Calvinball? More like Spherical Hydrogen Tank-Ball!

[mcwaffles2003]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:00 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Ongoing Work for the Science Roadmap Update

As our architecture-facing teams chase down critical bugs, the content-focused feature teams have continued to work on features for the Science update, which will introduce the first major suite of new features to KSP2 since the beginning of Early Access. While we don’t have anything to share yet on timing, the following areas have seen significant progress:

• An all-new Science collection and transmission system, along with the assignment of Science biomes to all Kerbolar celestial bodies
• A new Mission system that provides compelling player goals and tracks flight events to determine the achievement of those goals, along with the activation of the Mission Control building to access those functions
• New Science parts that are distinctive enough from one another that they provide interesting vehicle design choices to the player
• An all-new tech tree that provides an interesting part progression that will later expand to accommodate the arrival of future interstellar-grade and colony parts

So will collecting science have any value besides the novelty of doing an experiment, collecting points for a tech tree, and fulfilling a missions goals? More to the point, will doing science give us the players any useful data we can actually use and will we be able to reference any of this collected data for future reference?

 

Simulating, ya know, being a scientist  

Edited June 19, 2023 by mcwaffles2003

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So will collecting science have any value besides the novelty of doing an experiment, collecting points for a tech tree, and fulfilling a missions goals? More to the point, will doing science give us the players any useful data we can actually use and will we be able to reference any of this collected data for future reference?

I really, really hope it does…

[MechBFP]

15 hours ago, Yakez said:

Word of Goo my valves... Major chunk of KSP audience (40.5%) is 18-25 years old, I highly doubt that they were all early adopters of iPad1 and played that game like 13 years ago...

World of Goo has been on consoles and PC for ages lol. 

[Nicrose]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So will collecting science have any value besides the novelty of doing an experiment, collecting points for a tech tree, and fulfilling a missions goals? More to the point, will doing science give us the players any useful data we can actually use and will we be able to reference any of this collected data for future reference?

I think this is tough in a game since after doing the experiments once in a human lifetime, you forever know the values anyways so I think the tech tree is an analog for learning new science that allows kerbals to make better tech. Not to mention that in space there really aren’t any numbers that would be beneficial to anything in KSP. Radiation isn’t a thing, temperature doesn’t affect anything unless it gets too hot which doesn’t happen in space unless close to a sun, and magnetic fields aren’t in the game. I think it would be cool to have telescopes able to search the sky’s for distant stars to travel but that just seems like a time gate for players to have to wait for in order to continue playing which isn’t good game development in my opinion. 

On 6/17/2023 at 12:21 AM, Jarin said:

So what's the problem with the solution that the mod types had on like... day 2? Just upping joint strength x10 or more.  (not actually meant as a 'gotcha' here, I'm actually curious if there's a reason that solution isn't ideal)

I think the reason is because that’s a quick and dirty solution that doesn’t solve the critical underlying issue. While it could work for parts we have now, it can create issues down the road as well as cause unintended issues with other mechanics. 

[Alexoff]

7 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

I think the reason is because that’s a quick and dirty solution that doesn’t solve the critical underlying issue. While it could work for parts we have now, it can create issues down the road as well as cause unintended issues with other mechanics. 

On the other hand, the presence of this feature in the game greatly upset the players and significantly reduced their number.

[Sea_Kerman]

One example of science giving useful data is ScanSat, where in the process of doing the experiment you get a fairly useful set of maps for the planet, integrated nicely so no need to tab out into a wiki and copy coordinates and stuff.

Ooh, an idea I had: part testing experiments that give actually useful data on the part, like a series of engine test contracts that give science, and also the thrust-mach, thrust-altitude, thrust-isp, etc. graphs for that engine

Edited June 18, 2023 by Sea_Kerman

[LowSnow]

On 6/16/2023 at 8:00 PM, Nate Simpson said:

Once the update is live, we will reset the the Bug Reports subforum for new report submissions and re-assess our internal priority list based on both community feedback and our own internal testing. 

