Let's give SQUAD our point of view.

[Red Iron Crown]

hmmm hmmm, i see not I'm the only one has problems with squad's incompetency the problem is that they seem to lack of a proper developer, somebody can write proper c# code and can solve things like multi-threading or could go around the imprecisity of vector calculations (none of these are impossible) and lacking of somebody can make animations.

Multithreading is one of those things that's not possible for Squad to fix, it's in the hands of the Unity developers. Same with 32-bit, which is part of the vector imprecision problem. They're not incompetent, they're just struggling to make the engine do things it wasn't really designed for.

what they provide from patch to patch are things can be made of any amateurs. and no, i dont want them to polish the game to perfection in alpha, but SAS shouldnt play pendulum with my spacecraft, crafts shouldnt fall through the planetsurface, parts shouldnt wobble on eachother (especially wheels and landing struts) and 200 object shouldnt make the game run on 15 fps when a superdecorative game with hundreds of fully destructible physically modeled objects can run on 120+ fps. at least SOME polishing would be nice.

I think if you dig a bit deeper you'll find that the physics under those hundreds of fully destructible parts involve some shortcuts that provide good performance and eye candy, but not full interaction among the objects or accurate physical simulation. When one of the big selling points of your game is physics, that won't cut it, even if it was available on Unity.

also, what kinda logic moves them when they create different size object but they just miss some from the different sizes? of the things like one propfuel can be surface attached but the others cannot be? or why on the side of the wheel is the most stable position of a rover?

It's in alpha. The part list isn't complete or final. If it's insufficient for you, there are excellent mods out there that fill the gaps and then some.

also. for all those say they shouldnt optimize yet just fill with content and optimize later... do you have a shed full of tools? how you keep order there? do you just drop everything into the middle and at the evening you organise them or you put them back to their place where you took them from? its the same with the softwares too. its a lot easier to make a module, optimise it, add an other module, bugfix and optimise it etc etc etc... it will be a nightmare to add multithreading and/or optimise a full turd when it has 2 million lines of code

Bad analogy is bad. Your approach only works if the modules don't interact and depend on each other; if they do you have to do all your optimizing again when a new module requires changes to an older one. The way Squad is doing it is better, make all the parts, then optimize the whole thing. It's better because they'll only spend time optimizing the bottlenecks, and not waste time optimizing things that aren't performance limiting. Most games don't let you see all this because they aren't released until they are feature complete and fairly polished, early release software doesn't work that way.

[Tuareg]

Multithreading is one of those things that's not possible for Squad to fix, it's in the hands of the Unity developers. Same with 32-bit, which is part of the vector imprecision problem. They're not incompetent, they're just struggling to make the engine do things it wasn't really designed for.

Hmmmm. Others solved it... weird. However they can't make the physics multi-threaded because its a built in, internally managed function in unity they could do EVERYTHING else in separate threads (like own high precision vector calculations using decimals) etc...

I think if you dig a bit deeper you'll find that the physics under those hundreds of fully destructible parts involve some shortcuts that provide good performance and eye candy, but not full interaction among the objects or accurate physical simulation. When one of the big selling points of your game is physics, that won't cut it, even if it was available on Unity.

nope, just they don't use an ancient technology...

It's in alpha. The part list isn't complete or final. If it's insufficient for you, there are excellent mods out there that fill the gaps and then some.

The general BS... bad excuse. If you already have a model, creating all the 3-4 size variants is to simply create an other config for the same object... would take ages to make it stock.

Bad analogy is bad. Your approach only works if the modules don't interact and depend on each other;

It's again just plain wrong. Exactly the main reason to do as I wrote because they interact and depend on each other. if they would be just separate things, it doesnt matter when you do the optimisation. Optimising the modules is important especially to make it easier to see what is wrong. If you build a bugged module on an other bugged module the outcome is chaos... if you build a bugged module on a tested module, you can find the problems faaaaaar easier

if they do you have to do all your optimizing again when a new module requires changes to an older one. The way Squad is doing it is better, make all the parts, then optimize the whole thing. It's better because they'll only spend time optimizing the bottlenecks, and not waste time optimizing things that aren't performance limiting. Most games don't let you see all this because they aren't released until they are feature complete and fairly polished, early release software doesn't work that way.

