Mainsail is asymmetric

[Vanamonde]

Please leave the discussion of mod issues for other threads. This one is about the Mainsail model.

[Daze]

With the C7 Adapter is even worse.

[Beowolf]

It's "funny" that actually modders care more about their models than devs..

It's just economics, and the nature of software development. Professional devs have a list of tasks that have to be completed in a specific order on a specific schedule, because your work has to be synchronized with the rest of the team. Screw it up and other team members can't do their jobs and everything spirals into an avalanche of suck. They started work with $X amount of money. If they use it all up before the product ships, they all get fired. (it's more complex this late in the development process, but that's not relevant here)

It's a job, man. Devs work on what management says needs doing next, to keep the team working like a big assembly line. Modders, on the other hand, do exactly what they want, which should answer your question.

These days, Squad is in "crunch mode". People are likely working 80-hour weeks trying to get the product out the door. Ever spend two or three months working 80-hour weeks at a desk? The only definition of "care" that matters right now is, "How many people will refuse to buy the product if we don't fix this item?" In this case, that number's pretty close to zero. Which puts fixing this bug near the bottom of the pile, like those typos in the tutorial texts.

Please note that I'm explaining, not defending. I've been both dev and manager, and emotionally I'd prefer to deliver the perfection. But I've seen companies that tried and they're all bankrupt now. Even Rolls Royce and Bentley had to make quality compromises to survive in the modern economy. Perfect costs at least two or three times as much as "good enough", but most of the public won't even pay an extra 25% if a "good enough" product is available.

Would you pay $150 for a "perfect" KSP rather than the v1.0 we're going to get? Not me. KSP's "good enough".

Happy flying!

[Javster]

I wonder if that's related to the thrust being slightly off-center (or was that the Skipper?). Anyhow, some of the engines have minor deviations in their default thrust vector, which isn't good :/

If they were random, you could pass them off as realistic imperfections

[Mister Dilsby]

Well this explains a lot about why my large spaceplanes always need tuning for placement of the rocket engine... I went crazy for a while, "perfectly" snapping mainsails or whatnot on the axis only to find that the rocket thrust would flip the ship over once it was high enough that aero control surfaces couldn't compensate. Standard practice for me now is to work in sandbox, hyperedit to deep space and thrust every engine to confirm straight line... SPH gizmos very helpful of course to get it right.

[Daze]

If they were random, you could pass them off as realistic imperfections

I would prefer tens of "realistic imperfections" than this BUG.

[Pecan]

I would prefer tens of "realistic imperfections" than this BUG.

I'm, sorry but you keep showing pictures of pictures and then saying there's a "bug".

Where's the bug in the logic?

Where's the bug in the functionality?

Where's the bug in, in fact, anything?

What you have is, at the very worst, a graphical abberation but I wouldn't even call it that.

Please show me a picture of a real engine that is visually perfectly symmetrical and we might have somewhere to start a discussion.

Without that nearly all the comments in this thread are just so many people demonstrating their ignorance.

[Daze]

I'm, sorry but you keep showing pictures of pictures and then saying there's a "bug".

Where's the bug in the logic?

Where's the bug in the functionality?

Where's the bug in, in fact, anything?

What you have is, at the very worst, a graphical abberation but I wouldn't even call it that.

Please show me a picture of a real engine that is visually perfectly symmetrical and we might have somewhere to start a discussion.

Without that nearly all the comments in this thread are just so many people demonstrating their ignorance.

Please show me a picture of Organism capable of living without anything and that have a dimension of 0.75mt

Please show me a planet with a density of 58kg per m^3

Please show me the gyroscope of KSP in a spacecraft of real life

Please show me RTGs that don't decade over hundred years

It's a game. And since Squad sustain that is a "fun game" YOU can't use example of real life. It's not a feature, it's a BUG caused by bad modelling of the Mainsail.

Ignorance of other users? Are you serious or what else?

