I wonder why Squad doesn't want to give us a dV and TWR readout

[John JACK]

9 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

people will complain about anything and make a big deal about it.

Troll is not an insult, it just shows that that guy 1. did something strange on purpose, 2. gets something even stranger in return and 3. complains about it.

Statement about maximum design performance and inaccuracies still applies here. For a very large booster a Flea do not affect dV much either way. Also if Flea is in a same stage with decoupler (as it should be), it must be just ignored in calculations. Before decouple it's a dead mass, after decouple it's away and do not affect remaining rocket.
I just use several common sepratrons, and don't care about their weight, or dV difference for entire stack. They are enough to push spent upper stage for ~50 m/s, but spent stages are light and full rockets are not, and dV for going to space is approximate anyway.

Sepratrons of any kind are a common case to remember when writing calculator, and a part of stock game, not some weird exception.

[Eric S]

3 hours ago, NathanKell said:

To be clear, just because it's hard doesn't mean we're not going to work on it. I don't believe our prior statement of "it's coming" has ever been rescinded, and I certainly would like to see it in (and therefore would probably get drafted ).

I've been following the developer comments on this, and I have to agree with this.  The last statement I remember is that it was being made part of the "Engineer" class, but that got it tangled up in an overhaul of all the astronaut classes, which didn't make the 1.0 or 1.1 cuts.  So for the on topic part of this post, I have to respond with "it's that it's not ready yet, not that they don't want to give it to us."

On the off topic part, I'm going to point out that the coding that is currently holding this up isn't even the delta-v calculations.  It sounded like that part was actually coded, they just couldn't release it without the classes overhaul.

As for pandaman's suggestion, the problem with edge cases is that they probably aren't planned for, so the code most likely wouldn't be able to put up a warning that the answer was questionable.  A list of all possible edge cases just wouldn't be practical.

[Superfluous J]

On 4/3/2016 at 0:51 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

A space simulation game with no Delta V/TWR readout makes about as much sense as:

• A racing game with no speedometer/rpm
• A football game with no score display
• An RPG where you don't know what level you are
• An FPS with no ammo counter
• An RTS with no display for collected resources or population cap
• A sims game with no "needs and wants" meters
• A fighting game with no health bars

I could go on...and on...and on...

• All you need to do is note all the landmarks on the track, how far apart they are, and then plug the time values into this spreadsheet I've made...
• Pfft if you can't add numbers together why are you playing an appendage/ball based physics simulator?
• I can't joke about this one because people DO maintain spreadsheets on RPGs.
• I agree with this one. In all the excitement I lose track myself.
• See my note about RPGs

Okay I got bored. In short, I totally agree with you. I was just riffing on the idea

[John FX]

4 hours ago, NathanKell said:

in the case of hotstaging in RO, MechJeb's assumption is correct. However, in other cases where one has a staging setup like this, its assumptions may well prove incorrect.

To my mind this suggests there needs to be some way for the user to tell the program exactly how this craft should be treated because you can`t code for that, maybe to keep the graphical styling KSP could use the space between stages in VAB and you could have a bar/button with icons maybe representing some conditions in it, you could click the bar then click a fuel tank and then set to `when empty` on the popup so you could tell the program that this staging will happen when that tank is empty. same for SRB. You could have a few possible choices on the popup menu depending on the part type, engines could trigger staging if started or stopped. Then you have all the possible combinations that are such a headache for the program to figure out defined by the user.

It could be saved with the .craft file maybe.

I think the staging section could have other things in it too which would help, Extra icons for passing information to the program, like for example if you want to make a craft that works like Apollo 11, To calculate Dv properly you`d need to know that the CM docks with the LM. You could have a dock icon and put it after the staging event. KSP knows what got staged off, just simulate it like it is connected by whichever two docking ports the user clicks on. Then the Dv calculation continues with the new craft. There could be an undock one too of course, just click on the docking port you want to keep for calculation. If you wanted to be fancy you could have an option that staging or undocking happens when a particular fuel tank has expended 1050Dv or 150 units of fuel or 25% of fuel left    I`m sure there are other things that would hopefully help reduce the complexity by getting the user to just tell the program.

Mainly I hope it might make the job easier.