Well seen not a developer kind who knows how SW-s work from inside or if you are, sure you work for MS

[Tuareg]

Well then Tuareg. When and where can i dl "Tuareg's Space Programm" with all the nice things you mentioned... and i don't mind if it is EARLY ACCESS since it will be perfectly bug free since pre Alpha and made by you. ahh and since you didn't mentioned it, i still can expect it to run on Win, MacOS and Linux.

after 15 years in the business its too boring and repetitive to do it without being WELL paid for it but... i've started to play with unity and i've made this on one afternoon after about 2 days learning how to use unity and how to program the graphics card:

.

believe me, i know very well how much can be done with tools like this...

Edited May 16, 2014 by Tuareg

[LethalDose]

How would Squad provide such support to stuff that's made by others and not in Squads control?

Isn't it enough that they have deliberately made KSP as moddable as they have?

Wait, seriously? How could Squad provide support to modders to improve mods? How about an API (official or otherwise). That would go a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way to improving mods by third parties.

Also, this:

No. No it isn't.

Mods are not an acceptable replacement for terrible endgame, or half-implemented features. The constant reply being trotted out whenever people ask about improved aerodynamics, in-situ resources, etcetera etcetera, is 'just get the mod for it!' I'm worried that soon, that will be the official response as well.

Mods are not an acceptable replacement for what should be core functionality. But only as far as the release edition goes. yeah, endgame right now may not be that great, but hopefully future updates prior to commercial release will address this.

[Stargate525]

Mods are not an acceptable replacement for what should be core functionality. But only as far as the release edition goes. yeah, endgame right now may not be that great, but hopefully future updates prior to commercial release will address this.

It's the 'hopefully' in there that worries me. Squad is appearing more and more to me as someone like me; unable to bring something to completion before moving to something else. I know from experience, that's a horrible way to get anything done.

[Rowsdower]

I was kind of hoping we'd get an introduction or announcement about the new hire from Rowsdower, maybe they'll show them off after their first content package is ready or during a Squadcast?

The latest hire I've been able to introduce is Roger, but I was introduced to someone new this week after the devnotes went out.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hmmmm. Others solved it... weird. However they can't make the physics multi-threaded because its a built in, internally managed function in unity they could do EVERYTHING else in separate threads (like own high precision vector calculations using decimals) etc...

They DO do everything else in other threads, it's just the physics thread so dominates the other threads in processing requirements that it behaves a bit like a single-threaded app. The physics are being done with double-precision floats (as I understand it, at least), but we're looking for centimeter accuracy over distances that are often measured in gigameters, so it does make for some challenges. Writing their own physics engine is beyond the resources of an indie developer like Squad, I suspect.

nope, just they don't use an ancient technology...

This doesn't refute my point at all, because you've made no argument. While I agree that Unity does use a dated physics engine, it is my understanding that the destructible environments touted as physically accurate are not actually so, and even if they are, they're designed to work in shooters with distances measured at most in kilometers, with a cartesian frame of reference, all of which make the calculations simpler by several orders of magnitude. That said, a newer engine might be able to outperform Unity, but that is simply not in the cards.

The general BS... bad excuse. If you already have a model, creating all the 3-4 size variants is to simply create an other config for the same object... would take ages to make it stock.

It is in alpha and the part list is incomplete, that's not BS, that's fact. I expect the part list to be fleshed out before 1.0, and there are mods for those who can't wait.

It's again just plain wrong. Exactly the main reason to do as I wrote because they interact and depend on each other. if they would be just separate things, it doesnt matter when you do the optimisation. Optimising the modules is important especially to make it easier to see what is wrong. If you build a bugged module on an other bugged module the outcome is chaos... if you build a bugged module on a tested module, you can find the problems faaaaaar easier

You're confusing correctness with performance. Squad is reasonably diligent in squashing bugs, they are chasing correctness. They are not optimizing for performance, because that's a waste of effort so early in the development process.

Well seen not a developer kind who knows how SW-s work from inside or if you are, sure you work for MS

I'm the first to admit that I'm no programmer or rocket scientist, but there's no need to be insulting. Please argue the points, not the poster. (This is assuming I'm parsing that sentence correctly.)

[Rowsdower]

Guys, I know you've heard it before, but as you share your opinions, please keep in mind that the devs are working on foundation-type stuff right now. Other than that, please remember to keep this thread free of insults to both the team and one another. Thanks.

[NeoMorph]

I've been wanting to play Space Engineers for a while now and I finally got it working after installing a complete new Windows install just to play the darn game... and for the last couple of days I have been playing the hell out of it... and OMG has it made me love KSP even more!

Basically SE seems wayyyyyyyy pre-alpha while KSP is near release in regards of feel. SE just feels awkward and everything is too damned weak. With KSP You generally had to give something a good whack for it to fall off. In SE a tiny metorite caused half my ship to fall apart lol (basically it should have just pushed a hole through my ship but instead it caused weird amounts of damage. May have been a glitch but it was annoying as I was returning with several tons of raw materials and a whole lot just... VANISHED.

