Devnote Tuesday: is it March already?

[GusTurbo]

I really appreciate all of the effort SQUAD is putting in, but I think that 1.0 will be so immensely buggy that it will require one or more immediate patches.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think I'm being relatively realistic here. After all, it's happened with nearly all previous releases, and some of these introduced only a small fraction of what 1.0 is going to.

What SQUAD is trying to do is to not only fix all of the bugs introduced by the 0.90 update (I'm still surprised that there was no 0.90.1 patch to take care of some of this), but it also must introduce an enormous number of new features. All of these features must be less buggy than usual, and all of these features must be extensively tested. As much as I respect the QA testers, I simply think that this is too much for any small group of people to test in any reasonable amount of time.

So!

While some of the new features are really good, I actually cringe when I see them, because I think that they will have some really nasty bugs. I would hate for SQUAD's triumphant release of 1.0, covered by so many websites and embraced by so many people, to have a patch a week after its release because thousands of people's games are breaking in some way or another. I know that this is "just another update," but unlike all of the other updates, it's much more important for SQUAD to get it right the first time. And I don't think that will happen.

If you could release an '0.99' update, which would be identical to the 1.0 update but not be considered the actual release, then we could squish bugs by the dozens, and 1.0 could be better. There's no real reason not to.

...and I don't care in the slightest about Unity 5.

-Upsilon

[EDIT: ...and while I'm posting here, I should mention that water needs a significant overhaul, both aesthetically and functionally. It's difficult to believe that water has been less forgiving to land on than land in KSP since it was actually rendered as something that was not solid, back in 0.8 or 0.9. This is badly needed, SQUAD. Can you please make it happen?]

I pretty much agree 100%.

Unless they bring on a whole lot of new testers, I can't see all the bugs being caught and fixed in time.

With Unity 5's release, I feel like they would have a good excuse to tweak the current plan.

[Tw1]

I pretty much agree 100%.

Unless they bring on a whole lot of new testers, I can't see all the bugs being caught and fixed in time.

With Unity 5's release, I feel like they would have a good excuse to tweak the current plan.

I also have to agree. "released" games have different standards to something that is still in progress.

People are going to be less tolerant of rebalances, changes new features bring, etc, yet KSP could still do with a number of things to properly round it out.

[Caelib]

I really don't understand why everyone is so hung up on this 1.0 release. It's just a number ... people aren't going to flock to KSP in droves just because it's version 1.0 ... they may come in spurts, but this game can stand on its merits just fine so I don't know why people are so worried about "review scores". My suggestion to everyone complaining about the 1.0 release is just accept that it's happening and move on with your life It will make you and everyone else a lot happier.

[NoMrBond]

With Unity 5's release, I feel like they would have a good excuse to tweak the current plan.

The release of Unity 5 did effect their plans

[regex]

The release of Unity 5 did effect their plans

^affect. Also, good to hear.

[FishInferno]

I really don't understand why everyone is so hung up on this 1.0 release. It's just a number ... people aren't going to flock to KSP in droves just because it's version 1.0 ... they may come in spurts, but this game can stand on its merits just fine so I don't know why people are so worried about "review scores". My suggestion to everyone complaining about the 1.0 release is just accept that it's happening and move on with your life It will make you and everyone else a lot happier.

Because saying that they are upgrading to 1.0 is saying that they consider the game done, and lots of people feel like more needs to be added first.

[panzer1b]

Quick question bout fairings, are there going to be some maximum limits on their diameter/length?

Cause i could so use capital ship sized fairings, now ill finally be able to launch a ton of wing armored craft atop rockets.

Anyways, great new on the update, but i hate to say im kinda saddened that procedural wings/structural panels wont be included this update, what id do for not having to resort to 500 parts bare minimum to make a single bloody battlecruiser.

[softweir]

Because saying that they are upgrading to 1.0 is saying that they consider the game done ...

I agree - "1.0" is a bad choice of version numbers. I know Squad consider this means "feature complete" (ie all the code is in), but too many people consider "1.0" to mean "100% done and dusted barring the inevitable day-1 patch". They certainly don't expect it to mean "all the code, but there's lots of parts and missions to do and a lot of balancing to tweak"!

[kofeyh]

People are getting hung up on Unity 5.0 (a major revision) as being the holy grail for KSP, just as much as doom-saying 1.0 is "it".

Both are inaccurate assumptive statements.

Unity 5 introduces some new features, yes; however it's not going to "solve" anything. The game itself relies on loading everything always (which isn't scalable) and getting a stable version operational on 64 bit (on the Microsoft Windows platform) at all is clearly not going to be a "five minute hack" type effort, based on recent attempts.

Lastly Squad would be setting itself up for financial suicide by stopping at version 1.0; it's still not quite there yet. But then a lot of AAA games ship at version 1.0 supposedly being complete and being nothing of the sort, indeed at time severely short on features compared to KSP.

Not suggesting for a moment that I agree with the timing. Or that the game is "complete".

