Some Improvements on the Way

[Flush Foot]

Just now, NexusHelium said:

Just got something and already asking for more... wow 

Give a starving person a tasty sandwich, there's no reason to think that they might not ask for another 

[EvelynThe Dragon]

I have said it before. I am going to say it again, and I am sure this is nowhere near the last time I will say it.

Release more frequent, smaller, bug fixes. These gigantic updates are killing this game. There is no apparent progress for months. And then we get another giant bucket full of NEW problems with these. It's a terrible way to do development and expect your user base to stay around.

[MARL_Mk1]

2 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

You gonna change your happiness meter? I know I am  

Ah that's just a little silly thing, even though I'm not the happiest with the current state of the game I'm sure they'll push through with it. Just need a version that's solid enough for me to kill endless hours on it!

[RileyHef]

I want to highlight that this type of communication (a brief update on some major bugs/projects, some images or data, etc) is exactly what I hope to see in comms! If something like this existed every other week or so I wouldn't feel so discouraged like much of the community does. There is a ton within this post to get excited for. We hope you continue to share that excitement with us!

[NexusHelium]

1 minute ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

Ah that's just a little silly thing, even though I'm not the happiest with the current state of the game I'm sure they'll push through with it. Just need a version that's solid enough for me to kill endless hours on it

I think we might be looking at that version (probably not lol but still... this upnate is fantastic)  

[MARL_Mk1]

3 minutes ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

I have said it before. I am going to say it again, and I am sure this is nowhere near the last time I will say it.

Release more frequent, smaller, bug fixes. These gigantic updates are killing this game. There is no apparent progress for months. And then we get another giant bucket full of NEW problems with these. It's a terrible way to do development and expect your user base to stay around.

I totally agree. If they managed to release smaller builds that fixed some of the current most annoying issues more frequently people would surely stick around for longer.

That said, we know nothing about how they streamline their dev processes and a change like that would probably require major restructuring of their work.

[EvelynThe Dragon]

And while we are at it, I am not a fan of the science gathering or the rigid mission progression in the last update. The tech tree is also nonsensical and way too linear. KSP1`'s stock tree was madness though it was somewhat livable, this one really sucks. There needs to be a lot more variety and even randomness in missions. I miss Kerbal progression, and specialization,  and I think leaving an economy out of things is a giant mistake.

[MARL_Mk1]

4 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

I think we might be looking at that version (probably not lol but still... this upnate is fantastic)  

Well, Dakota just said on Discord that some of the things shown on this post won't be coming on 0.2.2.0 though, so likely those will be bundled with Colonies, unless there is another patch between 2.2.0 and Colonies

Edited April 25 by MARL_Mk1

[epaga]

Thank you!!!

Please. Write. These. Every. Week. (Or at least every two!)

I literally, without exaggeration, mean this: even if it's a two sentence thing "We've been hard at work this week - one of the things we're working on is the parachutes not working. It's been tricky for a bunch of reasons, but we'll share more on that later." then that is 1000x better than your Radio Silence.

[Presto200]

I love hearing more about development! It's great to see that the development team is taking the community's bugs into consideration. I also love getting to see at least somewhat technical talk on how yall establish what needs to be worked on and how they are being worked on.  

56 minutes ago, Nate Simpson said:

We’ve submitted changes to address a number of these issues – in the case of the last one, we’ll just be letting you plan beyond your current dV allowance while we continue to improve our Delta-V accuracy over the longer term (there’s a very challenging set of problems to solve in the pursuit of accurate Delta-V projections for every possible vehicle that a player can make, so this is something we’ll likely be refining for quite a while).  

I appreciate the idea of unlocking the maneuver planner from Delta-V, I think that is a great call! I do want to say that I hope it stays this way even after the Delta-V calculator is "fixed", I would suggest just adding a warning statement that says "Plan exceeds Delta-V" but still lets the user try.

 

Great work everybody and I appreciate hearing more about the development process!

[Stephensan]

clouds!

[NexusHelium]

1 minute ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

Well, Dakota just said on Discord that some of the things shown on this post won't be coming on 0.2.2.0 though, so likely those will be bundled with Colonies, unless there is another patch between 2.2.0 and Colonies

Yeah but still. I'm crazy hyped

[EvelynThe Dragon]

42 minutes ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

I totally agree. If they managed to release smaller builds that fixed some of the current most annoying issues more frequently people would surely stick around for longer.

That said, we know nothing about how they streamline their dev processes and a change like that would probably require major restructuring of their work.

I worked on an enormous project with millions of lines of code and a highly complex hardware architecture. I am working on a new program now that has similar complexity (I am in aerospace).

If we could regression test , flight certify, and release critical updates in very short cycles., it is definitely possible for other projects.

No, we don't know their internal process, but there are ways to do this. And quite frankly, that's not really my problem or yours other than I am getting tired of the cycle of waiting forever to be disappointed yet again.

Edited April 25 by EvelynThe Dragon
Fix typo

[NexusHelium]

6 minutes ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

And while we are at it, I am not a fan of the science gathering or the rigid mission progression in the last update. The tech tree is also nonsensical and way too linear. KSP1`'s stock tree was madness though it was somewhat livable, this one really sucks. There needs to be a lot more variety and even randomness in missions. I miss Kerbal progression, and specialization,  and I think leaving an economy out of things is a giant mistake.

