Jump to content

Stewcooker

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stewcooker

  1. Really glad the science experiment bug is fixed. When I encountered it in the game I thought: "Really? No one thought to write a check to see if an experiment had been done?" Also, is it a bug or a missing feature? Bugs are usually intermittent, but from what I understand this happened to everyone all the time, which would make it more of a missing feature.
  2. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 | GPU: Nvidia 1660 TI | RAM: 16 GB When flying my craft, upon leaving the atmosphere for the first time the "Science available" indicator flashes, but says that some of the available experiments need to be run by a kerbal on EVA. I exit the craft with my kerbal, right click the kerbal, and then click the "Crew Observation" button. I hear the science ding sound effect, the button disappears. Upon re entering the craft, opening the science menu shows no additional data to transmit, not additional samples in storage, and the science available indicator is still flashing. Upon rexiting the craft I can do the same steps again to no apparent effect. .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  3. I think 7 is a good starting place. 7 is probably about the bare minimum you could have and have a relatively "complete" science experience. Starting at the lower end of what could be, allows them to add more science parts down the line based on player feedback and use cases that emerge naturally due to people playing the game, instead of brainstorming sessions in a closed room. Nothing wrong with brainstorming, but lots of good ideas come later after people have been playing the game too. So yeah, I don't think 7 is intended to be the only science parts we'll ever get, even before colonies and interstellar. This gives them plenty of room to add interesting science later without the new parts feeling redundant or crammed in.
  4. Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 | CPU: Intel i7-9750H | GPU: Nvidia 1660 ti | RAM: 16GB Fresh install of KSP2, booted up the game and built a rocket in the VAB. Music and UI sound effects worked fine throughout. When I went to launch my rocket, no sounds at all. No environment sounds, no countdown sounds, no launch sounds, and no rocket sounds. I pressed escape and the UI sounds were working. I reverted to the VAB and music and UI sounds were working fine as well. Relaunching the rocket from the VAB caused the sound to begin working again as expected, with countdown, UI and Rocket sounds. .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }
  5. So, wobbly fix is sometime after 1.5.0, and science is sometime after that? Just making sure I read that properly. If that's indeed the case....science next summer sometime?
  6. "You could turn off all the joints, single rigidbody,, but then you lose some of that novelty..." I feel like "wobbly rockets" aren't an interesting "novelty", they're inaccurate and immersion breaking. Yes KSP prides itself on being cartoony and accessible, something I feel like the dev team may have leaned a little too hard into at times, but at the end of the day this is a physics-based sandbox game trying to emulate real-life rocketry, and in real life rockets don't wobble or bend when they encounter shear forces, they break. Often catastrophically. At this point my vote is to echo what @regex says and implement node to node welding of parts of the same size or cross section. You can still calculate shear forces and aerodynamics per part, and if shear forces reach a certain threshold, *bam*, explode the part, decouple the nodes, and then you've got a realistic emulation of a rocket. And @Nate really hits the nail on the head around the 4 minute mark when he says "When a player sees a rocket, if the structure itself appears to be unitary....you'd sort of expect all those cylindrical elements to basically be constructed as one solid piece" (paraphrase). I agree, that is what I expect, but beyond that, its what I saw when SpaceX launched their 397 foot tall, 11 million pound Starship on it's first test flight. I saw that rocket tumble, fall sideways, and then the FTS kicked in and exploded the rocket, all without the slightest bit of (observable) flex or bend. Yes, I agree that lateral nodes with a cantilevered weight out on the end should experience some bend, but the core of my rocket should, as Trigger so eloquently put it, "Fly straight and true like a brick house". I think the team is getting there, I know they're really putting a lot of work into finding an implementation that includes the best of both worlds. But I have to wonder two things: 1. Is finding one solution for all the parts across the board worth it, or would it be easier to have different physics for different parts? Whereby i mean a vertical stack of tanks behaves as one rigidbody, but nodes attached laterally or with a docking port experience the same kind of wobble we have built in now? 2. Why are these questions and solutions just now being discussed when the initial release date was early 2020?
  7. Thanks for putting the work in to do this! It would also be nice to see a breakdown of which bugs were day 1 bugs, as I feel like that would give some indication of where the team is at. Thanks again! On the subject of bug reports, I'm seeing some people displeased and saying that the devs should be aware of the bugs. I just want to add my two cents: The devs are more than likely aware of most of the issues with the game, but tracking down the steps to reproduce a bug can be time-consuming. So bug reports help the devs, not necessarily because you are telling them about an issue for the first time, but if you can nail down the steps that reproduce the bug it saves them a lot of time and gives them a better starting place as to what might be causing the issue. Anyway thats my two cents.
  8. This is oddly reminiscent of the time when they said that they were slowing down the release cadence so that that they could release better patches. We've had one patch since then. I suppose soon we'll be hearing that official communication will be slowing down so that they can spend more effort making good communications.
  9. Hi, I haven't seen anything about this yet. Where was this posted?
  10. So I can definitely see why Kerbal takes the path that it does, in regards to seriousness. And in game philosophy choices as well. For example, I think Kerbal does an exceptionally good job of getting the best of the Sim world and the goofy fun game world. Go too far in either direction and you lose fans on the other side completely. For me, I love playing KSP with mods like RP-1 and Kerbalism and it irks me that kerbals aren't human-sized and that Kerbin isn't Earth-sized, but I'm probably in the minority and then again, mods. TLDR: I personally feel like Kerbal gets the balance of the two quite nearly just right.
