Jump to content

Pet peeves

SpacedCowboy

By SpacedCowboy
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Edax

Edax

Posted
Posted

Making a slight modification leads to my stages getting all jumbled, causing parachutes and rocket engines to deploy instead of the turbojets on take off. Then I revert to hanger just to cause the game to crash. Out of frustration, this usually causes me to play or do something else for at least an hour before returning to KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLWostal

MLWostal

Posted
Posted

That even though the game knows what engines are being used and the m/s the burn requires, you still have to do a pre-burn so the game can tell you your burn time. Happens all the time when you set up a maneuver hours/days/years in advance of the burn and then switch to another craft then back. The game still knows the engines and m/s required for the burn so it should also know the burn time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted

Let me copy something from a long buried thread:

What really makes me angry at times is the little quirks of VAB/SPH that really make life difficult:

So, you wanted to move something up the staging sequence? Let me detach the part that was behind the icon!

The wings need to be adjusted by ten centimeters back? Let me flip the left wing 180 degrees and point across the middle of the plane

You want to detach that strut? It's somewhere in there, find the right pixel or two to hover over. If your mouse twitches by a pixel, you'll detach the carefully placed part it was attached to.

Want the lab module in SPH? Let's place it with exit towards the ground! (in VAB the exit faces the back wall. It's on the opposite side as the logo!)

Want to attach wheels? Let's turn them 90 degrees. Oh, found the right axis to attach them? Fine, you have your rover that drives backwards when you press forward! You should have attached that wheel to the LEFT side of the vehicle, and let the system mirror it on the RIGHT side! (and no, there are no visual hints which way is "forward" for a wheel).

If you want to stick that one part between two parts with symmetry, let me infect it with symmetry and place 8 copies of it all around. Oh, that one part was the whole launch stage: asparagus with thrust plate, 17 largest engines attached to the huge Kerbodyne tanks? Let's freeze for fifteen seconds to show you how eight copies of it look like. You wanted it in eight copies around the cockpit, right?

And vice versa, you wanted to move that Vernor engine a little back? Well, now you don't have the one on the other side anymore.

So, two bicouplers on the back of the plane, rocket engines outside, jet engines inside... that's mirror geometry, right? A mirror through the middle, jets near the mirror, rockets farther? Nope, that's Radial. But if you attach wings to that, and then wheels to the wings, one of the wheels will point upwards.

You wanted to set a new root part? Let me grab the whole craft and flip it upside down for you.

So you finally found the axis of rotation and are ready to attach that part? It doesn't want to attach to the node, floating right through it. Oh, "ALT" to the rescue! You press Alt. The part surely would snap again... once you rotate it to the right alignment!

and don't get me started on camera and moving the parts...

Are you sure you want to attach the engine to the node on the tank in front of the camera? Because I believe you should attach it to the shelves in the back of VAB. Or the floor. Or the left wall. Or the shelves on the other side. You want to look at it from a distance, okay, it's still by the far wall. Oh, clever, you stuck it into the VAB floor halfway and turned 90 degrees? Now it's on the floor right under where you wanted it, now just to carefully lift it to that node right above... GOTCHA! Wall of shelves again!!!

Nope, you can't look at that side of your craft. Can't zoom that far. So what that you're not even halfway through VAB? Better move your craft within the camera range. No, I've got a better idea. Let's move it into the wall of shelves!

The "Translate" control in SPH (drag with middle mouse button to move(translate) camera horizontally into any direction) is what seriously makes me build a lot of rocket designs there, simply because VAB camera drives me to despair.

---

you wanted to move the whole craft left, and moved it onto the parts list? Let's erase it whole. Nope, ctrl-Z doesn't work. It's as if you pressed "New" except without prompting to save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pinchy

Pinchy

Posted
Posted

Like ^ Sharpy!!

Hate the way going on EVA on the Mun/Minmus and you simply cannot engage RCS on the ladder so you have to fall like a bag of S#&T to the surface before you can engage RCS and pick yourself up.

Hate the way my game crashes at least every 30 minutes due to Memory exceeded.

Hate the way after game crash and reloading and going back to tracking station and "fly" a landed craft after a mission only to find that instead of being able to recover - a huge explosion instead and bits flying into the vastness of black space. Oh reload and recover this time!!

Hate that Radial docking ports are not aligned with the docking port but in fact with the root part making docking with something slightly more complex than the standard forward facing port a game of guess work.

