The Grand 0.22 Discussion Thread

[khyron42]

I'm not sure whether this is a bug, a feature, an easter egg, or an oversight... but there's tundra terrain literally next door to the space center. I ended up landing on it accidentally.

making the screenshot of flag location a link to avoid spoiling anything for people: http://i.imgur.com/wSJl7qH.png

[EatVacuum]

When does mechjeb come into the tech tree - i suck at redezvous...

It comes in when the mod maker puts in the two lines of code needed to add each part into the tech tree. Or when you do. Or you can add the mechjeb core to the stock parts. Instructions on how to put the mod parts in the tech tree are posted on reddit and here in the forums. Try this link

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53328-ksp-22-and-mods

But better, check spaceport and the addons support forums as (at least for the mods whose devs are active) .22 versions are being posted daily. I can attest that the mechjeb version I was running a month ago under .21 works fine under .22 at least for me.

Hope this helps

Edited October 22, 2013 by EatVacuum

[briansun1]

link? (10char)

[Xeo]

link? (10char)

Here you go : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53025-Science-and-mods%2.

[shadow5329]

Just asking, but whatever happened to the launch tower seen in ver0.19 but disappeared in later updates? Will it be replaced in future updates?

[KasperVld]

The red one? That was removed because it kept getting in the way of larger rockets, causing them to explode at / shortly after launch

[shadow5329]

It couldn't be made so that the user had the option to toggle it on or off?

[KasperVld]

No, because you'd really end up with hundreds or thousands of options if you go down that road. I believe there is a mod that adds it back, though

[RocketPilot573]

I'm not sure whether this is a bug, a feature, an easter egg, or an oversight... but there's tundra terrain literally next door to the space center. I ended up landing on it accidentally.

making the screenshot of flag location a link to avoid spoiling anything for people: http://i.imgur.com/wSJl7qH.png

Well that explains what happened to all the trees around KSC...

[ThesaurusRex]

INDEED:

[Mindofscience3]

Ran into a bit of an issue the other day. After landing on Minmus with tier 3.5 tech (tier 3 + space tape), i went for a walk, a sample collection, and a flag planting. Everything was fine until i tried to return to my capsule. Jeb (may his soul rest in peace) popped through the ground and the height meter did the old 999999999 888888888 etc thing as the kraken of old. Somehow the kraken has found a home on minmus. Sorry if i don't have logs of this. It happened 3 or 4 days ago and just popped into my head that i should report this issue. Another thing, after Jeb went... "missing"... i was still focused on where Jeb was and I went to the space center hoping that I would be able to refly the mission from before it did things. The ship jeb came on disappeared even from debris though the flag was still there. When i attempted to fly another mission in orbit, the game locked up. Restart fixed whatever issues had happened, but Jeb was gone .

[deknk12]

Anyone notice this with .22?

I started the career mode, and came back to it a few hours later and each time I loaded my saved game it froze. I hadn't gotten very far so I deleted the saved game and started fresh and now my options are much more limited from the "Start".

Previously I had two capsules available from the "Start" but now just one.

Anyone else have this issue?

[Revencher]

1st off fantastic job everyone.

I do have a few questions though.

Do mods work with career mode?

Also is there a way to save data and close the doors on experiments?

Edited October 23, 2013 by Revencher

[Madrias]

Been enjoying the Career mode (finally filled out my Tech Tree), but had one mild irritation with it.

Pretty much, since the Spaceplane update, I learned how to make planes and forgot about rockets because I could get planes into space and to all the planets reasonably easily.

My one mild complaint is just how long it takes to unlock all the parts needed to make a basic space-plane. I'm talking LV-T45 engines, delta wings, MK1 cockpit, and the winglet things that I always forget the names of. It's not a big complaint, just something that bothered me. I had to learn how to throw rockets into orbit, something I'd not done since I got the ability to make planes.

Other than that, I love the tech tree. Having to earn your way to better rockets is nice. I just kinda find it hard to believe that the Kerbals were launching rockets before they had airplanes.

[Rage097]

I've gotten to the stage where I need to return to Minmus with a lander. It's not going well thus far. Science parts make a lightweight lander look...odd. so I over engineer.

