0.25 Discussion thread

[Ippo]

A quote of mine is now in regex' signature. I have now obtained all that could be gained from this thread; I shall now leave this thread to enjoy my satisfaction.

[KasperVld]

Thread closed while (other) moderators go through it.

[Climberfx]

Hey Guys, be more cordial with each other. You can have your own opinions, but stop with the convert some to your believes thing.

Here a remedy to who need it:

p.s: And remember, we are all watching!

[Whirligig Girl]

http://www.kerbaledu.com/

I see your point. But they also did this to Minecraft and Portal 2. Come on, really?

[Guest]

No more to say, I'm going to trust your judgement. I appreciate its hard to please everyone just sometimes it feels not evwryone s views are respected because they are perhaps not normal.

[Guest]

I see your point. But they also did this to Minecraft and Portal 2. Come on, really?

You have better things to do than what's going on here, move to the next station, driver.

*No sarcasm intended. Completely friendly reply, a call for neutrality

[Climberfx]

Linear, no one is normal. you can think you are, but in some way, all we have some diferences.

And to you know, i love to be a not normal person.

This feels unique!

And don't try to control who is or isn't reading the post.

In the moment you put something here, it's public.

Control yourself and respect others.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Climberfx

[Thomas988]

The mods are watching.

[Lheim]

Well, just a reply to regex's list - he did do as I asked. All I'm going to do is to ask him to have patience and realize that some things have to be done in a kind of sequence, and that his personal preferences mightn't be the developer's and that's fine - that's why mods exist.

In specific, though..

- not all devs are interchangeable - the 3d modelers mightn't be useful to do the code magic for clouds, for instance. One has to work within finer divisions than you seem to realize, regex; you can't necessarily assign the cinematic makers to do any particular task on the list, y'know?

- Asking for more 'stuff to do' on planets is all well and good, except that the planetary surfaces might want a little work first. Likewise with the idea of multiple launch sites, if terrain is going to be revisited.

- The trifecta of real solar system, deadly reentry, and TAC are personal choices and not necessarily the dev's choices, and by no means necessary to create a quality space game. Some aspects of each might be incorporated, but did it ever occur to you to consider the no-tilt kerbin system as the newbie zone, and that it has a certain importance as such?

- Stopping multiplayer development would not be super-helpful for the game in it's efforts to appeal to multiple audiences. I feel this, of all your suggestions, is pure personal bias showing through.

So.. look. In general, I say this: you've got a nice list, regex, but seriously, you're assuming they can do everything they want and in any order. You take no consideration whatsoever of the fact that they have different devs with different talents and that things generally have to be done in a certain kind of sequence. It's a more complex task to manage than you might think, but right now you're looking at an under-construction building and asking for the penthouse bathroom to be paved over in marble while the building is yet a steel skeleton, and all because you don't like the (temporarily necessary) port-a-potty. You're also asking for them to change the blueprint. Who cares about the concrete that's already been poured, and the architect's vision?

But this is why Squad takes care to make their game moddable. And it is, indeed, a great deal of work to make that possible. So take the option if you need something sooner rather than later.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Lheim

[Renegrade]

GregroxMun: I don't read regex as suggesting making everything real-sized, but using non-insane densities for planets. Right now some planets in KSP are approach star levels of density. That's...not exactly a good way to teach kids about space travel. I think also an argument could be made for using the real solar system as an option in the KSP.edu version, since otherwise you will be giving children a quite-wrong impression of how hard or easy spaceflight actually is.

Did someone say non-insane densities for planets?!?!

That just happens to be my specialty. Allegedly.

Here's the figures I came up with using Earth's density of ~5515 kg/m^3 (ouch that's pretty heavy for a ball of rock.. how big was that iron core again?), the Moon's density of 3346.4 kg/m^3, and Kerbin's loldensity of 58484.791 snacks/mk1-2 pod.