Hate that after creating an intercept or an encounter the maneuver node jumps around. Oh is my intercept 0.1KM away or 1.8KM away - timewarp just to get the maneuver node from glitching!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sobriquet

Sobriquet

Posted
Posted

Lack of polish. Read this thread, all 36 pages of it, and it boils down to lack of polish. I will never understand game designer's (or maybe it's the publishers/money holders) decisions to NOT fix the seemingly small things that can make a game go from good to great. I know, money, money, money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CalculusWarrior

CalculusWarrior

Posted
Posted
Lack of polish. Read this thread, all 36 pages of it, and it boils down to lack of polish. I will never understand game designer's (or maybe it's the publishers/money holders) decisions to NOT fix the seemingly small things that can make a game go from good to great. I know, money, money, money.

I feel the main reason that the devs haven't polished KSP as much as other released games is that they still consider the game to be in active development and are adding new features to it. Sort of like if you're painting your garage, you don't clean the place up until all four walls are done, otherwise you'll just have to clean the place again at the end. Heck, the Unity 5 update requires a major overhaul to the UI system and would have broken much of the polish they would have added previously. The devs willâ€â€or at least I hope they willâ€â€likely work on polish a great deal over the next few updates, I believe there's talk of prettying the game up some as well, which I feel is sorely needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edax

Edax

Posted
Posted
I feel the main reason that the devs haven't polished KSP as much as other released games is that they still consider the game to be in active development and are adding new features to it. Sort of like if you're painting your garage, you don't clean the place up until all four walls are done, otherwise you'll just have to clean the place again at the end. Heck, the Unity 5 update requires a major overhaul to the UI system and would have broken much of the polish they would have added previously. The devs willâ€â€or at least I hope they willâ€â€likely work on polish a great deal over the next few updates, I believe there's talk of prettying the game up some as well, which I feel is sorely needed.

This can be a bit grating though. The reason I bought this game at release was because I didn't want to deal with the stress of a buggy unpolished game that crashed all the time. I'm already sick of seeing that in AAA games, so it's kinda sad that the smaller games are the same, everyone thinks it's acceptable to just make a "rough draft" the official release. It kinda makes the video game industry look pathetic. Can you imagine if the car industry release a new model of car, and not all the doors were on it, and they'll promised that they'll solve the gas tank falling off issue in a couple of months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izny

Izny

Posted
Posted
Can you imagine if the car industry release a new model of car, and not all the doors were on it, and they'll promised that they'll solve the gas tank falling off issue in a couple of months?

All Volvo XC90 sales halted due to faulty airbagpanel.

1.4million Chryslers recalled cuz a software leak enables a wireless hacker to take complete control and for example disable the brakes.

814 ferrari's recalled due to airbags being installed incorrectly.

All Porsche 918 spyders recalled due to failing electro wiring.

19000 Peugeot 308 and Citroen C$ recalled due to wrong bolts installed.

390000 Ford cars recalled cuz all doors could spontaniously open when cornering.

64000 Chevy Volt recalled due to carbonmonoxide building up in the cabin.

16973 Nissan GT-R recalled cuz a problem with the steering system can make the car uncontrollable.

All britisch Suzuki Celerio have the problem that when driving faster than 130km/h the brakes do not work.

13500 porche cayenne and panameras recalled due to gas fumes in teh cabin due to bad fuellines.

I didn't even have to make these up. These are all true. And this is just taken from the past few months, i could go on and on and on. The car industry may not be your best friend to prove these points :P

PS, i 1st had fun trying to reply to this, then i started reading some more articles about the car industry failures and got really really depressed.

/Iz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edax

Edax

Posted
Posted (edited)
All Volvo XC90 sales halted due to faulty airbagpanel.

1.4million Chryslers recalled cuz a software leak enables a wireless hacker to take complete control and for example disable the brakes.

814 ferrari's recalled due to airbags being installed incorrectly.

All Porsche 918 spyders recalled due to failing electro wiring.

19000 Peugeot 308 and Citroen C$ recalled due to wrong bolts installed.

390000 Ford cars recalled cuz all doors could spontaniously open when cornering.

64000 Chevy Volt recalled due to carbonmonoxide building up in the cabin.

16973 Nissan GT-R recalled cuz a problem with the steering system can make the car uncontrollable.

All britisch Suzuki Celerio have the problem that when driving faster than 130km/h the brakes do not work.

13500 porche cayenne and panameras recalled due to gas fumes in teh cabin due to bad fuellines.

I didn't even have to make these up. These are all true. And this is just taken from the past few months, i could go on and on and on. The car industry may not be your best friend to prove these points :P

PS, i 1st had fun trying to reply to this, then i started reading some more articles about the car industry failures and got really really depressed.