As a person working in a software development company who is especially involved in testing, I want to do a suggestion based on my own experience with a hard "reset" of bug reports. I had to learn the hard way that this is not the best option in terms of future improvements.

Instead of "resetting" I would advise to "close down" the v0.1.2.0 bug reports subforum (so no one can add new stuff, since that's irrelevant) and create a new v0.1.3.0 bug reports subforum. In this way, if there are bugs that have either:

- improved but not perfect

- stayed the same but in very specific circumstances

- worsened

... People (but also devs) will have less of a hard time describing (or tracking down) what's wrong

I had the experience, post patch, of being unable to remember or track down what the specific circumstances were when a certain bug appeared, but also what specific things the devs did to track it down/fix it. This happened because we also did a hard "reset" of our bugtracking list on Jira and one of the bugs we thought was fixed, actually made the whole program crash.

Cheers 

 

[mcwaffles2003]

24 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

I think this is tough in a game since after doing the experiments once in a human lifetime, you forever know the values anyways 

Numbers are forgotten, that's why in science things are written down and referenced

25 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

Radiation isn’t a thing

It very likely is in this game

26 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

temperature doesn’t affect anything unless it gets too hot which doesn’t happen in space unless close to a sun

Planets are in space and planets have atmospheres with temperatures, also, Id like to discover where that boundary of "too hot" is around stars

27 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

and magnetic fields aren’t in the game.

They could be, and it would be cool to see them correlate with radioactivity

28 minutes ago, Nicrose said:

I think it would be cool to have telescopes able to search the sky’s for distant stars to travel but that just seems like a time gate for players to have to wait for in order to continue playing which isn’t good game development in my opinion. 

Luckily Nate has already confirmed we will have this, and time gates are good in a progression based system, if you prefer sandbox you likely wont deal with this mechanic.

Also SCANsat esque biome/altimetry/and resource abundance mapping of planets would be a huge thing for these games as a progression element toward establishing and building out colonies in the folloing way. The top image would be the real data while the bottom is a representation of what the user could see given some whacky satellite scanning strangely rectangular portions of a sphere:

Spoiler

Originally, the portion of the archive UI that would hold this map wouldn't be seen until the body is discovered. Not even a blank page, just no page. Once the body is discovered (possibly with an orbital telescope) it would show up as a grey sphere representing the player knows something is there, but there is no clue as to what it is. In the bottom image to the right of the red rectangle is the portion with maximum blur. This is what the body would be covered with using a level 1 scan (advanced telescope from a distance or perhaps a crew report from orbit). Inside the red square would be a level 2 scan (Orbiting probe with a low tech camera). Inside the yellow box would be a level 3 scan (Orbiting probe with a more high tech camera). Finally, the green square, a level 4 scan (which wouldn't show up as a box but perhaps a 20km radius circle around where a site was prospected. Just make it so if you do a level 3 scan in a region that has only had a level one scan it bypasses the level 2 masking layer as well.

It's not a perfect representation, but I think it gets the point across. All I needed was the hard data (top image), then layer copies of that image with a simple blur mask overlayed that I made in photoshop in 5 minutes. Something similar is done in SCANsat and the amount of layers or the ways of uncovering them can very to the devs preference. Furthermore, just have tabs on the page for what kind of map data you would like (altitude, biome, resource) and represent them accordingly.

[Strawberry]

(Regarding radiation)

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It very likely is in this game

Radiation is something that is out of the picture near term, and still TBD for the "far term" (aka for when we get stuff that adds justification for it like advanced fusion drives). Thanks to previous UI reveals, we know it was very likely firmer plans in the past, but right now it's on the backburner. Personally I'm very pro radiation, it sounds rad and it adds a really interesting element to ship design (I'd love to see science experiments that you need to shield from radiation).

 

[The Aziz]

29 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Personally I'm very pro radiation, it sounds rad

Pun intended?

[Lowi_Sace]

The developers will ad some procrdural parts. They should really do

On 6/17/2023 at 5:09 PM, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

I don't get it to be honest, samey, what does that even mean with stacked cylindrical tanks as the context. I mean, how exciting can a uniform stack of tanks get? Plus the added benefit of going procedural is that it would significantly lower the part count, a part count that is essentially getting you nothing in return.

