Devnote Tuesday: Everyone Pitches In

[hoojiwana]

Just now, smjjames said:

No surprise that they took a hit because we know theres a different lighting system in U5.

Could just be a temporary state since they're still running the U5 QA.

Those aren't actually lights though, they're just an emissive texture.

[OopsThatNotWork]

1 hour ago, Frank_G said:

Thank you for the update. Waiting for 1.1 gets harder each week

You got that right it does!

[NoMrBond]

9 minutes ago, hoojiwana said:

Those aren't actually lights though, they're just an emissive texture.

Squad could have moved that scene from having emissive textures to using baked light probes (?), not sure if I'm describing/naming that correctly, but a pre-calculated lighting solution from the new Enlighten lighting system

[Motokid600]

37 minutes ago, regex said:

 

Well that would end your career real quick, now wouldn't it?

I don't get it. I meant like why do we need six surface samples from Duna? Or five Satellites around the Mun. Why do I have to constantly rescue Kerbals? Where are they coming from?!  Contracts need to be more unique or... become actual contracts. Not fetch quests. All this about following the players wants. Well what if the player doesn't want to do the same thing over and over and over again?

Contracts need to be long term investments that evolve. All we have here are random missions.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Motokid600

[Norcalplanner]

33 minutes ago, regex said:

It would almost be like ... running a space program.

Agreed. My only suggestion is that choosing a celestial body to focus on should be a decision made in the administration building, as these sorts of decisions tend to be driven by politics and budgets.

[hoojiwana]

2 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

Squad could have moved that scene from having emissive textures to using baked light probes (?), not sure if I'm describing/naming that correctly, but a pre-calculated lighting solution from the new Enlighten lighting system

Check out B9's devblog I linked on the first page, he goes over how the actual lighting is baked and the way he uses the emissive sprites (which don't make any light themselves) to add some flavour. It's probably the baking that was redone in the new lighting system and the sprites have simply been left out of the rebuilt VAB.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Hey, in this image:

It says "... moon to the body it orbits..." the body a moon orbits is technically called the moon's primary.  It might be a bit technical and unclear, but I wanted to make sure you knew.

[smjjames]

Also SQUAD, how configurable will the contract weighting be? Because it would be great to be able to adjust it to ones liking. Also, I can see a potential hook-in to mods where, well, I dunno, I guess someone will find a way to use it for something.

[regex]

17 minutes ago, Motokid600 said:

I don't get it. I meant like why do we need six surface samples from Duna? Or five Satellites around the Mun. Why do I have to constantly rescue Kerbals? Where are they coming from?!  Contracts need to be more unique or... become actual contracts. Not fetch quests. All this about following the players wants. Well what if the player doesn't want to do the same thing over and over and over again?

Contracts need to be long term investments that evolve. All we have here are random missions.

Oh, I thought you meant I only ever get one contract type once.  Ever.  So you do like seven or eight contracts and then you can't make any more money.

[regex]

15 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

Agreed. My only suggestion is that choosing a celestial body to focus on should be a decision made in the administration building, as these sorts of decisions tend to be driven by politics and budgets.

Sure, yeah, however it needs to be done.  The problem here isn't one that Arsonide (or hell, Squad) can solve very easily at this point because they've currently saddled the player with a random mission (side quest) system masquerading as a space program management sim.  It needs a complete rework, from the ground up, designed from the beginning as a coherent system.  Volumes have been written about how it could be done better on these very forums, which just indicates to me that the core system is at fault, not anything current developers are doing with it.

[tater]

They just "don't get it" on the entire career/contract system. The trouble is that unless the paradigm was to change entirely, they are sort of stuck with this concept of random "contracts" to do everything. Yes, a filter would help, or sliders (W% "random", X% commercial, Y% science, Z% passenger, where W*+X+Y+Z=100% where W>=1, so always a small chance of random), but then there would be little left, and the remaining contracts that you like would be just as mindless as they are now.

[mcirish3]

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

the game will take note if you execute many contracts near Dres or Vall, and adjust the supply of contracts based on that information.

Um... I usually grab a bunch of contracts if I plan a mission that involves a particular place or set of places based on the mission parameters. (which are usually only in my head)  But once I have been there I probably will not be going back for a while.  If I now have a bunch of contracts to a place I have already visited, because I did a bunch of contracts there I am going to be annoyed that I am being forced back to a place I don't really want to go because because most of the missions being offer send me back to a place I just was at.  What it should do is say, "oh hay this guy has just done a bunch of missions to Dres I bet he would like to see some place else.  We will offer him one mission to Dres just in case but we will offer 5 to Eeloo just so he can experience a different challenge." 

