Devnotes Tuesday: Wednesday Edition III!

[cubinator]

58 minutes ago, The Real Franklin said:

At first I thought we were going to see deployable airbags, and I got excited. A deployable shield is okay, too, I guess.

Well, knowing the KSP community, it'll probably be about two hours before someone tries using the shield to lithobrake. Less than that now that I posted this.

Edited February 18, 2016 by cubinator

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

The upgrade system is module-based, so we can add more upgrade modules to it in the future, whenever we need to change game data in old files. It can target both .craft and .sfs files, and operates at the ConfigNode level - which means data is parsed from the file text, but not yet applied to anything in the game - so it should (theoretically) be able to update any old data to whatever new format we need it to be in.

Question: are you going to allow mod access to this? I am sure mod authors would love to be able to provide this same service to their users and enable upgrade seamlessly from one version of a mod module to the next. Please allow mod access to these routines if at all possible.

 

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Bill (taniwha) has been plugging away at bugs, most notably fixing docking ports locking up due to the game being saved between the magnets engaging and the ships docking.

So that's when it was happening. Kudos on nailing that one.

 

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

It also has its own fairing, as well as a built in omni-decoupler  but one that is not in the staging menu (to prevent ‘accidents’).

Hmm, may I dare to hope that this is just a default, and it has a rightclick toggle to add when we choose to? I was kinda hoping that the staging toggle on the decouplers since 1.0.5 was going to become a norm.

 

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

integrating a few parts from the Asteroid Day mod as a nice surprise for the community.

So much for that surprise . But thanks, I was hoping that might happen.

 

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

through the devnotes we  would like to thank Sircmpwn for his work on creating and maintaining Kerbalstuff.

Nothing to add, just glad to see it expressed.

 

Now back to work! RIC already committed you guys to a T-29 days deadline - no takebacks! (runs and hides from the hovering crown)

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Claw said:

The mechanics of it now are that the first click will select the stack of parts to be re-rooted, and the second click will select the new root for that stack. If it's not the main stack that's being re-rooted, that second click will define the local root (i.e. the connecting part) of that secondary stack.

So lets say a user starts with the main ship stack, then pulls off a subsection to put to the side. The re-root tool now allows re-rooting either the main craft or the subsection to the side. Previously, the re-root tool would not allow modifying the stack placed to the side. Part stacks pulled from the sub-assemblies or merged from another craft file also allow re-rooting while holding them, or after being placed to the side if there's a need to get a better view of the stack.

Unless it's explained via pop-up books....

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Unless it's explained via pop-up books....

It's a minor addition I think. I have never wished to root a non selected part.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Majorjim

[NoMrBond]

2 hours ago, SQUAD said:

the flow algorithms in the Engineer’s Report are the prototypes for the fuel flow overhaul

What is the fuel flow (I assume all resources) overhaul intending to address, that actually seems like something significant hidden in plain sight?

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, SQUAD said:

save-breaking can’t be considered an ok thing to do anymore.

I also believe CRAFT BREAKING is also, not an ok thing to do anymore. I hope this is taken into account.

 I read on, and you HAVE! A thousands thank yous!

Edited February 18, 2016 by Majorjim

[Cornholio]

1 hour ago, Iamsodarncool said:

 

They haven't moved into experimentals yet because they're still adding content. 64bit has for months been confirmed to be totally functional and a thing that will happen.

It has not been mentioned in dev notes.  Provide a link and I'll retract this and the other statement.

[RoverDude]

11 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Hmm, may I dare to hope that this is just a default, and it has a rightclick toggle to add when we choose to? I was kinda hoping that the staging toggle on the decouplers since 1.0.5 was going to become a norm.

You can activate it's decoupling via an action group or via a right-click menu.  It just doesn't have a stage icon - reason being (and we saw this when testing the original heat shields) that it's easy to assume the stage separates *below* the heat shield (like regular decouplers do), and there were a few incidents of accidentally dropping your heat shield during reentry...

So now, just tie the decouple option to an action group (or jettison manually similar to how you would cut a parachute) and you're good to go.  

Fun fact.  The reason the new heat shield is an omni-decoupler (like a stack separator) is because it has dual attachment nodes, so you can hook to the 2.5 one, or nestle a small 1.25m payload inside as well (making it a great aerobraking and reentry tool for small rovers).