Do not get either why they are not include more procedural parts. The stacking of parts was a big frustation for me in KSP1. They never had the size I wanted and more parts gives more wobble and less fps. 

They are making structural and radiator parts that are procedural, which would be very nice. But stuff like feul tanks, solid rocked boosters, cargo bays, solar pannels and maybe even some crew parts could really benefit by getting procedural (at least in length) . Would give less partcount, less searching for parts, more customizable crafts and maybe help with the whole wobbleling thing. 

[wasml]

Would like to second Sea Kerman's ScanSat comment. ScanSat involves planning orbits based on scan width, orbital period and planet rotational period - all very rocketry related. Plus it not only gives you points to advance the tech tree but it gives you useful information for planning further exploration. This is the kind of science I would like too see more of (though I have no idea what else would hit so many points).

Edit:

Quote

• For inline parts that are connected serially, in most applications there should be little to no flexing. This is especially true when neighboring inline parts are the same core size
• For radially-attached boosters or cantilevered subassemblies with single-point radial connections, some flexibility is expected. There are some applications for which manually-applied struts should be required
• Wings should not require struts to stay rigid
• Docking two vessels in orbit should result in a strong, non-wobbly connection that doesn’t fold on itself as soon as the player tries to move the resulting vehicle

Agree with this for the most part - would think docking ports would be a bit more wobbly than a stack of same sized parts as IRL they aren't really meant to take large loads (assumption on my part).

Edited June 18, 2023 by wasml
added comments

[mcwaffles2003]

@Strawberry Any suggestions I make are for 1.0 release, devs know best for what to release before then, cause like heck if we know the games true full state.

[stephensmat]

21 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So will collecting science have any value besides the novelty of doing an experiment, collecting points for a tech tree, and fulfilling a missions goals? More to the point, will doing science give us the players any useful data we can actually use and will we be able to reference any of this collected data for future reference?

 

Simulating, ya know, being a scientist  

In my KSP1 game, I've long unlocked the Tech Tree. I've put a Mobile Lab on every ship and Station, and I'm basically farming science points to trade for credits. It's my most profitable export at the moment.

We know KSP2 will have 'Resources' instead of 'Credits'. But Resources are slated for the Interstellar Upgrade. I'd like to think excess Science points will be able to get you something. Reputation, more Kerbalnauts...

I'd also approve of a Tech Tree that needs specific 'Points' for specific rewards. Learn more about landing sites to unlock landing gear. Learn more about a planet to unlock Colony parts, etc.

It would future proof the EA a bit if you had to do specific tasks to get specific parts. You don't have Colony Parts until that Update, so the Missions to unlock those parts aren't in the game yet. Know what I mean?

[mcwaffles2003]

6 minutes ago, stephensmat said:

In my KSP1 game, I've long unlocked the Tech Tree. I've put a Mobile Lab on every ship and Station, and I'm basically farming science points to trade for credits. It's my most profitable export at the moment.

We know KSP2 will have 'Resources' instead of 'Credits'. But Resources are slated for the Interstellar Upgrade. I'd like to think excess Science points will be able to get you something. Reputation, more Kerbalnauts...

I'd also approve of a Tech Tree that needs specific 'Points' for specific rewards. Learn more about landing sites to unlock landing gear. Learn more about a planet to unlock Colony parts, etc.

It would future proof the EA a bit if you had to do specific tasks to get specific parts. You don't have Colony Parts until that Update, so the Missions to unlock those parts aren't in the game yet. Know what I mean?

I do and I started a thread on the idea in 2019 actually:

But I feel like simply making the tech tree more complex isn't the right approach, though if done right could be better than what it is now. But too many currencies to keep track of I think distracts from the game a bit so it would have to be handled correctly and I think could go either way. But I strongly feel that the best thing that could be done for science is to make it behave like actual science, in that it can provide use beyond the tech tree as helpful data that can improve planning missions. And that doesn't mean it cant also be used for things like a tech tree but included as well so that it remains a useful mechanic beyond when the tree is finished.

