot of new users on the forums (joined anytime after Jan. 2016), and the majority of these complaints come from them. These users are coming to play the game based on nothing more than 1 or 2 youtube videos and are immediately diving into the game head first with no preparation or explanation.
So when they encounter an issue, they immediately reach out and complain, sometimes blaming Squad directly. Often, they're problems are one of 3 causes. 1, it's a problem with their design which with minor fixing would be solved. 2, It's a known bug, and they simply refuse to read up about it and work around it. So the simply complain and rage quit. And 3, it's simply the game not working to their expectations or desires. These players don't want to fail a few times to get to the moon, the "fun in failure" aspect of KSP, does not exist to them. Rather than taking note of their problem, they complain.
Not EVERY new member will be sour. However, it seems the majority of new members, are. I hope this is just a phase of the community and they will come and go. But only time will tell.
This is completely off base. For starters, i've been playing since like .19 and never knew how to "solve problems independently". I have relied, and always relied on a game developer keeping their game at least stable enough to play, if it were presented to people.
If you want to take pot shots at people who bought a game post 1.0, and are upset at save-breaking wheels, unhelpful "senior" forum members, and a general drop in reliability, go ahead, but its not just new people who have problems with this.
For that matter, i've not seen too much "complaining" in general about the release, i've seen lots of posts by frustrated people who want to play a game and have nowhere else to turn. Where are the loads of people "fussing"? They're just trying to figure out why none of it works, and you blame them??
FWIW, i tried to make an account for the bug tracker - didn't work. I did pay for this.
I agree with the people who say that we have been here since .90, which was one version after .25, saying that it was not time to go to 1.0. Ironically, many of those people left after being completely ignored, but its not because they're "drowned out" by new players; they just moved on.
Like, It's honorable to try and shush people who are complaining but with all do respect this areas of the forum are about discussing development and this is literally what we have to discuss, the state of this game. It is the bugs, that result in the discussion (fussing), about this game.
Let me close this by saying squad have made an exceptional piece of software when taken as a whole, and I try and acknowledge the things that squad have well (of which there are many). Eventually I have faith that this game will be ironed out and 100% pure awesome.
VAB/SPH Shipbuilding App, PC or Smartphone
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted · Edited by Violent Jeb
[redacted, done]