Bug Status [10/23]

[Kerbart]

56 minutes ago, regex said:

I like the one on the left. The one on the right is stupid and shouldn't work. Scratch that, neither should work, but at least the one on the left actively tries not to.

And still someone was complaining it still showed wobble. Not sure if that was trolling or not, but given how the discussion about flexing has gone I'm putting my money on "not."

[regex]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

And still someone was complaining it still showed wobble. Not sure if that was trolling or not, but given how the discussion about flexing has gone I'm putting my money on "not."

And if we had joints that act like they should (given that we're getting LEGOs no matter what) by simply snapping without flex (acting like a rigid body which should crumple or break), we'd have people complaining about having no idea why their craft suddenly broke up.

[Periple]

That sounds bad! I was genuinely curious because I’ve only ever driven short distances. Longest distance I’ve done on wheels is a drag race on the runway but that used landing gear. (It was fine.)

[regex]

Just now, Periple said:

That sounds bad! I was genuinely curious because I’ve only ever driven short distances. Longest distance I’ve done on wheels is a drag race on the runway but that used landing gear. (It was fine.)

The runway is relatively safe, I think the problem has more to do with the actual terrain. Either way, yeah, it's an absolute PITA to drive cross-country, something I was really looking forward to in this version of the game.

[Periple]

Just now, regex said:

The runway is relatively safe, I think the problem has more to do with the actual terrain. Either way, yeah, it's an absolute PITA to drive cross-country, something I was really looking forward to in this version of the game.

I do hope they’ll fix it then! I did enjoy my rover treks in KSP1 (from time to time!)

[moeggz]

10 minutes ago, regex said:

And if we had joints that act like they should (given that we're getting LEGOs no matter what) by simply snapping without flex (acting like a rigid body which should crumple or break), we'd have people complaining about having no idea why their craft suddenly broke up.

People say this but I really would rather have bad designs punished by breaking instead of wobbling. 
 

plenty of bridge building games have a ui effect showing which joints are over stressed by adding an heat map to the joints and displaying critical points to the player. 
 

I don’t know why ksp can’t just have a view like that that player can toggle when their rocket keeps exploding and they don’t know why.

 

 

[regex]

10 minutes ago, moeggz said:

I don’t know why ksp can’t just have a view like that that player can toggle when their rocket keeps exploding and they don’t know why.

It really doesn't matter to me, but taking away any engineering challenge in favor of permanent, rigid joints that never break just sounds extremely boring and against the entire vision of this game. Without flex or breakage this game would be completely trivial.

[PDCWolf]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

It really doesn't matter to me, but taking away any engineering challenge in favor of permanent, rigid joints that never break just sounds extremely boring and against the entire vision of this game. Without flex or breakage this game would be completely trivial.

After learning orbital mechanics, the game trivializes itself. Struts and Autostrut are both bandaids to the real problem, and any advanced enough player will make literally anything fly by spamming both. Even if you added mass and cost to them, the only thing you'd end up with is more struts, more fuel tanks and more engines because the problematic cycle is still there, you've just amplified it.

Further on, in real life, the only thing you end up with is people unable to build the stuff they want because half their part budget went into struts, and autostruts spamming joints would kill whatever is left of the performance, which is confirmed going to be an even bigger problem in KSP2. Remember that not a single feature is in the game and they're now in talks about disabling vessel simulation because the game outright downgrades into not working anymore.

Also, you both can quote me, I give you permission, you don't need to parable about "someones".

[Mikki]

but but... i need love the "wobble"! 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Mikki

[regex]

Just now, PDCWolf said:

Also, you both can quote me, I give you permission, you don't need to parable about "someones".

Personally, I just don't find you really engaging to deal with. Wasn't even talking about you in this case, although I do disagree with your points, but I think the entire "wobble vs. not" thing is purely personal preference and not worth getting into arguments about aside from stating said personal preference to help Intercept make a decision.

[Mikki]

16 minutes ago, Mikki said:

but but... i need love the "wobble"! 

i love the wobble, can haz 0.1.5 NOW? 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Mikki
something went wrong but i still love the wobble...;D

[moeggz]

@PDCWolf I was talking about the argument in general. 
 

We both fully agree wobble has to go, I’m happy with autostrut as a stop gap but would rather full rigid body. I just see a lot of people saying that they game has to have wobble for the engineering restraints of building. I’m pointing out that you can get that without wobble.

I think I’d rank my preferred solutions as

1. Rigid body with stress limits. High for vertical stack of same size, medium for size changes, and low for horizontal attachments. This makes it not just a building step of adding a part but affects how rockets and planes are flown. (If you try to take a 6g turn with wings that are too long they shear off type of thing) With some ui indicator so the player knows when a joint is over stressed and soon to break.

