Devnote Tuesday: is it March already?

[Runescope]

Why no mention of the resource gathering? Especially following the tweet earlier, and the FB post of the tweet.

[kofeyh]

HarvesteR: That last bit means that interstage fairings are now fully supported.

Thank you. Just.. thank you. Job done. A bit sad that the fairing bases are fixed sizes (this is going to limit them considerably, for larger builds) but I suspect I understand the reasons. Leveraging the tweakable code to have a single base that can confirm to additional sizes may have been a different approach; I don't know if you considered that?

I imagine, again, there were reasons.

Mike (Mu): I’ve been ploughing on with the re-entry and aerodynamic heating effects.

If I had a child (which is best not to contemplate) I'd probably name it after you (this is why it was best not to contemplate). This along with the aerodynamics changes resolves so many outstanding "...?" questions around why things do, or do not do.

Thank you, sir.

Edited March 4, 2015 by kofeyh

[klgraham1013]

lets release the game to the world as gold, on a major engine version release. I'm sure that will end well.

Let's release the game to the world as gold, on a major aerodynamic rewrite with new re-entry damage. I'm sure that will end well.

Sorry. Had to be a little snarky, there.

[Caelib]

Question: If we have interstage fairings available, can we just do away with the automatic engine fairings? They're a hindrance as often as not (looking at you, LV-N*) and it sounds like the interstage system is more flexible (can hide clusters or look good with mismatched tank/engine sizes).

*I can't stay mad at you, LV-N, even if your fairing is terrible. Curse your seductively high Isp!

Ha! This made me laugh

[basic.syntax]

aero + re-entry + U5

I'm just going to lol a bit, since I think you're aware that comment compounds one of your concerns, with another big concern

My fingers are definitely crossed, in hopes for a much more stable KSP experience, on Unity 4.6 - with the added features - when KSP 1.0 is released.

Sumghai just cross-posted a bit of technical info in the KSP Unity 5 thread, about PhysX 3.3 implementation, from a July 2014 Unity 5 blog:

PhysX SDK 3 is a radical redesign of the good old PhysX SDK 2.x. Basically, the PhysX team have taken the best ideas and best approaches from 2.x and rewritten the whole SDK from scratch. That means the entire codebase is different, all the interfaces are different and most of the functionality is different.

[HafCoJoe]

Awww I want pics of the fairings! Friday perhaps?

[dryer_lint]

They're a hindrance as often as not (looking at you, LV-N*)

Are you kidding? The LV-N fairing is wonderful!

Especially when you drop it out of a plane and open the fairings mid-fall so it looks like a massive nuke

[RoverDude]

Why no mention of the resource gathering? Especially following the tweet earlier, and the FB post of the tweet.

Read what Ted had to say

[technicalfool]

Let's release the game to the world as gold, on a major aerodynamic rewrite with new re-entry damage. I'm sure that will end well.

Sorry. Had to be a little snarky, there.

Yep, and I'm sure adding a port to Unity 5 on top of an already full plate won't be any problem at all.

Y'hear that, Squad? Quit slacking, get cracking!

[basic.syntax]

I'm hoping the resource feature gets a few nice long paragraphs, some day soon

I would like to know if it will be tied into career-mode game systems like contracts, admin finance strategies.

Or, if the only reason to set up a resource operation somewhere, will be for a less-interconnected personal benefit: save on long-term costs, less fuel (smaller craft) sent to a distant location, knowing fuel will be there for the return trip, or fuel to complete multiple survey contracts "out there".

[federicoaa]

Nice devnotes, hope to see some sneak peeks soon

[kofeyh]

Let's release the game to the world as gold, on a major aerodynamic rewrite with new re-entry damage. I'm sure that will end well.

The changes being incorporated for 1.0, are long overdue; and would be welcomed regardless of whether it was a major/ minor version. That and the work is stepping into areas that have been well trodden from a modification perspective.

I would suggest if you're going to release a thing, it's logical it would be as feature complete as possible for the first 'gold' version. This is also quite probably the single longest development cycle i've seen in a long time; there is a massive percentage shift in how much is being tested, before it even hits experimental.

So yes, there are a few changes, but it doesn't require sarcasm to comprehend that that (the massively extended development cycle) is actually a vast improvement over very fast, infrequent 'burst' development cycles that have occurred before, leading to some quite unstable builds.

Edited March 4, 2015 by kofeyh

[tntristan12]

While I have every faith in Squad's ability to release a complete and bug-free final release, I still can't shake the feeling that they are jumping the gun with calling the next one "1.0." There are *so* many features on the roster that it would do nothing but benefit them if they broke it up into a couple of sub-releases.

[kofeyh]

While I have every faith in Squad's ability to release a complete and bug-free final release..

Developers have to pull the trigger at some point. No-one will ever agree when that "should" be. There is almost never, it seems, a "good time" to do so.

Squad could iterate on the concept for another two years, easily. But at some point - if you want to release - the pin has to be pulled. Games that languish in development hell forever, seldom recover.

History is replete with ample example.

[Lord Aurelius]

Developers have to pull the trigger at some point. No-one will ever agree when that "should" be. There is almost never, it seems, a "good time" to do so.

Squad could iterate on the concept for another two years, easily. But at some point - if you want to release - the pin has to be pulled. Games that languish in development hell forever, seldom recover.

History is replete with ample example.

