Anyone else notice this about 0.22?

[rodion_herrera]

Although I came aboard fairly recently sometime last April with the 0.18 Demo (and thus I don't know if say, v0.15 or v0.16 also didn't have any immediate patches), I noticed that this recent release didn't suffer from immediate patch-work due to some critical flaw/error a few hours after release. I think this is a good sign that the devs are really double (triple even) checking everything before release. Great work Squad!

Edited October 23, 2013 by rodion_herrera

[Dizzle]

Strangely, testing didn't seem to last as long, either.

[CalculusWarrior]

And that was even with the massive new R&D system implemented. I've noticed little to no kinks in how science works, myself. I suppose they did a lot of internal testing before handing it over to the Experimentals team, but still--great work you guys, I'm loving 0.22!

[Cirdan]

I think it is because of the move to git for development, and more thorough testing. You can read about the git move in detail here, but in short it lets features be tested without any interference from other features while development proceeds, meaning less work needs to be done when they are all merged together. I think it was a good decision.

[rodion_herrera]

I think it is because of the move to git for development, and more thorough testing. You can read about the git move in detail here, but in short it lets features be tested without any interference from other features while development proceeds, meaning less work needs to be done when they are all merged together. I think it was a good decision.

I've been employed in companies that use GitHub, and yes, it's remarkable how it speeds up development. Great decision by Squad.

[bsalis]

I think GIT is part of it. However the recent change to how testing is done has probably been a bigger impact...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/905-Branching-Out

[Crown]

Everything comes together like gears, I think. They have more personnel, more testers, different development pattern. And also they have no pressure time-wise from any publisher. The only pressure comes from thousands of fans, crying for the next update. Which might be more pressurising than anything else

But as long as they move on as they did the last years, the fan (We) will be like children on Christmas. Can't wait for it but after unpacking we are happy to infinity.

Love you, Squad. You give presents more often than Christmas.

[AmpsterMan]

I think this might be the result of the optimizations and back end work that 0.19-0.21 were all about. In Scott Manley's Interview of Felipe, Felipe expresses his delight that during experimentals the stuff that was breaking were new features.

[Scarecrow88]

I think this is a good sign that the devs are really double (triple even) checking everything before release. Great work Squad!

I take it you haven't tried using the new landing legs then, because they are a complete failure.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53664-New-Landing-Legs

[Deadpangod3]

They've hired the finest Jebediah Kermans as their testers.

If Jeb can't break it, it's unbreakable.

[Beachernaut]

I take it you haven't tried using the new landing legs then, because they are a complete failure.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53664-New-Landing-Legs

Granted they need to be fixed with some stronger values, but calling them a complete failure seems a bit much. A quick edit to their values in the cfg file is all you need.

[hobbsyoyo]

I've heard nothing but awful things about the new landing legs so I wouldn't say there are no bugs. Buggy landing legs is kind of a big deal for a lot of us - even of an issue that I downloaded the mod NovaPunch pack just to be able to have functioning legs. I have no idea how this issue wasn't spotted in play testing to be honest. The new SAS is a bit wonky at time, but I play with massive rockets so I understand it is probably a problem only myself and other massive missile monstrosity builders have.

[rodion_herrera]

I take it you haven't tried using the new landing legs then, because they are a complete failure.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53664-New-Landing-Legs

I actually have used them and I do like them--they work exactly like the ones on the Apollo LM's in that they seem to have a honeycomb material in them that absorbs shocks. So when I land on a slope, one leg actually ends up shorter than the others, and I think that's realistic. And if I'm not mistaken, they can actually be repaired by an EVAing Kerbal, which is just so cool

[borisvolodnikov]

I prefer the new legs. Maybe for bigger loads you just need MOAR legs?

[JumpsterG]

The new legs are not necessarily bugged, they're just too weak now for many people's designs from .21. Small and medium sized landers seem to do fine, but as they get larger, you find yourself needing way more legs than looks reasonable. Rockomax-sized landers now require a silly-looking number of legs to stand without giving way (if you can cram enough on at all).

I figure this is something that will either be tweaked in the future, or will create a new niche for super-heavy landing legs.

[i do find that some perfectly symmetrical designs will start to slump over for seemingly no reason, causing more weight on one side and squishing the legs due to uneven balance, so that might be a bug; though hard to replicate as it seems to happen at random]

[lesto]

i think they are starting to understand how they can write a cleaner code, and that is the result.

Good job squad

[hobbsyoyo]

The 'new landing legs' thread has picures of smallish-landers that still crumple over sideways - even with lots and lots of landing legs.

The especially frustrating thing is that the problem does seem unrepeatable and totally random and there are no options for bigger, sturdier legs (and simply adding more legs doesn't seem to fix the issue).

[Exposure]

The new legs are not necessarily bugged, they're just too weak now for many people's designs from .21. Small and medium sized landers seem to do fine, but as they get larger, you find yourself needing way more legs than looks reasonable. Rockomax-sized landers now require a silly-looking number of legs to stand without giving way (if you can cram enough on at all).

.....eh?

Are we talking things heavier than...I think the lander was around 17 tons at time of landing, or has my luck with not experiencing bugs in Obsidian games crossed over to KSP?

[hobbsyoyo]

17 tons Kerbal-weight or 17 tons Duna-weight?

[Beachernaut]

I haven't built any landers requiring more than 6 medium legs yet, so I haven't had any problems. However, it does appear that they may be weaker than they should be, which is easily fixed. The problem I see is that we have people overacting for a game in Alpha. Part of the Alpha process is to find stuff like this that made it past dev and closed testing. It's expected. The "it's broke and that's unacceptable!!" responses are a bit much.

[running]

So far works for me:

Ofcourse it's not a manned vessel. But still, engine, fuel tank, materials bay and stuff...

To be honest, it is parked on a slope and sometimes during the science gathering it suddenly started to tip over. SAS saved the day though en kept it upright.

[JumpsterG]

Good results from those landers, I'm glad to see! I should take the plunge and test a bunch more designs myself. Maybe get the calculator out and figure out load limits...

Back on topic: yeah, aside from some issues with landing legs, this has been a solid release by the development team and I'm looking forward to more of the same.