The official unofficial 0.22 discussion thread

[KatzOhki]

I'm really excited for 0.21! I'm going to probably publish some lifter stages and rovers as subassemblies. And I also plan to air scoop eve and jool

[Firenexus13]

I'm really excited for 0.21! I'm going to probably publish some lifter stages and rovers as subassemblies. And I also plan to air scoop eve and jool

Typo! you said 0.21! . . . /\

...................................|

I NEED SCIENCE!!!:confused:

MOAR SCIENCE!!!:confused::confused:

(maybe something to do with the science, however...)

YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT SCIENCE!!!:confused:

If you can, get on the floor and weep. yep, you read this correctly, weep. weep about... I've said too much!

(TL;DR, person make typo, i want science, said too much.)

[Drunkrobot]

My most coveted feature is subassemblies. Yeah, R&D and career mode is really exciting and all, but subassemblies promises to be most beneficial to me. See, I like to play KSP in the same way real space agency's do their stuff-rely on standardised, well tested, overall excellent designs as much as possible. Putting in an effort to create fast, sate, efficient, clean and low part components makes the flying part of the game more enjoyable, as well as giving you more time to enjoy that flying, since you spend less time in the VAB.

Instead of spending half an hour putting together a rocket, I could just go "Right, gotta get this big new module to the space, let's get out a large tug module, a stretched second stage, a booster equipped "heavy" launch stage, and bish bash bosh, LAUNCH PAD.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[stupid_chris]

Merged this with the big thread in General Discussion

[Quantum Jim]

I wonder whether manned research stations like ISS will make sense in 0.22. Solar Arrays already produce so much power that you hardly need more than one small array. If you need to return most experiments for maximum value, and if unmanned craft have the same utility as manned craft, then a bunch of reusable drones might be the most cost effective solution. Of course I still would like to make my Skylab version.

[astropapi1]

I wonder whether manned research stations like ISS will make sense in 0.22. Solar Arrays already produce so much power that you hardly need more than one small array. If you need to return most experiments for maximum value, and if unmanned craft have the same utility as manned craft, then a bunch of reusable drones might be the most cost effective solution. Of course I still would like to make my Skylab version.

In most cases, a single RGT should be enough for all your station's power requirements. The electricity system should get revamped somewhere in the near future. What's the point of strapping a couple of batteries to a probe if they hardly last a couple of minutes?

[rodion]

On a smaller update scale as regards 0.22, isn't there an issue of KSP Weekly due today? Are they published at any specific hour, or just whenever they're ready? I don't want to pester, but those things are like heroin to me.

[Comrade Jenkens]

usually between 9pm and 11pm for me, though that's London time.

[rodion]

Thanks, I'm also in the UK so I'll look out for it later tonight.

[lazarus1024]

In most cases, a single RGT should be enough for all your station's power requirements. The electricity system should get revamped somewhere in the near future. What's the point of strapping a couple of batteries to a probe if they hardly last a couple of minutes?

I imagine it will be updated at some point. SQUAD has mentioned they think they might add life support at some point, so that'll likely tie in to the electrical generation requirements. In addition, I'd assume each science experiment is going to require power. I hope/assume that some of them will require significantly more power than others. A soil sampler I would hope would use a fair amount of power (its scoping dirt and probably baking it to get mass spectrometer readings).

So long as the science experiments can be turned off, like the current ones can, I am happy, they can consume almost however much power they want. In fact I'd like them to. Takes a little more management then if you are power limited to carry out experiments.

At the same time, I also agree, it would be nice if batteries lasted longer. Either increase battery power, or reduce solar/RTG power output, while also reducing electrical consumption of things. At least by a factor of 5 either direction (so that, for example, a single moderate sized battery pack might be able to power a probe and a single light all night long on the Mun or something). Same goes with roving, wheels use way too much power and/or batteries don't last long enough. My basic rover design has the rover core plus a pair of the smallest battery packs. I might be able to rove 200-300m up a slight slope on the Mun in the shade before the batteries are exhausted. I wouldn't expect them to last hundred of kilometers, but I should have to strap a ton of RTGs to the rover or several huge battery packs to be able to rove a couple of kilometers in shadow (and once I am out of shadow it should probably take awhile for the batteries to recharge all the way, not maybe 60 seconds).

I am personally torn between sub-assemblies and R&D/Career being the things I am looking forward to the most. I think R&D/career I'll get the most enjoyment out of, but sub-assemblies are going to speed up my rocket building probably by an order of magnitude. That and it'll be so much more fun and somewhat more realistic to be able to grab my Munar Lander and slap it on a new CSM to go to Dres and then stick the whole thing on a new launch vehicle. Then later grab the same thing, but with a different lander for Duna. Maybe stick my standard rover on a lander for a mission, etc.

