Love the game BUT..........

[csanders]

W

the "This isn't a gaming company" argument is as stupid as it gets. Modders can turn the game upside down and create (and update) a part pack in a whim and squad battles to include 5 kspx parts per update? And I'm using parts as example, you can basically just use every feature in the game to talk about this level of incompetence.

Dunning Kruger in full effect. Calling someone else incompetent because you don't have the competence to know what you're talking about.

I'm sure the KSP team could release tons of parts if they wanted too. They don't have to because they made that mod-able by the player base - a feat that is not easy to accomplish.

Apparently you think this game is nothing but spaceship parts.

[Sirrobert]

Have to correct you there.. The engine supports 64bit and there is even a fully working 64bit version of KSP for linux. It is just the windows build of KSP 64bit version that does not currently work, which is why it has not been released yet.

Right thanks. I don't really concider the 64 bit version of windows atm. No reason to be whiny about something that simply doesn't work. I'm sure they'll get to it when they start optimizing

Do not move the goalpost. One thing is waiting 3 months for a recategorization and 5 new parts, another very different is waiting 3 months for an update worthy of said time. What the hell happened to "often but lighter updates"? We just got the lighter part.

Just because the career mode didn't add awhole lot of bits, doesn't mean it's a small update.

They didn't balance anything, that's why there was a day 1 techtree mod, they just threw the already existing parts into tiers and made 4 new to add some progression. Coding UI elements is easy as hell, unless you are coding your game in some senseless way.[/quote

We got day1 techtree mods, cause everyone wants something else. That's the beaty of allowing mods in your game. Personally I think the techtree is quite ballanced for a first version. Needs some work ofcourse, but that's what we are in alpha for

Unbreakable != Rigid. Rockets are not spaghetti.

Correct. My rockets are not spagetthi. Infact, they are extremely stable.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the design.

Oh jesus, WHY did I have to read this part last. Now I discovered who am I responding to. Wish I wouldn't have wasted my time like this. I'll just click submit and be done with you.

You are cute. Still not pointing out what's broken though

[Xyd]

What about space engine then, being made by a single guy?

Bloody hell, your arguement and the basis for it is entirely illogical.

What are you getting at? Space Engine is all procedurally generated. KSP isn't. Your argument of >> This game development time vs >> KSP is heavily flawed. Your not taking into account of the engines being used, the differences in code work and what is being accomplished. Look at Evochron Mercenary, again one guy. Again, procedurally generated and again very little to the gameplay compared to what you get in KSP.

If your going to continue down this road of foolishly debating the development process of KSP versus entirely different process of development with other games then your eventually going to be labeled a troll because you seem to refuse the deeper aspects of game design. You can't simplify it the way your trying to do.

[Kilmeister]

1. Yes the Squad team is limited. So I'm not expecting HUUGE patches every month. But look at the last patch, I believe it was around 70 MB in data, which took around 3-4 months. Yes it was an awsome leap and added much more to the game, but other companies add 1-3 GB of data in the same time with the same size team. Look at overkill and payday 2.

This hurts codemonkey's brain.

Using patch size as a metric? really?

oww...

[Sirrobert]

They didn't, the problem comes from the part connection being one single joint, specially notable in tall rockets, forcing you to relay in struts, SAS and wide rockets.

Really?

So you dont see control surfaces and winglets creating lift from nothing? or how a giang cube will fly better than if you put connes because it depends of the mass instead of the form? You find this to be perfect and without need of fix?

That's not broken. That's simplified for gameplay reasons

[csanders]

Bloody hell, your arguement and the basis for it is entirely illogical.

What are you getting at? Space Engine is all procedurally generated. KSP isn't. Your argument of >> This game development time vs >> KSP is heavily flawed. Your not taking into account of the engines being used, the differences in code work and what is being accomplished. Look at Evochron Mercenary, again one guy. Again, procedurally generated and again very little to the gameplay compared to what you get in KSP.