  11. Ever since the Early Access announcement, I've basically turned all of my kerbal energies towards the RP-1 (Realistic Progression) family of mods. They just released a large update, and are releasing new updates and patches pretty much once a week. I pop over here every now and then to check on things, but I'm primarily keeping up with RP-1. If you're looking for something kerbal to get excited about again, it might be worth a shot!
  12. I would definitely like to see an expanded variety of tanks. But then again, pure procedural tanks in KSP1 can be a bit finnicky to get just right. I think perhaps a decent compromise might be to have like a single methalox tank, but with a length slider or something similar. Maybe cap it to the nearest meter or half meter. But maybe that's just putting an organizational coat of paint on the current issue.
  13. And I'm certain the video will just completely gloss over why this took them so long.
  14. With a simple math equation: (TotalHeatIn - TotalHeatOut) * Time.deltaTime * CurrentTimeWarpSpeed
  15. Thanks for the very informative write up. Why wasn't this done sometime after 2019 and before launch?
  16. I'd like to see a game that teaches this stuff. Games where you learn by playing are my favorite. But will the devs do it? On one hand, the tutorial videos in KSP 2 show a desire to teach real science concepts to people, and to make learning fun. On the other hand, it seems as if they purposely chose a design direction based around "lol rokit go wobble" (paraphrasing the things nate has said on the subject, of course) So honestly I guess it's a coin flip on whether the game will go in this direction or not.
  17. I think the main issue for most of us who have criticism of the current state of the game, is that this game was supposed to release in 2020. That is three years ago. Then the release date has been pushed and pushed and slipped further and further, but each time we were lied to, and told that it was for polish, or that the game was "in the final stretch". And then when the game is actually released, we find out that the game is not even close to what we were told, and the product that was release has not had three years of tuning and polishing, not at all. It is almost as if the developers had to start over from scratch around August or September of last year, rushed the Minimum Viable Product out the door, and are acting like everything is fine. We aren't critical of the fact that this game is in early access, although the majority of early access games launch in a better state than this one did. We are critical of the fact that it appears we are playing a game that started development Last Tuesday, and all official communication acts like that is the case, when these problems should have been fixed years ago. People have been following KSP 2 for 4 or 5 years at this point, and when it finally releases we are given a broken vertical slice of a game, and the official communication acts like this is the way it was supposed to be all along. This is why I am frustrated with the state of the game. I hope it gets better, but I personally feel like all the energy and excitement I gave KSP 2 over the years has been betrayed and cast aside.
  18. Glad to see that a lot of these bugs are being fixed in the next update! The transparency on the bugs is greatly appreciated, it helps everyone see how tough some of these issues are to solve. I would like to see something similar on the upcoming features. For example, how's Re-Entry Heating coming along? What are the particular blockers or pain points the team is encountering? Are they artistic in nature, or is there an issue with calculations? Maybe Unity-based? I imagine trying to figure out which GameObjects are occluded from heat and those that aren't in a performant way might be a particularly tough nut to crack. But then again, I can see how the Phantom Drag bug could have impeded progress on the heating problem as well, since if parts are causing drag it's probably influencing heating as well.
  19. Congrats! Been following this update for quite awhile now, ever since I saw @Carnasa do a video about it. Played the testing branches a little bit, and I quite like this direction for the game Of course, I have suggestions, the main one which was influenced by the Newspaper: How about external world events affecting your program? Historical (Alt-Historical?) events could fire and give your program bonuses/maluses Examples could include some rival nation beating you to a milestone, which triggers national interest in your program, granting a modifier to reputation gains/losses. Another event could be an outbreak of war driving the demand for surveillance, generating a few limited-time-only missions. I feel like if the game could support it, the possibilities here are endless. Another thing I would like to see is more Alt-History paths, like with the D-2 alternate to Apollo that is currently in the game. Of course, this relies on the parts for those paths actually existing (something I couldn't help with right now, considering my current skill set). Specific alt-history paths I think would be interesting include an early german space program, perhaps in a setting where Germany didn't suffer such a brain drain of its rocket scientists. Another path I think would be interesting is if Goddard's research caught on very early in the US, turning them into the first rocketry power, whereas Germany was the first IRL. Anyway, some hypothetical derivatives of Goddard's work would be interesting to see regardless I'd love to help out where possible, I am a unity programmer by day, but have never modded unity before. Love the mod, and looking forward to see where things go!
  20. This is one of those ideas I didn't know I wanted. You're very right with the fact that sometimes the actual mission can feel anti-climatic after simming it a half-dozen times. I also love the ideas about needing scans or science from different planets to make it work. As a sucker for "Collect all the things!" type gameplay in games, it would add a major incentive to exploring and sending precursor probes to planets before planning actual missions there. And it would be something unique to KSP 2 that could stand as a concrete addition or improvement over the original game.
×
×
  • Create New...