But then "complete" is entirely subjective depending on who you ask; if they keep on just rolling out alphas and betas then eventually people are just going to argue it's been in development too long.

I am not HarvesteR so what I think on the matter doesn't rate highly (nor should it, probably). It's very easy to arm-chair quarter-back the decisions into tin-foil-hat territory, frankly; which does a disservice and sidetracks genuine debate.

Edited March 5, 2015 by kofeyh

[basic.syntax]

No procedural wings or panels, but, they have written about "larger" wing sections, containing fuel, for the Mk3 line.

Edit: I'm not sure there IS an upper limit on fairing sizes, because building them out will increase mass and cost. A big one will weigh more and cost more, seems fair enough.

Edited March 5, 2015 by basic.syntax

[kofeyh]

No procedural wings or panels, but, they have written about "larger" wing sections, containing fuel, for the Mk3 line.

Edit: I'm not sure there IS an upper limit on fairing sizes, because building them out will increase mass and cost. A big one will weigh more and cost more, seems fair enough.

The largest fairing base is 3.75m; given the way the fairings have been described, I'd anticipate a functional limit on the procedural portion, given it's not dynamic in the same sense that the mod is.

[basic.syntax]

You may be right on some kind of limit. Here's the quote, from reddit:

...You build fairings by placing cross-sections, one by one. Each can extend up to a max height, and also vary in radius. Although possible, I didn't want to make fairing construction fully automated. It's much more fun to build it up manually.

Mind that the fairing's mass and cost are computed by panelling area, so the larger the fairing is, the heavier and more expensive. Something to keep in mind if you're on a tight budget.

Cheers

Where I get the possibility of "no limit" from, is, each cross section (on the vertical axis) is said to have a max height limit, but... will there be a limit on the number of cross sections that can be placed?

[GusTurbo]

I hope the new fairing system allows me to replicate this, which I've done with Procedural Fairings (no other mods). I worry that the 3.75m fairing base limit may make this impossible.

Edited March 5, 2015 by GusTurbo

[regex]

I hope the new fairing system allows me to replicate this, which I've done with Procedural Fairings (no other mods). I worry that the 3.75m fairing base limit may make this impossible.

You've already admitted it took a mod to do that, just use ModuleManager (no added textures beyond Nyancat, IIRC) to add a few new parts (very low overhead, also MM is awesome). Or stick with PF (which is probably what I'll end up doing because IMO they should be automatic with the option to tweak them. Aternatively, wait until someone makes a Tweakscale version of the new fairing bases.

[Starwaster]

I hope the new fairing system allows me to replicate this, which I've done with Procedural Fairings (no other mods). I worry that the 3.75m fairing base limit may make this impossible.

http://i.imgur.com/t47pbfw.png

They never said there was a size limit. They said that there were 3 different sized parts.

Also, what is this strange word you use? Impossible?

I do not know this word.

[John FX]

So now that the craft are being given the option to be converted and saved, can we have them be saved in a format that means we can show them on the website using sketchfab?

[Red Iron Crown]

So now that the craft are being given the option to be converted and saved, can we have them be saved in a format that means we can show them on the website using sketchfab?

You might be interested in KSPBlender, a plugin for Blender that imports craft files. From there it should be possible to export it to sketchfab (I think anyway, not a Blender expert).

[GusTurbo]

You've already admitted it took a mod to do that, just use ModuleManager (no added textures beyond Nyancat, IIRC) to add a few new parts (very low overhead, also MM is awesome). Or stick with PF (which is probably what I'll end up doing because IMO they should be automatic with the option to tweak them. Aternatively, wait until someone makes a Tweakscale version of the new fairing bases.

I only did it as an experiment to try to get an idea of what will be stock. I realize that I could probably get down to double digit parts with mods, but that would somewhat take away from the LEGO rockets appeal. I do spend most of my time building in this game, which I find fun.

The main thing is that stock craft are more widely shareable since they have no dependencies.

- - - Updated - - -

They never said there was a size limit. They said that there were 3 different sized parts.

Also, what is this strange word you use? Impossible?

I do not know this word.

Ok, not impossible. Just more difficult, or maybe less aesthetically pleasing.

- - - Updated - - -

You might be interested in KSPBlender, a plugin for Blender that imports craft files. From there it should be possible to export it to sketchfab (I think anyway, not a Blender expert).

Sketchfab supports Blender's native file format, .blend. Only issue is the 50mb size limit, which may preclude texture use in Cera in situations.

- - - Updated - - -

The release of Unity 5 did effect their plans

Only their post-1.0 plans, it seems.

[KerbMav]

Funny how people get upset because of Squad releasing 1.0 without a "public beta" 0.99, but likewise demand usage of an only just released Unity 5 ...

[Lord Aurelius]

Funny how people get upset because of Squad releasing 1.0 without a "public beta" 0.99, but likewise demand usage of an only just released Unity 5 ...