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, SQUAD said:

“cannot activate while stowed”

O M G

[Rune]

 

1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

How does somebody even find a bug this obscure

Seriously, hats off guys.

Obscure? Well, it might be, but its the one thing (other than the asteroid day solar panels being integrated and not breaking savefiles being now a thing) that made me go all "yay!" when I saw the devnotes. Seriously, you wouldn't believe how many times I've had to edit a savefile because the damned ports would refuse to work and show weird states (i.e: "Docked (same vessel)"). I doubt all docking port bugs can be reduced to this one, but hey, it's a start.

 

Rune. 1.1 is going to be a big upgrade.

[Superfluous J]

10 minutes ago, Cornholio said:

It has not been mentioned in dev notes.  Provide a link and I'll retract this and the other statement.

On 1/12/2016 at 6:08 PM, SQUAD said:

Those of you using OSX will be happy to know that we’ve taken a significant hurdle there: Ted has decided that we’re ready to start testing the viability of OSX 64-bit builds! The OSX builds are now universal, meaning that we’re creating 32-bit and 64-bit packages in the same job and that we’re not looking at increased build times as a result. For those of you who facing an ontological or existential crisis after reading this: yes, we have 64 bit builds for Windows as well, and they’re rock steady so far.

That was from a devnote. I won't search the entire forum for you.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, RoverDude said:

You can activate it's decoupling via an action group or via a right-click menu.  It just doesn't have a stage icon - reason being (and we saw this when testing the original heat shields) that it's easy to assume the stage separates *below* the heat shield (like regular decouplers do), and there were a few incidents of accidentally dropping your heat shield during reentry...

So now, just tie the decouple option to an action group (or jettison manually similar to how you would cut a parachute) and you're good to go.  

Fun fact.  The reason the new heat shield is an omni-decoupler (like a stack separator) is because it has dual attachment nodes, so you can hook to the 2.5 one, or nestle a small 1.25m payload inside as well (making it a great aerobraking and reentry tool for small rovers).

That's some lovely creative thinking RD! Thank you.

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

You can activate it's decoupling via an action group or via a right-click menu.  It just doesn't have a stage icon - reason being (and we saw this when testing the original heat shields) that it's easy to assume the stage separates *below* the heat shield (like regular decouplers do), and there were a few incidents of accidentally dropping your heat shield during reentry...

So now, just tie the decouple option to an action group (or jettison manually similar to how you would cut a parachute) and you're good to go.

I understand your explanation, and I feel bad complaining ahead of time, especially about a shiny new item that I know I'll be liking to use, but isn't this a bit too much pampering to our user-ignorance? Allow us to learn by mistake - I figure that the accidental decoupling would happen once or twice, and then we'd have learned our lesson. Don't protect us too much.

Reason for the disappointment with this choice is that action groups in stock are extremely limited, and on many of my launch assemblies in such dire short supply that I often have to make very hard choices of what to dedicate them to. Rightclick as an activation method... well, especially in the heat of the moment (pardon the pun) that can be very error prone all by itself. Whereas staging is almost full-proof to activate and there is no real practical limit to how many stages one can define.

Will it at least be possible to add the staging toggle via Module Manager, even if your decision stands on not making it stock?

Tiny bit disappointed. But I'll shush and be thankful for the shiny new toy coming.

 

14 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Fun fact.  The reason the new heat shield is an omni-decoupler (like a stack separator) is because it has dual attachment nodes, so you can hook to the 2.5 one, or nestle a small 1.25m payload inside as well (making it a great aerobraking and reentry tool for small rovers).

This is one of my envisioned uses and reasons why I am excited to get my grubby hands on it.

[mcirish3]

Bummer...Great and thanks for all the info on how the update is going... still totally bummer.  I at least have been waiting for 1.1 for nearly a year at this point.  Just before Christmas it was indicated that 1.1 deadline was to release by Christmas.  Then it got pushed back, so I thought "mid to late January".  Well here we are in late February still no 1.1 release and you are starting to remove content to try and get done(reference to this...old news I know).  The new content indicated in these devotes doesn't even make sense at this point in the game.    Seriously what the hell happened!!!!  Sorry mostly venting and loosing my patience.  Keep up the good work and hoping you are almost done.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mcirish3

[Motokid600]

1 hour ago, NoMrBond said:

What if activating an engine inside an interstage blew the interstage off?