I would hope this would not affect staging in flight, I see it more of a design tool than one for flight.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

I think the staging section could have other things in it too which would help, Extra icons for passing information to the program, like for example if you want to make a craft that works like Apollo 11, To calculate Dv properly you`d need to know that the CM docks with the LM. You could have a dock icon and put it after the staging event. KSP knows what got staged off, just simulate it like it is connected by whichever two docking ports the user clicks on. Then the Dv calculation continues with the new craft. There could be an undock one too of course, just click on the docking port you want to keep for calculation. If you wanted to be fancy you could have an option that staging or undocking happens when a particular fuel tank has expended 1050Dv or 150 units of fuel or 25% of fuel left    I`m sure there are other things that would hopefully help reduce the complexity by getting the user to just tell the program.

It could also serve as a reminder in flight. "Oh yeah I wanted to move that around before getting to Mun."

[Mr. Scruffy]

I am sort of wondering: Some mods do provide dv-readouts, right? I assume that most people are okay with the values those provide (fringe cases and all). So, where exactly is the problem? Why do modders mod? For profit? I dont think so. So which modder would not agree to have parts of his/her code implemented into the stock game, even if only for an honorary mention in the credits (and maybe say, a thousand bucks total, or whanot)?

And even if they do not agree - i might be wrong, but i was under the impression that any mod, for any game, can be acquired by the owner of the licence of that game, if they so choose, with or without agreement of the modder (i know it happenend for Silent Hunter 3, where they even sold mods as an expansion pack, afaik). Surely, that would be a sad course of action to take for squad, even if legal, and might alienate modders, but still.... where exactly is the problem with using existing code of mods in the stock game for dv-readouts?

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

I am sort of wondering: Some mods do provide dv-readouts, right? I assume that most people are okay with the values those provide (fringe cases and all). So, where exactly is the problem? Why do modders mod? For profit? I dont think so. So which modder would not agree to have parts of his/her code implemented into the stock game, even if only for an honorary mention in the credits (and maybe say, a thousand bucks total, or whanot)?

And even if they do not agree - i might be wrong, but i was under the impression that any mod, for any game, can be acquired by the owner of the licence of that game, if they so choose, with or without agreement of the modder (i know it happenend for Silent Hunter 3, where they even sold mods as an expansion pack, afaik). Surely, that would be a sad course of action to take for squad, even if legal, and might alienate modders, but still.... where exactly is the problem with using existing code of mods in the stock game for dv-readouts?

Every mod that gets incorporated into the game is one less mod I need to install. Well, most of the time I feel no need to install FAR since 1.0, but I still run Enhanced Navball even though some of it's been implemented into the game. And of course there are many around here who feel FAR is still necessary to enjoy the game.

I can't speak for modders, but one problem with getting permission is that with many mods you simply CANNOT get all the permission. Fro KER, for example, it was taken over at least once if not twice by totally different people, but the code wasn't rewritten. If Squad were to just take that code and use it, they'd need permission from every single person who added any code before they could implement it in their closed-source game.

And no, KSP mods are not the property of Squad and they cannot just take what they want. Nobody - Squad included - wants that. I can't speak for any other games but there is no such agreement here, implied or otherwise. Many mods specifically prohibit redistribution; see the recent kerfuffle when KerbalStuff closed.

[Stoney3K]

On 31/03/2016 at 2:56 PM, Norpo said:

Delta-V is in the game in the maneuver nodes, they made a simple explanation in the KSPedia, the "it's too complicated" argument doesn't really hold up. I think that adding a Delta-V readout would be very, very useful. If they don't want it making the game too easy, then I could see a readout improving as the VAB/SPH levels up, from level 1 not having one, period, level 2 having a less accurate version (accurate to within 500 m/s or so, perhaps?), and level 3 having the completely accurate one. The same goes for TWR. Of course, the player can always calculate it manually, making it so the player actually does know the Delta-V, then again, quadruple-checking everything eases 99% of the problems that most missions have.

I agree. In the VAB, you have all the information you need to calculate TWR and dV, but you still need to do so on a piece of paper.

The 'not wanting to run out of gas' problem is exactly what causes novice players to overbuild rockets with enormous TWR values and fuel tanks enough to circumnavigate the Kerbol system three times over, just to drop a lander on the Mün. Which in turn is a major cause of said rockets becoming uncontrollable.

