HarvesteR shares his thoughts on KSP2

[jost]

11 hours ago, Alexoff said:

In 2016, many left, and as far as I remember, not because of the good atmosphere in the company.

What is this, for example? After 1.2, there were small steps forward, various improvements, new parts, but I would not say that 1.2, released a few months after his departure, is so different from 1.12. And the KSP had the maximum hype in those days, judging by the views of the videos on YouTube.

I would also add who should not be involved in the development of KSP2, but I will try, like Felipe, to start singing some popular song in my head

Commnet and breaking ground for example, stock delta v readouts and Transfer planner/alarm clock.  In fact there were more years of development after his departure than before

Edited July 26, 2023 by jost

[Lisias]

[Snip]

KSP uses Meters as measure and Units (about 5KG, depending of the density) as Mass [Volume!!! Mass is kilograms!]. And it was CTDing the same, It still does, by the way - they closed the Mass door, but there's something still lingering around, I don't recall right now if related to momentum (I'm guessing) or something  like that.

Edited July 26, 2023 by James Kerman
Redacted by a moderator

[Alexoff]

37 minutes ago, jost said:

Commnet and breaking ground for example, stock delta v readouts and Transfer planner/alarm clock.  In fact there were more years of development after his departure than before

As I understand it, they began to make commnet even under Harvester. And after 1.2, a lot of developers left, and less than year later, the franchise and squad was sold to T2. Since I had a mechjeb and TriggerAU mods for a long time, the difference seems to be only in the DLC. Calling it a big leap forward is hard.

[James Kerman]

Some content has been removed, please express your thoughts without resorting to personal attacks.

[PDCWolf]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

The thing bends under stress? Misbehaves aerodynamically if you pumps fuel to the wrong fuel tank? Things just blow up out of the blue when abused, or they visually warns you that you are abusing the frame due aerodynamic forces?

If no, it's dumbed down.

Way too much credit for stuff that wobble doesn't do.

[Lisias]

6 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Way too much credit for stuff that wobble doesn't do.

I'm afraid you lost sight about what's the cause and whats the effect.  I honestly failed to understand how you misunderstood this argument as being related to wobbling at that point.

I was answering this comment:

12 hours ago, Lyneira said:

You mention "dumbing down KSP2's physics model to a RC model level," implying that because an RC model craft simulator uses it, it must be dumb. 

And then I answered:

11 hours ago, Lisias said:

The thing bends under stress? Misbehaves aerodynamically if you pumps fuel to the wrong fuel tank? Things just blow up out of the blue when abused, or they visually warns you that you are abusing the frame due aerodynamic forces?

If no, it's dumbed down.

A RC airplane model, in essence, is a dumbed down version of the original craft.  If you don't need a pilot brevet to pilot the thing, it's because the thing was dumbed down so you don't need to take years of piloting classes to pilot it.  

 

[mcdjfp]

11 hours ago, Lisias said:

 

 

Because they do not simulate crafts made by the user. Every craft on MS Flight Simulator and X Plane were custom made by software developers, carefully trimmed and optimised to behave as specified - some of them costing more than the game itself.

 

If I am not mistaken, one of the selling points of X Plane, at least for past versions, was the ability to create your own aircraft. It is a much more complex process, but I played around with a few simple designs in version 5 (I think they are on version 12 now)

Edited July 26, 2023 by mcdjfp
Further explanation

[PDCWolf]

On 7/26/2023 at 3:38 PM, Lisias said:

I'm afraid you lost sight about what's the cause and whats the effect.  I honestly failed to understand how you misunderstood this argument as being related to wobbling at that point.

I was answering this comment:

And then I answered:

 

Considering the "dumbed down" part, I'm assuming you're starting from the common reference we have (based on where we are right now): KSP. In KSP things don't bend under stress, they bend almost randomly. It doesn't work as a warning of "the frame being abused", as self-collision triggers almost randomly, specially with already clipped parts. Heck, in fact, you can be flying stuff just fine, quicksave and quickload, and magically things pop off out of aerodynamic forces, specially wings, without any hint of "airframe abuse".

