Devnote Tuesday: I ain't getting on no plane!

[Laie]

11 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Riight I see, you can mark a spot on the surface without a part being there. Got ya. Thanks for the explanation.

Not only that, but from the look of it it's the same as for "explore at coordinates x,y" contracts; that is, you can set it as target and get it's heading on your navball.

[Icemanau]

I have yet to hear of an autopilot that has the ability to reset things in the physical world or be able to think creatively in an emergency...

You know, things like those pesky circuit breakers that control the power going to the autopilot or switches that are required to be manually operated for safety reasons. The autopilot was designed to do one thing and one thing only, that one thing is to fly the plane/spacecraft along a predetermined path to the destination at the designated speed.

It can't think that "Oh the engine is one fire, I have to land at the nearest airport" or "that storm is looking rather severe, I will have to change course to go around it". That is why we still have pilots in this day and age, to deal with the unexpected and emergency situations. It also allows the pilot to relax and do other things while in the air rather than concentrating on flying the aircraft 100% of the time they are in the air. After all, you just can't pull over to take a leak or get a snack while in the air. They also can't deal Take Offs and Landings, they are still the performed by the pilot due to the number of decisions to be made during each task. A pilot can feel an unusual vibration that an autopilot doesn't and can abort the take off or landing, or can see something on the runway further ahead than the best sensors can pick up with any sort of clarity at the speeds they are going at.

If they ever build an airliner without provision for manual flight control via a pilot, I guarantee that I will never fly on it and will do my best to convince family and friends not to either.

As for the Autonomous cars, they still require a person sitting in the drivers seat with their hands on the wheel at all times. In an emergency, the driver is still expected to take control and deal with said emergency. The emergency could be any number of things that crop up in day to day driving, like a kid or animal running out in front of the car, a flat tyre or the bridge/road collapsing in front of the car.

Same with the autopilots on ships, they still require a helmsman ON DUTY at all times while the ship is under way. Again, it is to deal with the unexpected and emergencies.

As for changing a wheel on any of the Mars rovers, do you know how to remove/install bearings, remove a motor from it's housing and pull any drive gear from it's shaft?

That's the sort of construction used on the wheels of the Mars rovers. Not a simple set of nuts which will allow the wheel to be easily pulled off. They are generally fitted directly to the individual motor shafts and require some serious hardware to remove in a decent amount of time. Most of the wheel failure on the Mars rovers are due to dust getting into the sealed bearings and damaging the bearings to the point that they jam. Not a 10 minute job with a lug wrench to fix. Then again, there wouldn't be much call to change a tyre on a rover as very few of them have pneumatic tyres.

Most probes are designed to be as rugged as possible which negates the 'Ease of repair' philosophy used in the commercial transport industry especially for items like wheels with pneumatic tyres.

Regards

[Broco]

On 10.8.2016 at 1:07 AM, SQUAD said:

Kerbnet is essentially software that will reside on all probe cores

I just wet myself a little, especially that they are available everywhere. This is exactly what I needed for my EVE landing. Because of my graphic mods I couldn't see the surface from space because of clouds and I missed some great landing sites (making my landing harder than it needed to be). This is basically one of the key features I missed in KSP, thank you so much guys.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

No, that's not how it works.  The dreadful class system functions the same way in all types of game.  The only difference with sandbox is, all Kerbals start with 5 starts. But still only pilots can use SAS, still only scientists can reset Goo, and still only engineers can fix flats.

Unless we're playing a different game (not being funny here; I do have a ton of mods), in sandbox and science modes all Kerbals can fix tyres and use SAS. Plus all probe cores have full SAS. Otherwise it is the same as career though.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Guest

[Terwin]

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Nope.  Pilots are trained to turn SAS off and on.  Period.  The other Kerbals can do everything else.  Or at least they can now, before this horrible, terrible idea of allowing pilots to monopolize even more flight controls comes out in the next update.  This is NOT making pilots more useful, it's making them into even more parasitic ballast than they already are.

You do know why we're moving to autonomous cars, right?  And why airlines and trains and even ships are on autopilot nearly all the time, right?  It's because machines control vehicles much better than people do.  The Skylon doesn't even have a cockpit.  The whole idea of pilots being a vital part of a space program is decidedly obsolete.

Unless you have a probe core, SAS *IS* the pilot taking control and doing what you asked instead of you being in direct control.

Autopilot is *great* for a pre-defined path with a limited number of unknowns and the ability to call upon a human if things go wrong.

 In general, exploration is not a place where you have limited unknowns and a well-defined path.  