If it interests you I made a thread for an outline of what I still believe would be a good idea and a pretty good majority of the forum agreed as well at that time a while ago:

 

[Nzredwolf]

Any knowledge as to when Mac compatibility is added to the game? Thanks

[pss88]

On 6/17/2023 at 1:00 AM, Nate Simpson said:

Wobbly rockets are sometimes fun and funny. A big part of what originally got many of us hooked on the original KSP was the silliness and emergent problem solving that came from playing World of Goo with rocket parts. Broadly, we see this as part of the Kerbal DNA, and want to preserve it in some form. 

I hope you're just joking...

It was fun two maybe three times. And then you just want to turn ANY wobble OFF. Not to say it would save a lot of CPU time on joints calculation too.

[livetalk]

Thanks for pixelating the landmarks, I appreciate it

[Lisias]

On 6/17/2023 at 7:10 PM, Observe said:

Please don't preserve wobbly rockets out of how "fun and funny" you might think they are. Turning a bug into a feature probably doesn't work for this game.

Wobbly rockets happens when you abuse the structure. It's meant to be a failure, user's failure, a failure on designing a rocket that both do what it's intended to do as well respects some constraints.

This is a game, and building crafts under constraints is part of the challenges imposed by the game.

If the wobble is to be gone, it needs to be replaced by something else, as plain R.U.D.
 

On 6/17/2023 at 11:09 AM, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

Removes a ton of creativity... what? We're talking about a sensible remedy to having stacks of the *same* cylindrical tank. How will that stifle creativity and what's it got to do with Juno? 

100% agree with this and disagree with Nate. Rockets generally don't just *snap*, so it's more an annoyance rather than 'lol' IMO.

It removes challenges. Juno is another kind of game, it promotes visuals over constraints. If we would be talking about kid's toys, Juno is like a Modelling Dough, while KSP is like LEGO: two completely different kinds of toys, to be used in completely different ways.

KSP2 needs to decide the way it want to go - LEGO or Modelling Dough. It will fail if it tries to be both.

 

On 6/17/2023 at 11:09 AM, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

100% agree with this and disagree with Nate. Rockets generally don't just *snap*, so it's more an annoyance rather than 'lol' IMO.

I agree with Nate, besides rockets generally don't just snaps: they plain explodes or just collapses:

Snapping is one of the possible "punishments" by not respecting some constraints. If snapping is to be gone, it should be replaced by something else - as plain collapsing. What's just a convoluted way to "snap" after all.  

Oh, you don't like playing under constraints? Not a problem: here, take this nice cheat and play as you like!  

I choose to play KSP over Simple Rockets (1 in the past and now 2, aka Juno) and Orbiter exactly because I like to build things under constraints - I always liked more playing LEGO than Modelling Dough. Stock parts doesn't cut it? Finding an add'on that does what I want is also part of the fun, as well as coping with the new constraints such add'on brings to my gaming.

If KSP2 is going the Modelling Dough way, I will just not play it - sticking with KSP1. I already have Juno for playing this style, and it's available now and it runs on my current machines.  (I wonder what would happen if someone writes an add'on for Juno adding little critters like Kerbals to it - bonus points if they are Kerbals indeed! )

 

On 6/17/2023 at 2:13 PM, whatsEJstandfor said:

Extremely hard disagree. This sort of caution with withholding information until it was rock solid  was exactly what most of us here were getting frustrated with, and I'm so glad that IG's PR team has decided that the risk of being wrong sometimes is worth the transparency. Please don't try to convince them to go backwards.

My personal opinion about this is that they should had gone No Man's Sky style: just shut up and do the work with occasional releases.

It's nice to have such kind of feedback from them, I'm enjoying reading most of them, but they are also exposing themselves to unfunded and uneducated criticism, and this can be both abrasive to the game's reputation as well also exhausting to the game developers.

