Cool concept, but broken implementation

[sarbian]

I did try to explain to feram & co, but the only reactions were like your typical helpdesk ones: did you follow the procedures to the letter?

Quite the usual reaction when someone reports a bug that others don't have and may be related to an install issue. You do project management so I doubt you never had to deal with bugs that are related to a botched install procedure.

So I experimented to find out what cause the problems, and posted those findings. I did not get any reactions from the team.

I am looking at your post history and I may have to clean my glasses because I don't see any post where you report a bugs. All I see is variation of "it is borken" without details. And clearly no post in Mechjeb thread.

[KerikBalm]

FAR is a cool concept. But let's talk about Realism Overhaul instead, as it's part of that.

I really dig RO. I want it. But there are problems.

For starters, I have a video card with 4GB of video memory. So, after installing RO, choosing the smallest DDS textures and using Active Texture Management, the game has 3.46 GB memory in use after startup. Which means, that each and every scene transition will crash the game. CTD. BAM.

Further, if I install FAR and MechJeb, MechJeb is completely broken. But, fortunately, there is the compatibility mod.

Only, after you install that, the camera tends to go on a wild goose chase most of the time. You won't see your rocket. It won't be on the screen.

Finally, some specifics.

Yes, the Aerodynamics is bad, that is getting fixed. I also have 4 gb of memory, and have no problems running FAR or NEAR.

I did try some other mods to resize and retexture things to match our solar system... and then yes, I had crashing problems.

Its important to note what this game is, and what it is not.

It is a spaceflight simulator. Even if the planets and such are all "too small", the orbital mechanics and such work mostly as they should.

Unless you really care about minor orbit perturbations from more distant bodies, and lagrange points, the conic approximations work well.

I don't even know why you bother with mechjeb, you shouldn't need it... but I won't restart the mechjeb debate here.

Its not a aeroflight simulator - but it will be much better in the next release, so save your criticism, you know its early access.

Ok, so let's talk about FAR. FAR is NOT realistic. Even when you use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, totally realistic designs tend to oscillate and disintegrate all the time. PhysX goes out of control again. Something happens, one parameter gets a positive feedback loop and everything gets completely out of control.

Well, that is realistic, poorly designed craft are nearly unflyable. There is a reason many designs of aircraft killed their pilots - even if at first glance they seem to look like they should fly as well as any other craft.

IMO, the problem is the design system.

You wouldn't be able to make a very good aircraft by stiching together flat boards either. We can't vary wing twist, airfoil shape, wing thickness, etc. I think there should be some sort of procedural wing system to make them all one piece.

It is of course too much to think that a home simulation is going to be as good as an actual wind tunnel at evaluation the aerodynamics of a model.

If you want a flight simulator, go play one. In this game, as long as an atmosphere can be used for aerobraking and landing via parachutes, I'm happy.

As for my background: I'm an autodidact, very smart, and I mostly do project management, programming and R&D. I don't have a university degree, so most people proclaim that I only think I'm smart, but that they know better.

And just going on the facts available to them, they would probably be right the vast majority of the time.

Being honest here: You come across as arrogant.

There is no evidence to support your claims, basically, we are simply asked to take you at your word.

As I am aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and that this is the internet; taking you at your word does not seem like a wise proposition to me until you demonstrate something that you have claimed.

[Astronut]

Having a degree doesn't make you smarter than someone who doesn't have one. Going to University and earning a degree has become the normal rite of passage these days. If it bothers you that much, maybe you should look into getting one.

I'm in the same boat, no degree and in a field swarming with university grads. I have thought about going back to school but at this point I have to wonder if it is worth the expense (seeing as I'm already fortunate enough to have the career I hoped for).

Asking specialists hard questions with the object of proving your knowledge over theirs will generally just get people's backs up. Maybe not the best way to make friends and influence people .

As for KSP, it certainly isn't perfect, but it isn't supposed to be a full blown simulation. Maybe Orbiter would be a better option if that is what you are looking for. I have learned a lot more about spaceflight by playing KSP than by reading books. What initially seems like mindless fun, soon evolves into a surprising amount of knowledge, not to mention planting the seeds of desire to learn. KSP balances the need to learn quite a dry subject with a lot of fun. It is one of the few games that has kept me coming for a prolonged period; 4 years now.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Astronut

[SymbolicFrank]

Is your video memory shared because that might be the problem. If so, you might consider another series of mods.