[Randazzo]

If this little nitpicking thing is the only problem you've had, I'd say you're playing a rather fine game.

[Daze]

If this little nitpicking thing is the only problem you've had, I'd say you're playing a rather fine game.

So since it's a little BUG it should be left out?

[SkyRender]

This does seem to fall into the same category as the sorts who complain that the textures between the parts in the 3M fuel tanks aren't perfectly aligned and thus they never use them. Of all the petty things to take issue with, this sort of thing strikes me as the most petty of all.

[Motokid600]

@SkyRender: Petty compared to some other bugs, yes. And yet it is something that needs to be addressed. Wouldnt you agree? Its a matter of quality control and needs to be fixed on the next art pass.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Motokid600

[Pecan]

Ignorance of other users? Are you serious or what else?

"Ignorance" of what a bug in a computer programme is.

This isn't.

At all.

No matter how much you SHOUT that it is.

At worst it's a mis-drawn picture.

[SkyRender]

@SkyRender: Petty compared to some other bugs, yes. And yet it is something that needs to be addressed. Wouldnt you agree? Its a matter of quality control and needs to be fixed on the next art pass.

If it were merely a visual problem, I would put fixing that particular art asset at the bottom of the list, to be honest. You have to go out of your way to even spot that there is a problem (demonstrated by how long it took for anyone to even find it); most players will never even notice. That said, apparently it does have an effect on gameplay (some are reporting asymmetric thrust as well), so it probably will get a pass sooner than later as a result. Squeaky wheel and all that.

[Daze]

"Ignorance" of what a bug in a computer programme is.

This is being pedant

[Pecan]

This is being pedant

No, that was being reasonable because the alternative would upset the moderators.

Since the picture might be as intended, and real-life engines are not perfectly symmetrical, it may not even be a issue.

My point is that you are not only being pedantic but are also factly wrong in calling it a bug.

And I really wish you'd stop SHOUTING about it.

The thing is, if you want some issue addressed it's best to label it correctly because then it'll get the amount of attention it deserves, from the people most able to deal with it. "Graphical Glitch" (maybe) will be looked at by people who deal with graphics. "Bug" will be looked at by people who deal with code, and they'll dismiss this - genuine, I agree - point you have. As SkyRender says above, "asymmetric thrust" is likely to get more attention that "bad drawing", because it's functional. Whatever annoys you is a genuine issue though, so help yourself by presenting that issue as well as you can.

[Randazzo]

So since it's a little BUG it should be left out?

It's inconsequential, unworthy of attention.

You've clearly taken up a banner for it, regardless. Enjoy.

[landfish2]

I would like to inform you that all engines are beautiful

also my findings suggest that if you are as annoyed as your posts suggest about this you could simply install vens stockpart revamp, a mod which addresses all of these problems

[Daze]

Please leave the discussion of mod issues for other threads. This one is about the Mainsail model.

also my findings suggest that if you are as annoyed as your posts suggest about this you could simply install vens stockpart revamp, a mod which addresses all of these problems

Just sayin'

[SkyRender]

I think it might be prudent to mention the various tiers of bugs. From highest to lowest, we have:

Showstopper - A bug which absolutely destroys the viability of the product (ie. the program won't even run, or the most fundamental functionality of the program is compromised). These are non-negotiable in terms of being fixed; any product shipping with a showstopper bug still in there will generate massive negative feedback. Generally speaking, these are where you find things like fatal crashes, severely compromised performance, and bugs that prevent further use. KSP Examples: The NaN bug, the Kraken (fixed)

Critical - A bug that, while it does not prevent the program from functioning, does cause massive disruption and sometimes even compromise significant subsystems. These bugs stand out, will garner negative press, but don't kill the experience per se. They just make it look very unpolished. KSP Examples: Current rover wheel logic