 

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Nope, I don't.  They are a new-fangled invention contemporary with the introduction of the class system, in a poorly conceived attempt to give pilots some reason to exist as a class.  I learned to play KSP without them.  Besides, the point-to-whatever system is so poorly implemented that you still have to point the ship that way yourself.  If you try to let it point the ship there itself, it overshoots by a mile, reverses, overshioots by 3/4 mile, repeat for 5 minutes, so takes forever to settle down, assuming this happens before you run out of RCS.  Now, the system has improved slightly on this over time, and I hear more improvements are coming.  But the system is unnecessary to start with, and doesn't work anyway, so it's just a waste of system resources.

I find them to be quite useful, but if you never take advantage of any of the benefits of having a pilot on board, I can see why you do not care for them.

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

No, that's not how it works.  The dreadful class system functions the same way in all types of game.  The only difference with sandbox is, all Kerbals start with 5 starts.  But still only pilots can use SAS, still only scientists can reset Goo, and still only engineers can fix flats.

Have you actually tried it?  Last time I checked, all Kerbals in my sandbox game had the 5 star abilities of every class.

And according to @String Witch this is the same in Science mode(I have not used science mode much).

16 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

And you know what?  The thing I hate the most about the whole class system is that you can't totally mod it out of existence, nor create your own classes, or omnipotent Kerbals.  Have you ever looked at the Traits.cfg file?  It defines class names, which have various skills associated with them.  So you think, no problem, I'll just give all Kerbals all the skills.  But sadly it doesn't work that way.  Some things in the game, such as resetting Goo or using KIS to build stuff, key off the class name instead of the presence or absence of a skill.  Why?

If things changed so that class name was NOT used to decide which Kerbal could do what, but instead the check was for applicable skill, then I'd find the existing class system more tolerable, because I could effectively eliminate it.  Or modify it as I saw fit.  So rather than making a bad system even worse with the changes to pilot skills, just make the system fully moddable so everybody can be happy.

So, try science mode or sandbox, those have no cost for hiring Kerbals and they are all omni-capable.

15 hours ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

Am I the only one who likes Kerbal classes? It's an interesting logistical challenge that adds a bit more challenge. Admittedly I use the field experience mod- allowing Kerbals to level up while on a mission seems to me to be a good next step- one way to make it work is to only allow Kerbals that are in a vessel that is connected to KSC via the new comm network to level up.

I quite like the class system myself.

[Jovus]

I must be weird, but if we're talking about systems that we don't like and wish were changed/overhauled/completely rethought, the class system isn't top of my list. Top of my list is the contract system.

 

I want it gone, and in its place some kind of funding management where we promise goals and are rated on the completion of those goals. Where we're still limited by funds, but we don't have to go do inane things we don't want to and we aren't penalized for doing things we do want to.

 

(Then the class system.)

 

But before all of that, these optimization and bugfixing passes. Ultimately, if none of the above ever gets addressed, and KSP runs like a dream, I'll be happy.

[Jovus]

Actually, to build on that...

That's one of the things that might (properly managed) make multiplayer really fun rather than just KSP with a chat system attached. You bid for 'contracts' - by which I mean not the current system, but something more like winning a DoD contract of 'develop a new launcher' or 'go to the Mun' or 'set up a Minmus base capable of XYZ and its support satellites'. The contract has a rough guideline of how much the offering agency is willing to spend; whoever puts in the lowest bid gets the contract. Penalties for failing to provide according to the terms of the contract in the time provided are severe. Reputation is a factor as well; some agencies are willing to accept a somewhat-higher bid in order to go with a space program with a higher reputation.

Failure of a contract involves both financial and reputational penalties.

In single-player, the competition would probably be stripped out, with perhaps agencies offering less to start with to compensate for the downward pressure of multiplayer competition. Or not.

All of this is a very rough idea and would need a lot of fleshing out before I'd say 'this is a good thing', but the idea intrigues me.

Then again, it's pretty off-topic here.

[StahnAileron]

Regarding pilots: considering the changes done to correct the SAS system so it's monolithic and more stable and not as "loose" is it is now, perhaps the gameplay for Pilot level would be how well they actually maneuver when SAS is engaged. Low level is a bit wobbly (difficulty keeping on target) and a tendency to over- and undershoot. Higher level are smoother and more precise. (I'd like to say let this bleed over into manual control as well when you have a Kerbal Pilot onboard, but that'll liquid off players, me included.)

If they ever implement on-rails maneuver node execution (because I hate having to micro manage every phase of a flight in the late game), pilot levels could affect accuracy/precision/efficiency of those maneuvers. Probe cores would rside in the middle (better than a low level pilot, but not as good as an experienced pilot). Also, with a comm system, perhaps lag time for maneuvers in probes. (So maneuvers far from Kerbin need planning; real-time control is not fully reliable.)

Yeah, more idea for "patching" the pilot classes, but I like to think my ideas have (arguable) more substance to them for consideration in the future than the current system. I'm still of the mind that by "late-/endgame", I should be mostly (macro-)managing and directing the Space Program overall rather than micromanaging every action and event.