If your going to continue down this road of foolishly debating the development process of KSP versus entirely different process of development with other games then your eventually going to be labeled a troll because you seem to refuse the deeper aspects of game design. You can't simplify it the way your trying to do.

But it LOOKS bigger!

Sure, there's no user created spacecraft that are pieced together in any sort of random alignment, that the software then has to understand correctly. But that's the easy part really.

[Alguien]

That's not broken. That's simplified for gameplay reasons

What gameplay reasons are there to make parts useless?

[Guest]

I love it when people insist on comparing apples to pogo sticks. Oh, wait, no I don't.

[csanders]

What gameplay reasons are there to make parts useless?

I personally wouldn't say aerodynamics are simplified for game play. They're simplified to be "good enough for now."

Generating accurate real-time aerodynamics for an infinite variety of random crafts that also happen to dynamically change form in real-time (staging, parts breaking off), isn't exactly an easy task.

[Whackjob]

I'm going to take a moment to make a point.

I don't think it's unfair to say that I'm probably better at strutting and reinforcement than most. I've demanded a bit more out of my equipment then the average player. Given the size of my average creation, I feel it's safe to say that I'm familiar with the extremes of strut work required, both minimalist, and extremist.

From what I see, things are right about where they should be. I would not want connection points to be stronger than what they are now. On a standard, realistic rocket, strutting required is extremely minimal. It's only when you get to the point where you reach the ridiculous and implausible that you have to go to the extremes as I have.

Therefore, I discount the notion that rockets are spaghetti. I do this not out of scorn or personal belief, but rather out of experience.

[DMagic]

I followed the instructions with fraps and F11. But where is the data?

The .csv file with the benchmark results should be in C:\FRAPS\Benchmarks. It should be called KSP *time stamp* *benchmark type*, and if you selected more than one benchmark type, like fps and frametime you'll get more than one file.

[Whackjob]

The .csv file with the benchmark results should be in C:\FRAPS\Benchmarks. It should be called KSP *time stamp* *benchmark type*, and if you selected more than one benchmark type, like fps and frametime you'll get more than one file.

That folder doesn't exist in my fraps folder. Maybe it failed to create it during the benchmark due to access rights... not sure. I have to office, so it'll have to wait until I get home tonight. I'll try to remember!

[Shuttle]

Something undergoing tons of force needs reinforcement?! Next thing you'll tell me you need oxidizer to get combustion in an airless environment.

I think the problem with dancing/wobbling/spaghetti rockets is that it looks weird and unrealistic. I personally would like to see wobbling replaced with pre-baked animation - for example, pieces of heat protection breaking off, steel cracks and stuff like that.

That's not broken. That's simplified for gameplay reasons

As far as I know engine doesn't support multiple connection joints so there is nothing to simplify.

[wasmic]

Well, they can go ahead and do stuff like fix wooble, the game supporting more than 4 GB ram, fixing the aerodynamics or a planeart pass instead of adding flags, some wheels, kerman recruitment, and a background for said kerman recruitment.

As far as i have see over this year, Squad is adding more trash instead of fixing what they have in the plate already. Which is pretty counterproductive. And meanwhile users have to resort to mods to fix some of this stuff.

You do realize that people were crying for wheel when squad made them? And you find the first implementation of career mode, which future updates will build upon, to be trash? The kerman recruitment was a feature needed for when money is added, and the astronaut complex background was just something they made, while they were also doing other things. Also, there currently is no way to add ksp 64 bit support, as the current unity x64 builds are extremely buggy and crashy. The only things that I agree with you should be done are the aerodynamics model redo and the planeart pass - but according to your logic, the planeart pass would be just as much trash as the astronaut complex background screen. And I don't know about you, but I can wait for the aerodynamics redo.

[Sirrobert]

I love it when people insist on comparing apples to pogo sticks. Oh, wait, no I don't.