When building spacecraft, less is more, but to do that, you need some information on where your lower bound of that 'less' is. Making your upper stages TOO light means you're gonna run out of gas in mid-mission, wasting game time, satisfaction and resources.

[Mr. Scruffy]

9 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Every mod that gets incorporated into the game is one less mod I need to install. Well, most of the time I feel no need to install FAR since 1.0, but I still run Enhanced Navball even though some of it's been implemented into the game. And of course there are many around here who feel FAR is still necessary to enjoy the game.

I can't speak for modders, but one problem with getting permission is that with many mods you simply CANNOT get all the permission. Fro KER, for example, it was taken over at least once if not twice by totally different people, but the code wasn't rewritten. If Squad were to just take that code and use it, they'd need permission from every single person who added any code before they could implement it in their closed-source game.

And no, KSP mods are not the property of Squad and they cannot just take what they want. Nobody - Squad included - wants that. I can't speak for any other games but there is no such agreement here, implied or otherwise. Many mods specifically prohibit redistribution; see the recent kerfuffle when KerbalStuff closed.

I can understand, that modders dont want their work cloned and thus their achievements ´stolen´ by other modders. OTOH, i think it´s a mistake by Squad to not have somesort of clause that at least implies permission for squad to implement any mod, totally or partially, into the stock game, provided the mod-devs do not specifically speak up against that. That at least would make such mods avaiable to them, whose devs went ´missing´ (and thus dont speak up either way - that would then imply ´permission granted´).

I am no modder. But i do respect their work. I can only guess the motivations behind it. I would tend to think, that the vast majority of modders do it, cause the things they are modding into the game, are things that they would have liked the base game to feature in the first place. Another might be to build a portfolio, enabling them to enter software developement professionally (or get a better job within it, if they already are pros). None of these would stand to reason against stock-implementation, as long as the modders´ work is officially acknowledged by squad.

Anyways - how about this: Say, squad wants a feature but doesnt really have the ressources to build it. Given all these great talents in the community, they could set up a competition, with the announcement specifically mentioning a prize and the right for Sqaud to implement the winning code (if there is one, that meets their quality standards - let the community test it) into the base game. The prizes could include a moderate monetary compensation, mention in the credits, free kerbal merchandise, immortalizing the modder(s) as kerbals, and establishing contacts to a professional studio to offer an entry into a programming career, for example. This way, the game would become partially developed by players for players and squad would, for some features, only act as an organizer.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Mr. Scruffy

[Kerbart]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

I can understand, that modders dont want their work cloned and thus their achievements ´stolen´ by other modders. OTOH, i think it´s a mistake by Squad to not have somesort of clause that at least implies permission for squad to implement any mod, totally or partially, into the stock game, provided the mod-devs do not specifically speak up against that. That at least would make such mods avaiable to them, whose devs went ´missing´ (and thus dont speak up either way - that would then imply ´permission granted´).

Your idea has merit, but if past events are an indication, I can already see the communal outrage over such a clause. “Squad just relaxing and reaping the modders'work while cashing fat checks,” and so on...

 

[John FX]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

I can understand, that modders dont want their work cloned and thus their achievements ´stolen´ by other modders. OTOH, i think it´s a mistake by Squad to not have somesort of clause that at least implies permission for squad to implement any mod, totally or partially, into the stock game, provided the mod-devs do not specifically speak up against that. That at least would make such mods avaiable to them, whose devs went ´missing´ (and thus dont speak up either way - that would then imply ´permission granted´).

I am no modder. But i do respect their work. I can only guess the motivations behind it. I would tend to think, that the vast majority of modders do it, cause the things they are modding into the game, are things that they would have liked the base game to feature in the first place. Another might be to build a portfolio, enabling them to enter software developement professionally (or get a better job within it, if they already are pros). None of these would stand to reason against stock-implementation, as long as the modders´ work is officially acknowledged by squad.

Anyways - how about this: Say, squad wants a feature but doesnt really have the ressources to build it. Given all these great talents in the community, they could set up a competition, with the announcement specifically mentioning a prize and the right for Sqaud to implement the winning code (if there is one, that meets their quality standards - let the community test it) into the base game. The prizes could include a moderate monetary compensation, mention in the credits, free kerbal merchandise, immortalizing the modder(s) as kerbals, and establishing contacts to a professional studio to offer an entry into a programming career, for example. This way, the game would become partially developed by players for players and squad would, for some features, only act as an organizer.