Not everyone who is concerned with the current release schedule wants Squad to integrate Unity 5 right away. I think that Squad needs at least one more beta release AFTER all the major new features, but I also understand that Unity itself is quite buggy and the first release of Unity 5 is likely similar to what we're trying to encourage Squad to avoid with their current 1.0 release plans. It's much better to release a product on a (relatively) stable foundation that is well understood (i.e. can work around the existing bugs) than trying to develop for a brand new platform that hasn't been proven and based on Unity's track record, is likely to be quite buggy for at least another point release.

[BagelRabbit]

Funny how people get upset because of Squad releasing 1.0 without a "public beta" 0.99, but likewise demand usage of an only just released Unity 5 ...

If you could release an '0.99' update, which would be identical to the 1.0 update but not be considered the actual release, then we could squish bugs by the dozens, and 1.0 could be better. There's no real reason not to.

...and I don't care in the slightest about Unity 5. [emphasis added]

-Upsilon

I personally think that Unity 5 is something that SQUAD should pursue in its spare time.

I actually think that updating the engine might not be the best thing to do at this point, because 1.0 will be buggy enough without having to change the code up a bit for Unity 5. Not only would this transfer likely introduce some bugs, but Unity 5 itself is buggy, and needs some time to have the kinks worked out.

Also, it would be a terrible thing to do for modders: I think that a lot of people were quite happy with the relatively easy mod-ability of 1.0, and this would destroy any of that.

That being said, I still think that an 0.99 release should be absolutely essential.

Most people who don't want an 0.99 update seem to state, "What's in a name, anyway? There's no problem with calling this update 1.0, because it's really no more different than any previous update." I understand that. However, we inhabitants of the Kerbal Space Program forum know far more about KSP's development process than the average consumer, which is why these sorts of statements are being made (IMO).

There will be a huge surge of publicity as KSP "leaves beta," and people unfamiliar to the game will start treating (and reviewing) the game like it's at a finished, stable state. It's currently not, and it almost certainly won't be for 1.0. There are already a number of bugs and glitches, ranging from the mildly annoying to the game-breaking, and this number will likely increase with the release of 1.0. If this happens, KSP might get some bad press - and might not profit as much as it could.

So, it would be in everyone's best interest to get the game as stable and non-buggy as possible before the release of 1.0. The best way to do this is to create an 0.99 release. It would let thousands of people test out the new features, find out where they don't work, and send reams of data to SQUAD. There's simply no better way to do it.

Just my $0.02USD.

-Upsilon

Edited March 5, 2015 by UpsilonAerospace

[Lord Aurelius]

I personally think that Unity 5 is something that SQUAD should pursue in its spare time.

I actually think that updating the engine might not be the best thing to do at this point, because 1.0 will be buggy enough without having to change the code up a bit for Unity 5. Not only would this transfer likely introduce some bugs, but Unity 5 itself is buggy, and needs some time to have the kinks worked out.

Also, it would be a terrible thing to do for modders: I think that a lot of people were quite happy with the relatively easy mod-ability of 1.0, and this would destroy any of that.

That being said, I still think that an 0.99 release should be absolutely essential.

Most people who don't want an 0.99 seem to state, "What's in a name, anyway? There's no problem with calling this update 1.0, because it's really no more different than any previous update." I understand that. However, we inhabitants of the Kerbal Space Program forum know far more about KSP's development process than the average consumer, which is why these sorts of statements are being made (IMO).

There will be a huge surge of publicity as KSP "leaves beta," and people unfamiliar to the game will start treating (and reviewing) the game like it's at a finished, stable state. It's currently not, and it almost certainly won't be for 1.0. There are already a number of bugs and glitches, ranging from the mildly annoying to the game-breaking, and this number will likely increase with the release of 1.0. If this happens, KSP might get some bad press - and might not profit as much as it could.

So, it would be in everyone's best interest to get the game as stable and non-buggy as possible before the release of 1.0. The best way to do this is to create an 0.99 release. It would let thousands of people test out the new features, find out where they don't work, and send reams of data to SQUAD. There's simply no better way to do it.

Just my $0.02USD.

-Upsilon

Well said, that's an excellent post that clearly states many of our concerns with the current development plans. Here's hoping that Squad reads this and at least considers what is being said.

[bdito]

Well said, that's an excellent post that clearly states many of our concerns with the current development plans. Here's hoping that Squad reads this and at least considers what is being said.

They know. Every devnote Tuesday article turns into a "where is the intermediate version before 1.0" thread nowadays. They've already said they're confident in their testers and the next version will definitely be 1.0.

[marce]

They know. Every devnote Tuesday article turns into a "where is the intermediate version before 1.0" thread nowadays. They've already said they're confident in their testers and the next version will definitely be 1.0.

And they have every right to do exactly that.

However, stating concerns in advance makes it possible to cry "told you so!" afterwards

[Superfluous J]

And they have every right to do exactly that.

However, stating concerns in advance makes it possible to cry "told you so!" afterwards

And the best part of that is if we're wrong nobody will care because they'll happily play, but if we're right we'll look like geniuses! It works for political pundits why shouldn't it work for us?