Edited January 20, 2016 by mcirish3

[mcirish3]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Oh, I thought you meant I only ever get one contract type once.  Ever.  So you do like seven or eight contracts and then you can't make any more money.

I think he was pointing to the point you make your next post.
 

1 hour ago, regex said:

It needs a complete rework, from the ground up, designed from the beginning as a coherent system.  Volumes have been written about how it could be done better on these very forums, which just indicates to me that the core system is at fault, not anything current developers are doing with it.

Oh I do agree.. The current contract system makes no sense at all.  I have stopped playing career mode I won't go back unless it actually gets some development and actually makes some sense.  I think there have been a lot of starts and stops among mod makers to do exactly that (Arsenide and Roverdude amoth them).   But really the missions NEED coherence. a feeling of progression along a logical route NEEDS to happen, and it needs to happen in a way draws the player into the game.  Rather than just some random contracts that you need to fill out so that you have enough money and science to do what you really want to do.  The fact is Sandbox mode really feels like the better part of the game.

Edited January 20, 2016 by mcirish3

[smjjames]

7 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:

I think he was pointing to the point you make your next post.
 

Oh I do agree.. The current contract system makes no sense at all.  I have stopped playing career mode I won't go back unless it actually gets some development and actually makes some sense.  I think there have been a lot of starts and stops among mod makers to do exactly that (Arsenide and Roverdude amoth them).   But really the missions NEED coherence. a feeling of progression along a logical route NEEDS to happen, and it needs to happen in a way draws the player into the game.  Rather than just some random contracts that you need to fill out so that you have enough money and science to do what you really want to do.  The fact is Sandbox mode really feels like the better part of the game.

Yeah it kind of does actually, both science mode (which I like to play in) and sandbox.

I totally agree on the fact that the contract system needs a complete overhaul and coherence. Going to have to happen after 1.1, heck, maybe they plan to and just want to get the system in place first.

[regex]

29 minutes ago, smjjames said:

heck, maybe they plan to and just want to get the system in place first.

I doubt it.  Why write all that weighting for a random system when you're just going to throw it out the door?  No, the system is in place and they're probably going to stick with it through hell or high water.

Then again, Squad is terrible at afraid to communicate about that sort of thing, so ... vOv

Edited January 20, 2016 by regex
Sorry, my old self slipped out.

[NoMrBond]

In a general sense, what does the game actually run like under Unity 5? A lot has been made (or is perhaps expected of) the upgraded PhysX, 64 bit, the various optimisations and improvements (both engine and game wise) etc, but does it actually feel better?

If you put two 300 parts ships next to each-other in 1.0.5 the game noticeably struggles, the expectation (for PhysX 3.3) is that the native physics multi-threading should make this kind of situation a lot more bearable, but I'm wondering if this is actually being borne out in actual testing? Similarly does the step up from straight x87 to SIMD accelerated calculations look like it's making much of a difference for monolithic vessels?

Otherwise does the native MTJS help with threading other tasks, i.e. can (or is) the thermal system now be its own thread, what about the resource crawling or other under-the-hood game mechanics or is that a bit more of a long term thing which could be looked at down the road?

Edited January 20, 2016 by NoMrBond

[Guest]

3 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

In the VAB screenshot I noticed a Search All Parts at the top.

 

Thank you! We always wanted that!!!

Just saw that.  I think that's another mod killed.  I'm fine with that though, as I'd rather not need a mod and have it die than needing it.  Even if it's mine.  @RoverDude has some really good points about that.

[cubinator]

2 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

Why do I have to constantly rescue Kerbals? Where are they coming from?!

This. I think that every single time. "WHAT IS BOBFRY KERMAN DOING IN A 150 KM ORBIT IN A SINGLE PASSENGER POD WITH NO POWER AND NO OTHER PARTS ON IT??? HOW DID HE GET THERE?"

On the other hand, looks like 1.1 is progressing nicely and it's coming closer and closer and it's starting to get to that point where it's getting to me and every week I can't wait for Devnote Tuesday to see just how much longer until Soon(tm) arrives...I think 1.1 is going to be the most awesome update so far, keep up the good work SQUAD!

[mcirish3]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I doubt it.  Why write all that weighting for a random system when you're just going to throw it out the door?  No, the system is in place and they're probably going to stick with it through hell or high water.