[PrivateFlip]

Do mods work with career mode?

Also is there a way to save data and close the doors on experiments?

Some mods do, some do not work (yet). Parts mods have to alter the config file of all their parts slightly to make them compatible with .22, but most of the bigger part mods have already been converted by now. If you check the release thread or spaceport page of your favourite mod, the developer usually mentions if the mod has been made compatible with .22

Data is saved automatically if you select to keep the data. The doors close on experiments if you choose to reset the part, but this also deletes any data stored.

Ran into a bit of an issue the other day. After landing on Minmus with tier 3.5 tech (tier 3 + space tape), i went for a walk, a sample collection, and a flag planting. Everything was fine until i tried to return to my capsule. Jeb (may his soul rest in peace) popped through the ground and the height meter did the old 999999999 888888888 etc thing as the kraken of old. Somehow the kraken has found a home on minmus.

...

In my experience Minmus does seem the place for things to sink through the ground (it's definitely made of ice cream). Had flags falling through the ground there in .22 but also in previous versions.

[MythicLionMan]

A lot of the discussion about the tech tree has focused on the tech tree as a 'tutorial' for new players. Since I'm a relatively new player (and a complete newb on the forums) I thought I'd give my perspective after playing with the new update. I started playing KSP in late August, early September, so before the update I played for about a month and a half. That said I'm a bit addicted so I've played a lot in that time. So far I haven't tried any mods and I'm just playing the stock game.

Initial Rection

First off, if I hadn't lurked on the forums and watched some youtube videos I wouldn't have had a clue at all about how to do science. As it is my research let me know that I could take samples from the launchpad and do other experiments without flying at all which got me started and let me learn the ropes. For now I'd recommend new players start playing in sandbox mode since the science is still pretty opaque, but I assume that this will change as career mode is fleshed out.

The tech tree is decidedly odd in places and doesn't always make logical sense, but it is a gameplay mechanic so some artistic license is to be expected. I didn't find it overly difficult or overly easy to unlock nodes, but as I progressed I started unlocking nodes much faster than I could use the parts in them. There were parts (like the sepratron) that I'd never used in sandbox mode and I had assumed that I'd find a use for in career mode, but they flew by so quickly I didn't really need them. This may change as other aspects of career mode place more constraints on the game (escape towers?).

I found some of the messages about storing samples confusing. I only found out that I could store multiple EVA reports for different biomes stored in one capsule by reading the forums. Had I known I would have spammed the radio less. The distinction between a crew report and an EVA report is also a bit hazy and confusing.

SAS

I've only tried the SAS in the demo, 0.21 and now 0.22 and I must say my favourite was 0.21. It might be because I use a joystick (I bought it just for KSP). With the new SAS my ship bounces around a lot more and I have to give more jerky input on the joystick like I did when I was using the keyboard and 'feathering' the input. I like the joystick because it lets me give very small steady inputs, but the new SAS doesn't seem to like this.

Collecting Science

I do like that the science doesn't interfere with the open nature of the game. Science is plentiful enough that I don't have to extract every last drop of it and I can still pick what missions I do to collect it. It feels right that science isn't something that I can exhaust in an area since it's not a crop. That said, my OCD kicks in, and when on a mission I find it hard to not transmit repeatedly until I've exhausted an experiment in the current biome. Even though I chose to do this it does become tedious. I stopped reading the science text and just kept retransmitting until I got a 0.1 return value. Making multiple flights to extract the same information seems like a waste of fuel, and a big part of space flight is about being efficient, so there is a gameplay mechanic that encourages this spamming in addition to my OCD. I agree with other players suggestions that fewer transmissions be required to extract all of the science and that there be two pools of science points per experiment, one that can be transmitted and one that must be returned to make sample return more valuable. (Though requiring sample return for a thermometer reading does seem pretty weird).

Finding Science

Finding biomes on Kerbin and the Mün from orbit did add a sense of exploration to the quest for science. This got tedious as well, but I feel that was due to the repeated transmissions, not having to search. Putting myself in an inclined orbit that swept a lot of the terrain below was interesting and seeing the world scroll by below was pretty neat. I could spot the different biomes from space, but I only knew they existed because of information I read in the forums.