Pogosticks are severely limited in vitamin capacity.

They do contain alot of iron though

[PDCWolf]

Is he working a full time job besides?

Is he working a full time job besides?

He needs food and a house, so yeah. He just now started to ask for donations, after creating a mostly complete space tour game.

Ok. So what's preventing you from completely modding the game to something that suits you better?

This is something that the entire suggestions section knows. Suggesting mods is not a solution, is like patching a water loss with chewed gum.

Maybe it can. But it isn't. Do you think posting in the abrasive way you are is going to help anything?

If people are intelligent enough they'll ignore my passionate self and think about what I said. If it's helpful or not depends on who reads it, if you turn your head away on the first time I use strong language, then that's your problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_oscillation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slosh_dynamics

Yeah, pogo oscilation and slosh dynamics make engines slide below the fueltanks and the rocket collide with itself because something came loose, or even better, they make the rocket turn into a banana.

The quotes above show it's a perfectly legitimate argument. Apparently what only makes it stupid is that it undercuts your argument.

If we were talking about a different type of phenomena they would be valid, but we aren't. we are talking about rockets behaving like spaghetti for no reason and requiring extra parts between joints. I don't care about having to extra strut a SRB, but I do care about making my payload and my freaking fuel tanks safe with hard wire when that's not the case.

Wobble would be acceptable if for fuel tanks we got the bare metal and pipes and we had to decide the structural linkage instead of a fully built fuel tank that is supposed to be a lego piece.

But you don't criticize things in a constructive manner. You're undercutting your own cause. That's why I don't believe that is your cause.

Don't believe it if you don't want to. Hell, that's why I make videos and tutorials and why I have been playing this game since 0.13, because I hate it and I want it to be destroyed.

No, the rest of us just use constructive criticism. That's because we want to help our cause, not hinder it. Also, I imagine you'll be getting a forum infraction shortly.

Do try to remain civil.

I'm going to get it that's for sure (And I'm not complaining), and this thread is going to get closed and ignored too. That's the way things work around here.

Dunning Kruger in full effect. Calling someone else incompetent because you don't have the competence to know what you're talking about.

I study system analysis and I'm a graphic designer.

You are cute. Still not pointing out what's broken though

It was already pointed out. You believe an atmosphere made of bricks is simplified for gameplay and not broken even when it was stated by the devs that the atmosphere was never though to be for planes AND that it is an incomplete feature AND that it is going to be fixed -someday-.

You will ignore the wobble argument hiding behind the LELSOKERBALXD mentality, even when things being that way was never the original idea.

You will ignore my arguments saying your rockets are best designed, even when you haven't seen a single rocket of mine. It's useless to argue with you, you are as blind as a wall.

Edited November 5, 2013 by PDCWolf

[DMagic]

That folder doesn't exist in my fraps folder. Maybe it failed to create it during the benchmark due to access rights... not sure. I have to office, so it'll have to wait until I get home tonight. I'll try to remember!

That is a little weird. If you open FRAPS and go to the FPS tab it should show the benchmark data directory and allow you to change it to something else if creating a folder in the default place is a problem.

[Sirrobert]

How about you show us an example of a rocket that 'should' be stable (according to you) but isn't.

Cause until now it's just you yelling about wobble, with the rest of us saying that you are wrong (I'm inclined to believe the guy with the screenshot proving his experience)

[boxman]

They didn't, the problem comes from the part connection being one single joint, specially notable in tall rockets, forcing you to relay in struts, SAS and wide rockets.

Really?

So you dont see control surfaces and winglets creating lift from nothing? or how a giang cube will fly better than if you put connes because it depends of the mass instead of the form? You find this to be perfect and without need of fix?

So now we are bitching about some placeholder feature that some modder made years ago?? Something squad has already said they will replace with something better.

But I guess you rather want them to remove the winglets, wings and rest of the spaceplane parts that loads of people have fun playing with?