While I agree that in development you need to draw a line at a certain point, that point should be when you enter beta, not when you jump to your final release. The whole purpose of the alpha to beta transition is that you're done adding features, so now you can focus on polishing, balancing and bugfixing in preparation for 1.0. The .90 release wasn't a true beta, look at how many new systems are planned for the next release. I am glad that Squad is much more committed to testing this time around than with previous releases and I'm hoping for the best, but I'm still a little worried with all the new systems being added in this cycle that a major bug/balance issue will still slip through.

Squad is already planning on iterating on the concept for the forseeable future, which is perfectly acceptable, nobody complains about getting new features. The thing is, the 1.0 release is what gets all the attention and is what all the reviews are based on, few reviewers will ever play the game again after 1.0 so it needs to rock solid without any major issues. After that, Squad can do whatever they want, and I'm excited that they're committed to continuing development and planning on adding major new features (multiplayer) after release.

Games that languish in development hell forever, seldom recover.

History is replete with ample example.

There are easily as many examples of games that jumped from alpha to release too soon, with similar results.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Lord Aurelius

[kofeyh]

There are easily as many examples of games that jumped from alpha to release too soon, with similar results.

As I covered above, there is never a "good time". KSP has had a very (very) long alpha cycle, you could argue a number of the recent updates could easily have been listed as beta.

Regardless, continuing that train of thought falls down to semantics; which isn't related to the topic. Which is apparently it's march and things happened at squad. Presumably if that keeps happening, we're going to see progress.

[Tw1]

With procedural fairings - are we going to be able to create procedural heat shields too?

Also, once again, please make the gender of Kerbals determined in the persistence or a CFG file, and not name based. Save us a load of frustrating.

[Sampa]

Question, will radiators eventually make their way into the stock game?

[Sandworm]

While I agree that in development you need to draw a line at a certain point, that point should be when you enter beta, not when you jump to your final release. The whole purpose of the alpha to beta transition is that you're done adding features, so now you can focus on polishing, balancing and bugfixing in preparation for 1.0.

If we are going by labels and names, and I think we should as without standards language is meaningless, then I agree. Squad's language is ahead of KSPs development. If they are still adding big features then this is still beta, or even alpha if we want to be completely literal. I see no fundamental difference between this "release" and any number of previous updates. New features/parts and a dash of bug fixes and optimizations. Maybe bigger and more, but not fundamentally different. To say your software is at 1.0 is to say that you are happy with it, that it is from your perspective a complete product of which you are proud. I do not get that sense about this update. Will the duna easter eggs be unburied? Have the RCS problems while under attitude been addressed? Will we finally be able to place a maneuver node where we want it rather than hunting for some part of the line willing to take a node? The list of known bugs is not short. "It's alpha" is no longer an excuse, nor is "blame unity". With 1.0 known bugs become defects in your knowingly defective product. Customer expectations are about to rise. As with 'alpha' and 'beta' before, if Squad's definition of '1.0' doesn't match the public's understanding of the term, now is the time to address the issue.

Will KSP have a manual? A finished product should have a manual. Wikis and youtube are great but people buying software want something official, particularly with flight sims.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Sandworm

[Sampa]

If we are going by labels and names, and I think we should as without standards language is meaningless, then I agree. Squad's language is ahead of KSPs development. If they are still adding big features then this is still beta, or even alpha if we want to be completely literal. I see no fundamental difference between this "release" and any number of previous updates. New features/parts and a dash of bug fixes and optimizations. Maybe bigger and more, but not fundamentally different. To say your software is at 1.0 is to say that you are happy with it, that it is from your perspective a complete product of which you are proud. I do not get that sense about this update. Will the duna easter eggs be unburied? Have the RCS problems while under attitude been addressed? Will we finally be able to place a maneuver node where we want it rather than hunting for some part of the line willing to take a node? The list of known bugs is not short. "It's alpha" is no longer an excuse, nor is "blame unity". With 1.0 known bugs become defects in your knowingly defective product. Customer expectations are about to rise. As with 'alpha' and 'beta' before, if Squad's definition of '1.0' doesn't match the public's understanding of the term, now is the time to address the issue.

Will KSP have a manual? A finished product should have a manual. Wikis and youtube are great but people buying software want something official, particularly with flight sims.

Manual? You got youtube vids for,that! Minecraft is full release and yet mojang/microsoft are still rolling out features.

[Superfluous J]

Manual? You got youtube vids for,that! Minecraft is full release in Beta and yet mojang/microsoft are still rolling out features called it 1.0 years ago!

tiftfy

[Aethon]

He'll be back.

Only in a rerun.

[Seshins]

oh my very happy to see the interstage fairings will be implemented. Would also be great if you could get all the major (and minor) space agencys to give the ok for thier logos and maybe more into KSP.

Top Work sqaud. One of the few game devs i can regulary rely on to let me know whats up with the game.

[Darnok]

Heat, aero, fairings, resources... hurry up guys I want to run my Duna constellation mission with those features

[JSD]

Super secret project: Merchandise..

Of course, you don't talk about it because the deal isn't sure. But why on earth will you blow it up, make a super special thing, and reveal: You can buy your 3D printed schip? I don't get it. Yes, the option is cool for those who like it. But for a company that is developing a game, you should expert secret GAME stuff. Long, long talked about features. A whole new planet. Something like that. Merchandise is just a bummer when you blow it up like this, and basically all you say is: We want more money. Cause that is what Merchandise is, more business. A brand that is selling itself. Weird. Very weird choice. But maybe it's me. Indeed it is cool that you now can do it if you want too..