No, it is dedicated.

Also, I had a look at all of your posts on this forum and literally none of them have followed the bug reporting guidelines. If you think you're above them, good luck with the self-trouble-shooting.

I did all that, and more. I didn't report that in detail.

Well, if it works for the developer in a clean environment then the problem obviously lies on your system, which means you need to help them narrow down the issue. Without good, solid debugging information there is nothing the developer can do for you.

There is no such thing as "a clean environment", least of all the environment of a developer.

Anyway, this is how you average helpdesk handles the situation: they try to find out what the user did wrong. It never enters their mind, that the developer isn't omniscient and forgot to allow environments that differ.

But, in this case you ask me what is different. And I told you. Which you ignored.

What am I to do?

[regex]

What am I to do?

File a proper bug report, which you have failed to do.

[SymbolicFrank]

Finally, some specifics.

Yes, the Aerodynamics is bad, that is getting fixed. I also have 4 gb of memory, and have no problems running FAR or NEAR.

I have 16 GB of normal RAM, and an additional 4 GB of video RAM, on my GPU. I can run FAR or NEAR, but I can't run Realism Overhaul. Well, for a few minutes before it crashes.

Well, that is realistic, poorly designed craft are nearly unflyable. There is a reason many designs of aircraft killed their pilots - even if at first glance they seem to look like they should fly as well as any other craft.

IMO, the problem is the design system.

You wouldn't be able to make a very good aircraft by stiching together flat boards either. We can't vary wing twist, airfoil shape, wing thickness, etc. I think there should be some sort of procedural wing system to make them all one piece.

It is of course too much to think that a home simulation is going to be as good as an actual wind tunnel at evaluation the aerodynamics of a model.

If you want a flight simulator, go play one. In this game, as long as an atmosphere can be used for aerobraking and landing via parachutes, I'm happy.

The problem is twofold:

1. PhysX acts on the bounds between individual components. This simulation is completely unrealistic. Adding aerodynamic loads breaks it badly. But you can reduce that, or even turn it off.

2. If you turn it off, you remove boundaries from the PhysX simulation, which will make it run out of control, resulting in extremely weird, oscillating movements.

Edited April 15, 2015 by SymbolicFrank

[r4pt0r]

I want this thread to continue, dont attack others and make the mods mad

[SymbolicFrank]

File a proper bug report, which you have failed to do.

Where is the form I have to fill out in triplicate?

- - - Updated - - -

I want this thread to continue, dont attack others and make the mods mad

Ok, edited.

[Vanamonde]

No need to go triplicate, but this is what folks will need to help you with your issues. Follow those guidelines and post in the modded or unmodded support sections, as appropriate.

[regex]

Where is the form I have to fill out in triplicate?

I've linked you the instructions several times. Included in those instructions are how to help the developers of the mods in question by posting useful information, like KSP logs and lists of mods. Also, without screenshots of your craft that are having problems you are denying other knowledgeable posters the ability to help you. Basically I can only surmise that you are purposefully obstructing the process of helping you in order to continue complaining.

[SymbolicFrank]

No need to go triplicate, but this is what folks will need to help you with your issues. Follow those guidelines and post in the modded or unmodded support sections, as appropriate.

Yes, I understand that. I'm a software developer myself.

So, I did all the things the developers would want to do after I gave them that information. And tod them what the problems were.

Or, in other words: I already did the work for which they need that info. And told them the results in many different ways.

But who am I, right? I'm probably making stuff up.

[Slam_Jones]

Yes, I understand that. I'm a software developer myself.

So, I did all the things the developers would want to do after I gave them that information. And tod them what the problems were.

Or, in other words: I already did the work for which they need that info. And told them the results in many different ways.

But who am I, right? I'm probably making stuff up.

Sorry, but would you mind posting a link to the support post you made? I'd like to take a look at it, and perhaps offer some insight into what you might be missing.

I was in QA for a (quite large) gaming company for a few years, and may be able to help you get the message across a little more successfully.

[Deutherius]

But who am I, right? I'm probably making stuff up.

Maybe you could support your claims of the properly structured bug reports that you made with some links?

