Wyleg
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Wyleg
-
-
Ok, let me rephrase the question that bothers me.
Why TweakScale shows a message on loading KSP which says that CKAN is not supported and the suggested link to get more details on that leads nowhere?
-
This does not answer any of the questions above tbh.
-
7 hours ago, Lisias said:
The take for it is simple: I DO NOT SUPPORT CKAN. I support TweakScale. It's simple like that.
If the thing was working, and after using CKAN it stopped working, then it's a CKAN problem. It's simple like that.
What I ceased to do is to support problemas caused by 3rd parties as it was something TweakScale did wrong.
People wants to use CKAN? Not a problem for me. I will just not support it - only TweakScale is supported by me, POINT.
Anyone find a TweakScale problem, I will fix it no matter what - is someone using KSP 1.2.2 finds a bug on an ancient version of TweakScale, I WILL FIX IT, point.
But I will not use my time supporting 3rd parties problems anymore.
TL;DR: you fix your mess, I fix my mess, and everybody wins.
I don't understand, what does your "i don't support CKAN" really means? If someone finds an issue in TweakScale when installed it with CKAN, you will deny fixing it even if it is a legitimate bug inside TweakScale? I'm confused.
-
Just now, Stewcooker said:
Thanks for the very informative write up.
Why wasn't this done sometime after 2019 and before launch?
Probably because some reasons.
-
Devs are paid primarily to deliver a game, everything else, including public relations, is secondary. Apologetic letters with intricate and nuanced wording achieve nothing. Furthermore, this roads not only leads to nowhere, it opens up for the opportunity for negative and unconstructive people to taste blood, take the 'moral high ground' and further push the devs towards their momentarily satisfaction goals, draining all the energy. And I just refuse your narrative that they owe us such thing. Between "Shutting up and doing things better and "Apologetic crying about how bad things were" I choose former.
-
13 hours ago, Dakitess said:
It needs this Mea Culpa.
Oh my god. So you really want the devs to say that they are bad? You want to tank their self esteem and turn them into whining mess to achieve what? Personal satisfaction because you feel underdelivered? [snip]
-
24 minutes ago, Mutex said:
Because the maneuver planner needs to know your acceleration during the burn, what acceleration should it use for when you're out of fuel? Bear in mind the craft gets lighter (and therefore accelerates faster) as it burns fuel.
IMO the point of the maneuver planner is to show what will happen if you perform a given burn. So the way it works makes perfect sense to me.
You can interpolate.
Maneuver planner shows how much dV you need to perform a maneuver. Everything else is secondary. Since maneuver is either way impossible to perform, it does not matter if it uses imaginary fuel for calculatons. You can just omit the burn time calculations (the only thing that requires acceleration and fuel mass) after the dV limit reached.
If we already are calculating dV that a craft has, just make an alert "Not enough dV to perform planned maneuver!", not just block the plotting entirely.
Plotting is very important piece in a gameplay loop of trial and error iterations. Let's say a player end up building a craft that just barely lacks dV to perform a maneuver or mission. What is better - to have an ability to get a visual information of how much dV more is needed for the next build to achieve what's planned, to be able to see how things could be better, or to not have that?
In other words, I want to be able to use maneuver planner "in the opposite direction" - to plot different maneuvers, however possible they are, see visually how much dV they require and where can they get me, and adjust my future builds and mission plans accordingly. Current dV limit, well, limits this with no clear reason.
-
Oh, sweet, sorry, glanced over that one
-
Guys, it is all great stuff, but can we at least get SOME acknowledge about decaying orbits bug?
-
1 hour ago, rebel-1 said:
This is all very interesting, but we have not received an answer to why the game, where the graphics are very primitive, has such system requests, and on systems where MSFS works with 60 frames per second with great graphics at high settings, KSP2 barely works at minimum settings with 11 frames.
We have. PQS+ is a resource hog. Loot at the timings in the first post.