High-Priority - Bugs that stand out and raise eyebrows, but that don't actually compromise much of anything. These sorts of bugs get noticed by users, but don't really kill the experience the way a showstopper does or muss up the experience to the point of disrupting an entire aspect of the program. They are very visible, just the same, and thus do need fixing. KSP Examples: Current auto-staging assembly logic in VAB/SPH

Medium-Priority - Bugs that you could probably get away with leaving in there, but are still going to get complaints just the same. Usually bugs like this are easily worked around by the user once they know the quirks of said bug. Many exploits in games are actually medium-priority bugs that didn't get ironed out during the final push. KSP Examples: Current VAB/SPH overlay priorities that cause parts on your rocket to be selected instead of items in the inventory palette if they're below said inventory palette

Low-Priority - Now we get into bugs that are purely aesthetic. These are the bugs that you need a fairly keen eye to even spot, and they don't really have much of an impact. These are often referred to as "glitches", though really bugs from any tier get called that from time to time. Overall, harmless issues that rarely get fixed unless there's a lot of free time. KSP Examples: Slightly misaligned part models

Invisible - A special category of bug that you don't usually hear about. These are the "under-the-hood" bugs that you don't even know are bugs because the developers never admit that they didn't intend for the program to behave that way in the first place. Some of the most interesting features in video games actually have their origins in programming errors of this sort: the end result was deemed "cool" or "useful" enough that they were actually made into features. KSP Examples: You'd have to ask the developers, and there's no promises they'd admit to any!

[SyberSmoke]

The level of bug priority for this depends on what effect the misalignment has on the thrust the engine produces. Remember that with the thrust a mainsail puts out, even a minor deflection can cause serious navigational issues. So if the thrust vector is off along with the model, the bug could be elevated to medium. Just because it does effect game play, but can also be worked around by the player once they understand it is there.

[SkyRender]

The level of bug priority for this depends on what effect the misalignment has on the thrust the engine produces. Remember that with the thrust a mainsail puts out, even a minor deflection can cause serious navigational issues. So if the thrust vector is off along with the model, the bug could be elevated to medium. Just because it does effect game play, but can also be worked around by the player once they understand it is there.

Here's where I have to get slightly pedantic: fixing the thrust issue would in fact fall under medium- to high-priority. Fixing the actual model itself would remain low-priority. In other words, unless fixing the model also fixed the thrust issue (or fixing the thrust issue without fixing the model would be exactly as or more challenging than doing both), the model would likely remain untouched.

[SyberSmoke]

Here's where I have to get slightly pedantic: fixing the thrust issue would in fact fall under medium- to high-priority. Fixing the actual model itself would remain low-priority. In other words, unless fixing the model also fixed the thrust issue (or fixing the thrust issue without fixing the model would be exactly as or more challenging than doing both), the model would likely remain untouched.

Fortunately it is likely not a model issue but instead a part file issue that could likely be fixed by changing a single line of text. The model is probably true, but its orientation in unity could be off by a fraction of a degree. If that is the case, the thrust component of the model would also be off as it would be tied to the model.

Who knows when the problem manifested really. But I would guess it is something that was done by accident in unity and it has just gone unnoticed. I hope they fix it, may explain some instability I have had in the past also. I avoided mainsails because they always drifted slightly. Any way it is up to the developers to decide...not us.

[SkyRender]

Fortunately it is likely not a model issue but instead a part file issue that could likely be fixed by changing a single line of text. The model is probably true, but its orientation in unity could be off by a fraction of a degree. If that is the case, the thrust component of the model would also be off as it would be tied to the model.

Who knows when the problem manifested really. But I would guess it is something that was done by accident in unity and it has just gone unnoticed. I hope they fix it, may explain some instability I have had in the past also. I avoided mainsails because they always drifted slightly. Any way it is up to the developers to decide...not us.

Quite right. Debugging is always an ugly process either way. Especially for bugs that are impossible to consistently reproduce. It's lucky when they're as relatively minor and easily traced as this one is!

[John FX]

So, is there an offset in the thrust vector or is the model just offset?

One is important, the other not so much.