[snip]

Edited July 31, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Lisias]

21 minutes ago, mcdjfp said:

If I am not mistaken, one of the selling points of X Plane, at least for past versions, was the ability to create your own aircraft. It is a much more complex process, but I played around with a few simple designs in version 5 (I think they are on version 12 now)

And, better yet, this very same feature was prototyped on Flight Gear!  I'm unsure if the YASim would be useful on KSP2, but it can surely help with some ideas if the "bending rigid body" idea sticks.

I see no reason that concept would not be more or less applicable to rockets - with some compromises. But, hell, KSP is, by itself, a huge set of compromises that end up having some kind of similarity to Real Life™ by hacking and slashing our way into the problem.  

[TheOrbitalMechanic]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:20 PM, RocketRockington said:

I absolutely love how he then moves on to talk about how there's no wobbliness in his current game, because even he knows that was jank to be learned from and moved past.

Noooo, it's part of the game's iDeNtiTy!
If you don't have to spend 3 hours trying to figure out how to make a perfectly reasonably designed rocket take off without folding in half for no reason, is it even KSP at that point? /s

[Audaylon]

Its interesting hearing this conversation from a family business prospective.  He admittingly left the game as KSP 1.0 was released.  If I had left my family business it might not have been where it is today.  I could only imagine the improvements that could have been done if he were still invested, but I have no clue how much he invested to begin with.  I like his analogy though, KSP has grown from being a baby.

[Alexoff]

And it seems to me that it looks like political battles. Instead of the not-so-best old president, the people chose a new one who promised to make everyone happy. However, after some time, things began to go much worse than before, and some people say that we need to turn back the clock and return the good old order, while others say that we must grit our teeth and endure, because serious things are not done quickly.

Nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

[Lisias]

On 7/26/2023 at 4:28 PM, PDCWolf said:

In KSP things don't bend under stress, they bend almost randomly.

No. They bend when the joint is overstressed, and the wobble follows the internal data structure that represents the craft in memory.

 

On 7/26/2023 at 4:28 PM, PDCWolf said:

as self-collision triggers almost randomly, specially with already clipped parts. Heck, in fact, you can be flying stuff just fine, quicksave and quickload, and magically things pop off out of aerodynamic forces, specially wings, without any hint of "airframe abuse".

You are aware that now you are talking about a completely different problem? This looks more like a craft being thrown into the physics engine before being completely initialised.

What's the PartModule's default for the self collision attribute? When the self collision was introduced in KSP? This problem used to happen before it? [edit] Nope, it may be related. There're more than one reason for crafts exploding on loading, as it appears.[/edit]

[snip]

On 7/26/2023 at 6:18 PM, Alexoff said:

Nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors.

Or under signed NDAs.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Alexoff]

40 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Or under signed NDAs.

Such agreements are signed just so that no one knows anything. So that even colleagues do not know much and cannot build a complete picture. What if someone suddenly finds out the truth and then the world will collapse?!

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

when the joint is overstressed

Once again, giving way more credit to the phenomena than it deserves.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

Such agreements are signed just so that no one knows anything. So that even colleagues do not know much and cannot build a complete picture. What if someone suddenly finds out the truth and then the world will collapse?!

People will get fired. Or sued. Or fired and then sued.

[asmi]

18 hours ago, Lisias said:

However… My personal experience on modding KSP (and I have some reasonable knowledge since 1.2.2, as I choose to keep backwards compatibility on everything I do), is not soooo kind about the team (or at least, part of them) that took over after HarvesteR departure. There're a lot of huge, huge mistakes and bugs lingering there for almost a decade, and they failed to correct fix them - worst, they created worst bugs and unnecessary collateral effects by naively trying to tackle down some of that bugs. There're a few decisions on the thing that really made me mad over the years.