There is nothing stopping SQUAD from implementing a feature, in the same way that there is nothing stopping you learning to paint and copying a famous painting. What you do not have however well you paint is the right to use the original painting, or in this case the specific original code. That is someone else`s property. It`s that simple.

If it is the wish of the mod maker there is nothing stopping them making such a clause in their own license. At the end of the day though they still own their own ideas and have the choice whether others use them. There are laws in place to ensure the original mod maker won`t have their property used without their permission, the same laws that stop you using squads code for your own projects no matter how handy it would be to do so.

Regarding your last point, that has sort of happened already. The competition area was the modding subforum, the judges were all the users and squad and the winners have been taken into the fold by Squad and are now squad staff.

[Mr. Scruffy]

Have there been specific mod-requests made by squad, along with prizes for and the explicit a-priory acquisition of the winning mod by squad?

Regardless: The difference in simply allowing mods and picking what you like (and then having to beg the makers for their permission to implement it in stock) to purposefully and selectively requesting specific mods for a given prize seems like the difference between hunters&gatherers and farmers&ranchers, to me.

And i am still struggling to understand, why any modder would be reluctant to have the honor of stock-implementation be bestowed upon them, given squad acts fairly towards them and gives due acknowledgement (and maybe some compensation). Okay, maybe some are aiming for a job at squad. OTOH, if your mod gets chosen to wear the seal of approval to become stock, you can apply -i´d imagine- pretty much anywhere to get a job as a pro, in whatever specific field your mod was designed in (e.g. graphics design, physics mechanics, whatdoiknow?). I am genuinely interested in the reasons why modders would not want their work become officially pro-grade (pun intended).  

[Padishar]

The licensing issue isn't actually that relevant in this case and, in any case, isn't about the modders not giving permission, it is about them not being around to ask.

Squad would be foolish to integrate any mod solution for this directly into the game as it is fundamentally tied to how the resource flow mechanisms work and the plan is that this area will be having a (hopefully substantial) rework for the next version (after 1.1).  The mod implementations also have to jump through various hoops that a stock implementation probably wouldn't need to.

I had hoped that @NathanKell's post on the previous page would basically kill this thread but it seems not...

[Mr. Scruffy]

Well, why let a thread die, even if the original question has been answered pretty much, when you can use the opportunity to stroll off on a tangent?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

21 minutes ago, Padishar said:

I had hoped that @NathanKell's post on the previous page would basically kill this thread but it seems not...

While @NathanKell's post was informative and I'm glad to know Squad hasn't abandoned the idea of a stock DV/TWR readout it certainly doesn't preclude continued discussion of what form it will take and when it might happen.

That said, perhaps the OP could be edited to include his response so that newcomers don't retread already covered ground?

20 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

Well, why let a thread die, even if the original question has been answered pretty much, when you can use the opportunity to stroll off on a tangent?

Exactly, sometimes I think were a little too strict around here about the correct place for this and that, staying on topic, etc... I mean I assume we all come here because we like to discuss KSP with other people, as long as everyone is being polite and getting along...I can't see the harm in a few tangents!

[jwenting]

On 3/31/2016 at 6:32 PM, Hcube said:

I don't understand how we can have a ∆v readout for manoeuver nodes and kspedia explaining what it is, and yet we can't know how much delta V our ship has. It makes literally no sense to me

 

This! In earlier versions it was somewhat explainable that there was no Dv readout, maybe. Since the introduction of the KSPedia in 1.1, no longer.

 

[John FX]

42 minutes ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

Well, why let a thread die, even if the original question has been answered pretty much, when you can use the opportunity to stroll off on a tangent?

Because the tangent you want to pursue has already been addressed and yet you continue. You should feel free to discuss a possible Dv display and what you would like it to contain but the discussion about getting squad to do things it is already doing or can`t do seems a bit pointless. Asking questions that are already answered seems a bit pointless too.

Edited April 5, 2016 by John FX

[Padishar]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

3 hours ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

Well, why let a thread die, even if the original question has been answered pretty much, when you can use the opportunity to stroll off on a tangent?

Because the tangent you want to pursue has already been addressed and yet you continue.