I like having to 'search' for the biomes and wouldn't want it changed so that I started the game with a global map of where all of the science and biomes are. It would feel too much like just picking stuff up and that doesn't really seem right for 'science' even if it is just a technology currency. That said I think some mapping tools would make exploring the biomes more rewarding and fun. I looked into the persistent file and noticed that each science report contains the planet and biome where it was made. If it also contained the lat/lon these could be plotted on a 2D planetary map (or the 3D map) so that I could see where I hadn't explored yet. (I'm assuming there will also eventually be a UI that lists all of the science collected without looking in the persistent file).

To make hidden science easier to discover early scientific discoveries could lead to more science (which is how real science works after all). For instance an initial EVA report could tell me that scientists would like to have EVA reports from orbit over different areas (one of the current Mün reports suggests landing in craters, another could suggest observing them from orbit to indicate that they are separate biomes). I should be able to learn how the science system works by using it.

Another enhancement to science discovery would be an active mapping tool that would help discover biomes. Essentially it would be an instrument that I could activate and would do EVA reports constantly for me, and update a biome map of the areas I had covered in a 'fog of war' style. I could review this map and see which areas of the planet I had 'explored' by orbiting. Instead of showing every EVA report created by the auto map I'd only see the unique ones. By checking the map I could see where EVA reports suggested a sample landing. It would also be cool to see the pattern of my orbits painted on the map as I filled in areas :-) Different mapping tools could detect different science targets, so it would be worth scanning again when I had different technology (i.e.: a satellite camera would detect biomes that were good targets for sample return, later I could return with a gravity meter and detect areas worth sending a seismograph to.) This way there would always be new areas worth exploring and I wouldn't be stabbing in the dark. The map views would have to allow different 'coverage' overlays to allow science reports and coverage maps from different scanners to be displayed.

This kind of mapping could prove useful for other aspects of gameplay such as using a radar map to find level landing sites (I often don't realize I'm landing on a hill until it's too late) or to detect resources (don't know if this is how kethane works or not).

Another twist to make discovering science more interesting would be to randomly upgrade several biomes in the solar system when a new game is started. This would be superficially similar to the original biome but would have a much higher rate of return for surface samples or ground experiments. The orbital EVA report could hint that the scientists want a sample from that particular biome. For instance "This mountain looks like it's made of quartzite. A sample of those rocks would help us understand how the area formed." or "The gravity of this crater indicates that the ground is particularly dense. It would be an interesting place to locate a seismometer".

Thoughts On Overall Direction

It's hard to evaluate career mode overall at this point since it's obviously not complete. This makes it hard to comment on the balance of the science system or the tech tree without knowing how they will be affected by money, government, public opinion, kerbonaut management, etc. What I can say is where I'd like to see it go.

One of the brilliant aspects of KSP is that there's so much to do - there's literally an entire (small) solar system to explore. If I decided I want to land on Duna it's challenging because of the way the game models the orbital mechanics. If I then want to get a sample return from Duna's poles that mission has it's own challenges. Neither of these missions had to be coded by the devs, but they're both challenging and interesting in their own way because of the constraints imposed by the games physics model. In a sense there's an infinite number of these 'procedural missions' that are challenging and rewarding without having to be individually crafted.

In my mind the goal of career mode (and science in particular) is to steer me towards these missions and challenges without (excessively) limiting my choices. If I'm a Manley man I can choose to fly to Jool from tier 1 of the tech tree, or I can build and learn slowly with other missions nearer to Kerbal. But the extra limits imposed by career mode give me an increasingly difficult set of goals to work towards like landing or observing new areas.

That's pretty much what I was doing in sandbox before 0.22. I did return missions to Minmus, the Mün, Duna and one way trips to Eve and Jool as well as building a space station in Kerbin orbit. I did these things to figure out how to do them and learn skills such as transfer orbits and docking, but I didn't do any of them particularly well (it's amazing what a few orange tanks will do). I intend to revisit each of these missions being more efficient with my delta V (and hence my costs) by refining my ship design and my transfer orbits.