-
4 minutes ago, Lisias said:
Since I didn't see any update (yet) on Steam's News page for the game, neither found any new manifest on SteamDB, I'm assuming the patch was not issued yet, and so anything that wasn't working on Launch Day is still not working today.
So unless KSP2 has some kind of backdoor to inject fixes transparently (what, frankly, may render to PD a huge process on the civilised World, Europe in special), I don't see how you can make such affirmation.
Is your KSP2 today any different form the one that was launched last Feb 24? If yes, where did you got it? If no, how can you affirm that things are working now?
New UI, the new parts, the music, the tutorials work.
Last sentences were added by the author later and I haven't bothered to edit my message.
-
3 minutes ago, BmB said:
If the game was stable enough, there's loads of things you could give feedback on, like the new UI, the new parts, the music, the tutorials etc. But you can't, because none of it works.
KSP2 has no modding support, which is worrying. The mods you see now are done using hacks originally developed for japanese porn games.
KSP1 had asset loading, plugins and data driven config files almost from the start.
Objection - things you named work in the game right now. You probably should stop posting false facts.
-
6 minutes ago, captainradish said:
Early Access is supposed to be used when you have the entire skeleton of your game in place but want community input on the rest. That's what Workers and Resources Soviet Republic does, for example. It's supposed to be in an advanced Beta state. What we got was not that.
At the same time don't forget that first impressions are important. What we got was a very bad first impression of a game that was *technically* functional but certainly not very feature complete.
That is debatable. One can say that we somewhat have the buggy skeleton of the game on our hands.
Nothing really changes with the game released in Febuary in rough state or if it releases later in more polished state. But the benefit of having a game on our hands early is not a bad thing, I'm imagining player's feedback can only help to shape the further development into better state.
And today first impressions don't mean a thing. I can't decide what's shorter - the memory of a goldfish or the memory of the public. After half of a year when the game is polished positive feedback will eclipse negative and your average gamer will not remember the rough start at all. Polish that with some PR and shill on youtube and the problem is no more.
4 minutes ago, attosecond said:From the link that @Wylegposted, words about EA directly from Steam:
"Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release."
Is KSP2 worth $50 in its current state? Debatable.
Is KSP2 in a playable alpha or beta state? Yes.
So no negatives on that, got it.
-
11 minutes ago, BmB said:
Once again, Steam Early Access means a finished product.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess
QuoteDon't launch in Early Access if you are finished with development. If you have all your gameplay defined already and are just looking for final bug testing, then Early Access isn’t right for you. You’ll probably want to send out some keys to fans or do more internal playtesting instead. Early Access is intended as a place where customers can impact the final game.
Bro, you just couldn't get your logic more wrong even if you tried.
-
5 hours ago, BmB said:
By releasing in Steam Early Access for 50€ it did make that claim, it's implicit to the platform.
Sorry, I'm not that obsessed with excrements, so can not make that comparsion. Game is buggy, yes, but it's also playable.
And label "Early Access" is more telling than any imaginary implications.
-
Game works. You can launch it, build a spacecraft, plane, rover, and use it. Fly somewhere else, land on another planet etc. Game is playable.
-
26 minutes ago, BmB said:
They ought to have not released it like this. I understand that it is ultimately the publisher that sets release dates and prices, but that does not absolve the developers, as we know of multiple public delays, which probably cover several more internal delays. So what we can get from that is intercept failing multiple times to meet milestones and take 2 forcing them to release to recoup some costs, at the end of the day consumers are the ones getting shafted with an overpriced and underdeveloped release, and you get nothing good out of defending this or making excuses. The least they can do is not keep us waiting any longer than we have to by releasing critical fixes for the current version as soon as possible.
"Weeks" is not an acceptable answer here, never was and never will be.
If we get nothing good out of defending the devs, then, once again, what good do you think you gonna make by simply blaming them?
"Weeks" is acceptable, because there is nothing left for you to do than to accept the fact and live on with it. If you think otherwise, go talk to the management, make them rehash their processes in the studio, maybe learn something and get employed to kill bugs and help the devs make patches faster. Whining on the forums doesn't help.
