Devnotes Tuesday: Two sprints down, one to go!

[HafCoJoe]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Only the wheels, at least that's how I read it.

Hmm - I think it's available for other parts as well, though I don't know which:

 

18 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Nathanael (Nathankell) implemented an Advanced Tweakables settings option in Gameplay settings. This allows us to expose various advanced tweakable options (like setting tank priority, the existing actuation toggles for RCS and gimbals, the safe-deploy option for parachutes, and the like). In addition he refactored the wheel auto-strutting to be available for other parts, again leaving the option hidden unless Advanced Tweakables are turned on.

I'm not sure though - this could be a tool for modders to add auto strutting to their parts, or it could be something that's now a hidden stock feature that's on all/many parts. @NathanKell? Double ping sorry  Really curious about this though

Edited August 3, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Hmm - I think it's available for other parts as well, though I don't know which:

 

I'm not sure though - this could be a tool for modders to add auto strutting to their parts, or it could be something that's now a hidden stock feature that's on all/many parts.

Yeah, I'm not sure either.  Initially when I saw that, I thought it was just so that it could be used, if they wanted it to.  Kind of like the staging control, I have module manager scripts to enable it on all parts that are stageable parts, not just the decouplers.  However, in stock it's pretty much only decouplers/docking ports.  That's kind of what I thought this was, just a univeral implementation that could be enabled, but now I'm not so sure.  I guess Arsonide would have to clarify.

[AlphaMensae]

1 hour ago, Majorjim! said:

I agree with that, that adding a wheel to make it work is very silly indeed. I was just not clear on it's operation. I guess that makes sense, I will have to wait to see it in action I guess, thanks all for the replies to my inane questions.

Here's a VOD of EJ_SA testing out the MuddrTech version of auto-strutting, including how it still works by redocking something with a wheel to another craft. He repeats the test a few minutes after this one ends.

If you read the chat (and also @Claw, @NathanKell, @Arsonide), I'm AlphaMensae on Twitch.

I call this "KJR-Lite" since when it was brought up on a Squadcast, @Mu said that @ferram4would understand what was involved in implementing the auto-strutting since he had to deal with similiar issues with KJR.  So while it's not full-up KJR, it does appear to use the same basic principle. KJR affects everything on a craft, while auto-strutting can be targetted to affect only certain parts, e.g. putting a gear (or other part in 1.2) at the end of a string of lighter parts with a more massive part at the other end makes that whole particular section of parts strong.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Laguna

[Majorjim!]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

Your right, that is also completely magic and I'd love to see those factories too.  Are you offering to do this?    The lack of factories and other buildings and magic communications are two separate issues, at least in my mind.  They are both issues but the communications are what the specific topic is about, so I didn't see fit to mention the buildings.

You would expect incorrectly.  Have you not seen the repeated requests to make planets more interesting?  Kerbin is a planet in the game, it counts too.

Agreed, more things to visit on planets is sorely needed! 

[RoverDude]

1 hour ago, RocketSquid said:

So, hold on... If you have telemetry enabled, do antennae have maximum range? If so, is a connection necessary to maintain control of probes?

Yes they do.  And a connection is required to maintain full control.  Control is degraded if you lose connection, but your probe is never 'bricked' (unless you run out of EC).

10 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Agreed, more things to visit on planets is sorely needed! 

Sure, but not within the context of the antenna feature.  Within that context, multiple ground station points are simply not worth the cost and added complexity.  And if you disagree with that design decision, you can always mod it, given the new system is very open to extension and tweaking.

[Majorjim!]

8 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Yes they do.  And a connection is required to maintain full control.  Control is degraded if you lose connection, but your probe is never 'bricked' (unless you run out of EC).

Sure, but not within the context of the antenna feature.  Within that context, multiple ground station points are simply not worth the cost and added complexity.  And if you disagree with that design decision, you can always mod it, given the new system is very open to extension and tweaking.

