Jump to content

Scott Manley's 1.0 Rocket-Powered Surfboard (Airboard?)

lincourtl

By lincourtl
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

lincourtl

lincourtl

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hah! This was clever. On his KSP 1.0 livestream today, Scott Manley made a rocket-powered air surfboard (airboard?) which he lifted aloft inside the cargo bay of a jet.

He also discovered an interesting bug with Squad's new aerodynamics model. By design, when parts are inside closed cargo bays, they are occluded from having aerodynamic forces act on them. Open the cargo bays, and they become part of the aerodynamic physics. Makes sense, right?

Except on one trial, Scott closed the cargo bay doors on the carrier aircraft, and the surfboard immediately fell out of the sky. Apparently the occlusion flag never gets unset when parts leave a cargo bay. I wonder if that works in reverse too -- if you put parts not previously inside a cargo bay inside, and close the doors, will the resulting system continue to act as if all its parts are subject to aerodynamics?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Note: Images not in order.

Edited by lincourtl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lincourtl

lincourtl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I also just saw this, also your images are not working.

Fixed. I always forget and use the full Imgur URL.

I hope it can be quick fixed by tomorrow, if not, DELAY 1.0 TILL NEXT MONTH!!!!!! XD Joking.

Heads asploding!

Yeah, this definitely falls into that class of things you can test for hundreds of hours with hundreds of users, and nobody will ever discover it -- until you release and then it'll be found inside an hour. :D

Plus it's one of the funnier bugs.

"Close the cargo bay doors, Val. Whoops, what the...? Aiieeee!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain H@dock

Captain H@dock

Posted
Posted
I also just saw this, also your images are not working.

I hope it can be quick fixed by tomorrow, if not, DELAY 1.0 TILL NEXT MONTH!!!!!!

XD Joking.

Not sure they have time to do another round of QA. It will be interesting to check the build number on the splash screen...

And from watching the streams, there are some bugs you'd easily run into (overly attached/stalking launch clamp). But they are also very good improvement (preditive trajectories seems so stable within the first two SOI...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted
Except on one trial, Scott closed the cargo bay doors on the carrier aircraft, and the surfboard immediately fell out of the sky. Apparently the occlusion flag never gets unset when parts leave a cargo bay. I wonder if that works in reverse too -- if you put parts not previously inside a cargo bay inside, and close the doors, will the resulting system continue to act as if all its parts are subject to aerodynamics?
~100 QA Testers~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
worir4

worir4

Posted
Posted
If that is the case, it's a stupid decision. If you know that there is a bug, you should fix it before release.

I think they don't want to change any code in fear that it might break something more serious. Imagine the disappointment if 1.0 had to be delayed a few days because they tried to fix the cargo bay bug but it messed something else up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robotengineer

Robotengineer

Posted
Posted
I think they don't want to change any code in fear that it might break something more serious. Imagine the disappointment if 1.0 had to be delayed a few days because they tried to fix the cargo bay bug but it messed something else up.

Then they should simply take their time, or release the current version as 0.99, then in a week, release 1.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NFUN

NFUN

Posted
Posted
I... don't get what's going on here...

"Open the cargo bays, and they become part of the aerodynamic physics."

So why does this bug happen? He opened the cargo bay...

If the parts detach from the original vehicle and leave the cargo bay, closing the bay around nothing shouldn't change the aerodynamics of the craft that left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerandar

Gerandar

Posted
Posted
Best of luck to them. I expect there will be quite a few more buggy bits. Its highly likely that the QA team spent their time playing and balancing it rather than trying to break it.

then they didnt have a big enough QA team or a long enough testing period to begin with

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robotengineer

Robotengineer

Posted
Posted
Best of luck to them. I expect there will be quite a few more buggy bits. Its highly likely that the QA team spent their time playing and balancing it rather than trying to break it.

That's bad software testing then, testers primary goal is to break the software, not play/balance it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallygator

Wallygator

Posted
Posted
then they didnt have a big enough QA team or a long enough testing period to begin with

And this is typical of outsourced QA activities - especially when there is no structure to the testing. Now, frankly I have no visibility into their testing methodology - what I do see is a poorly managed bug list. When you peel that onion, you typically find minimal linkage to requirements and use case based test scripts and scenarios. I would bet a dollar that the majority of testing resources were charged with just playing the game as they see fit and reporting any bugs found. This is NOT the way quality software should be validated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain H@dock

Captain H@dock

Posted
Posted (edited)
I wonder, did 100 people miss it or did it just go on the "nobody will notice this" board?

I mean, the non-critical-bug board.

It's hard to tell, maybe this is not happening for every out of bay crafts. Maybe it's only when struted the way it was, or released the way he did it.:wink:

Hell, I found a [minor] bug in my code last friday, and it's been in production for more than 6 months. Despite a really good test coverage. It was a corner case, and not generating any breakage (unlike the bug we're talking about here).

Edit:

Still better than 20.000 useless "bug reports".

While i agree with what max said about people doing bad bug reports... look at how this bug was reported! It wasn't even reproduced, he just said that closing the doors seemed to have made the surfbord loose all aero properties. In a live stream. Yet that was enough to get the bug fixed. So this is a counter example.

Edited by Captain H@dock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
magnemoe

magnemoe

Posted
Posted
Then they should simply take their time, or release the current version as 0.99, then in a week, release 1.0.

Here I agree they should release the current version as 0.97, fix the bugs who showed up and then release 1.0, this would cause new bugs to show up.

Here is an bug for you: Back in 1997 probably scanners used scsi to communicate with the pc.

I added scsi card into an isa slot, added scsi and scanner software and scanned, put the hood on the pc and delivered to customer. At that time almost all pc had an inverse U shaped cover and not two side covers as is common today on towers.

Customer come back next day, scanner did not work, tested and found no scsi card, off with hood, I moved the card to another isa slot, booted and it found the scsi card.

On with hood, then I thought I wanted to check the scanner too, started pc no scsi card.

Off with hood and scsi worked, I found that then I added the last of the 6 screws at bottom front the scsi card failed: no it did not short anything, neither did it add any tension on the case, I could screw it in with my fingers.

I skipped the case with 5 screws, customer was happy, this worked for multiple years as in customer never came back.

However never found out that caused it.

- - - Updated - - -

But not better than that one bug report that contained the issue.

An useless bug report is typically: game does not work, this is .....

An bug report stating that all aerodynamic is disabled on an object who was launched inside an cargo bay then the bay is closed is very useful.

And yes this is useful for special uses mostly weapons.

Its probably pretty easy to fix but not something who will be fixed before 1.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majorjim!

Majorjim!

Posted
Posted

Maxmaps just posted this in the AMA on Reddit:

"There already was! We've been watching the streams and fixing up whatever breaks live. For example, the bug that /u/illectro ran into when dropping something from a cargo bay was fixed about 10 minutes after he showed it.

Video proof of glitches is amazing for fixing stuff, so shoutout to Danny2462."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...