[Rath]

I think one of the reasons people responded rather harshly to this thread is because of this

I love the premises of KSP. But if you have even a rudimentary notion of how it all should work, it becomes very frustrating, fast.

Nobody has any idea what the game should be, I have a diffrent idea of what it should be than Regex and a very diffrent idea than the devloper of BD armory. there is no

rudimentary notion

of how it should all work.

[pxi]

I can't help but wonder how much posting an example craft that experiences the problems described by the OP, or even screenshots of said craft would help.

From reading the thread, I'm supposing I'm not the only one thinking this way.

There are many of us that use FAR and Mechjeb, who do not run into these problems. Some of us would probably be willing to attempt to replicate the issues you are having, if indeed they are genuine issues, and not a fundamental issue with the design of the craft. If there are issues with the craft, some might be able to suggest better ways of designing the craft, or we might end up agreeing with the original conclusions of the OP.

But of course, without anything to go on, nothing is likely to happen. :\

[ColourOfFire]

FAR is a cool concept. But let's talk about Realism Overhaul instead, as it's part of that.

I really dig RO. I want it. But there are problems.

For starters, I have a video card with 4GB of video memory. So, after installing RO, choosing the smallest DDS textures and using Active Texture Management, the game has 3.46 GB memory in use after startup. Which means, that each and every scene transition will crash the game. CTD. BAM.

Further, if I install FAR and MechJeb, MechJeb is completely broken. But, fortunately, there is the compatibility mod.

Only, after you install that, the camera tends to go on a wild goose chase most of the time. You won't see your rocket. It won't be on the screen.

And you want Realistic Reentry as well, of course. But that totally screws up PhysX on powered landings in an atmosphere.

Ok, so let's talk about FAR. FAR is NOT realistic. Even when you use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, totally realistic designs tend to oscillate and disintegrate all the time. PhysX goes out of control again. Something happens, one parameter gets a positive feedback loop and everything gets completely out of control.

- - - Updated - - -

Really.

I did post all of this to feram, who igmored it.

- - - Updated - - -

I can totally see that.

The problem is, I know how it all should work. And it doesn't.

And it won't get fixed, as long as it runs in Unity32. Although I do know about some things that could be fixed. Like the FP32 rounding errors: use a different coordinate system and change the scale instead of the distance.

But whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks.

Wait, you mod a game to pieces, that won't work properly and then you blame the game? I'm confused here. There's a lot of things that could be better in KSP, some of them will be fixed, some of them won't. It's never going to be a super realistic sim, it was never intented to be, you get a fun game where you can mess about in space.

And you might rub less people the wrong way if you would state your opinions different. As in not proclaiming to be the tree of knowledge that 'knows how it all should work' and things like that.

[mikegarrison]

As for my background: I'm an autodidact, very smart, and I mostly do project management, programming and R&D. I don't have a university degree, so most people proclaim that I only think I'm smart, but that they know better.

But I tend to ask specialists interesting and difficult questions, which I generally have to answer and prove myself. So the easiest thing to do is just ignore me.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm an aeronautical engineer with a degree in that subject from MIT and 25 years of professional experience (none of it in space systems -- all airplanes). I agree that there are lots of things about the game that are simplifications or just outright wrong. But I love playing this game. (Note the word, "game"!)

It sounds to me like you had the wrong impression of what it is trying to do.

That being said, I don't use the spaceplanes because they do behave too annoyingly incorrectly for me to enjoy. Maybe the new update will help with that.

[Starwhip]

I'm here with the rest in saying that we'll be ready and raring to go help once you let us help you, SymbolicFrank. But so far there has been no basis on which we may help.

I also see that some of us have failed in trying to help you. "You have no evidence, so we cannot assist you" is not constructive at all.

So, here are some things you can do.

One: reinstall everything. Be sure to follow the instructions very carefully. This usually is my problem; I'll accidentally put the mod one folder too deep in GameData, but reading over it again and trying a second time works.

Two: put up your craft, in screenshot, file, or both forms. We may be able to tell you what is wrong then.

Three: Show us your GameData directory. If it has the wrong folders, we can sometimes tell.

