Squadcast Summary 6/26/15

[Guest]

I (finally) downloaded 1.0.4 and noticed on the Squad page that I bought the game on July 2nd 2013. So obviously the big event is my purchasing of the game.

Well aren't you special...

I find that one slightly depressing given it tends to imply that Squad don't consider aero and heat overhauls to qualify as "save breaking".

Aero and heating overhauls aren't save breaking in the slightest.

At least not for me.

[r4pt0r]

Well aren't you special...

Aero and heating overhauls aren't save breaking in the slightest.

At least not for me.

not for me either, I actually forgot I had a 1.0.2 save I was halfway through the tree on(I stopped playing when they announced a 1.0.3 was coming). I used my 1.0.2 mun lander to land on minmus in 1.0.4 and experienced no heating problems on re-entry.

My only error was the default parachute opening height of 500m being....insufficent. not sure how that happened. Thank you quicksave before re-entry.

[GusTurbo]

I hope the news is a new commitment to fixing "legacy" bugs.

Edited June 27, 2015 by GusTurbo

[katateochi]

snip

I'm still betting it won't have anything to do with the actual game.

I really hope sure.

I hope the news is a new commitment to fixing "legacy" bugs.

This is the only announcement that I want to hear.

[Robotengineer]

I hope the news is a new commitment to fixing "legacy" bugs.

But those bugs are in for nostalgia!

[goldenpsp]

I find that one slightly depressing given it tends to imply that Squad don't consider aero and heat overhauls to qualify as "save breaking".

"Ok, so all your rockets that you previously designed in this game were designed for a completely different universe with an entirely different set of physical laws, but just ignore that bit and carry on as you were".

Seems simple to me. If you can load your save then it isn't broken.

[basic.syntax]

Bugs can be fixed (or not) at any time, so that's not likely to tie into a specific event occurring next week.

I'm not too worried about big changes to the game, I expect v1.1 to deliver its own set of changes. It seems inevitable, due to the major game-engine upgrade: they've already announced a new procedural generation system for asteroids, and a new wheel method. I'll just launch a revised ship as a "rescue mission." I'm not going to let that fear stop me from enjoying the game we have today.

[Alshain]

Thanks Zucal, I'm glad someone stepped up, I was unavailable this week myself.

[SoWeMeetAgain]

Seems simple to me. If you can load your save then it isn't broken.

if you genuinely think that's a good stance on that then you're blissfully simplistic

[goldenpsp]

if you genuinely think that's a good stance on that then you're blissfully simplistic

First off, where did I say anything about how "I" felt on the subject. It is a simple fact. They have to use some sort of definition of "save breaking". The only one that really works is the simple one that if you can load your save and it runs it isn't broken. Anything else would be subject to so much interpretation you would have tons of people saying the update "broke" their save.

[pincushionman]

I'm actually more interested in what KasperVid considers to be an "important event" happening next week. The obvious one to me is US Independence Day, but I don't see how that would be meaningful to Squad.

I thought it might have to do with computers or something similar, but E3 and the Apple WDC are already over, Microsoft's WPC isn't until the week after, and Windows 10 doesn't release until the end of the month.

New Horizons also doesn't reach peri…whatever until that week, Dawn is already at Ceres, and Rosetta-Philae is already at their comet. The 40th anniversary of ASTM-Soyuz 19 (the end of the Space Race) is also not until the 15th.

I suppose if the next SpaceX landing attempt is next week, that could be considered important, but if it's not successful it isn't any different than the previous ones. Also, if a SpaceX partnership is it, I don't see any real change other than the addition of a flag, similar to the EASA thing.

And I don't see KasperVid making a couple of mentions in one Squadcast to be like the "pre-hype" we've been getting for other so-called "big announcements." So I expect this won't actually be a big deal, just maybe something interesting. But then again, the whole PS4 thing kinda came out of left field.

Edited June 27, 2015 by pincushionman

[FlowerChild]

Aero and heating overhauls aren't save breaking in the slightest.

At least not for me.

