Devnote Tuesday: 1.0.5 is approaching

[Just Jim]

Wow.... so much cool stuff!!!!!!!!!

I seriously wish I had a TARDIS so I could just jump ahead to when 1.0.5 is released!!!

[razark]

Yes, where is me barn? Barncoats unite!

Yes, because rushing to get the barn out didn't lead directly to it being pulled back. (And the barn is still a silly idea.)

[benjee10]

Man, this is shaping up to be a great pair of releases! Thanks guys for working so hard!

[Pestilence]

Yes, because rushing to get the barn out didn't lead directly to it being pulled back. (And the barn is still a silly idea.)

Kerbals are a "silly idea". I liked the barn. Yeah it's a little goofy, but c'mon, it felt like the 1910's and 20's of real-world aviation progress. The Wright Brothers worked out of their bicycle shop.

I'll join the Barncoats, but only if I get to keep Vera and Saffron.

--pest

Edited October 28, 2015 by Pestilence

[Shadowmage]

I am actually quite curious about the new IVA shader, and mostly if this same shader (or technique) can be applied to other parts / shaders in general. While this is quite a big deal for IVAs alone, I think that a very similar setup could be useful for most parts in general.

I find that for most of the parts that I make, the only reason they use a unique texture is because of AO bakes. If I were to be able to use a secondary (lower-res/grayscale) texture for the AO bakes, and re-use the main diffuse/specular/normal maps, I could probably cut my texture use down to 1/4 of what it is, and many other mods could likely do similar.

[capran]

So I read buoyancy, and I though, feh, why are they doing that? Then I read some comments and it makes some sense, more realistic water-landings. Submarines would be a neat side-benefit, though, especially if there could be undersea biomes. Even better would be water biomes on the other moons and planets! (all as others have suggested)

Someone also suggested melting through the ice on the icy moons, but wouldn't that require deformable terrain?

My 2 big wants for KSP: 1) Deformable terrain. I want impacts to have an IMPACT!

2) Splashes and waves in water, maybe even wind (yes I've seen a mod for that, but it would be cool if it were in stock.)

[tntristan12]

This devnote was impressive! Best in a long, long time. I'm so glad they're finally getting around to those IVAs. While they're at it, maybe we can get a good representation of local gravity on the inside. It breaks immersion when I land a crew pod upside down and nobody is batting an eyelash.

[razark]

Kerbals are a "silly idea". I liked the barn. Yeah it's a little goofy, but c'mon, it felt like the 1910's and 20's of real-world aviation progress. The Wright Brothers worked out of their bicycle shop.

The Wright Brothers weren't building a Mercury/Vostok level spacecraft. I'll agree the barn thing is appropriate for 1900-1930s level stuff, but we start out with a 1960s level capsule. I'd actually love to see the early pioneering days of the program where the barn would be appropriate, but at the point we start the game, the barn doesn't fit.

[L4r5man]

The Wright Brothers weren't building a Mercury/Vostok level spacecraft. I'll agree the barn thing is appropriate for 1900-1930s level stuff, but we start out with a 1960s level capsule. I'd actually love to see the early pioneering days of the program where the barn would be appropriate, but at the point we start the game, the barn doesn't fit.

Have you seen the shop where Copenhagen Suborbitals are building their rockets? It's not very far from a barn or a bicycle shop.

https://youtu.be/SoBq3142zBI?t=16m7s

For unmanned (which I think would be a better start than the start we have now) it would be perfect.

Edited October 28, 2015 by L4r5man

[Pestilence]

The Wright Brothers weren't building a Mercury/Vostok level spacecraft. I'll agree the barn thing is appropriate for 1900-1930s level stuff, but we start out with a 1960s level capsule. I'd actually love to see the early pioneering days of the program where the barn would be appropriate, but at the point we start the game, the barn doesn't fit.

It isn't "Human Space Program". If you don't like the barn, you don't like the barn. Fine. But I thought it was cute, didn't really hurt anything, and did, in actuality, fit the theme of duck-taping together the first rockets. I mean, they are literally finding parts by the side of the road and in junkyards according to the flavor texts. Also, the start of the progression for the buildings as it stands now is kind of just boring; the barns and trailers were more interesting. But if you need "realism" in this area, so be it. I hate to push everything to mods, but maybe different building progressions can be addressed there.