2. Rigid body no stress limits

3. Auto strut.

 

So you’d but 2 above 1, but on the big debate on wobble I think we’re pretty close. I think presenting 1 as a compromise to those who don’t want to give up the engineering challenges wobble presents is a way to increase the odds Intercept actually fully removes wobble.

Edited October 24, 2023 by moeggz

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Mikki said:

but but... i need love the "wobble"! 

Just because it's funny the first one or two times (or forever to KSP's inane "don't fix the Kraken" meme culture) doesn't mean it's good for gameplay.

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, kicka55 said:

We've seen some For Science! gameplay footage floating around YouTube that was presented at the creator event. Why wasn't that gameplay sneak peak shared with the entire community?  Will that still happen?

By no means should you link to that footage, someone might see it!

[PDCWolf]

5 hours ago, moeggz said:

@PDCWolf I was talking about the argument in general.

What happens when people speak in parables and throw stones without quoting: I wasn't referring to you.

I will however say that Autostrut again is not something I'm happy about. KSP2 is magnitudes more part-number constrained than its predecessor, with a huge save bloat problem that's still unsolved (after they said it was by design first now they say they're looking for fixes). Autostrut is fuel to those 2 fires, adding phantom parts and thus bloating the save even more.

Why people haven't yet realized the huge problem brewing for the future with all these bandages on top of bandages is beyond me. These new "all in one" science parts are not "an exciting gameplay change", they're literally a bandaid to the save bloat problem. Like the grav ring in a single part, like the "huge 100 meter long parts", like procwings, and so on.

[moeggz]

Yeah to be clear I like it as a stop gap over the noodles we have right now, but I don’t want it to stay permanently. 

[Voculus]

It takes a trained eye, and years of KSP experience to detect the subtle differences between the rockets. Nicely done!

[Astroneer08]

On 10/23/2023 at 6:00 PM, Intercept Games said:

One more thing, we need a bit of help! K.E.R.B. #4 - No trajectory lines in map view, we're having some trouble reproducing this issue!

Hey guys, I know how to reproduce this bug with a success rate of 60%, and I've noticed something. If you are in map view, and reload a save, the trajectory lines disappear. And, if you look at the bottom left corner of the navball/screen, you can see the PE/AP symbols.

[Astroneer08]

Well, I can't seem to catch it on camera!

I tried recording, but it refused to show up.

[uglyduckling81]

22 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Jeeez... People. Just because some bigger bugs won't make it into the list, doesn't mean they won't be mentioned, idk, just above the list, or in another post. You're making a problem where there isn't any.

Dude. A huge chunk of mass on top of a skinny stick, and you expect it to be completely rigid? You had any physics lessons lately?

Way bigger than any rocket. Completely stable.

 

Edit: I tried several times to make the picture work. Oh well 

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/skyscrapershighrise-buildings/images/2/21/Sydney_Tower.png/revision/latest?cb=20160225193945

Edited October 25, 2023 by uglyduckling81
Trying to get picture to work.

[Periple]

This one?

You do realize that those “struts” (cables) aren’t there just for decoration?

[The Aziz]

And those beam reinforcements probably are only for the show, right? And the foundations that probably go few dozen meters below the base.. and the fact that the bloody thing isn't supposed to, idk, fly.. And the last bit, it's probably not a lightweight shell with highly flammable liquid inside, but has, for example, some elevator shafts? 

[Periple]

(And also that the structure on top is lightweight compared to the reinforced concrete pillar, not a big heavy tank full of fuel.)

[Superfluous J]

I found this interesting review of the Sydney Tower. Emphasis mine.

Quote

We went to the top of the Sydney Tower after we had an awesome experience at SkyPoint on top of Q1 in Surfers' Paradise. The views are great, but the experience isn't nearly as nice. This required long lines to get in. It was very crowded, and the tower swayed in the heavy winds that closed OzTrek. The swaying made both teenage and grown kids nauseated.

 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 10/23/2023 at 9:27 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

I doubt you could have made a worse decision than this.  Removing things that are not fixed will lead to the community wondering what is happening, as well as feed into the concern that you aren't communicating with the community.  We want more information, not less.  This gives us less.

I think that fundamental feature fixes could easily be tracked separately from the patch to patch bugfixes - just stick them in a separate section at the bottom of the overall list.  

Ultimately, it’s not going to make any difference to the outcome, but people with more coding experience and time than I have might be able to make some semi-educated inferences from that information…

On 10/23/2023 at 9:27 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

I doubt you could have made a worse decision than this.  Removing things that are not fixed will lead to the community wondering what is happening, as well as feed into the concern that you aren't communicating with the community.  We want more information, not less.  This gives us less.

I think that fundamental feature fixes could easily be tracked separately from the patch to patch bugfixes - just stick them in a separate section at the bottom of the overall list.  

Ultimately, it’s not going to make any difference to the outcome, but people with more coding experience and time than I have might be able to make some semi-educated inferences from that information…