/Iz

I know, but that at least speaks to some kind of standard. You think Assassin's Creed or Battlefield 4 or Simcity halted sales do to faulty bugs? Or recalled the games to be fixed/ patch the game to be fixed? Maybe half the time will they even patch the game to be functional, the other half they give up part of the way through and leave it broken. And with cars you at least get a test drive, most games don't even have demos (though this game did fantastically). And I can bet that those car companies do cringe at the thought of recalls and stopping sales. I'm think most game developers are comfortable releasing a game prematurely cause they can patch all they want and using release as a beta to save money. EA and Ubisoft seem to revel in the negative publicity.

Edited by Edax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slam_Jones

Slam_Jones

Posted
Posted
I know, but that at least speaks to some kind of standard. You think Assassin's Creed or Battlefield 4 or Simcity halted sales do to faulty bugs? Or recalled the games to be fixed/ patch the game to be fixed? Maybe half the time will they even patch the game to be functional, the other half they give up part of the way through and leave it broken. And with cars you at least get a test drive, most games don't even have demos (though this game did fantastically). And I can bet that those car companies do cringe at the thought of recalls and stopping sales. I'm think most game developers are comfortable releasing a game prematurely cause they can patch all they want and using release as a beta to save money. EA and Ubisoft seem to revel in the negative publicity.

Well, the difference being that a faulty video game is not liable to kill you, while a faulty car is a HUGE liability.

If the game doesn't work 100%, you just have some angry customers. If your car doesn't work 100%, you'll have some dead ones... you can decide which is worse :P

Plus, it's much easier to send out a blanket patch to fix some video game issues than it is to physically recall and modify each and every car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaxwellsDemon

MaxwellsDemon

Posted
Posted

My principal pet peeve is, as has already been noted, not enough time to play!

The camera rotation/movement is sometimes a little awkward in a way I have trouble describing-- sometimes when I'm trying to get a close-up view of a particular end of a long vessel, it seems it always ends up hidden by the altimeter. You wouldn't think that would be a big problem, as small an area of the screen as that takes up, but I seem to bump into it a lot. It's more than likely the result of my relative inexperience with the interface, though.

One pet peeve I have is that it seems that every time I attempt a surface landing at night, the ground becomes more steeply sloped than in the daytime! I've resolved never to land on anything but the dayside of anywhere, including Kerbin... tired of seeing my landers and recovery capsules bouncing or rolling downhill to a fiery end!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaxwellsDemon

MaxwellsDemon

Posted
Posted

Sometimes it's a difficult choice: do I add a comment to an older thread on the same topic if I have something to say and get accused of "necroing" a thread? Or do I start a new thread and get accused of not searching to find out if there's an existing thread on the topic? D**d if you do, and d**d if you don't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xavven

Xavven

Posted
Posted
Sometimes it's a difficult choice: do I add a comment to an older thread on the same topic if I have something to say and get accused of "necroing" a thread? Or do I start a new thread and get accused of not searching to find out if there's an existing thread on the topic? D**d if you do, and d**d if you don't...

Yeah, you have a point there. I had to think about this one, but what I would probably do is start a new thread and provide a link to the old one. Most people get annoyed by repeat threads when it's a question that's already been asked and answered -- that's when you'd expect a reasonable person to search for the answer and move on. With continuous threads like this one, other examples being the "post pictures of your space station" thead or "what did you do in KSP today?" thread, it's not as black and white.

But if you've been on the forum for a long time, it's annoying when you start reading a thread, get a vague sense of deja vu, and then check the dates and see that it's an old discussion that you had already read long ago. It's like reading last year's news. I'm sure you can relate if you're a veteran on another forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A_name

A_name

Posted
Posted
It's not a bug, and shouldn't be "fixed". See a good explanation here of why this is the desired behavior.

Thanks, you always seem to have a useful link at hand.

On the topic, OK so maybe it's an intended behavior and not a bug but at least in my opinion still worthy of being fixed, in the sense that it would be ideal for the game to correctly identify whether the gear is down or not. There is a right-click option for it in the VAB/SPH after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sal_vager

sal_vager

Posted
Posted
in the sense that it would be ideal for the game to correctly identify whether the gear is down or not.

Pleas don't take this the wrong way but changing it could have unforeseen consequences, players are used to the current behaviour but not only that, having the legs of the lander in your fairing or payload bay stay in the raised position while your undercarriage is raised, instead of punching holes in your vessel, is behaviour I'd like to keep ;)

Ninja'd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...