ddenis
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ddenis
-
-
I hate when a game/program is blamed for a faulty user... NO.. ABSOLUTELY NO... the worst thing in 95% of games now is how they hold your bloody hand and walk you around the whole time (*cough* CoD *cough*). The best part of this game was the learning curve! I spent a LOT of time online reading about the science of orbiting and the physics behind the game and in the end I LEARNED SOMETHING (a lot actually...) If it had just "told me what I was doing wrong, and how to fix it" I would have gotten bored a long time ago.
There is a tutorial and scenario section in the game now, go play those and read up on the wiki! Don't blame the game because it doesn't hold your hand. If you accidentally put a satellite in the wrong direction, TRY AGAIN! It's what makes the game fun!
The best part of the game is when I'm playing, not when I'm trying to solve some game problem searching on the internet.
"put a satellite in the wrong direction" there is a difference between doing the same stupid things again and again and did it once, see what says measurements and adjust my actions accordingly to eliminate errors.
-
...the inclination shown on the contract is the direction of the orbit.
With what number I can compare the number shown in the contract?
Is the current inclination shown anywhere?
- - - Updated - - -
If such a simple contract requires a tutorial then the game fails in being user friendly. (Not an in game tutorial)
-
There's dots moving on the orbit in the direction you need to go...
What if a person has a bad sight and can't distinguish dots?
The contract window doesn't even have criteria marks as fulfilled when each of them is done, ok, it has for bigger parts, but the orbit parameters should have the same indication.
P.S. And it's a common sense, if a user of your software doing something wrong, you have to tell him about that, so he or she can concentrate on fun things.
-
I've been gradually leaning toward regex views, on the question: I think extended numbers information could be hidden behind various "advanced" buttons, (and in career mode: Tracking and R&D upgrades) so that it doesn't bury noobs under a "complicated mess of windows and words that will frighten and startle." I think that quote excerpt is what worries Squad. Adding the option into stock, to display extended info, would definitely appeal to more experienced players.
The early resistance on this question is eroding. dV info was delayed, not canceled outright. In my view, the culture of continuous updates Squad is entering makes it nearly inevitable that more UI work will be done, and more info provided in stock.
SQUAD already doesn't explains a lot of things or does it badly. E.g. A popular problem with satellite launch when one has inclination +180 degrees from required... why not to show a message to a user with simple text "You're going the wrong direction, turn around" when Ap and Pe are correct... but no... The user has to go to the forum and ask here, because the game fails to point this mistake.
-
First of all and most of all I want to see polishing of this game... Where each element is in harmony with everything else. And I ok if little new functionality would be added... But it's a dream.
This game never would be polished.
-
It can't run it on PC with all mods required to polish the game... What use mobile version would have. And... use search for the same thread.
-
Graphics are second to gameplay theres no reason to focus on making the game pretty when theres tons of bugs to squash. seriously the game looks great for the art style they picked
Graphics and sounds are essential to the atmosphere of the game. Atmosphere of the game, it's overall filling as important as gameplay is.
Diving into clouds is much more pleasant than into an empty sky.
-
Ok, from my position of QA with years in the field I want to say that QA (process) is judged not by founded bugs but by not founded bugs that were found by customers. And if your process is bad, then someone has to be responsible for missed defects.
Not QA (process)? Good, then the person who scheduled 1.0. Because we've paid for the game and we, as customers, have all right to kick your ass for bad software which doesn't do everything you said it does. And it IS final product, because it's 1.0, there is no excuses that it's a beta, it has to do promised things.
And if you have some issues which were found, but you weren't able to fix in time for release, then it would be a good practice to let customers know about them before buying by posting list of them, so the same defect would be rereported less and people would complain less about missed defect.
Not responsibility of unpaid QA (person)? Ok, then it's an immature QA process in the company, the company which IS responsible for the quality of it's product.
In my QA experience it was always like that.
P.S. And yes, I decided not to play 1.0 till fixes will be published because I can't stand working with any software where the basic QA check wasn't made for fairings.
Basic checklist for them:
1) Base without plaits has correct mass;
2) Plates adds correct mass
3) When plates are jettisoned the mass is subtracted from the craft's mass.
That's the fist 3 things that have to be tested for fairings's mass testing (5-10 minutes for this) and they weren't... Or if it was intentional, then where is a logic in it, or why it isn't mentioned as a known defect in final release notes (with hotfix release date).
And I don't say that the 1.0 is bad, just, don't speak about good things now.
-
Fixed.
Retester by scenario "Test 1".
Actual result: A craft can take off with fairing base without constructed fairing plates. The craft can't take off with added fairing plates (4t). The craft can take off after fairing plates were decoupled.
-
Pray tell, how do you distinct between "GUI mass" and "real mass" in KSP? I am curious.
It can be done easily: if mass of the fairings is = 1/2 of the whole mass of the craft, then decoupling fairing base with fairing plates should increase acceleration of the craft excectly on the proportion of fairings' mass to the whole craft mass. In case if fgairings waiht 1/2 of craft mass, the TWR after decoupling faing base and plates has to be twice as big as it was before decoupling.
Also one can check it in the next way:
Six spider engines can lift 8t craft, but can't lift 5t craft... because 5t is "real" mass and 8t is "GUI" mass of fairings.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
-
You haven't convinced me - but please continue...