EARTH:
  Earth density:
    Mass: 5.97389e+24 (1/1 of Earth)
    Grav(@6371.0 km): 9.822398 / 1.001264g  # okay figures aren't EXACTLY right.
    Grav(@6621.0 km): 9.094641 / 0.927079g
  Kerbin density:  #loldegeneratematter
    Mass: 6.33511e+25 (1/0 of Earth)
    Grav(@6371.0 km): 104.163352 / 10.618079g
    Grav(@6621.0 km): 96.445725 / 9.831368g
  Moon density:
    Mass: 3.62484e+24 (1/2 of Earth)
    Grav(@6371.0 km): 5.960049 / 0.607548g
    Grav(@6621.0 km): 5.518460 / 0.562534g

KERBIN:
  Earth density:
    Mass: 4.98985e+21 (1/1197 of Earth)
    Grav(@600.0 km): 0.925041 / 0.094296g
    Grav(@680.0 km): 0.720188 / 0.073414g
  Moon density:
    Mass: 3.02775e+21 (1/1972 of Earth)
    Grav(@600.0 km): 0.561298 / 0.057217g
    Grav(@680.0 km): 0.436997 / 0.044546g

MUN:
  Earth density:
    Mass: 1.84809e+20 (1/32315 of Earth)
    Grav(@200.0 km): 0.308347 / 0.031432g
    Grav(@216.0 km): 0.264358 / 0.026948g
  Moon density:
    Mass: 1.12139e+20 (1/53257 of Earth)
    Grav(@200.0 km): 0.187099 / 0.019072g
    Grav(@216.0 km): 0.160408 / 0.016351g

MINMUS:
  Earth density:
    Mass: 4.98985e+18 (1/1196867 of Earth)
    Grav(@60.0 km): 0.092504 / 0.009430g
    Grav(@72.0 km): 0.064239 / 0.006548g
  Moon density:
    Mass: 3.02775e+18 (1/1972484 of Earth)
    Grav(@60.0 km): 0.056130 / 0.005722g
    Grav(@72.0 km): 0.038979 / 0.003973g

I think KIDS with a 10% setting would work well for Real Density Kerbin. I'd set up an RSS config for RDK if I knew whether or not the game would update the orbits on it's own or not heh. Actually I'll eventually do it anyways, it would just be sooner if I don't have to scribble in new orbits.

I realize Regex was actually suggesting increased sizes as well, but I have a particular, peculiar, giggling fancy for Real Density Kerbin.

Isn't that what's on everyone's list of "How to improve the game"? Anyway, you asked, so here is how I would try to have things in KSP within about a year, skipping anything that the devs have confirmed they are working on:

I agree with everything in this post, except for RSS. The physics warp system makes RSS (or even 6.4x) gameplay a bit slow for my tastes.

Three particular things there caught my attention:

- Real aero. That would be very nice. I'm hoping that's in 0.25 and it's the 'big secret'. Not holding my breath, but I can always hope. The streamers all seem to like-ish NEAR, or at least not be terribly offended by it, so I think a simple aero overhaul wouldn't be too unwelcome and would get rid of the absurd souposphere.

- Fixing progression. YES PLEASE.

- Fixing thrust to vary with ISP (I call this 'thrust correction'). I looked at the source of Arcturus Thrust Corrector, and I saw like.. three lines that seemed relevant. My only question is therefore this: Why hasn't this been implemented yet? Half the mods out there have a variation of this.

[Jon Tash]

Hey Guys, be more cordial with each other. You can have your own opinions, but stop with the convert some to your believes thing.

Here a remedy to who need it:

p.s: And remember, we are all watching!

Kids don't listen to him, don't do drugs!!!

About the regex wishlist, I find it interesting and it's pretty close to my own wishlist for KSP. I'm still not sure about having a bigger system though. Yes bigger Kerbin and all the other planets and moons can be fun but also quite challenging for some. I wish the system was bigger in scale because sometimes I find it so small and not challenging enough(coming from someone that played since 0.8). But every person is different and play the game differently.

I just hope SQUAD knows what they are doing for the future of KSP.

[Whirligig Girl]

You have better things to do than what's going on here, move to the next station, driver.

*No sarcasm intended. Completely friendly reply, a call for neutrality

Right then. Good.

So, back on tracks then: Tuesday is here. A HypeTrain will be going to the HypeBranchLineOfDevnoteHype, so I ought to get to the station.

[Guest]

you're assuming they can do everything they want and in any order.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. Given that I work 40 hours a week (well, most of the time) developing software you'd think I'd have maybe a teensy-weensy little idea of what goes into getting a program out the door, maybe?

You take no consideration whatsoever of the fact that they have different devs with different talents and that things generally have to be done in a certain kind of sequence.