I don't think it matters if the game starts with probes or with Kerbonauts, but there should be times when it makes sense to use probes instead of Kerbals. There should be a reason to build a space station, a reason to build a surface base, a reason to do fuel transfer, and a reason to use almost every one of the stock parts. Elements such as resource mining that radically change the way you reach distant planets (by eliminating the need to boost fuel out of Kerbins gravity well) should be introduced late in the game once the solar system has been explored traditionally.

I don't think that the game needs to mirror the history of terrestrial space programs (all of which are under performing for various reasons compared to predictions when we first put men on the moon) but career mode should create similar constraints and opportunities for the player. There's a reason we've sent many probes to Mars but no humans. It's very expensive and dangerous to send humans to Mars. And while Kerbals may have little regard for safety (green goo) it's still easier to send a probe to the Mün than a Kerbal because life support is heavy, complex to develop, and expensive. If the game ever gets life support then I imagine that the first tier should be enough to let a Kerbal breathe for a few hours (like a scuba tank) for suborbital, or brief orbital flights but not enough to get to another planet or moon.

In summary, I'd like to see career mode progress to where it preserves the open nature of the game, but offers the player new and interesting challenges that encourage the player to explore all of the aspects of their space program. Ideally the player should still choose the challenges. There's a balance to be struck between gameplay, realism and breadth, and also between having goals and preserving the players free choice. I hope that the devs have a vision similar to mine and are heading towards taking career mode in this direction by expanding the science and tech in the ways I've outlined or that they have better ideas that achieve the same goals. I've been blown away but the depth and breadth of what they've produced so far and already feel that I've got more than my money's worth, so the future is just gravy. Not only am I having fun I'm learning a lot. :-)

[MythicLionMan]

About kerbal skills: I think most games make a big mistake when it comes to experience-accumulation - they reward success, instead of failure. But it is from our failures from which we learn most (if we survive them, that is). Piling experience on top of game-progress for success, while giving none for failure just leads to ´save-scumming´ and the degeneration of any skill-based random element (take spells or mixing potions in Elder Scrolls, as an example), in general. Considering that building rockets will at some point cost you credits (or some other in-game currency), your pilots should gather most experience (in ´atmospheric piloting´ anyways) if their rocket goes to a thousand pieces before even reaching space - if they survive. That will make players consider wether not to roll with the failure (and thus not ´savescum´) if they can afford the loss in credits and give additional reason for escape pods and such.

I really like that idea! I always have an internal debate about whether or not I should revert a launch or restore a save. I justify reverting as a 'simulator run' but I like the idea of having to fix my mistakes occasionally. Penalizing people for restoring saves usually doesn't go down well, so rewarding them for not saving is a great idea. And learning from mistakes just makes so much sense. I learned the real world skills I use to play the game by making mistakes, so learning the virtual skills should work the same way.

[Madrias]

I also agree that failure should be rewarded as well. Maybe not so much as success, but in such a way to discourage me from reloading a quicksave or relaunching the mission. After all, if I fly a mission so poorly that my little probe rover ends up an impact crater on Minmus, some data should have been learned in the moments before impact that teach the Kerbals something, anything, about what not to do. Like not firing the LV-909 in stage without checking throttle position...

[Mr. Scruffy]

Well, Madrias, i´d dish out more ´experience´ (in the old RPG-slang) to kerbals surviving a desaster than to those you returned from a glitchless mission. This ´extra-experience´ is to compensate for the cost and failure to progress in the game, directly. So that you might think, after a crash: ´Uh, that was a huge waste of money - but at least my Kermans survived and learned a lot from it. Let´s carry on. Next time must succeed though, or i´ll be hard strapped for cash.´, instead of ´Uh, that was a huge waste of money, that gained me nothing - let´s hit revert flight and act as if it never happenend.´

I´d regard that the more important, the earlier the mission fails: If the crucial error occurs, when you have already travelled for two in-game months, you might be less inclined to revert, anyways (if you still can, that is, and havent switched vehicles in the meantime). On the other hand, it should not be so much extra-experience, even for early failures, that you´d produce them on purpose to train your kerbals, as per definition, it wouldnt take much time to produce and repeat such intentional failures. It´s a tight balance to be found, here, which i´d approach from below (starting out with just a little more experience for early failures, ramping it up, if needed).