Then again, Squad is terrible at afraid to communicate about that sort of thing, so ... vOv

In which case what can be done with the current system to improve it.  TOP... and I mean very very very Tippity toppity far far far away from the second thing that could be done is stop, PLEASE stop! giving me contracts to places that I have already gotten most of the science out of.  If you give me a new contract to the Mun please make sure it is in a different biome than the last time you sent me there and dont do two contracts for the same experiment in same biome.  If all the biomes have  been done make sure at least that that it is a experiment have have not run already.  If all that has been done, and I built my Mun station and Mun base MOVE ON, seriously I probably have seen enough of the Mun at that point.  Sorry I probably should take it down a notch or three.  And now that there are biomes why should I return for any very marginal science I left in one biome?  There is more than enough science to complete the tech tree several times over.  I just don't see the motivation to return.

[Superfluous J]

I'd love it if the contracts offered for non-Kerbin-SOI bodies was tied into an integrated transfer window planner.

"A Moho transfer window is coming up in X days. It should take about Y days to Hohmann transfer there. Here are some contracts for Moho."

Or, how about tabs so there are always 6-10 contracts for every major body? You want Moho, go to the Moho tab. You want Dres, go to the Dres tab.

[50ck37]

Edit: concerning the adaptation/learning system related to contracts

What about a ranking system to the missions, where the player could give from 0 to 5 stars to each completed mission. There are lots of learning systems based on that. Another simpler alternative would be the like/dislike ranking system...

Edit: what most people is concerned may be termed "overfitting". This effect could be attenuated if it was to be used many players data to feed the classification/learning system to categorize profiles of players. But that would involve sending personal data about preferences to SQUAD.

Edit: this does not solve the "Cause I'm The Boss" problem though --- the feeling of really running a Space Program, which really is the point of us being here. My thoughts on that would be these: there are choices of Kontracts, related to each body (planet or moon). Each kontract would have a list of pre determined tasks (dependency graph, like the Tech Tree), visible to the user or not(?). Each one would free the posterior ones... Like choosing Mun, then flying by, measuring, orbiting, rescuing, landing, building a base. Then comes Minmus, taking samples there, mixing, bringing the results to Kerbin, doing stuff EVA with the mixture, new materials discovered (new parts appear). I dont know... Right now I only went to the Mun so far... Just brainstorming... 

Guys, keep up the good work, this game is really awesome!

Edited January 20, 2016 by 50ck37
More brainstorming

[Glaran K'erman]

I don't care what was said, I got a poem.

 

Edit: Almost forgot to mention in my weariness congratulations for @NathanKell and @TriggerAu, very excited to see the results!

Edited January 20, 2016 by Glaran K'erman

[mattinoz]

Could there be a tweak the to the contract by body weight system that takes in to the account good transfer windows?

I mean the most obvious time to visit a different is when it's cheap. So I might select a bunch of contracts at that time but as the window closes then that weighting is just stopping me from getting contracts on the next body in an advantageous position. Then the contract system would start acting as a prompt for new players as well.

[Benji]

The discussion about the contract system and the progress in the career game should be viewed from a real world perspective.

Pioneering Spaceflight versus economic spaceflight. In KSP the most fun, for me, is doing pioneer-things. Like first-moon-landing. Going to Venus for the first time. These are the things NASA and ESA do. Things, where the risk is unquantifiable, where private enterprises don't want to see there money in.

On the other hand there is the making-money-buisness. Prime example would be SpaceX. They do things, pioneers did years even decades ago, but they know the risks now and are trying to make it cheaper.

 

As the game progresses, private enterprises will do spaceflights as well. Perhaps that would be a good time to introduce stranded kerbals, because the private enterprise forgot the parachute. So they ask you to do the pioneering work in rescuing someone from orbit. Or you have a space station in orbit with a private spacecraft docked. (It will later leave for the moon, and the privates will never use more than half the available docking ports. Or they could ask you for docking permission). Later, after you captured a few asteroids, privates will start to thug asteroids in some "random" orbits around different bodys, starting to mine them and offering you a spot to dock and refuel. Like gas stations.

And, after you launched hundreds of spacecrafts into orbit, you get the offer to let the privates launch your spacecraft in orbit. That's how I use the MechJebs ascent pilot. Let MJ do it, after I have proven it can be done.

[*Aqua*]

10 hours ago, CliftonM said:

Anyone else notice the VAB looks a bit...different.  It could just be me, but it looks darker.

There's a gap in the ground. Is it new? I can't recall a gap at all.

Another question: Does DirectX 11 now work without graphical glitches?