0.23 Whats new?

[JackleOfSparta]

Does anyone know what features are coming on 0.23?

[OrtwinS]

Stuff marked in blue here:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

Also, I recommend reading the dev notes from the last few Dev-note Tuesdays (in the Daily Kerbal forum).

Most important points (IMO):

- 0.23 will not bring 'major' new stuff

- Lots of bug fixing and performance upgrades though

- Science UI gets an overhaul, and you'll be able to view where you've done science already

- 3D mouse support

- tweakables (for more details, read those dev notes)

[austin4050]

I think this might help a lot! news

[JackleOfSparta]

Thanks alot

[r4pt0r]

thanks austin4050. the link you posted mentioned the addition of "Monopropellant-powered EVAs" isn't that already what we have?

[annallia]

thanks austin4050. the link you posted mentioned the addition of "Monopropellant-powered EVAs" isn't that already what we have?

As it is right now you have an ulimited amount of jetpack fuel assuming you can hop into the command module to refill. I am fairly certain they are changing this to where your jetpack will be filled off your ships monopropellant stores rather than just magically refilling.

[Spatzimaus]

I am fairly certain they are changing this to where your jetpack will be filled off your ships monopropellant stores rather than just magically refilling.

I believe you're right. Right now, you can use an EVA to push an entire vessel, go back in to recharge, exit, lather, rinse, repeat. Sure, the amount of thrust is tiny, but it beats an ion engine and consumes no resources other than time. Forcing us to consume monoprop means that this method would be less efficient than just putting RCS jets on your design.

It'd be nice if we could tweak this, then, where a Kerbonaut could choose to EVA with a larger monoprop supply, for long EVAs (like transferring to a different ship, or landing on Minmus without a ship at all), but since monoprop has weight that's something that'd need to be adjustable. So, since we're supposedly getting tweakables in 0.23, I hope they add this to the list.

[kahlzun]

What are "solid-booster fuel plugs"?

[Motokid600]

Yea what are solid fuel plugs? It's not in the next update, but its planned. A way to shutdown SRBs?

And what's the point of 3d mouse support? Isn't that for graphic design/Modeling?

[PDCWolf]

So, they managed to cut an entire amazing 1 and a half week off of 0.23 "quick patch" by making it include even less features than the 2 weeks slower "bigger" updates.

Jesus christ, and people mock me when I say something is wrong. Needing more red-pilling around here.

[LameLefty]

So, they managed to cut an entire amazing 1 and a half week off of 0.23 "quick patch" by making it include even less features than the 2 weeks slower "bigger" updates.

Jesus christ, and people mock me when I say something is wrong. Needing more red-pilling around here.

Seriously, get some perspective. If you don't like it, go code your own game and stop trolling.

[SargeRho]

Jesus christ, and people mock me when I say something is wrong. Needing more red-pilling around here.

Yes, because the kindest thing I can say to you, is that you don't know anything about game development, at all.

[OdinYggd]

Be nice you guys. I'm sure the devs have their reasons, and giving each other a hard time about it won't accomplish anything productive.

KSP gets more complex with every update. It's only natural that expanding it further takes more time as the codebase becomes more involved to work with.

[WillHop]

Be nice you guys. I'm sure the devs have their reasons, and giving each other a hard time about it won't accomplish anything productive.

KSP gets more complex with every update. It's only natural that expanding it further takes more time as the codebase becomes more involved to work with.

Yes Mr Odin.

I like the way the devs do the updates - they don't leave too long as to leave its fanbase annoyed yet they are meticulous in what they do.

[annallia]

Yea what are solid fuel plugs? It's not in the next update, but its planned. A way to shutdown SRBs?

And what's the point of 3d mouse support? Isn't that for graphic design/Modeling?

I am not sure what they are either. The only references I can find to them in real world is plugging SRB's on recovery and apparently part of what failed on challenger....

[PDCWolf]

Seriously, get some perspective. If you don't like it, go code your own game and stop trolling.