Then when I was moving close to another ship I nudged it and my gravity generator fell out of the ship. Other times the fuel in my ships vanished when I went to move it to another container. Then I randomly died due to getting out of my cockpit... Nothing near me, no comets incoming... just getting out of the cockpit. At that point I said "ARRGGGH" and decided to come back to KSP for my space fun.

Moral of this story... "Be careful of what you wish for!". It will be good when it's further along in the development, I think. But for now... KSP all the way.

[phoenix_ca]

Space Engineers is made by a developer that completely screwed-up all of their previous releases so it being in a terrible state isn't really all that surprising. Squad are practically saints compared to them.

[shizophrenic]

after 15 years in the business its too boring and repetitive to do it without being WELL paid for it but... i've started to play with unity and i've made this on one afternoon after about 2 days learning how to use unity and how to program the graphics card:

.

believe me, i know very well how much can be done with tools like this...

At first i apologise for having been rude. now i try to give some real arguments.

Regarding your Video i must say for someone beeing 15 years in the business it is not impressing me. From someone who never had programming experince or only Little like me years ago it would be more impressive.

looking a Little more Close at it what do i see? two big static objects and several linear with constant velocity moving objects. Some graphic models, graphic effects. The movement is seemd a Little ruggish.

Since i suck at any graphic related, those graphic models and effects i couldn't do. To any graphics related i can't say really anything, i can only guess.

You mentionend programming graphic Card. i guess loading the models into the graphic Card Memory, defining a coordiante System, telling the Card the coords where to place the objects. during the executing the Programm will be just giving the graphic Cards the new coords, deleting and creating new loaded models.

Else no physics calculation at all, only simple Geometrics. brushing up my programming i definitly can do that such calculations too.

even a collision handling i could do that would look like that.

Even never seen a single line of code or any Detail about the physics concept, i think i have a good estimate how much physics calculation ksp does.

Each part recives a lot of different Forces, that have to be calculated every Frame of the timescale anew.

I my opinion the "imprecisity of the vector calculation" isn't the the part that makes the calculations imprecisive. It is the underlying physics Modell, and the size of the Frame for the time. no physics Modell used in programs is exact, because not the full mathematical Expression is used. even E= mc^2 is only a 1. Order solution and values of the other orders (the next is ~m) are so small that they don't really matter (c^2 is just a so great number).

I think the size of the Frame for the time is one of the major error contributor. between the timeframes the physics would be litterally frozen, the physics makes small hops. but real physics doesn't makes those hops. The most accurate way would be an Integration, but that would use even much more computing power.

that leads to the wobbling from the SAS. i think it is physically correct, if they use the physics i think they are. The purpose of a SAS is to control the Rotation of the CoM. But mostly the SAS isn't sitting there, When the SAS tries to stop a Rotation it applies forces at the place it is installed.(Here i assumed something wrong, as another thread made made realise. The SAS applies regardless where it is placed its Forces always on the part that lies on CoM. So the transmitting of Forces start at that part and not at the SAS itself. But with exeption that fact the rest still applies). The Forces are transmitted to the connectet parts and from there to the next and so on. but during each step each part calculated as a single part, with ist own Parameters and the Connections aren't rigid. Every part recives more or less force, than actually needed for the stop of Rotation. They start to have small different directions and applying Forces to each other. Those small differences accumulate more and more, the craft wobbles. The more Parts between the CoM and SAS, the more likely the wobble.

my tv Shows 100 Frames but from the TV Stations are about 25 comming. well 120+ Frames doesn't mean 120+ Frames are calculated with heavy physics.

your tool shed example is quite interesting too, so when you have a small shovel you build the optimal shed to store it. since it is optimal you wouldn't waste materials and space, and there is only space for the small shovel. then you buy a saw, tear down the shed then build a new optimal shed around them. you Need a bigger shovel tear down the shed build again a new optimal shed. Sorry i just can't see how that is effective...

Edited May 19, 2014 by shizophrenic
See text

[shizophrenic]

To your Rover/wheel Problem.

Yes, depending on design it can be more stable on the side. especially if the side of the rover has more or equal area than the bottom. then the affecting Forces are distributed over much more area, than Standing in normal way. even more if the CoM in "normal" orientation is not Close to the ground.

[Tuareg]

To your Rover/wheel Problem.