I'm not complaining about bugs happening - bugs are unavoidable consequences on doing new things. I'm complaining about they not being diagnosed and/or fixed.

I've been modding since 0.19 (I think), and I gotta say, things were way worse back then. The last version I monitored was 1.2 IIRC, and there was a ton of bugfixes specifically along stock-mod interface.  For example, one bug I still remember (because it gave me no end of headaches when I was working on a Engine Group Controller mod, which was included into RSS mod - and maybe still is?) was related to engines thrust limiter, the problem was in the stock code, but this bug was not reproducable in stock because of the way engines were configured, and it took a big fight on my part over multiple KSP versions to get this one fixed. Also part g-limits was introduced at my recommendation (intended use case was for solar panels, so that you had to fold them during maneuvers with high enough acceleration). These are just a couple of those I remember from many years ago, but there were much much more.

That is not to take away Harvester's achievements of creating the game, but he made a lot of bad calls towards the end. The deltaV number was just one example, if my memory serves me, he was also against introducing realistic thrust model (engines have higher thrust in vacuum vs in atmosphere, back in a day engines had the same thrust everywhere).

Edited July 27, 2023 by asmi

[Lisias]

16 minutes ago, asmi said:

I've been modding since 0.19 (I think), and I gotta say, things were way worse back then. The last version I monitored was 1.2 IIRC, and there was a ton of bugfixes specifically along stock-mod interface.  For example, one bug I still remember (because it gave me no end of headaches when I was working on a Engine Group Controller mod, which was included into RSS mod - and maybe still is?) was related to engines thrust limiter, the problem was in the stock code, but this bug was not reproducable in stock because of the way engines were configured, and it took a big fight on my part over multiple KSP versions to get this one fixed. Also part g-limits was introduced at my recommendation (intended use case was for solar panels, so that you had to fold them during maneuvers with high enough acceleration). These are just a couple of those I remember from many years ago, but there were much much more.

I understand. However, allow me to pinpoint some of what I had found:

• A nasty bug about AutoStruts, that gone unchecked for years and was surely the cause of a lot of misdiagnosing on 3rd party add'ons (TweakScale between them). When it strikes, it screws the craft for good. Since 1.2.2
• The Editor's ReRoot feature being completely screwed from KSP 1.8.0. It essentially destroys all the radial attachemnts
• KSP failing to recovering Funds from PartModules implementing the IPartCostModifier. Since KSP 1.11, I think
  • This completely screwed up any PartModule that affects the cost, as damages, recovering, TweakScale, Fuel Switches, you name it,
• Editor's arbitrary reset of the PartModule's values from Prefab after OnLoad, completely screwing up the PartModule life cycle and forcing modders to do shenannigans to survive the crap.
  • Now imagine having to rewire your PartModule after the OnLoad and before the first Update, praying for it happen before the first FixedUpdate (to minimise the chances of waking the Kraken).
• A incredible sequence of mishaps and misfeatures plaguing the Assembly Loader/Resolver until nowadays, royally screwing up Savegames if left unchecked.
• Robotics being implemented in a way that screws up the part's position on the craft on saving, piling up small displacements on every save - ending up completely destroying the craft as time goes by.
  • "Fixed" by a kludge recently, if IIRC.
  • Similar problem affected the Docking Ports when they start to rotate.
• A nasty drift on Kerbals and Crafts from KSP 1.8 caused by spurious random torques (noise from the random generators, as it appears) that where never really fixed, and the kludge used to workaround the problem implemented on KSP 1.11.0 (I think) degraded as new KSP versions were released.
• And many more, I don't (KSP)  Recall  all of them now.  

There's a reason we have at least two different add'ons trying to fix or workaround a lot of internal KSP bugs using different shenanigans techniques.  