"If you don't like it go make your own" is such a bad argument. Don't like the economy? go make your own. Don't like the government? Go make your own, Don't like child slavery? go make your own work laws. It doesn't work that way, my friend.

And no, I'm not trolling. I'm a person that thinks differently, and I think things can be better. How can someone who things something can be better be trolling?

Yes, because the kindest thing I can say to you, is that you don't know anything about game development, at all.

Yeah, because we've known each other since I got my programming degree. Such times at our college right, man?

Be nice you guys. I'm sure the devs have their reasons, and giving each other a hard time about it won't accomplish anything productive.

KSP gets more complex with every update. It's only natural that expanding it further takes more time as the codebase becomes more involved to work with.

They have their reasons, for sure, but that doesn't mean the dev cycle is the correct one for a game in alpha nor does it mean that they should say "0.23 is a quick patch" when it takes only one week less than the previous "major" update. Those are the 2 main things I'm complaining about. The lack of communication and transparency on the development process and the plain stupid dev cycles they use.

[stupid_chris]

They have their reasons, for sure, but that doesn't mean the dev cycle is the correct one for a game in alpha nor does it mean that they should say "0.23 is a quick patch" when it takes only one week less than the previous "major" update. Those are the 2 main things I'm complaining about. The lack of communication and transparency on the development process and the plain stupid dev cycles they use.

Quick patch? I don't remember seing this anywhere. And if I had actually missed that one, please refer to this. Even a quick patch is going to take some time, because no matter what you do, a part of the cycle is uncompressible.

As for the "lack of communication and transparency on the development process", they are in no way recquired to tell us anything.

[Vanamonde]

I'm not trolling.

If not, then you'd be well advised to use constructive criticism rather than intentionally antagonistic terms such as:

the plain stupid dev cycles they use...

cut an entire amazing 1 and a half week off of 0.23 "quick patch" by making it include even less features...

Jesus christ...

more red-pilling...

I'm not speaking as a forum moderator right now. I'm simply saying that if your intent is truly to make things better, insulting and inflammatory language is counter-productive, and will make people less likely to listen to you.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Vanamonde

[PDCWolf]

Quick patch? I don't remember seing this anywhere. And if I had actually missed that one, please refer to this. Even a quick patch is going to take some time, because no matter what you do, a part of the cycle is uncompressible.

As for the "lack of communication and transparency on the development process", they are in no way recquired to tell us anything.

"I don't remember seeing this anywhere" because you don't browse certain places. And yeah, quick patches take time, but how "quick" is taking the same time as "major update" (From harverster's dev blog).

Now, about the post you referred me to, think about it this way:

•Harvester said they do 60 day long dev cycles because they focus on stability -stability of an alpha game, how dumb is that-.

•Harvester said the testing process is needed -yet somehow a lot of easily replicable bugs pass trough and there are a list of bugs being carried since long ago-

•Harvester said DEVELOPER ASYMPTOTES -which implied "career mode would be quick to develop because we are starting from 0" yet somehow we are stuck with 65 to 80 days long dev cycles and a career mode taking who knows how many updates to be completed-

•They said a lot of things were impossible, yet modders manage to do them and then they magically appear in the game.

There's a long list of things that they are doing -again, for me- wrong. I could dedicate an entire thread to them if you want me to, and we can talk in a civilized way about them and I can even freaking convince you if you want me to.

And yeah, they are not required to tell us anything, but they said they would, yet they are not keeping their promises, and that doesn't talk well about a developer, even more with promises as simple as "we'll write more about the game".

One of the things they did right was letting Artyom write his blogs and posts, which on a somewhat short writing surpassed squad's official posts in many ways, quality included. There are other things they did right too, but mentioning them would cause a ****storm bigger than that of DLCs.

Also, for better examples, look at Vladislav developing SpaceEngine, he posts videos, screenshots, etc and everybody patiently waits because they know how good what's coming is. This way we can patiently wait for his 2/3 month long updates without much trouble. But here, at KSP, we get 2 sentences per week and 3 screenshots at best, and when the update comes around, things are buggy and half implemented.