--pest

Edited October 28, 2015 by Pestilence

[razark]

...and did, in actuality, fit the theme of duck-taping together the first rockets.

I find that to be pretty silly, as well.

But yeah, it's not "Human Space Program". But we do start with some pretty basic assumptions of similarity, which is why you start with a building, and not in a cave, or a zoo, or another arbitrary location.

Copenhagen Suborbitals looks like they're working in an industrial building. (And they're not exactly at the Mercury spacecraft level, either.)

Edited October 28, 2015 by razark

[Pestilence]

...But we do start with some pretty basic assumptions of similarity, which is why you start with a building, and not in a cave, or a zoo, or another arbitrary location.

But I don't want all my games, movies, books, etc. to all be self-similar. Your sig aside, if we start constraining everything to adhere to reality we'll get every rocket game to look like every other rocket game, every viking movie to look like every other viking movie, and every romance novel to be like every other romance novel (which may have actually already happened). I much prefer the occasional Terry Gilliams of the world who give me romantic space-faring vikings coming out of barns, but I do admit I might be in the minority. Though I also claim I am supremely happy with this minority so far.

Edit: I've now posted waaay more about this then my actual level of caring about the barns would suggest. We're of different opinions, I leave it at that.

--pest

When did silly become a synonym for don't do it?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Pestilence

[Wallygator]

Nice notes. Looking forward to the bug fixes mostly. Then the new systems enhancements.

Litmus test for me will be how many of Claw's lifesaving patches I still need to load.

[razark]

But I don't want all my games, movies, books, etc. to all be self-similar.

Point. But making something not make sense just for the sake of being different is not right.

If a character in a book lets go of an object in a gravity field, the object should fall. it should not move sideways because "well, gravity works differently in this setting". There's plenty of ways to make something unique and even silly while still making sense.

[Pestilence]

If a character in a book lets go of an object in a gravity field, the object should fall. it should not move sideways because "well, gravity works differently in this setting". There's plenty of ways to make something unique and even silly while still making sense.

I don't disagree. I guess it's just a matter of where your line is. Personally, I thought the barns were fine, but when confronted with the flavor text "found by the side of the road" or "in a junkyard" I never really built those in to the narrative running in my head. For me, building a rocket in a barn is plausible, but finding a rusty boiler in a junkyard that happens to be properly balanced, sized, and space-capable is a bit much. But I also just ignore those things assuming it's someone else's tastes.

I could give up on the barns IF there was something else interesting to do with the buildings. When they first announced they would follow a progression, I was hoping for a lot more "things to do" with them, not just save money to unlock a feature, repeat. Gimme a more fun KSC and I'll love you forever. How about things to actually discover with the telescope, stuff like that?

I will say though, that I've played with Orbiter. It didn't stick. Part of what kept me coming back to KSP was the humor and the cutesy little screaming guy in the capsule. And like Randall, I can't believe just how much orbital mechanics I've actually learned from this game. Just try and watch "Gravity" after KSP. When she aims straight for the Chinese station and accelerates... how many of you called B.S. because that's not how you actually intercept a different orbit?

--pest

Edited October 28, 2015 by Pestilence

[Daveroski]

Now I'm not saying that I have an opinion about the barn setting.

However...

It could turn out to be very educational for those new to mass, lift and aerodynamics.

Let's say we started with a barn and the ability to build balloons and hang gliders.

These would teach about the very basics of mass , lift and aerodynamics, easing gently into thrust to weight ratios and wing design.

The early balloon would have to lift fuel as well as payload and the building of the gondola would teach to keep the craft as light as possible.

The material for the hang glider would teach about about mass, manoeuvring, lift, streamlining, all the fist principles every budding space plane designer needs.

But for myself, alas, I would have to admit to selfishness and prefer that the man-hours spent making what I have now work as efficiently and bug free as possible.

I must congratulate Squad on the matter of the awards and thank them for their efforts in catering for my entertainment needs.

[razark]

I don't disagree. I guess it's just a matter of where your line is. Personally, I thought the barns were fine, but when confronted with the flavor text "found by the side of the road" or "in a junkyard" I never really built those in to the narrative running in my head. For me, building a rocket in a barn is plausible, but finding a rusty boiler in a junkyard that happens to be properly balanced, sized, and space-capable is a bit much. But I also just ignore those things assuming it's someone else's tastes.