I think it was just seen as a good opportunity to add more interesting things to visit on Kerbin. Imagine having to periodically visit the sites to maintain them. That would be awesome! 

[HafCoJoe]

28 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Sure, but not within the context of the antenna feature.  Within that context, multiple ground station points are simply not worth the cost and added complexity.  And if you disagree with that design decision, you can always mod it, given the new system is very open to extension and tweaking.

Hmm... would it be possible to make stock antennas have to point a certain direction for them to connect?

 

18 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I think it was just seen as a good opportunity to add more interesting things to visit on Kerbin. Imagine having to periodically visit the sites to maintain them. That would be awesome! 

Brainstorming... you could probably make a mod that has you send out comm stations and then have them periodically break and give you contracts to fix them? @nightingale?

Edited August 3, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[RoverDude]

7 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I think it was just seen as a good opportunity to add more interesting things to visit on Kerbin. Imagine having to periodically visit the sites to maintain them. That would be awesome! 

To varying definitions of awesome.  i.e. some people would find having to do missions on Kerbin to fiddle with a satellite dish downright annoying.  In my opinion (as the fellow who designed the feature), it would have not been time (not to mention RAM / CPU cycles) well spent.  As noted, if this is something you disagree with, it is moddable.  

And that's the tough part.  Everyone has their pet features or things they would like to add - and if everyone got their heart's desire, the game would (a) be unplayable, and (b) said desires would end up overlapping in a way that was not desirable for other players.  So we make choices that make sense in relation to the entire player base, and leave in hooks where we can so that folks can tweak / adjust as they see fit.

6 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Hmm... would it be possible to make stock antennas have to point a certain direction for them to connect?

The stock ones do not do this.  Anything is possible, but this has its own set of issues / considerations, and the design choice was to make everything omnidirectional.

Edited August 3, 2016 by RoverDude

[Majorjim!]

12 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

To varying definitions of awesome.  i.e. some people would find having to do missions on Kerbin to fiddle with a satellite dish downright annoying.  In my opinion (as the fellow who designed the feature), it would have not been time (not to mention RAM / CPU cycles) well spent.  As noted, if this is something you disagree with, it is moddable.  

And that's the tough part.  Everyone has their pet features or things they would like to add - and if everyone got their heart's desire, the game would (a) be unplayable, and (b) said desires would end up overlapping in a way that was not desirable for other players.  So we make choices that make sense in relation to the entire player base, and leave in hooks where we can so that folks can tweak / adjust as they see fit.

The stock ones do not do this.  Anything is possible, but this has its own set of issues / considerations, and the design choice was to make everything omnidirectional.

I think we can all agree that planets including kerbin of course desperately need more things to visit. And as I said, the stations or telemetry was just seen as a good excuse to add something. I fail to see how a few extra buildings around Kerbin would take up CPU cycles to the extent that you discount them for it. 

 I really fear planets will never get the attention they deserve..

[RoverDude]

3 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I think we can all agree that planets including kerbin of course desperately need more things to visit.

I would never assume that for 100% of the playerbase tho.  And as noted, it did not make sense in the context of this feature.  

And to append, and speaking purely theoretically, I would rather have more things to *do* instead of having more things to *see*.  You get a lot more replayability and use out of the former vs. the latter.

 

Edited August 3, 2016 by RoverDude

[HafCoJoe]

19 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I would never assume that for 100% of the playerbase tho.  And as noted, it did not make sense in the context of this feature.  

:/ I'd assume it for the player base that plans on "finishing" the game. One of the main reasons people leave KSP is because they  run out of things and get bored. Bugs too but that's a different . It'ss why I took half a year of leave - I ran out of things to do. Making planets more interesting is a sure fire way to keep people playing. The comms are fantastic and realistic (semi) and all the other jazz, but they are a new feature in the same way that science mode became a new feature. It doesn't add anything new - it limits what you can do. It makes it take more parts, time, and resources, and caution to do the same things you could do before. Don't get me wrong - the comms are fantastic and I greatly look forwards to using them  - Now that space travel is flushed out with a new system, I wish that surface life could become more interesting.