They start to listen to people around here, and KSP will be reduced to a stand-up guyly [mongrel] and better funded copycat of Juno.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Lisias
The Forum's autoreplace words had bitten me. I can't say what I had typed before, but it's definitively not "guyly" :D

[AaronDoesSpace]

please for the love of god listen to your community, especially on twitter. Wobbly rockets should NOT be a feature, it shouldn't be lessened, or togglable, it should be REMOVED ENTIRELY. Nobody enjoys it, it ruins big builds, and just makes the game unplayable with anything other than a tiny little moon rocket. There are detailed tutorials online on how to manually fix the games code to make it even playable. Please just listen

[LoSBoL]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Wobbly rockets happens when you abuse the structure. It's meant to be a failure, user's failure, a failure on designing a rocket that both do what it's intended to do as well respects some constraints.

This is a game, and building crafts under constraints is part of the challenges imposed by the game.

If the wobble is to be gone, it needs to be replaced by something else, as plain R.U.D.
 

It removes challenges. Juno is another kind of game, it promotes visuals over constraints. If we would be talking about kid's toys, Juno is like a Modelling Dough, while KSP is like LEGO: two completely different kinds of toys, to be used in completely different ways.

KSP2 needs to decide the way it want to go - LEGO or Modelling Dough. It will fail if it tries to be both.

 

I agree with Nate, besides rockets generally don't just snaps: they plain explodes or just collapses:

Snapping is one of the possible "punishments" by not respecting some constraints. If snapping is to be gone, it should be replaced by something else - as plain collapsing. What's just a convoluted way to "snap" after all.  

Oh, you don't like playing under constraints? Not a problem: here, take this nice cheat and play as you like!  

I choose to play KSP over Simple Rockets (1 in the past and now 2, aka Juno) and Orbiter exactly because I like to build things under constraints - I always liked more playing LEGO than Modelling Dough. Stock parts doesn't cut it? Finding an add'on that does what I want is also part of the fun, as well as coping with the new constraints such add'on brings to my gaming.

If KSP2 is going the Modelling Dough way, I will just not play it - sticking with KSP1. I already have Juno for playing this style, and it's available now and it runs on my current machines.  (I wonder what would happen if someone writes an add'on to Juno adding little critters like Kerbals to it - bonus points if they are Kerbals indeed! )

 

My personal opinion about this is that they should had gone No Man's Sky style: just shut up and do the work with occasional releases.

It's nice to have such kind of feedback from them, I'm enjoying reading most of them, but they are also exposing themselves to unfunded and uneducated criticism, and this can be both abrasive to the game's reputation but also exhausting to the game developers.

They start to listen to people around here, and KSP will be reduced to a stand-up guyly [mongrel] and better funded copycat of Juno.

Full agreement, LEGO please, fix a bit of wobleness but let unstable builds be unstable builds. And than when your rockets woble it's the kraken whispering in your ear 'learn to become a better engineer'

[Book]

I feel like a problem with the joint system is that it's used as an easier solution to parts stress resistance : for example wings (specifically now that they're a single part) stay entirely stiff, and it's the joint that is providing the movement you'd expect of a wing under stress. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Honestly I don't think it's the worse solution to that problem, but it doesn't scale appropriately to all situations, specially giant ships.

Speaking of, I think those giant ships should of course not die of wobbly as soon as you press space, but equally they shouldn't be invulnerable to stress. Not just because of realism but because designing ships that cannot support their weight under "heavy" (like one gee) thrust is an interesting design tradeoff, and a natural consequence of having orbital shipyards. It would allow to design cool ships like the Venture Star.

So yeah, my armchair dev opinion is that the game would be more interesting with a stress resistance system that is part dependent, which is communicated to the player during the design phase, and with interesting tradeoffs, like low-weight, low-resistance trusses.

 

PS : As for docking ports, in the same vein it may be interesting to have a distinction between orbital oriented docking ports —like what the ISS has— which are pretty much incompatible with reentry (already the case thanks to very wobbly joints) and sturdier ports that would allow one to build an athmo capable mothership in the early game through orbital assembly.