I think it largely comes down to whether you view a big shift in the rules or break in continuity to invalidate a game. Personally, I would not want to continue a save game, particularly since I only play career mode, knowing that everything that came before functioned under a different set of rules.

I also tend to build up a series of launch vehicles refining them slightly over time as I move forward (I play without engineering aids), so the process of progressing in the game winds up providing me with a fleet of vessels which such changes invalidate. In a lot of ways, other than a bunch of space junk (or "art installations" ) floating around the system and the various point totals and node unlocks, those accumulated designs are my save game.

It may come down to personal play style, but I do know I would not want to continue the same game after such heavy changes, so to me, that then qualifies as save breaking.

Edited June 27, 2015 by FlowerChild

[goldenpsp]

I think it largely comes down to whether you view a big shift in the rules or break in continuity to invalidate a game. Personally, I would not want to continue a save game, particularly since I only play career mode, knowing that everything that came before functioned under a different set of rules.

I also tend to build up a series of launch vehicles refining them slightly over time as I move forward (I play without engineering aids), so the process of progressing in the game winds up providing me with a fleet of vessels which such changes invalidate. In a lot of ways, other than a bunch of space junk (or "art installations" ) floating around the system and the various point totals and node unlocks, those accumulated designs are my save game.

It may come down to personal play style, but I do know I would not want to continue the same game after such heavy changes, so to me, that then qualifies as save breaking.

Which is why you can really only use the "does the save load" as a hard rule for whether it is save breaking. Otherwise you get interpretations like this, which btw is not what I would consider being save breaking.

[FlowerChild]

Which is why you can really only use the "does the save load" as a hard rule for whether it is save breaking. Otherwise you get interpretations like this, which btw is not what I would consider being save breaking.

I'm not sure why a developer of a released game would not want to be aware and respectful of what various players do consider to be save breaking. Major changes to the underlying rules that the game operates on (and every mission essentially begins with aero) seem like a good thing to try and avoid under such circumstances.

Whether you choose to call that "save breaking" or something else, I really don't think it's good policy regardless, and it's something I'd really hate to see keep happening in the long term.

Edited June 27, 2015 by FlowerChild

[LordFerret]

I'm actually more interested in what KasperVid considers to be an "important event" happening next week. The obvious one to me is US Independence Day, but I don't see how that would be meaningful to Squad.

I thought it might have to do with computers or something similar, but E3 and the Apple WDC are already over, Microsoft's WPC isn't until the week after, and Windows 10 doesn't release until the end of the month.

New Horizons also doesn't reach peri…whatever until that week, Dawn is already at Ceres, and Rosetta-Philae is already at their comet. The 40th anniversary of ASTM-Soyuz 19 (the end of the Space Race) is also not until the 15th.

I suppose if the next SpaceX landing attempt is next week, that could be considered important, but if it's not successful it isn't any different than the previous ones. Also, if a SpaceX partnership is it, I don't see any real change other than the addition of a flag, similar to the EASA thing.

And I don't see KasperVid making a couple of mentions in one Squadcast to be like the "pre-hype" we've been getting for other so-called "big announcements." So I expect this won't actually be a big deal, just maybe something interesting. But then again, the whole PS4 thing kinda came out of left field.

Perhaps it's the complete UI overhaul that's been mentioned elsewhere in these forums?

[goldenpsp]

I'm not sure why a developer of a released game would not want to be aware and respectful of what various players do consider to be save breaking. Major changes to the underlying rules that the game operates on (and every mission essentially begins with aero) seem like a good thing to try and avoid under such circumstances.

Whether you choose to call that "save breaking" or something else, I really don't think it's good policy regardless, and it's something I'd really hate to see keep happening in the long term.

Bah, I give up. It's impossible to try and talk on a subject when people keep moving the target.

[FlowerChild]

Bah, I give up. It's impossible to try and talk on a subject when people keep moving the target.

Agreed. Altering the definition of a term down to a very narrow band to try to invalidate what someone considers to be save breaking is a terrible basis for such a discussion.

[goldenpsp]

Agreed. Altering the definition of a term down to a very narrow band to try to invalidate what someone considers to be save breaking is a terrible basis for such a discussion.