[aceassasin]

Im so excited for R&D, and Subassembly; however, i hope that the update will not hurt my games performance any more.

[Masked Turk]

Have the devs suggested when this might be coming out? Roughly?

[check]

Have the devs suggested when this might be coming out? Roughly?

They have not and they won't comment on release dates. My personal guess is mid-late October.

[Caesar15]

"So when's the update out?

"Go to Hell"

That's the KSP teams view on release dates. But I reckon it will be coming out shortly.

[Hodo]

Have the devs suggested when this might be coming out? Roughly?

Xmas gift if we are lucky.

[CpPolar268]

Have the devs suggested when this might be coming out? Roughly?

Official 0.22 Release Date: Soonâ„¢

[Snillum101]

I'm really excited about this update! I'm looking forward to progress in the game being met with rewards (i.e. science).

[Masked Turk]

Right, I'll stop delaying a Duna mission then

[Caesar15]

Right, I'll stop delaying a Duna mission then

If you go only at 1x speed the game will be way past .22 when you're done

[praise the suuun]

im concerned saving an entire space plane in the new sub assembly then bringing it into the vab will mess up its lift profile. VAB and SPH are still running completely different lift profiles.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50550-Will-0-22-give-the-same-aerodynamic-model-for-both-VAB-and-SPH?p=659160&mode=linear#post659160

[Eric S]

im concerned saving an entire space plane in the new sub assembly then bringing it into the vab will mess up its lift profile. VAB and SPH are still running completely different lift profiles.

Strictly a matter of how the indicators are displayed/what they mean, the flight characteristics don't change.

[nimiety]

I'm really looking forward to this update. Even if still playing in just sandbox mode I like the idea of having scientific goals to accomplish. And it'll give me a reason, aside from refueling station, to put a space station around different planets. The Sub-assembly loader will also ease a few head aches I've had trying to play without one installed.

[EvilotionCR2]

Looking very awesome! Just hoping that the Nova Sillisko's big array gets into the game (it was on Kerbalkon)

[Ryu Gemini]

I imagine that once they get a good number of features and system mechanics that they want up and running properly, they may start overhauling parts mechanics, the available parts, and so forth with increased fervor. And ditto with additions of things like new planetoids, moons, some "nearby" stars, etc.

Some ideas for instance of things they might do (or just could do): Once they get the science mechanics working, they might put in a manned research module that is of greater "science power" then unmanned ones. Perhaps they might also add a couple more non-solar power systems (a different size or two of nuclear system, and maybe a couple fuel-cell systems that use fuel to generate power?), and make it such that kerbals need life support being powered to survive (so people don't just send up kerbals in a can to get more research). In which case they would use their EVA suit's power when its not online, and would automatically recharge said suit when inside any ship or structural with life support turned on. Naturally, the research tree could include things that improve the kerbal's spacesuits too (i.e. increased life support time, adding thrusters/improving thrusters and fuel available).

I would actually fully endorse "modular difficulty" on that note. That is to say, there would not just be a single difficulty option that you can set to easy, normal, or hard. But rather, there would be a handful different ones, which you could set individually. For instance, one difficulty simply would be "life support" from which you choose normal, easy, or unlimited (easy would perhaps double available EVA lifesupport for any given suit and halve energy costs of life support systems on ships, unlimited means they live endlessly like they do now for people who don't want to bother with life support). There could also then be options for science too (easy, normal, hard), which different ones applying a different base multiplier to all science earned in that game. There could even be an option for fuel too (i.e. an easier difficulty multiplying fuel counts of fuel tanks by a base multiplier, etc).

A basic difficulty option in many games effectively does the equivalent of modifying all these kinds of things at once. I think that games, particularly one like this, should split up the difficulty a bit for more replay value.

It would also help save people from complaining about "imbalanced" difficulty levels which are only imbalanced because of what they personally want from the game. If a player can adjust 4 or 5 settings individually instead of having to rely on a "blanket difficulty setting," then they can balance the difficulty as is right for them.

Some games already offer things akin to this. For instance, Civilization allows you to set AI difficulty separately from things like resource availability, map size/style, rate of scientific progression, age of the planet, and what era of civilization you start the game in. Naturally, these particular options don't translate directly to KSP (this is a rocket sim, not a turn-based strategy game). But you get the point.

Putting that little argument aside, I am looking forward to the research system partly for the simple fact that it will justify them putting in some overpowered "end game" technology that requires substantial investments of less advanced rockets and missions to get enough research to unlock in mission mode.

[lajoswinkler]

Quick question. I've bought KSP, so when 0.22 comes out, will Steam just automatically update everything or do I have to do something?