Okay, maybe the armchair dev is doing realism scope creep here, I'll leave you to it

Edited June 19, 2023 by Book
Post scriptum

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, AaronDoesSpace said:

please for the love of god listen to your community, especially on twitter. Wobbly rockets should NOT be a feature, it shouldn't be lessened, or togglable, it should be REMOVED ENTIRELY. Nobody enjoys it, it ruins big builds, and just makes the game unplayable with anything other than a tiny little moon rocket. There are detailed tutorials online on how to manually fix the games code to make it even playable. Please just listen

Please don't pretend to speak for me or others

The current wobbling is way to much but I do think some should exist as I don't want my bad builds to make it to space, getting rid of it and just making rigid unbreaking rockets reduces the effort I need to make which is something I enjoy about the game

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, AaronDoesSpace said:

please for the love of god listen to your community

I am community and I posted my stance on it. It's far from removing it entirely because, surprise, physics are a thing, and you're not throwing a stick into the air. Speak for yourself.

[Nicrose]

On 6/18/2023 at 12:08 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Numbers are forgotten, that's why in science things are written down and referenced

It very likely is in this game

Planets are in space and planets have atmospheres with temperatures, also, Id like to discover where that boundary of "too hot" is around stars

They could be, and it would be cool to see them correlate with radioactivity

Luckily Nate has already confirmed we will have this, and time gates are good in a progression based system, if you prefer sandbox you likely wont deal with this mechanic.

Also SCANsat esque biome/altimetry/and resource abundance mapping of planets would be a huge thing for these games as a progression element toward establishing and building out colonies in the folloing way. The top image would be the real data while the bottom is a representation of what the user could see given some whacky satellite scanning strangely rectangular portions of a sphere:

  Hide contents

Originally, the portion of the archive UI that would hold this map wouldn't be seen until the body is discovered. Not even a blank page, just no page. Once the body is discovered (possibly with an orbital telescope) it would show up as a grey sphere representing the player knows something is there, but there is no clue as to what it is. In the bottom image to the right of the red rectangle is the portion with maximum blur. This is what the body would be covered with using a level 1 scan (advanced telescope from a distance or perhaps a crew report from orbit). Inside the red square would be a level 2 scan (Orbiting probe with a low tech camera). Inside the yellow box would be a level 3 scan (Orbiting probe with a more high tech camera). Finally, the green square, a level 4 scan (which wouldn't show up as a box but perhaps a 20km radius circle around where a site was prospected. Just make it so if you do a level 3 scan in a region that has only had a level one scan it bypasses the level 2 masking layer as well.

It's not a perfect representation, but I think it gets the point across. All I needed was the hard data (top image), then layer copies of that image with a simple blur mask overlayed that I made in photoshop in 5 minutes. Something similar is done in SCANsat and the amount of layers or the ways of uncovering them can very to the devs preference. Furthermore, just have tabs on the page for what kind of map data you would like (altitude, biome, resource) and represent them accordingly.

I respectfully disagree and believe that would make the game really daunting for new players and tedious for experienced players. I personally don’t have a problem with getting science points over actual information unless the information was just that, information, similar to the last game where they told you the temp and that was it  I think having to learn and understand different real world topics that have entire careers built off them is a bit much for a game about flying rockets (which is arguable hard enough for some). For instance, I know nothing about magnetic fields other than positive and negative and very little about thermodynamics and even less about radiation and the different kinds and I think making a mission where you have to pay attention to all of those in addition to everything we already need to is a bit extreme and should probably be saved for an “extreme difficulty” option if it’s implemented otherwise I’d vote against it  

3 hours ago, AaronDoesSpace said:

 

please for the love of god listen to your community,

 

This is not how I feel and this poster does not speak for me

On 6/18/2023 at 11:39 AM, Alexoff said:

On the other hand, the presence of this feature in the game greatly upset the players and significantly reduced their number.

While the at may be true, it’s impossible to say for sure that that exact but is the reason people aren’t playing. For me, I haven’t played in weeks due to the lack of content and other various bugs, however this specific bug is actually not the reason. Additionally I think many players, if not a hefty majority, will be opening the game after major patches when bugs like this are fixed rather than paying $50 to completely abandon the game for one specific bug