[csanders]

I study system analysis and I'm a graphic designer.

So you admit you know almost nothing about programming, development, and physics.

Like I said.

[wasmic]

@PDCWolf

This shows that you are nothing but a troll.. You seriously complain about having to strut the rocket??? And you expect that you are able to attach huge SRBS or liquid rockets to a SINGLE tiny decoupler and not have any wobble at all??? WOW...

I would actually be seriously pissed if they did what you suggested and removed the chance of structural failure or wobble when not using struts.

And your comment about the SAS shows you know nothing as well... The wobble only happens now on poorly constructed rockets or if you have way too many reaction wheels and gimbals.

You do realize that that is not what he's complaining over? He's complaining over the fact that some rocket designs that look like real rockets, which are not strutted, will wobble a lot. When attaching radial boosters, you almost always need to add struts, even though real rockets with radial boosters has nothing that even looks like struts. I think the reason he is complaining is that ferram4 was able to code a plugin that makes rockets that should realistically be stabel actually be stable, and that squad has failed to do that. I do actually follow PDCWolf on this argument, can't say the same for the other ones, though. And I'm easily able to live with it until squad can add a proper stability update.

[Shuttle]

How about you show us an example of a rocket that 'should' be stable (according to you) but isn't.

Cause until now it's just you yelling about wobble, with the rest of us saying that you are wrong (I'm inclined to believe the guy with the screenshot proving his experience)

Are you serious?!

^Engine is dancing.

N1 rocket, ~2500 tons, no launch tower/clamps/etc, no wobbling:

[Deadweasel]

The biggest culprit behind the "wobbly rockets" issue is the physics of the engine itself. There are a few demo vids out there for an alternative physics plugin (Bullet Physics) for Unity, and in them, they compare Unity's default with the plugin's behavior.

It kind of clicked when I watched the first video, and a simple demonstration of the default engine using some stacked blocks was wiggling and bending like a large un-strutted KSP rocket.

That said, asking SQUAD to change out the engine at this stage, when x64 builds could very well be stable and released in the not-too-distant future, would be bad timing, and a lot of redundant work.

EDIT: In Shuttle's image, I know what he's talking about, and there is some kind of bug associated with those engines, but I rarely see it, because if we're talking realism issues here, ROCKETS DON'T REST ON THEIR ENGINES. Heh.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Deadweasel

[boxman]

Yeah, pogo oscilation and slosh dynamics make engines slide below the fueltanks and the rocket collide with itself because something came loose, or even better, they make the rocket turn into a banana.

Maybe you should ask yourself why this happens to you and not most of us?? I build huge lifters with 30+ mainsail engines and large red tanks, and yet this does not happen to me which suggests that you are doing something wrong. You should stop blaming the game for your own incompetence and maybe try to figure out what you are doing wrong.

And like wackjob said earlier... there is no wobble problems if you build a normal sized rocket and the wobble on the giant unrealistic lifters are solved by adding struts in the right places.

[Sirrobert]

You do realize that that is not what he's complaining over? He's complaining over the fact that some rocket designs that look like real rockets, which are not strutted, will wobble a lot. When attaching radial boosters, you almost always need to add struts, even though real rockets with radial boosters has nothing that even looks like struts. I think the reason he is complaining is that ferram4 was able to code a plugin that makes rockets that should realistically be stabel actually be stable, and that squad has failed to do that. I do actually follow PDCWolf on this argument, can't say the same for the other ones, though. And I'm easily able to live with it until squad can add a proper stability update.

Just because you don't SEE the reinforcements, doesn't mean that they aren't there

Are you serious?!

http://i.imgur.com/hB3XTNR.png

^Engine is dancing.

N1 rocket, ~2500 tons, no launch tower/clamps/etc, no wobbling:

http://i.imgur.com/iKl2yXQ.jpg

That thing has WAY to much thrust. That's your problem