Yeah, our lines are drawn in slightly different places. I've had it pointed out to me that my "willing suspension of disbelief" is somewhat faulty, after all. Like your (and my) ability to ignore the "it's made of junk" aesthetic, I can live with the barn. It's just not my choice.

I could give up on the barns IF there was something else interesting to do with the buildings. When they first announced they would follow a progression, I was hoping for a lot more "things to do" with them, not just save money to unlock a feature, repeat. Gimme a more fun KSC and I'll love you forever. How about things to actually discover with the telescope, stuff like that?

I would like to see more done with buildings. Mission planning, discovery, better science. (I recall the devs were talking at one time of having more planets and a discovery method.) There's a lot more to a space program than "stick people in the pointy end and light it", and it would be nice to see that brought into the game.

It could turn out to be very educational for those new to mass, lift and aerodynamics.

Let's say we started with a barn and the ability to build balloons and hang gliders.

...

There's some ideas that I could definitely get behind there.

Part of me recoils at the difference between the "KSP as educational" aspect being put forward as teaching about spaceflight and inspiring people into it, and the whole "craptastic" junkyard "play for lulz" attitude the game has taken.

[Jasper_f]

We saw a request pop up that this be applied to control surfaces as well, but for now that’s outside the scope we’re aiming for.</p><p>

Do we have to bribe the entire SQUAD team with pizza in order to get this inside their scope for a future update? Honestly, clouds and control surfaces (1 rotating part and 1 hinge) would contribute tremendously to the game in my opinion. Throw in kerbal engineer and stock fuel pipes (like KAS) and I will play stock forever .

In all seriousness, great devnotes. This is always much anticipated and appreciated! Good luck with working on both updates!

Edited October 28, 2015 by Jasper_f

[Pestilence]

I heartily second the "early aviation" DLC. I'd put down some cash towards it too! I've been playing KSP long enough that I pretty much have ignored planes due to the pre-modern unrealistic flight issues and my having a rig that can't run with a lot of mods to fix it. I keep meaning to start playing with planes more now, but find I keep just waiting for 1.1 before jumping back in. Even with 1.05 sounding cool, I'm pretty much gonna wait for the performance rev before I commit much time. Starting over in the early days of aviation would be perfect for getting into planes.

I also heartily second the mission planning addition. I pretty much still just pack too much delta-v into every rocket and make up for inefficiencies with tons of extra fuel. I definitely do not plan out things like a "Grand Tour" with the tools currently available in stock, it's mostly "go to the first planet, do stuff, set kerbal alarm clock for next planet's window, go do other stuff" even if that next window is years away.

--pest

[Yellowburn10]

I really hope that the changes to buoyancy also fixes the bug where if something if splashed down, it doesn't get shot to the bottom of the sea because the game thinks it's "landed" and not "splashed down."

[smjjames]

I really hope that the changes to buoyancy also fixes the bug where if something if splashed down, it doesn't get shot to the bottom of the sea because the game thinks it's "landed" and not "splashed down."

Sinking like a rock isn't neccesarily a bug, just means your mass overcomes the displacement.

[_Augustus_]

Will this update break a lot of plugins?

[softweir]

Regarding the barn: Here is a picture of Robert H. Goddard's (rocketry pioneer) workshop. It's not a barn, but a workshop like that could just as easily have been set up in a barn.

Using a barn is a neat way of relating to how very amateurish early Real World rocketry experiments were. In the event new locations were chosen and new facilities were built as needs changed, but if Goddard had started his experiments in a more suitable location for large endeavours then there would be no practical reason why his small workshop shouldn't eventually be replaced by NASA's VAB.

[problemecium]

@SQUAD: In the first KSPedia screenshot you've posted, you've misspelled "dependent."

If you need, I am indeed willing to volunteer for you guys as a proofreader

[Kagame]

This..... is.... AWESOME! I love the Mk. 1 crewtank internals- they remind me of the LHR to Downtwon London train I had the distinct pleasure of riding on last summer.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no stock parts that change buoyancy (unless you count burning fuel...). However, if you somehow do manage to make a neutrally-buoyant craft, you certainly could "fly" around under water. And mod parts that create/destroy resources to change buoyancy, say, will totally work. So...yeah. Subs.

BahamutoD, you know this means we're going to be counting on you to make torpedoes in BDArmory 1.0 now.