EDIT: MythicLionMan: I read your post and i agree to most - just typing this to spare you the feeling of being ignored after having put much effort in a long and well written post.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Mr. Scruffy

[Madrias]

True, Mr. Scruffy, that experience (as someone who used to play text-based RPG, I know the term well) should be proportional to how early the failure happens. As you said, there needs to be balance to where it won't be exploited for easy XP grinding. Perhaps the simplest way is that the more a certain failure happens, the less you gain from it until you eventually are learning nothing, similar to how the science system currently works?

For example: Let's say you've built a ship with a capsule, parachutes, escape system, the big orange tank (I know, it's late game, but humor me, okay?), and a Mainsail. You're casually cruising for orbit when suddenly, BOOM!, the mainsail explodes due to overheating. You punch out, float down to Kerbin, and gain, say, 20-30 science and a message, "Perhaps it is wiser to not use full power?" or something along those lines. Do it again, you get 5-10 science and a "Really? This again?". Again after that, you get nothing. However, if you build another ship and accidentally explode the fuel tanks with sepratrons, you'll get the 20 to 30 science again and the "Watch where you put the engines." mention.

[KlumsyK]

You guys are not going to appreciate this but here is what. Why are you guys letting 3d modelers have a field day and make everything all realistic and nondescript? I enjoyed the game more when i first got it! You are losing the simplicity and charm of the original concept! The updates are inexorably pulling towards an unartistic escalation of detail with no design. The new buildings have no character, even though they have all those tiny prickly details and little lights. Whoopty-doo! The new Mun is very impressive with that high res bump and the darker color but the old Mun was more FUN! With it's bright surface and somewhat cartoony craters. Are you trying to cater to an audience who you expect to be into science and not care about art? I dont know. You could have just called it Space Program Simulator and have crappy photo textures everywhere like those horrid 90's games when they first started to do 3d; and the astronauts just be random human dudes of normal proportions. Is the creative lead different? Is that whats going on? Look Im' sorry if this is pissing you off. Or maybe you think i'm a rude foolish troll. I could lavish compliments upon the team, sure, no problem: it's an amazing thing you have made, you all know that, and I've recommended it to all my friends. I really like the game and I just dont wanna see it become ugly and it's consistent design disintegrate into ... a design by community type look where there is no art direction or restraint. Kerbals should have ships and houses and roads designed by Kerbals, with all the pertaining wacky niftitude. But then they function in a scientifically sophisticated way. That's what I thought the idea was, no?

[Mr. Scruffy]

True, Mr. Scruffy, that experience (as someone who used to play text-based RPG, I know the term well) should be proportional to how early the failure happens. As you said, there needs to be balance to where it won't be exploited for easy XP grinding. Perhaps the simplest way is that the more a certain failure happens, the less you gain from it until you eventually are learning nothing, similar to how the science system currently works?

For example: Let's say you've built a ship with a capsule, parachutes, escape system, the big orange tank (I know, it's late game, but humor me, okay?), and a Mainsail. You're casually cruising for orbit when suddenly, BOOM!, the mainsail explodes due to overheating. You punch out, float down to Kerbin, and gain, say, 20-30 science and a message, "Perhaps it is wiser to not use full power?" or something along those lines. Do it again, you get 5-10 science and a "Really? This again?". Again after that, you get nothing. However, if you build another ship and accidentally explode the fuel tanks with sepratrons, you'll get the 20 to 30 science again and the "Watch where you put the engines." mention.

Provided there is a way for the program to tell different causes apart (i think it would be possible, if maybe not exhaustive - e.g. in the end, it might not be able categorize every failure correctly, but maybe most), i agree.

[BJ Quest]

Easter eggs and points?

I have only visited 2 Easter eggs (on Kerbin) in v22 so far. Without add ons it is a lot harder or time consuming to get to the various Easter eggs. It appears that there are no earned science point associated with doing this. Is this correct for all Easter eggs? -BJQ

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Easter eggs and points?

I have only visited 2 Easter eggs (on Kerbin) in v22 so far. Without add ons it is a lot harder or time consuming to get to the various Easter eggs. It appears that there are no earned science point associated with doing this. Is this correct for all Easter eggs? -BJQ

yes, unfortunatly i wish you did though