[KerbMav]

The most annoying part of the class system is the weird way to gain levels - followed by the lack of a 1.5m two-kerbal capsule.

For me at least.

[FlyingCola]

What? So basically Remote tech is being implemented in the game?

[Bombaatu]

34 minutes ago, KerbMav said:

The most annoying part of the class system is the weird way to gain levels - followed by the lack of a 1.5m two-kerbal capsule.

For me at least.

There are two mods that can take of this. The first is Field Experience (don't have to land on Kerbin to gain the experience) and the second is the K2 Command Pod.

 

Also, Mark One Laboratory Extensions (or MOLE) has an extension to the Mk1 Pod that adds a second seat, while increasing the diameter to 1.875m. It also has the 2-Kerbal "Brumby" pod (also 1.875) that emulates the Gemini capsule.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Bombaatu

[Alshain]

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

And if I recall, this never made anybody angry.

Well if you are expecting the impossible, then the game shouldn't have been made.

42 minutes ago, FlyingCola said:

What? So basically Remote tech is being implemented in the game?

No.  A slightly more in depth AntennaRange is being implemented in the game.  It's no where near the level of RemoteTech.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Alshain

[HvP]

8 hours ago, Icemanau said:

I have yet to hear of an autopilot that has the ability to reset things in the physical world or be able to think creatively in an emergency...

You know, things like those pesky circuit breakers that control the power going to the autopilot or switches that are required to be manually operated for safety reasons. The autopilot was designed to do one thing and one thing only, that one thing is to fly the plane/spacecraft along a predetermined path to the destination at the designated speed...

Agreed. Consider Armstrong in Gemini 8 when the RCS system went haywire and threw them into an uncontrolled tumble. Or Armstrong again in Apollo 11 when he had to take manual control from the guidance system that was putting them down into a field of boulders. Or the geology training for the Apollo 15 crews and later that allowed them to search for primordial lunar material in context. Or the EVA mission that successfully repaired the Hubble telescope, turning it from one of the biggest mistakes in engineering to one of the greatest accomplishments.

It seems to me that piloting, scientific, and engineering skill sets are well represented in the real life history of space exploration. I will certainly admit that our space program tends to train the astronauts in all of these disciplines simultaneously, mostly due to limited space and cost for additional crew. But with the operation of the ISS it has been much more common to compartmentalize the skill sets of payload specialists depending on the exact nature of the work being done.

[Curveball Anders]

14 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

And if I recall, this never made anybody angry.

No?
Link to, nah , the broken_workflow.png is too old ...

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 11/08/2016 at 1:11 AM, NathanKell said:

Nope, none of these things. It means vessel.angularVelocity (a value that is used by our PID, and by many mods), which reports vessel angular velocity (note, doesn't set, reports), which currently just reports the angular velocity of the root part, will now report the mass-weighted average of the angular velocities of the parts. (I.e. vessel.angularVelocity = sum[For each part](part.angularVelocity * part.mass / vessel.mass). Again, this is merely reporting, obviously the physics engine is doing the actual integration.

@Boris-Barboris talked about this a while ago and should be rather happy with this change.

Does SAS use this value?  If so, woop!!!   :-) 

[DaMachinator]

On 8/10/2016 at 5:44 PM, kiwi1960 said:

OK, a question..... Antenna ranges.... not that I care much either way, now... but what happens when you send a probe to the Mun (which isn't that far away FOR MY POINT TO BE MADE)..... and it ends on the other side of the Mun.... will there be a signal blackout?

I ask this question because if there will be signal blackouts, then I can see people having to have at least four com-sats orbiting each planet and moon JUST to prevent black outs...

Unless of course.... you just go with the flow and don't care about losing contact with a horny Jeb all alone in a capsule with that gorgeous Valentina.....

 

You can do it with three commsats. You can do connections in between planets with two commsats around each planet. You can do better connections with two sats in an orbit of every body possible to minimize the chance of signal loss due to another body getting in the way.

For a properly done omni commsat constellation, the area of continuous uninterrupted coverage will be a torus. In most cases (all cases if the constellation has a continuous connection to KSP) it will be a torus that intersects itself in the middle.

[DaMachinator]

21 hours ago, Terwin said:

Unless you have a probe core, SAS *IS* the pilot taking control and doing what you asked instead of you being in direct control.

Autopilot is *great* for a pre-defined path with a limited number of unknowns and the ability to call upon a human if things go wrong.

It so happens space travel involves predefined paths with a limited number of unknowns. The paths are determined by the most efficient possible path within a time constraint, and with some simplifications, can be precalculated rather trivially. In KSP, things go wrong for three reasons, unless you play with mods like DangIt that make stuff fail randomly:

• User error (It's time for a redesign.)
• Game bugs (Hold F9 to load latest quicksave.)
• Insufficient precision (Correction burns or quickloading, largely avoided by a good autopilot.)