Yes, depending on design it can be more stable on the side. especially if the side of the rover has more or equal area than the bottom. then the affecting Forces are distributed over much more area, than Standing in normal way. even more if the CoM in "normal" orientation is not Close to the ground.

the rover is the one on the right side... CoM is far lower in normal orientation. the problem is crap collision model on the wheels, but i've reported quite a few fails, i feel it now pointless. it rolls over with 5-8 m/s but it can slide on its side with 50 m/s

At first i apologise for having been rude. now i try to give some real arguments.

Regarding your Video i must say for someone beeing 15 years in the business it is not impressing me. From someone who never had programming experince or only Little like me years ago it would be more impressive.

i have nothing to do with gamedevelopment, even less with unity, i've done it with 2 days learning...

looking a Little more Close at it what do i see? two big static objects and several linear with constant velocity moving objects.

those are physically modeled dynamic objects, even the shells are. (the little crafts were done to help an other guy with how to move rigidbodies on orbit using physix only)

Some graphic models, graphic effects. The movement is seemd a Little ruggish.

Since i suck at any graphic related, those graphic models and effects i couldn't do. To any graphics related i can't say really anything, i can only guess.

You mentionend programming graphic Card. i guess loading the models into the graphic Card Memory, defining a coordiante System, telling the Card the coords where to place the objects. during the executing the Programm will be just giving the graphic Cards the new coords, deleting and creating new loaded models.

nope, thats done by unity engine, i was talking about this. the video itself is nothing about unity, it was made to demonstrate a simple energy shield shader flashing when it gets hit i've made and this was included in the 2 days learning. unity is a tool all about productivity. the pace squad shows with it is all about incompetency

Else no physics calculation at all, only simple Geometrics. brushing up my programming i definitly can do that such calculations too.

even a collision handling i could do that would look like that.

Even never seen a single line of code or any Detail about the physics concept, i think i have a good estimate how much physics calculation ksp does.

Each part recives a lot of different Forces, that have to be calculated every Frame of the timescale anew.

I my opinion the "imprecisity of the vector calculation" isn't the the part that makes the calculations imprecisive. It is the underlying physics Modell, and the size of the Frame for the time. no physics Modell used in programs is exact, because not the full mathematical Expression is used. even E= mc^2 is only a 1. Order solution and values of the other orders (the next is ~m) are so small that they don't really matter (c^2 is just a so great number).

I think the size of the Frame for the time is one of the major error contributor. between the timeframes the physics would be litterally frozen, the physics makes small hops. but real physics doesn't makes those hops. The most accurate way would be an Integration, but that would use even much more computing power.

that leads to the wobbling from the SAS. i think it is physically correct, if they use the physics i think they are. The purpose of a SAS is to control the Rotation of the CoM. But mostly the SAS isn't sitting there, When the SAS tries to stop a Rotation it applies forces at the place it is installed. The Forces are transmitted to the connectet parts and from there to the next and so on. but during each step each part calculated as a single part, with ist own Parameters and the Connections aren't rigid. Every part recives more or less force, than actually needed for the stop of Rotation. They start to have small different directions and applying Forces to each other. Those small differences accumulate more and more, the craft wobbles. The more Parts between the CoM and SAS, the more likely the wobble.

I wasn't talking about the parts wobbling but about SAS is overcorrecting instead of stopping the movement which is purely fail calculations you can see it here with an utterly simple craft

my tv Shows 100 Frames but from the TV Stations are about 25 comming. well 120+ Frames doesn't mean 120+ Frames are calculated with heavy physics.

well, now i play WT which physically models every single shell/bullet the tanks and planes fire (you can imagine how many shells can be fired from 8 machine guns /hundreds in every second/ on 1 single plane so then multiply it with 20 as its a battle with multiple planes) and check them continuously for collision and its still running with 120 fps on my pc while KSP can kill it with a single craft over 2-300 parts

your tool shed example is quite interesting too, so when you have a small shovel you build the optimal shed to store it. since it is optimal you wouldn't waste materials and space, and there is only space for the small shovel. then you buy a saw, tear down the shed then build a new optimal shed around them. you Need a bigger shovel tear down the shed build again a new optimal shed. Sorry i just can't see how that is effective...

sorry to say but its just silly. if you have experience with programming as you've said you know its not about building a shell around your code but about keeping it clean, organised and bugfree. every time you want to push in a new module you can launch and test only if the base is working. how will you find a bug in a module if the base is already bugged under it...

Edited May 17, 2014 by Tuareg

[NeoMorph]

Space Engineers is made by a developer that completely screwed-up all of their previous releases so it being in a terrible state isn't really all that surprising. Squad are practically saints compared to them.