Lol so kerbal! .. Right? Doesn't matter id just deal with it as a mistake. I don't need a severely bugged "feature" to tell me what I can and cant activate.

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, swjr-swis said:

I understand your explanation, and I feel bad complaining ahead of time, especially about a shiny new item that I know I'll be liking to use, but isn't this a bit too much pampering to our user-ignorance? Allow us to learn by mistake - I figure that the accidental decoupling would happen once or twice, and then we'd have learned our lesson. Don't protect us too much.

Reason for the disappointment with this choice is that action groups in stock are extremely limited, and on many of my launch assemblies in such dire short supply that I often have to make very hard choices of what to dedicate them to. Rightclick as an activation method... well, especially in the heat of the moment (pardon the pun) that can be very error prone all by itself. Whereas staging is almost full-proof to activate and there is no real practical limit to how many stages one can define.

Will it at least be possible to add the staging toggle via Module Manager, even if your decision stands on not making it stock?

Tiny bit disappointed. But I'll shush and be thankful for the shiny new toy coming.

 

This is one of my envisioned uses and reasons why I am excited to get my grubby hands on it.

Yep, you could change it via MM if so inclined, and no offense taken.

[swjr-swis]

3 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:

Seriously what the hell happened!!!!

Lots and lots of QA and bugfixing. I'd say that's a good thing and a very acceptable reason for delay, yes?

[Cornholio]

13 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

That was from a devnote. I won't search the entire forum for you.

Retracted.

[smjjames]

2 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

How does somebody even find a bug this obscure

Seriously, hats off guys.

I think I ran into that one once. I think it happened because I just happened to have docking ports on a vessel that were close enough to activate magnets or something.

3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Bob (Roverdude) wrapped up work on the new inflatable heat shield.  Which surprisingly required a few changes to different part modules to make it work the way he wanted.  For example, it is not re-foldable once it’s out. It also has its own fairing, as well as a built in omni-decoupler  but one that is not in the staging menu (to prevent ‘accidents’).

I can understand it being single use only (though technically theres nothing stopping anybody from re-using it in the deployed state if it still has ablator), but what's the reasoning behind it not being re-foldable once it's out? I'm sure the NASA one (which this is based off of) isn't re-foldable, but I'm just wondering what your reasoning is.

Edited February 18, 2016 by smjjames

[Bill Phil]

Anyone else absolutely love the inflatable heat shield?

I think that ones for various sizes would help out quite a bit. 1.25 when it's not expanded, and 3.5.

[Arsonide]

13 minutes ago, mcirish3 said:

The new content indicated in these devotes doesn't even make sense at this point in the game.

The Asteroid Day content is not new. It has been released for nearly a year now, and thus has already undergone the rigors of testing. Given how well received it was, and the fact that it has been put through the ringer already, integration was a no brainer.

53 minutes ago, Iamsodarncool said:

As long as its mass hasn't changed.

As of now, the functionality of the HECS2 - including the mass, has not changed. As with all things, details such as this may change before release. However, seeing as the part has been in use in the wild for a year, I really doubt it.

[lextacy]

REROOT getting REDONE?! GLORIOUS!   Cant count the number of times when I try to take sub-assemblies (which are the payloads only) and try to mate with the launch vehicle only to find out there never was a root node defined.

[NoMrBond]

16 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Yep, you could change it via MM if so inclined, and no offense taken.

Could it default off the staging list but toggleable, like the docking ports now are?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

stage list would split symmetry groups in editor while detaching and attaching parts

Yes!

3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

There were also some not so little things though, like integrating a few parts from the Asteroid Day mod as a nice surprise for the community.

YEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Even better, vessels in atmosphere within range of the active vessel are no longer deleted during quickload, and he adjusted the “switch to” logic so users can cycle between nearby craft upon quickloading. Fairings also received a bit of attention, and the dreaded “cannot activate while stowed” issue for interstage fairings has been fixed, though it requires rebuilding your interstages to take effect.

Stop it!  Really, I can't take any more great news!

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, NoMrBond said:

What if activating an engine inside an interstage blew the interstage off?

That would be more awesome than a little message in the corner of the screen.