Clouds are more important than progression and specialization  

[Djaj88]

Thanks for the ram performance improvements. Can't wait for it to be playable on my platform. 

[Beale]

Really nice to see the PQS improvements.

[EvelynThe Dragon]

36 minutes ago, Presto200 said:

I appreciate the idea of unlocking the maneuver planner from Delta-V, I think that is a great call! I do want to say that I hope it stays this way even after the Delta-V calculator is "fixed", I would suggest just adding a warning statement that says "Plan exceeds Delta-V" but still lets the user try.

That is how it should have been from day 1. They need to stop dumbing down this game. A lot of the functionality I used to rely on (fuel flow priority anyone?) has been removed.  Don't protect me from myself. I might actually have a pocket full of clues and have reasons for wanting to do things I am no longer able to do in KSP 2

34 minutes ago, NexusHelium said:

Clouds are more important than progression and specialization  

It seems so. I love the improved visuals, but I want solid game play too.

Edited April 25 by EvelynThe Dragon

[Screeno]

I am so glad they hired some of the most passionate modders like blackrack.  That actually gives me hope for this game.

Oh and I am VERY pleased to see they are fixing exhaust plumes to make them look like realistic versions of themselves.  This looks like waterfall, which is the best representation of rocket exhaust plumes I've seen so far. 

Next thing that's similar is the terribly unrealistic vapor contrails. They don't happen constantly like that in real life. Irl they occur due to pressure dropping,  therefore the temperature lowering and then water vapour condensates creating what is basically short lived clouds. That includes for example the ones seen on the top of wings when fighter jets do high g maneuvers at low altitude at air shows, and vapor cones (which is not a sonic boom, but often vapor cones form in the transonic region if the conditions are right)

This website:

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/weather/contrails/

Explains the phenomenon well.

Also wing tip vortices are called that because they happen at the wing tip. In ksp2, every procedurally generated wing part makes contrails at the tip, but this doesn't mean the tip of the actual wing that may be comprised of multiple wing parts. It annoyingly creates these contrails for every piece. 

It should only occur on the tip of wings/tails etc. 

 

[Presto200]

I am also hoping for a Science tweak in the next couple updates, I know they didn't necessarily touch on this topic in this post but seeing so much progress coming soon (especially in terms of UI) I think it is appropriate to bring this up. I'm linking my old discussion on this topic, specifically on how the science is gathered from experiments. I think this improvement would also help first time user experiences because on release of FS! I was having a hard time understanding why it was one press and didn't feel like I was actually using all the experiments I put on my craft. There were times where I press the science button and didn't quite know what just happened if anything. Anyways, I just want to share my thoughts on my hopes for the next couple updates (doesn't even need to be 0.2.2). Again I love the communication and am excited to see where this game goes!  

 

 

[Dakota]

34 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

what about the font issue?

we're continuing to look at this as part of the UI/UX developments mentioned in Nate's post.

[WorkableDirector]

Nate you can't tease us with clouds as beautiful as that!

[NexusHelium]

14 minutes ago, Dakota said:

we're continuing to look at this as part of the UI/UX developments mentioned in Nate's post.

#confirmed  

[Screeno]

6 minutes ago, EvelynThe Dragon said:

That is how it should have been from day 1. They need to stop dumbing down this game. A lot of the functionality I used to rely on *fuel flow priority anyone?) has been removed.  Don't protect me from myself. I might actually have a pocket full of clues and have reasons for wanting to do things I am no longer able to do in KSP 2

Oh yes exactly.  Fuel flow stuff , commnet, heating (skin and internal temperature) and jet engines not using kerosene are my gripes I can come up with.

Of course,  fuel flow mechanics should work just like they do in ksp1. Don't know why they didn't by default.  

Commnet simply should just be implemented just as it was in ksp1. I don't see why not. Dumbing the game down any more is not fun. 

I don't know why temperature is not skin/internal and only a global temperature per part.  There's a lot more interesting gameplay to be had when it's like that. It was by default in ksp1, so why not now. 

And now on to jet engines. 

The only jet engine that should use liquid methane is the rapier. Like the irl (concept) sabre engine uses LH2/LOX

Turbojet/turbofan engines in real life do not use cryogenic liquids as fuel. Whiplash, Cheetah, Goliath, Wheesley and Juno are all in this category.  There should be jet fuel available.  Which could just be labeled as pure kerosene for simplicity. 

So therefore think there should be fuel switching for standard tanks between LCH4/LOX, LOX,  and  "generic jet fuel" as well of course procedural wings that can be loaded with fuel. 

Not talking about hydrogen tanks for the nuclear engines, monopropellant, or xenon gas for ion engines as those are separate things, aka special tanks for specific fuels. I mean all the big standard fuel tanks that currently only take LCH4 and LOX

All bipropellant rocket engines in ksp use LCH4/LOX and I feel that is fine to be that simple. 

But it makes no sense at all for airbreathing engines that aren't the rapier to use cryogenic liquid methane! 

Tldr All tanks that can currently hold LCH4/LOX should be able to switch between that and a "jet fuel" which should be what Turbojet and turbofan engines should have to use. 

[The Aziz]

No date, pls Nate

[EvelynThe Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Screeno said:

Oh yes exactly.  Fuel flow stuff , commnet, heating (skin and internal temperature) and jet engines not using kerosene are my gripes I can come up with.

Yeah, I just didn't want to get bogged down in details, I agree pretty much with all your points.