Firstly, there is no "pretty much" about it.  The original topic of this thread has been clearly shown to be false, Squad do want to provide this feature.  Even if you add "yet" to the end, it has still been clearly answered.

Besides which, to "stroll of on a tangent" is explicitly prohibited by the forum rules...

2 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Exactly, sometimes I think were a little too strict around here about the correct place for this and that, staying on topic, etc... I mean I assume we all come here because we like to discuss KSP with other people, as long as everyone is being polite and getting along...I can't see the harm in a few tangents!

Surely you can see the benefits in discussing things in the expected place.  When someone from Squad goes to look for reasonable discussion about this feature they really don't want to be scouring through every thread on the forum that mentions deltaV on the off chance that some off-topic remark made a good point.  While this thread is, admittedly, in the correct sub-forum for such a discussion, it isn't what this thread is supposed to be about and, so far, very little in this thread hasn't been discussed back and forth numerous times in other threads before, most of it is just noise.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Padishar
typo

[sarbian]

2 hours ago, Padishar said:

the plan is that this area will be having a (hopefully substantial) rework for the next version (after 1.1).  The mod implementations also have to jump through various hoops that a stock implementation probably wouldn't need to.

Crap, I had managed to forget about that. Thanks for bringing the nightmare back Padishar !!!! 

[Wjolcz]

I have a feeling this whole dV storm is going to influence the next update in a major way...

[Tatonf]

18 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I have a feeling this whole dV storm is going to influence the next update in a major way...

Bwarf. Not even. I'm sure they're gonna spend the next 6 months after the 1.1 release at working on implementing the com system that should have come with the 1.1.

[cantab]

22 hours ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

I am sort of wondering: Some mods do provide dv-readouts, right? I assume that most people are okay with the values those provide (fringe cases and all). So, where exactly is the problem? Why do modders mod? For profit? I dont think so. So which modder would not agree to have parts of his/her code implemented into the stock game, even if only for an honorary mention in the credits (and maybe say, a thousand bucks total, or whanot)?

And even if they do not agree - i might be wrong, but i was under the impression that any mod, for any game, can be acquired by the owner of the licence of that game, if they so choose, with or without agreement of the modder (i know it happenend for Silent Hunter 3, where they even sold mods as an expansion pack, afaik). Surely, that would be a sad course of action to take for squad, even if legal, and might alienate modders, but still.... where exactly is the problem with using existing code of mods in the stock game for dv-readouts?

There are many potentially problematic situations. For example:

Alice is the current maintainer of a mod, but Bob and Carol have in the past contributed code to it, and retained their copyright over their own code. Alice is not free to relicense the code Bob and Carol contributed. Making matters worse, nobody is able to get in touch with Carol any more.

Dylan wrote a mod for KSP, but used some code that Eve wrote and released under a "copyleft" license (such as the GPL). Eve has never bought KSP or had any other dealings with Squad. Whatever terms Squad may try to impose on Dylan, they cannot get the right to take Eve's code without her permission.

Fred wrote a mod for KSP and everything looks above board. Squad, thinking they have legal authority, include Frank's mod in their game. Then it turns out that Fred used some code George wrote and released on the web, and that code is now part of KSP without George having given permission. George sues Squad for damages. Worse, Fred also used code that Harry released under the GPL. Harry also sues Squad, but Harry is additionally demanding that Squad comply with the GPL by releasing the full source code of KSP.

Now I'm not saying that George or Harry would necessarily win their lawsuits, but hopefully I've given some idea of some of the pitfalls in Squad just taking mods and making them stock.

[Hysterrics]

I like to think that it's because it's meant for you to do that on your own. They are trying to keep the game mostly pure it seems, and leave mods to do these kind of things.

 

[boxley]

playing the new 1.1 pre release and messing about with the physics, I realize how much im relying on looking at data, and how much stock completely lacks any physics or performance or even a thrust to weight indicator. I do wonder why it isn't a stock part of ksp, cuz without it, I just don't feel confident launching things ya know? cant instantly test the range of small rockets or anything.

[Superfluous J]

To answer your subject line: No.

(Note: This was a reply to a different post and doesn't make sense anymore now that they've been merged. They were merged, incidentally, for exactly the reason I made the post. The subject line of the post I replied to was "Am I the only one who wants a dV readout?" or something like that.)

Edited April 6, 2016 by 5thHorseman