What else did they do?

Space Engineers strives to follow the laws of physics and doesn't use technologies that wouldn't be feasible in the near future.

Yup... except the asteroids are fixed in space, they have gravity generators and comets make sound in space. Kind of not feasible imho.

Actually it feels a bit like Red Faction 2 to me.

Edited May 17, 2014 by NeoMorph

[shizophrenic]

Warning wall of text!!!

the rover is the one on the right side... CoM is far lower in normal orientation. the problem is crap collision model on the wheels, but i've reported quite a few fails, i feel it now pointless. it rolls over with 5-8 m/s but it can slide on its side with 50 m/s

maybe the collision is wanting, i have not an idea how they do it. Maybe the friction modell isn’t good enough.

For stability: the bigger the area is a body is standing on the more stable it is. The moment the force pressing the body on a surface leaves the area it stands on it starts to topple. a long cylinder is just more stable than a disk (very short cylinder). if the body has more areas to stand on, the area with the most area is probably the most stable. Now I have to admit this is a little more complicated for not symmetric bodys, off CoM bodys and standing on a several not connected areas, like wheels. But not symmetric and off CoM are far the worst things to consider as we all knew (Well why is almost every quite symmetric and not off CoM). for not connected areas I ask you to do some real world experiments or to look in a good physics book, since that would cover several pages with mathematical formulas and text. The result would be the same, if the area spanned by those areas is greater, then the stability gets an additionally term to that generally by actual area standing on.

to your rover: without other Forces i don't think you can get to 50 m/s. at least not an a flat surface with no significant tilt. Maybe those ‘not’ mentioned forces have something to do with your unexpected stability and instability...

it generally looks very lightweight, quite symmetric, CoM not off center but still quiet high. and it will be Standing on the side quite stable since those 4 wheels sides offer a significant bigger area to stand on, more the over they are spread far and the CoM in (or close to) the middle of that area. the area spanned by 4 wheels sideways and ‘normal’ isn’t as much different as you think. Good configuration to be quite stable Standing on the side. Additionally in ‘normal’ orientation tires are supposed to bounce, but not on the side. In low gravity that becomes quite a disadvantage

i have nothing to do with gamedevelopment, even less with unity, i've done it with 2 days learning...

again you have 15 years of programming Expertise. that would make it quiet easy for you. you probably have always to work with funktions/objekts other programmed. Unity as far i think (with Ultra low programming wisdom, that is a fact, no sarcasm or ironic intened) mainly a collection of funktions/objekts that does relieve you from programming them yourself. you can treat them like a black box, enter the proper values and you get a defined result. maybe you have to follow Special worksteps to make them work.

those are physically modeled dynamic objects, even the shells are. (the little crafts were done to help an other guy with how to move rigidbodies on orbit using physix only)

mabe i am totally wrong. but what is there physically modelled? maybe the light. but that would probably do unity for you and that i don't count. Else It is still only linear movement, i don't see any energy of Impulse exchange happening. I don't see any gravitational well effects, just movement at totally fixed velocities. sorry if you think that a inertial moving without any Forces acting on it is all what needed to call it a proper physical model, i can't say anything ....

i would call that models geometrically modelled dynamic objects. they are a collection of Areas that are all fixed together. Dynamic objects i don't disagree, but that only means that you trigger a graphical effect when a condition is met. i see only that when another object reaches a defined distance to another Modell it gets delete and a graphically display on a surface of a geometrically object is displayed. thats geometric.

nope, thats done by unity engine, i was talking about this. the video itself is nothing about unity, it was made to demonstrate a simple energy shield shader flashing when it gets hit i've made and this was included in the 2 days learning. unity is a tool all about productivity. the pace squad shows with it is all about incompetency)

again. geometrics yes. dynamic yes. models yes. physics not from you.

I wasn't talking about the parts wobbling but about SAS is overcorrecting instead of stopping the movement which is purely fail calculations you can see it here with an utterly simple craft

sorry i still disagree. thats is proper physics with regard to the physics Models time resolution. the main reason it doesn't stop smooth are the rcs. there are only three Settings for a rcs, full thrust limited (shift lock on) and off. even if the SAS calculates a thrust of 77% of the full rcs thrust it just can't do that. also the sas simulates torque generated by high Spinning discs. it is quite naturally that such object can't be stopped/accelerated immediately. if you try to stop something Spinning at 10000 rpm with a mass of about 500g that you get something like a cannonball. A SAS can't instantly jump from 0 to 10.000 rpm. so there is a physically time lag in the reaction. the craft isn't aligned perfectly pointing upwards because you doesn't released the turn button perfectly at pointing perfectly upwards. sas always tries to align your craft in that direction it Points when human interaction ceases. (see below for human reaction times).