21 hours ago, Terwin said:

I find them to be quite useful, but if you never take advantage of any of the benefits of having a pilot on board, I can see why you do not care for them

What benefits? The only thing pilots are useful for is flying aircraft. Unless you're good enough at aircraft design to not need SAS.

The only class with a benefit in my personal experience is the scientist, who saves a complete set of experiments and sensors (or more than one - up to 4 sets for interplanetary missions where the target body has an atmosphere) in weight and space.

Additionally, once some of the space center buildings (Either Tracking Station or Mission Control or possibly both) are upgraded, all vessels have complete SAS functionality with any control module available, making pilots really and truly useless.

Not that they weren't already because...

@lazyglobal off.

clearscreen.

print "Initializing guidance systems.".

run once maneuverlib.

SAS off.

lock throttle to 1.0.

local steer is up.

lock steering to steer.

print "Initialization complete. Beginning countdown.".

from {local ttl is 10.} UNTIL ttl = 0 STEP {set ttl to ttl-1.} DO {
  print ttl.
}

stage.

set steer to heading(90,75).

...is better than any pilot will ever be.

[Frank_G]

Awesome. Kerbnet looks great and it was so needed for good stock mission planning.

[Wallygator]

On 10 August 2016 at 4:11 PM, Pthigrivi said:

We've discussed this before and there are some problems with this--primarily grind. If you link experience to tasks like repairing things and conducting experiments players will end up repetitively breaking and repairing wheels and conducting menial experiments at KSC. Its one of those things that sounds intuitive but actually leads to some really dull gameplay. I don't have any problem with gaining experience from exploration. Its just an abstraction, and at the very least rewards players for getting out there and really playing the game rather than fussing about with tasks that aren't central to it. Im not saying such a system couldn't work, just that constructing it in such a way as to avoid repetitive ancillary tasks is more difficult than people realize.

You appear to equate training with grinding meaning the spending of time - a valid position, but not one i subscribe to. I equate training with a singular event prior to a mission meaning the spending of funds.  

In my mental model experience is what is paraded in front of the masses with ticker tape and presidential medals. Training is what allows a kerbal to flip a switch correctly.

KSP currently commingles these two concepts to the detriment of both.

EDIT: Also sorry to forget mentioning this but I really like the concept of Kerbnet - looking forward to seeing how it plays.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Wallygator

[something]

Kerbnet? Am I the only person who gets that s a Skynet reference? Don't program it. Don't use it or the machines take over after landing an ICBM in your garden...

[0111narwhalz]

55 minutes ago, something said:

Kerbnet? Am I the only person who gets that s a Skynet reference? Don't program it. Don't use it or the machines take over after landing an ICBM in your garden...

The fact that it will "reside on all probe cores" concerns me in this respect.

[NathanKell]

14 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Does SAS use this value?  If so, woop!!!   :-) 

To a limited extent yes, which is why I got around to making the change.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

30 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

To a limited extent yes, which is why I got around to making the change.

Awesome.  That should assist long wobbly rockets somewhat.

Or at least reduce the need to set a central part as the root.  And take away the guess work of which part would be a good choice.  All great news for those of us who build really large wobble rockets and constantly forget to set the root part.  :-)

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, something said:

Kerbnet? Am I the only person who gets that's a Skynet reference?

See page 4

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Slaghead]

Is there a list of bugs that are being worked on somewhere or do we have to wait for the update to come out to see the changelog?

I love the new features but I am having a dickens of a time dealing with the bugs that cause Kerbals to board a ship from EVA but their bodies not despawning.  And glitching clamp-o-trons that I have to edit the persistence file outside of the game to fix.  Tell me those are being worked on and I'll be happy.

IRT the class system, I don't hate it.  I don't like that you have to send Kerbals to the multiple other bodies in order to gain experience because I have had exactly 0 successful landing/return missions.  Yes, I am bad at the game maybe but that's a steep penalty.  I don't have a single Kerbal above level 2 and that was only barely and recently.  I am pretty sure I am not the only one who has difficulty moving Kerbals around.  If it's to force the player to other bodies in the solar system, the contract system already does that well enough IMO.  If people want to grind to max out Kerbals ASAP, then it would be a grind mechanic.  But for me, earning XP from simply performing their job (flying, sciencing, engineering) simply makes more sense and, at least for me, would be organic growth and I'd eventually have some higher level Kerbals.

/I have never completed the tech tree. I have gotten exactly 1 Kerbal to level 2.  I have gotten Kerbals to the Mun but have yet to develop a system that gets them back home.