*edited a bit

*edited a bit more

Edited August 3, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[RoverDude]

Probably not a good assumption then

Also - there's a clear difference between 'something new to do' and 'a point on the globe you will probably never visit because it's a pain to get to, and you will likely only ever go there once - maybe twice'.

 

In any case, I think this horse is beat to death at this point, and the original question was answered.

[HafCoJoe]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Probably not a good assumption then

Also - there's a clear difference between 'something new to do' and 'a point on the globe you will probably never visit because it's a pain to get to, and you will likely only ever go there once - maybe twice'.

 

In any case, I think this horse is beat to death at this point, and the original question was answered.

Yeah I'll have to agree with you that new contracts aren't the answer to boring planets (I don't much enjoy contracts myself though) - something like weather or volcanoes? I'll let my musing trail off here though...

Edited August 3, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[regex]

23 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I think we can all agree that planets including kerbin of course desperately need more things to visit.

No, I don't agree.  We need more planets.

[HafCoJoe]

Just now, regex said:

No, I don't agree.  We need more planets.

New places to visit is also something that will keep people playing  - New places or things.

[cfds]

10 hours ago, RoverDude said:

There will not be.

So the best case scenario is still "does not break RemoteTech"?

[nightingale]

41 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

Brainstorming... you could probably make a mod that has you send out comm stations and then have them periodically break and give you contracts to fix them? @nightingale?

Certainly would be possible, although that contract pretty much already exists in @severedsolo's Clever Sats (minus the telemetry stuff).  I can't say for sure what the support in Contract Configurator for the telemetry feature will be until I've started to play with it, but I'll likely add some level of integration.

[regex]

Just now, Avera9eJoe said:

New places to visit is also something that will keep people playing  - New places or things.

New planets are far more interesting in terms of gameplay than a single spot on an existing planet.  And I have yet to see a suggestion for "more things to do on a planet" that hits all playstyles (and not just "sandbox/science/career" but also "I find surface bases and mining stupidly boring to deal with" and such).

[RoverDude]

1 minute ago, cfds said:

So the best case scenario is still "does not break RemoteTech"?

The best case scenario is players enjoy a new feature to stock.

[Alshain]

Well that's confusing, does that mean it will break RemoteTech?  I mean, its assumed a good thing that some players would enjoy any new feature, but it's even better if those players can enjoy it AND it doesn't break RemoteTech for the players who want more, which would be a best case scenario... unless it is going to prevent RemoteTech from functioning.

[regex]

4 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Well that's confusing, does that mean it will break RemoteTech?  I mean, its assumed a good thing that some players would enjoy any new feature, but it's even better if those players can enjoy it AND it doesn't break RemoteTech for the players who want more, which would be a best case scenario... unless it is going to prevent RemoteTech from functioning.

If you can turn the feature off how will it affect RemoteTech?

Given Squad's history of accommodating mod authors (FAR, for instance), I see no reason to believe RemoteTech would be affected in the slightest.  You'll just need to turn off the stock feature.

[Alshain]

Just now, regex said:

If you can turn the feature off how will it affect RemoteTech?

Given Squad's history of accommodating mod authors (FAR, for instance), I see no reason to believe RemoteTech would be affected in the slightest.  You'll just need to turn off the stock feature.

I know, but that was just strange the way he said that.  I didn't think it would affect RemoteTech until just now.

[Majorjim!]

26 minutes ago, regex said:

No, I don't agree.  We need more planets.

Indeed we don't agree. ;-)

[HafCoJoe]

57 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I think we can all agree that planets including kerbin of course desperately need more things to visit.

 

33 minutes ago, regex said:

No, I don't agree.  We need more planets.

 

And thus a new rivalry was born

Edited August 3, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

D: And thus a new rivalry was born

Nah, this argument has been going on forever.  "I think we can all agree" is what I took issue with because clearly we don't all agree.