well, now i play WT which physically models every single shell/bullet the tanks and planes fire (you can imagine how many shells can be fired from 8 machine guns /hundreds in every second/ on 1 single plane so then multiply it with 20 as its a battle with multiple planes) and check them continuously for collision and its still running with 120 fps on my pc while KSP can kill it with a single craft over 2-300 parts

still 120 fps aren't 120 different Pictures. my tv Shows me 100 fps but there are only 25 different fps coming into the tv.

if you read my Explanation carefull and with a simple look in stock Settings you can easily tell that all more than 33 Frames wouldn't lead to better physics calculation. yes you can have more Frames but you get only 33 different Frames out of the physics engine. Because the smallest number for the time Frame you can set is 0,03 sec. only every 0.03 sec the positions can Change, thats about 33 times a second. so asking for more doesn’t increases the amount of Information you get or giving you a better physics calculation.

physically modelled bullets you say. But what Kind of physically? all those modelled bullets are not interacting with each others except the Moment they collide with their target. you can simply calculate the Position of a single bullet. primary it is moving in a straight line. only 3(!!!!) Forces affect the straight line movement them gravitational pull, wind push and air resistance. each be can treated with a simple Modell, that can be expressed like: new velocity = old velocity + k1 *old velocity + k2* (old velocity)^2 + k3*(old velocity)^3.

more calculation wouldn't lead to more noticeable accuracy mabe the k3 can be evenskipped . it just doesn't matter. any Input the Player does has far more Impact. average humans have a Reaction time of about 0.1 -0.2 sec for an expected Signal .if i calculate very 0.001 sec and the Player still gives the Input at best 0.1 sec later. if i assume a average velocity of 1000 m/s (that is a lot lower that the starting velocity of real tank bullets) the distance covered by the bullet is 100 m for the human error and 1 m for physics.

ksp is different as those those bullets. in the wt example it would look like some hundred bullets are almost randomly chained together with all having small different velocity’s and directions. i said almost randomly because in ksp the Player has even with the restrictions a lot of freedom of Placement for parts. don't confuse the freedom with sense of Placement. WT's physics model isn't designed for that.

And thats such a comparison between different models would ever lack any real base.

sorry to say but its just silly. if you have experience with programming as you've said you know its not about building a shell around your code but about keeping it clean, organised and bugfree. every time you want to push in a new module you can launch and test only if the base is working. how will you find a bug in a module if the base is already bugged under it...

what to say. well i only quite limited programming experiences. maybe not enough to say anything good enough. maybe we are talking about some different bases. for those bullets with their single part physics from earlier I would probably agree to your Point. but the base i talk about the the far more complicated physics of lots of interacting parts. with that base in mind i still think, it is better to make a prototype of every module. when i am finished with every module i want, i would evaluate how the modules affect each other. then i Focus on the modules that interact most or have the most Impact to all others. optimize them. redo Evaluation and optimization. until i am finished.

[Vanamonde]

Please keep the discussion to the subject of the thread rather than the people in the thread. Also, please take the anger down a notch.

[phoenix_ca]

What else did they do?

Miner Wars, and every other permutation of that that came after it. It was all pretty crap.

What was worse is that they made a complete piece of crap, advertised it as something very different (think Aliens: Colonial Marines level of lies), and then did nothing to repair the damage with those people who got suckered. I was one of those people, and that means I point-out just how bad of a developer they are every chance I get. It's my payment back to them for yoinking $60 from me.

If you're looking at games to buy, avoid Keen Software House as if it were Ebola virus.

As I've said, Squad are practically saints in the indie dev scene. At least they are delivering on their promises. Not super-fast, sure, but they are delivering.

Edited May 18, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[hawk_za]

:huh:I have to ask is this the same community that voted ksp no 1 ?

Yea they are taking a while but the game that is being developed is the first of its kind if you really think about it and do we forget no so long ago squad was actually building public interaction sets and not developing games.

yes they are a bit slower BUT as a result the patch that is released is incredibly stable, more so than most alpha game releases.

Again i love the fact that people join an alpha and get upset when the game is not complete. i get this all the time as a fireman all the things others would do if they were in my shoes ..point is they not and it saddens me.

but hey we can all climb on here and have a good old rant about what the devs are doing wrong need i remind us that this is squads game ....GAME ....they can do with it what they please may not be beneficial but its there choice.