Again, I'm not exactly mad about the bugs (they happen). I'm pretty liquided about they lingering for years, some for more than half a decade, while the new features were implemented over them - what makes fixing such bugs very tricky, because you just don't know what feature become dependent of a bug being triggered or not. You never know what Kraken will unleash over you when you fix something.

[Guest]

I won't enter the matter of the discussion, I haven't seen the video and I won't (never really liked Matt move from good gameplay videos to being yet another sensationalist infotainment gaming channel).

 

But I've skimmed the thread, and I think it's missing an important consideration about Harvester being hesitant to talk about KSP2, or being careful, or whatever is the point of contention here even is.

 

He is a developer releasing a new game, a new only marginally related game with a very different scope and size.

Kinda like Obsidian when they released Outer Worlds.

How well did it work for them presenting themselves in the marketing with those bold: "From the only true, real, original, and good creators of Fallout and Fallout New Vegas" claims?

Well, sure enough Outer Worlds wasn't the Fallout NV 2 people hyped it up to be as a consequence, and they had to spend the last few weeks before release trying to set realistic expectations.

Back to Harvester, Balsa never really took off, and I still haven't checked what's going on with the rebranding, but sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game, as it will almost certainly backfire.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Master39

[PDCWolf]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

Back to Harvester, Balsa never really took off, and I still haven't checked what's going on with the rebranding, but sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game, as it will almost certainly backfire.

I do own Balsa and can tell you it was going to be VR only at first, then it became non VR as well. Then Curve got a partnership with another studio and they decided to turn the product into Kitbash, as it better reflects the inclusion of cars, ships and rockets into the game.

I also don't think Matt asking him his opinion on KSP2 counts as comparing, so much as he ended up falling in there with the mention of wobble.

[moeggz]

6 hours ago, Master39 said:

sure enough it's not a good idea to start comparing your still unreleased game/update/rebrand with another game

And he didn’t. Which you would know if you watched the video or read the transcript in the comments generously provided by @PDCWolf

Matt asked him a few questions about KSP2. He never compared games, just gave his responses then at the end mentioned how Kitbash handled wobble. So he wasn’t hesitating to compare games because he was never asked to. 

At no point is Kitbash presented as a spiritual successor to KSP. It’s much a smaller game the only similarity is how parts are constructed in a VAB like menu. And that’s the part he comments on only by saying Kitbash doesn’t have wobble. 

[MechBFP]

46 minutes ago, moeggz said:

And he didn’t.

That’s exactly the entire point of his post. 

[moeggz]

Him sharing his thoughts on KSP2 is the theme yes but he doesn’t do this by comparing and hyping up Kitbash. 
 

He never said, “Kitbash is better because it doesn’t have wobble.” He just pointed out the fact that Kitbash doesn’t have it and he wanted to implement a feature like that in KSP. He didn’t then say, “and this is why Kitbash is better” 

He left the comparison to us.

 

Edit: early here and I misunderstood comment. If his point was “he’s trying not to compare so taking his time” that’s fine, I just don’t think he would have to do that as the questions were just, “thoughts on KSP2?” And “Do you worry about KSP2 future?” Neither led to comparisons and at that point Kitbash wasn’t being brought up.

Edited July 27, 2023 by moeggz

[MechBFP]

5 hours ago, moeggz said:

If his point was “he’s trying not to compare so taking his time” that’s fine, I just don’t think he would have to do that as the questions were just, “thoughts on KSP2?” And “Do you worry about KSP2 future?” Neither led to comparisons and at that point Kitbash wasn’t being brought up.

That is true, but rather than just saying “no comment” and killing the conversation I think he took as it an opportunity to redirect the conversation back to what it was supposed to be about. 

[Snark]

Some posts have been redacted and/or removed.  Folks, it's fine to disagree with what people say, but please don't make it about the people themselves.  Rebut arguments, by all means, but please don't make it personal.

Thank you for your understanding.