Now you'll come saying "but 0.22 had a video about the science and the tech tree" and yes it did, but it contrasted with what the posts about it said. Systems were half-implemented and incorrectly planed/implemented. That's why we had day 1 "tech tree fixes" and week 1 "Science fixes". On top of that, the first comments on the video (which got buried by fanboys a la reddit downvotes) were complaints about the ********ness that is putting manned flights before probes for example.

Once again, I'm NOT complaining about wait times, I'm saying that the priorities are wrong, the development and testing times are wrong (based on the final product), and that all of this could be avoided with more transparency of the development process. Wait times could be made easily tolerable by talking more about the game and showing progress instead of appearing after 3 months with half-implemented features.

Now, this will be my last post about this here because I think it is off-topic. Sorry if I sound offensive or something, English is not my first language. I tried to remain civil this time. And before you think otherwise, I was the one putting the asterisks, not the forum. I need to learn some synonyms.

Edited December 8, 2013 by PDCWolf

[Kerbol Prime]

/\In reply to above comment (because messed up the quotes):

You have to remember, that SQUAD is new to game development. They learn as game development continues.

So sit back and play the game. Things will come around.

[Stargate525]

•Harvester said they do 60 day long dev cycles because they focus on stability -stability of an alpha game, how dumb is that-.

Because you'd be fine paying in to early-access a game that was unplayably crash-happy? You could do meaningful testing on that? Either it's playable and sold or bugged to hell and kept internal. Not much room for a middle ground. Go see all the posts yelling about how ripped off people feel because the game ISN'T polished and stable.

•Harvester said the testing process is needed -yet somehow a lot of easily replicable bugs pass trough and there are a list of bugs being carried since long ago-

Being able to replicate a bug is not the same as being able to fix it. You should know that.

•Harvester said DEVELOPER ASYMPTOTES -which implied "career mode would be quick to develop because we are starting from 0" yet somehow we are stuck with 65 to 80 days long dev cycles and a career mode taking who knows how many updates to be completed-

I'm confused... we're looking at one of the fastest turn-arounds for a numbered update, and that's both too long of a cycle that doesn't do enough? What, precisely, would 'quick to develop' mean to you? Two weeks? Three? Give us a number here, that you think career mode should be developed in.

•They said a lot of things were impossible, yet modders manage to do them and then they magically appear in the game.

...And because someone comes up with a solution the devs didn't think of, and they put it in vanilla... that's... bad? How many of the dev team were picked up from the mod boards? I'm also curious as to what these magical, impossible things were. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[bptrav]

I wonder if your EVAs will start out already filled with monopropellant and only drain fuel from your main tanks if you refill, or if even the first EVA will require you to drain some.

[mknote]

words

Since English isn't your native language, you're excused somewhat, but the tone of this post was still quite rude.

[kiwiak]

•They said a lot of things were impossible, yet modders manage to do them and then they magically appear in the game.

what kind of things? Do you mean planes?

Edited December 8, 2013 by kiwiak

[softweir]

What are "solid-booster fuel plugs"?

Yea what are solid fuel plugs? It's not in the next update, but its planned. A way to shutdown SRBs?

And what's the point of 3d mouse support? Isn't that for graphic design/Modeling?

Solid boosters are large tubes filled with lumps of solid fuel (plugs), usually with a hollow core. Changing the shape of the core and altering the mix of fuel allows engineers to change the thrust curve of a solid booster, so, for instance, you can have a booster with a massive initial thrust that tapers off rapidly, then holds steady for a while before dying away completely, or your could have a booster that starts hard and then tapers of evenly, or any variation between them. It is even possible to have a booster that starts at high thrust, dies down, then builds up again for a bit! All this can be done by using well-chosen combinations of different plugs within the same booster.

3d mice can be very useful for RCS manoeuvres - in one device you have three axes of rotation and three axes of translation all proportional, rather than on/off.