Wow, whatever.

I at no time made any determination of what I felt was "right" "wrong" or "insensitive to players"

I was simply stating that I would imagine Squad uses a fairly strict rule of "will the save load" when determining if an update is save breaking. And I went on to explain I felt that was the case as it is the only objective test they can use. Any other "save breaking" test would be highly subjective and up to the interpretation of every KSP player out there.

Anything extra that you put into those words was simply your bias reading more into what I wrote than was there.

[Specialist290]

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, let's not let this get personal.

[Violent Jeb]

Just putting it out there, the ONLY engineer report feature I would find useful is a delta V readout, the feature they have to debate. So keep debating squad.. i'll keep installing mods to improve upon your "features" until then.

Seriously, what is the mindset behind NOT adding it to the readout? Do they think that we would all enjoy doing the manual calculations each time we swap a part out during design?

Do they think the school children will have nothing to work towards?

Make it toggle-able from the menu. I can't think of a single reason NOT to include it.

[Zucal]

Seriously, what is the mindset behind NOT adding it to the readout? Do they think that we would all enjoy doing the manual calculations each time we swap a part out during design?

Do they think the school children will have nothing to work towards?

Make it toggle-able from the menu. I can't think of a single reason NOT to include it.

Squad has always been hesitant to make the game easier, especially any kind of autopilot feature. They want to toe the line of gameplay over realism in that regard, because much of the charm of the game is the process of failing and reiterating on designs. You can see their point- they don't, and I don't want a game where the entire building process is "That engine and that fuel tank have enough delta-v. We're done here."

In real life, so many things can go wrong with a mission. Equipment failures, flipped bits, explosions, decompressions, debris strikes, etc. There's no random part failure in KSP, and likely never will be. That leaves only a few things that can go ever go wrong with a mission- forgetting crucial parts like batteries, forgetting a heat shield for aerobraking, and not having enough juice to get where you want to go. Adding a dv display is handy, but removes yet another failure mode from the game and puts it one step closer to strict realism. I'm fine with that, and I'm sure many people are, but Squad's vision for KSP isn't another Orbiter and we have to respect that.

[basic.syntax]

Squad relented after long resistance to more dV info, and worked on a feature to provide expanded dV info, in the run-up to 1.0. No explanation for the change of heart, just that they would do it. Unfortunately their new feature wasn't quite ready for 1.0, but we should see it in v1.1.

[Guest]

If we're not supposed to know how much delta-V the craft has why do maneuver nodes show how much delta-V the burn requires? Why not hide that and just show the percentage bar?

[FlowerChild]

If we're not supposed to know how much delta-V the craft has why do maneuver nodes show how much delta-V the burn requires? Why not hide that and just show the percentage bar?

Delta-V for a maneuver is a much simpler concept than the amount a rocket contains man. I'm personally opposed to having a delta-V indicator for rockets in the game (and never use one myself), but have zero opposition, or confusion, over seeing the magnitude of a simple vector subtraction between my current velocity and my desired.

It provides a relative indication of how much a maneuver costs that a percentage would not, and in no way requires you to know how much delta-V your rocket contains to be useful. What you're saying is that is the equivalent of "if my car doesn't contain a computer that provides my operational range based on fuel consumption and current load, I don't want to know the distance to my destination either".

Edited June 27, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Guest]

Delta-V for a maneuver is a much simpler concept than the amount a rocket contains man.

Listen to yourself for a moment man. Seriously, say that sentence right there out loud. You're saying that the total available change in velocity is a much more complex "concept" than the change in velocity required for a single maneuver. As if adding two numbers is somehow a seriously tough thing for players to grasp.

I'm personally opposed to having a delta-V indicator for rockets in the game (and never use one myself), but have zero opposition, or confusion, over seeing the magnitude of a simple vector subtraction between my current velocity and my desired.

Why bother with a confusing number that people will want to subtract from another number when there is already a magnitude indicator?

I mean, I can understand some of the other arguments, like uncertainty and chance for failure, but basic addition and subtraction is a very poor argument.