I think its time to settle down have patience and have faith that they are monitoring the forums they have a feature list that they wish to get to lets be constructive as opposed to destructive all a discussion like this raises is hate and bad waves among the grander audience and surely that's NOT what we are about.

All this energy should rather be spent figuring out what the community wants and then asking the devs to include that feature in later dev cycles (come up with a top 10 community requested features list)

then hand it over to the devs and trust that as i know they will they will look at it and give it serious consideration.

as always this is just my opinion my very own and no one else so nha:sticktongue:

[BudgetHedgehog]

All this energy should rather be spent figuring out what the community wants and then asking the devs to include that feature in later dev cycles (come up with a top 10 community requested features list)

then hand it over to the devs and trust that as i know they will they will look at it and give it serious consideration.

I, as a member of the community, want re-entry heating, a proper aerodynamics model, dynamic damage model beyond 'exploded or not' and the crew stats actually doing something meaningful/the crew flying the ships themselves. Basically anything that was promised ages ago but has been swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[hawk_za]

awesome so far the below items are what i can find as the most requested features can we create a poll to see what the community wants most of all ill keep posting till i think i have everyone's wants on this one list

re-entry heating

a proper aerodynamics model

dynamic damage model

crew flying the ships

satellite mapping

clouds

stock life support

this is a list of features that are commonly suggested, already planned or denied.

Major features

Multiplayer

Weaponry

Faster than light travel

Steam Workshop implementation

Resource mining

Oceanic exploration

Reentry heat

Robotics / mechanics

Realistic aerodynamics

The universe

N-body physics and lagrange points

New stars, planets, moons and asteroids

Terraforming

More easter eggs

Larger or more realistic scale planets

Construction

Orbital construction and construction on other celestials

New parts

Alternative Tech Tree configurations

Payload fairings

Rearranging the parts list

More symmetry options

Show vehicle parameters such as weight, cost and delta V

Flight

More types of launch facilities

Enhanced IVA / moving around in stations or rockets

Autopilots

Rotatable docking ports

Higher timewarp values

Life Support

Better electricity management

More functionality for satellites

Auto-balanced RCS ports

Optimization

Combining parts

No rocket wobble

Using another game engine or physics engine

Change part loading

Multithreading / Multicore functionality

64-bit support / GPU offloading support

Use of other hardware platforms or operating system types

Miscellaneous

Aliens

Female Kerbals

Random failures / malfunctions

Cities and landmarks

Better crew management

Parachutes for Kerbals

Personalised Kerbals

More camera modes

Weather features

Kerbal cemetaries and such

More IVA views

Edited May 18, 2014 by hawk_za

[Comrade Jenkens]

I agree with this post fully as I feel that the game is expanding in scope and leaving gaps behind them as they go. Things such as the two remaining IVA views and NERVAs only using liquid fuel. (this change only takes a minute or so I've done it myself) Major features such as aerodynamics, re-entry and fairings have been absent so long that I'm now wondering whether they are even planned anymore?

Edited May 18, 2014 by Comrade Jenkens

[Red Iron Crown]

Squad's been focusing on fleshing out career mode for the last couple of updates, as far as I know the other planned features haven't been shelved, they're just not the focus right now.

[rtxoff]

I agree with this post fully as I feel that the game is expanding in scope and leaving gaps behind them as they go. Things such as the two remaining IVA views and NERVAs only using liquid fuel. (this change only takes a minute or so I've done it myself) Major features such as aerodynamics, re-entry and fairings have been absent so long that I'm now wondering whether they are even planned anymore?

About the NERVAs, you know that in reality NERVA uses a different fuel (liquid Hydrogen) right? Changing it only to use fuel does not make it realistic. Dev's already stated that they are not ready introducing a new propellant. I think that was a wise decision because to much realism takes away the fun. I would not like it to take different fuels in my rocket only because NERVA won't work with the default fuel, hell they would also need to introduce a lot of new fuel tanks only because of one engine??? Also did anybody of you guys have come into the mind that there are maybe players that are enjoying things how they are right now? Major features like advanced aerodynamics, re-entry fairnigs and so on maybe are realistic but seriously will they be fun? For some real life rocket engineers maybe they are but for a wide specrum of 08/15 people they probably are not. Also i do not see a point insisting so much on that stuff where there are perfectly legitimate mods that can modify your experience the way you want. There is a bunch of people out there enjoying KSP which are not on this forum and it is really unfair to speak for all of them by saying the community this and the community that. I have faith in the devs that they are trying everything for KSP to be an fun and enjoyable game (they have also an economical interest in that) but i have no faith and no understadnding for all the grumbler here trying to destroy that experience because they think they have to be on some impatient egoism trip getting all the stuff they want immediately and without further reconsideration. This is some very rude behaviour that i observe here. Life is like that, sometimes you can't get everything immediately and sometimes not at all. And KSP is far better then real life, you can have almost everything right now if u are accepting using mods or modifying it by yourself which is pretty easy too. I love this game for beeing so open to modding and tweaking but i would not love it at all anyone taking away that freedom from me or forcing me to make a mod later to revert to an earlier state. So my suggestion is also if such realism things like aeordynamics and deadly reentry are introduced in KSP please make them optional and switchable in the settings menu.