As I indicated above, I checked the mass of a simple construction on the launch pad before and after ejecting fairings - no change was indicated.
I'll do another test in a different manner and see if I can change my own mind.
Do you saying that mass of fairing plates is added to the fairing base? If so, could you give a relevant test for this? I can.
-
Yes, The mass of a vehicle's fairing "base" changes as the size of the fairing on top of it is increased during build - BUT all the mass is placed in the base. When the fairing ejects, it does not change the vessel's mass. You can check it on the launch pad.
Wrong.
Test:
Step 1) create craft with 1.25 probe core, small 1.25 fuel tank and 4 ant engines. mass of the craft is about 0.7t. It can barelly fly because it' twr is about 1.1.
Step 2) Add fairings with 2 ot more mass. now the mass of craft is supposed to be at least 3t. basic calculation: 0.7t = ~1.1 twr, 3t = X twr. I would guess that twr is < 1, even if all fuel would be burn out mass of the craft can't go below 2.5t, but what mirracle.. it flies when ~ 40% of fuel is burned (mass of fairing base). The craft that barely could get off the grount with mass = 0.7t could get off the graund with mass = "3t"?
Would you now insist on that all the mass is placed in the base?
-
Fairing mass isn't added to the base because fairing panels are massless. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116910-Am-I-missing-something-or-stock-fairings-are-massless
-
But fairings do weigh something... I just checked it out...
How have you checked? Don't trust everything that's written in the engineering report.
Moderator's answer:
The fairing panels don't have mass by design, only the bases, and if this is the worst fail in 1.0 then Squad did pretty good -
Fairings are massless by design... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116910-Am-I-missing-something-or-stock-fairings-are-massless
I really can't get why it's so.
- - - Updated - - -
actually i think that the fairings DO weigh something depending on their size, but ALL the mass is contained in the base !having a smaller fairing is better, lighter, but once you jettison it the base stays in place, ALONG WITH THE MASS
Ah yes. The weight of the base changes with the size of the fairings, but doesn't go down after jettison.Nope, the mass of fairings isn't added to the base.
-
Ok, I'm not even asking why such decision was made.
-
Probably since it would be hard to program mass for such a variable sized part?
The mass IS programmed, because it's displayed, fairings are just massless because... I have no idea why. You can see mass while building fairings, it's added in engineering report but not in flight.
-
Another thing that underwhelming me is that the fairings are massless. I just can't get why are they massless...
-
Stock fairing panels are massless.
In assembly building it's displayed like they add mass to a craft, but when the craft is rolled out to the pad - the fairing panels` mass is 0/zero/massless.
To clarify: the mass of fairing panels isn't added to the fairing base.
Test 1:
Craft with 4 ant engines, TWR about 1.1, mass ~ 0.7t.
Adding fairings with 2t mass (as displayed in VAB)...
Remove 40% of fuel to compensate fairings' base mass.
And the craft is flying! What the crap, this thing could barely take off the grount without additional 2t of fairings, but it could fly with them.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
Test 2:
Fairing's mass ~3t.
Craft's mass ~ 3.5t.
Gravity is hacked for testing purpouse.
Launching a rocker with fairings: acceleration is about 0.4g.
Stage fairings - acceleration stays the same 0.4g, while fairings are weights as much as the rocket... in assembly building.
Decouple fairings' base - no changes, the same ~0.4g of acceleration.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
P.S. Installed only KER (screenshot were made with other mods already instaled, but then I've deleted them and retested).
-
I vote for release right after the twich schedule ends.
-
+1 to GoSlash27 about not going into space for mining at Kerbin.
TheWinterOwl has shown where ore can be found on Kerbin.
https://youtu.be/pX_QJuZoW70?t=52m8s
Assuming, that an ore map is persistant, and if it isn't, one can find another suited spot.
-
Well... looking at it as a rational exercise, it kinda has to be that way.
When you recover your tank of fuel, they pay you (say) a thousand credits for it. Then you turn around and buy it right back for a thousand credits. It's like moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket; the transaction may as well not have happened.
So basically what you're doing is deorbiting your fuel, keeping it in a temporary fuel tank, putting it in another rocket, and then burning most of it to get some of it back up to orbit.
It's much better to just leave it in orbit in the first place. Or at least it *should* be...
Best,
-Slashy
Several things:
1) No one says that all produced fuel will be moved to KSC, it can be 50% or any other number.
2) Have you ever put money in bank? Yes, It's the same... "It's like moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket". Basicaly one can store money not in things, but in currency. Because there is no difference in selling/buying price if fuel recovered in KSC, then one could not bother with manual moving fuel through KSC. (But I really like that idea now and will use it in my 1.0. game, maybe.).
-
Banned for putting 8 between 777 in username.
-
Assuming that any mod implemented as stock would be poorer than it was originaly, I want to see any/all enviroment enchansment mods.
Help with satellite contracts?
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
I didn't say that contract is hard, I said that the game fails to give to user basic information about his mistakes. At the same time it gives a number which cannot be applied anywhere within the stock game UI.
The difference with that link on the turning of PC is that... That this information available in the Windows help without searching on the internet, just press F1 and type "shut down", but KSP fails to explain this with in game tips.