But something tells me, that gamedev professionals already know all the things you are going to tell them, and maybe some more. Like the inside kitchen of the project, that makes it that much harder to bring to life in reality, compared to perfect world you are imagining.
-
3 minutes ago, BmB said:
I'm going to tell them that delaying fixes is not a good idea.
Oh. I assure you, they get that. Anything else?
-
5 minutes ago, BmB said:
Having to spend hours working around bugs to do anything is unplayable, even if some are far enough gone to expend that effort.
Okay, you won, game is bad and unplayable. Everything is ruined, things are unexcusable. Now, what you're gonna do about it? Yell at devs and demotivate them even more to bury all the hope of getting a decent game someday?
-
KSP Version: 0.1.0.0.20892
Operating System and version: Windows 10
CPU and GPU models: CPU -11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11700K @ 3.60GHz 3.60 GHz; GPU - GeForce RTX 3060
Description of the bug
Orbits decay. I have a simple probe with no clipping parts at low orbit around Minmus. Thrust at 0, no force is applied to it. At 1x time orbit's PE decreases at a rate of ~10m/s. Entering and exiting time warp don't solve the problem, loading to another craft, VAB etc. and switchng back to probe does neither. It doesn't stop until PE drops to the ground.
Expected Behavior
Orbits of crafts in vacuum don't change without applied force.
Observed Behavior
Orbits decay by themselves causing crafts to collide with the surface.
Steps to Replicate
Create a probe, get it to Mun or Minmus low orbit, cut engines and observe. Maybe enter a timewarp and back to 1x tome speed and then look at PE readings.
Fixes / Workarounds (if known..)
None. Playing with PhysicsSettings.json seems to do nothing on that case.
A list of ALL mods. If the list is long, please consider using a spoiler window.
No mods, vanilla
Other Notes / Screenshots / Log Files (if possible..)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a05pVnWPKIIYX2Qzp7__vHKgfPuU8xaN/view - video illustration
Comment:
This is very sad and renders the game borderline unplayable. Plz fix
-
19 hours ago, Catatau_27 said:
The work is amazing, the front is aggressive, the texture is equivalent, and the gray color stands out better than many gray parts of the original pieces, I look forward to seeing the EVA and the interior of the cabin! = D Ps: Yes, even with several corrections in the assembly the drag is enormous, I believe it is due to the fact of aggressive aerodynamics.
I developed a craft called Eagle-1, based on his incredible work. Follows two photos.
https://imgur.com/a/vsxgIma
Wow, now that's a headscratcher. Can you please provide some screenshots of you craft at sonic speed with aero forces enabled in debug menu? That will help a lot.
Also, what a great craft! I really appreciate that you guys find my creation enjoyable ^^
-
Update!
Fixed drag cubes on the cockpit - now it doesn't create absolutely insane amount of drag, current numbers are close to stock Shuttle cockpit.
-
Update!
Added working RCS thrusters on HVC cockpit - they are no more dummy!
Also refubrished texture, added normal mapped grooves and some scratches - now looks even more awesome than before!
Simply replace older folder with new one.
IVA is still being in development.
-
Update!
Added Mk3 HVC cockpit
Cockpit is WIP - currently it lacks IVA, RCS thrusters are dummy and there's no cabin illumination.
[KSP >= 1.3.0] TweakScale - Under Lisias' Management - 2.4.8.3 - 2024-0525
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by Wyleg
To be clear, I thought that the link leads nowhere because I thought it still features the "coming soon" we are talking about, but now, as you quietly filled the page without acknowledging anyone that the issue is no more, this problem seems to be fixed.
Once again, this was an issue related to TS, as it was TS that produces the message with the now fixed link, I can't think of more adequate place to discuss a TweakScale related issue rather than here.
The question why TweakScale users has to deal with the piece of unwanted "you vs CKAN" drama every time they boot up KSP , when you can just delist your mod from CKAN and solve the problem with support for everyone once and for all, is still left unanswered. But I see that you will avoid answering that no matter what, so i bug out. Peace.