Thank you.

[shizophrenic]

awesome so far the below items are what i can find as the most requested features can we create a poll to see what the community wants most of all ill keep posting till i think i have everyone's wants on this one list

nice list.

before someone starts saying anysthing. consider please:

would it fit in the Setting of game:

Kerbals are a more or less human like sentient lifeform. Kerbals live on a planet similiar to ours. The kerbal solar System is similar to ours. Their technological evolution is close to ours .

what the dev not want or happen in their game:

randomnesss (i read that at somewhere). warfare, anything that could lead/viewed as discrimination

how much it changes the difficluty of the game:

some items would increase the difficulty quite a lot. others decrease.

how much is the gameplay changing.

some have fun playing ksp but would never touch a MS flight sim. would it be fun over a Long time?

what Impact would it have of the performace of the System:

all the items that would require additionaly parts for a flight would have Impact on the performace.

how much would Change it the requirements on the pc runing it on.

i am sure there are more things to consider.

any poll/answer should should take These things into account

Edited May 18, 2014 by shizophrenic

[BudgetHedgehog]

Also did anybody of you guys have come into the mind that there are maybe players that are enjoying things how they are right now? Major features like advanced aerodynamics, re-entry fairnigs and so on maybe are realistic but seriously will they be fun? For some real life rocket engineers maybe they are but for a wide specrum of 08/15 people they probably are not.

I'd like to see your evidence for that. Ask people who have played with FAR if they prefer that or stock. And I'm not a real life rocket engineer, but I think FAR is immensely fun and a lot better than stock. Also, 8/15 is just over half - not exactly a wide spectrum.

Also i do not see a point insisting so much on that stuff where there are perfectly legitimate mods that can modify your experience the way you want.

I am sick and tired of this 'argument'. Yeah, if someone wants a specific thing, by all means, say 'there's a mod for that'. But that cannot be the answer to everything, nor should it be. For a start, the game is 32 bit so installing really anything over 70 mods will make things unbearable (ATM and reduced texture packs can only do so much and are powerless against plugins) so eventually, at some point in the future, the answer to 'get a mod for that' will be 'I can't, I have no room' and they really don't. There are some things that SHOULD be stock. Off the top of my mind, Enhanced Navball. Harv has said it was supposed to be included in the stock game but for whatever reason, it still isn't. But that aside, there are things that the devs promised, like re-entry heating. That's been forgotten about and swept under the rug so the modders have to pick up the slack until Squad can catch up. I repeat - this is a feature that the devs said would be included in stock. The modders are just doing what Squad has failed to do i.e. deliver on their promises.

And KSP is far better then real life, you can have almost everything right now if u are accepting using mods or modifying it by yourself which is pretty easy too.

See above. Yeah, I'd like FAR, (an updated) B9, KW, DRE, Interstellar, EPL, Kethane, the inflatable habitat pod, Modular Kolonisation System, KAX, FASA, AIES, CoolRockets, EVE, Chatterer, TextureReplacer, HotRockets, Soundtrack Editor, DistantObjectEnhancer, AntennaeRange/RT2, Hullcam, RPM and oh wait, I ran out of memory 6 mods ago. And it'll stay that way until KSP becomes 64bit. I know it's out of Squad's hands and really depends on Unity, but still though.. you can't say you can have almost everything you want when in practice, you can't.

So my suggestion is also if such realism things like aeordynamics and deadly reentry are introduced in KSP please make them optional and switchable in the settings menu.

Now that I agree on. Just because I want aerodynamics/re-entry heating/etc, doesn't mean that everyone, I recognise that. I've been a long time supporter of different 'difficulty' settings. You can kind of see it in the settings.cfg with crew respawn (permadeath) and using stock craft in sandbox, so I honestly hope it'll be fleshed out and expanded on in future updates.