I have played with FAR and MechJeb before, and it requires a certain level of skill to set up your ascent correctly. I gave up after I realized that I could pilot the ship in the FAR environment better than MechJeb could with the suboptiomal settings, but that doesn't mean you should, or that it is the right course of action.

[DrD]

I think the whole Kerbal thing says it's not a sim but a game. In fact it took me a while to buy it because it looked too cutesy for me. So IMHO it's actually way deeper and more realistic than I thought it would be.

And it's realistic enough. I'll never forget how early on when I was struggling to land on the Mun I designed a 2 stage lander that actually dropped a stage during descent to the Munar surface. It wasn't very efficient so I moved on to other designs.

Well imagine my surprise and gratification when I was reading a book about Apollo and the author said that NASA considered exactly that model, but discarded it as too inefficient.

Real enough for me.

[rkman]

Yes, it could be salvaged, but it's unlikely that would happen while using Unity. So I won't hold my breath.

By "it" you seem to refer to KSP.

Are you actually suggesting the KSP is a lost cause, based on the fact that two out of dozens of mods are not compatible?

Specifically wrt those mods: 1.0 will have 'realistic' (FAR-like) aerodynamics, mechjeb will obviously be changed to fit the new aerodynamics. Problem solved.

Edited April 18, 2015 by rkman

[SymbolicFrank]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm an aeronautical engineer with a degree in that subject from MIT and 25 years of professional experience (none of it in space systems -- all airplanes). I agree that there are lots of things about the game that are simplifications or just outright wrong. But I love playing this game. (Note the word, "game"!)

It sounds to me like you had the wrong impression of what it is trying to do.

That being said, I don't use the spaceplanes because they do behave too annoyingly incorrectly for me to enjoy. Maybe the new update will help with that.

Well, great kudos to you! But how smart are you?

If you are REALLY smart, everything becomes very simple.

Except, that nobody around understands anything about it. First they laugh at you, until you prove you were right. Then they call you arrogant. After that, they get angry and want you GONE!

That is, in a nutshell, my experience with other people.

Edit: Yes, there is even a science that peels apart the people who mostly think they are very smart (the grand majority) and the ones that really are that smart.

The not-so-smart ones tend to arrogance, while the very-smart ones tend to question everything, especially themselves. So, on average, the not-so-smart think they are smarter than how the very-smart think about themselves.

Edited May 9, 2015 by SymbolicFrank

[SkyRender]

Well, great kudos to you! But how smart are you?

If you are REALLY smart, everything becomes very simple.

Except, that nobody around understands anything about it. First they laugh at you, until you prove you were right. Then they call you arrogant. After that, they get angry and want you GONE!

That is, in a nutshell, my experience with other people.

It sounds to me like your problem is not so much what you know, but rather how you present it. It doesn't really matter how right or wrong you are if your attitude stinks; people aren't going to listen to you if you treat them poorly. Your description of how interacting with other people tends to work for you is completely symptomatic of someone who does not exercise appropriate tactfulness. It's an annoying aspect of the social dance that's nonetheless necessary if you want to be taken seriously. Best to either accept it and learn the dance, or find someone who can tolerate your inability to do the social two-step and who is willing to do it for you.

[ferram4]

SymbolicFrank, I really don't know what your complaint is. The most recent question/request/report from you in the FAR thread of substance is this one, where you expressed a desire for configuration settings that were already in the dev build at that time. In fact, the default FAR settings are already excessively lenient about supersonic drag and area ruling, so the one complaint I can find that you actually sent to me has not only been addressed with a solution, but also had that solution set as the default for all users.

I don't understand how this:

Really.

I did post all of this to feram, who igmored it.

Is accurate at all when what you wanted is already the default in FAR. Seriously, what do you want?

[Esme]

Frank, never mind anything else - if the game doesn't make you happy, don't play it. I don't play Orbiter, because, despite it's great realism, it doesn't make me happy, it frustrates me. I'd like to be able to play it well, but I can't. Whereas I can play KSP fine, it makes me smile, and I really don't mind that the rules of the KSP universe are a tad different to those of the real world. So I play KSP instead of Orbiter. Play something that makes you smile, Frank, whether that be KSP, modded or unmodded, or something else.

:-}

Esme

[Bill Phil]

The problem with your argument, OP, is that the game is being made the way Squad believes it should be. But you can't please everybody, no matter how hard you try.