I have, actually, but you've conveniently ignored that or assumed that I was expecting an artist to take up a programming role.

Who cares about the concrete that's already been poured, and the architect's vision?

Since I don't know what the architect's "vision" is, I can only give criticism based on what isn't in the game right now and what is immediately in front of my face. I have little faith that the KSP devs actually have a plan beyond the next update or the next feature (in the case of this supposed update-spanning thing).

[tater]

KSP will never become a simulator. Ever. Not even with all the mods there exist in the world for KSP.

Unity engine isn't build to handle that in a first place.

No, you are right, I mean as much as is possible within the engine, and again, for stock, a lower order approximation of reality.

The key to the use of term "simulation," however is "approximation of reality." To the extent a game approximates reality, or realistic outcomes, (or even tries) it is a "simulator." You could simulate the exploration of a solar system with no orbital mechanics at all, so long as the associated costs, travel times, etc were somehow done (a turn-based game, for example). It would not be a space flight simulator, but it might be a space program simulator, even if only a zeroith order one

[HafCoJoe]

Just found time to listen to the kerbalcast.

Maxmaps answering a question about SP+ integration.

"yes and the fact that we had Hugo our intern who is back at school built a whole bunch of new mk3 parts for space shuttles"

Built a whole bunch of new mk3 parts for space shuttles

So... mk3 cargo bay? Rocket fuel unit? o-O?

Watch it be like 3 parts xD

Edited August 27, 2014 by Avera9eJoe

[Sky_walker]

The key to the use of term "simulation," however is "approximation of reality." To the extent a game approximates reality, or realistic outcomes, (or even tries) it is a "simulator."

Yep, KSP still doesn't qualify, no matter the amount of mods.

You could simulate the exploration of a solar system with no orbital mechanics at all, so long as the associated costs, travel times, etc were somehow done (a turn-based game, for example). It would not be a space flight simulator, but it might be a space program simulator, even if only a zeroith order one

Putting stuff into an abstraction layer - which is what your example does - is completely different from being fundamentally wrong in some of the key aspects - which in some cases is something forced by Unity engine, and a reason why I'll never call KSP a simulator.

- not all devs are interchangeable - the 3d modelers mightn't be useful to do the code magic for clouds, for instance. One has to work within finer divisions than you seem to realize, regex; you can't necessarily assign the cinematic makers to do any particular task on the list, y'know?

From reading his list I would say that he is perfectly aware of that and already accounted for what can be done by who.

- Asking for more 'stuff to do' on planets is all well and good, except that the planetary surfaces might want a little work first. Likewise with the idea of multiple launch sites, if terrain is going to be revisited.

He did mention that too.

- The trifecta of real solar system, deadly reentry, and TAC are personal choices and not necessarily the dev's choices,

Everything on his list is his "personal choice" and not a devs choice - that's why he composed this list.

and by no means necessary to create a quality space game.

For him - it might be. For you - it's not. Simply put: Personal bias. Don't accuse someone of that when you're doing it yourself.

- Stopping multiplayer development would not be super-helpful for the game in it's efforts to appeal to multiple audiences.

Either you appeal to core audience or random audience. KSP grew up to what it is by appealing to it's core audience, not by trying to appeal to BF3 players, Space Engineer players, Minecraft players, or Microsoft Flight Simulator players. Whatever stopping a development of the multiplayer would be helpful or not depends on how you - and more importantly: devs - define audience for this game and a major game appeal. As far as I see, from all of the discussions - major game appeal is focused around single-player experience (that does include exchange of ships / screenshots / mods / etc) anything that's about multiplayer is somewhere between would-be-great-to-have-but-not-sure-how-it'd-work-or-if-I'll-have-fun-with-how-devs-want-to-do-it and don't-care-at-all.

My opinion on the multiplayer can be summarized with this: KSP is missing way too much from it's core experience to start working on a multilayer

when the game clearly wasn't designed from ground-up with multilayer in mind.

IMHO multiplayer belongs to DLC/expansion pack/post-1.0 features. First get the core right, then implement additional toys.

you're assuming they can do everything they want and in any order.

I can't see how you could possibly come up with that conclusion. Even more so as he didn't even made his list in any particular order.

It was a pointed list - just stuff he would want to see - not a numbered list - an order in which he would like to see them.

You're also asking for them to change the blueprint. Who cares about the concrete that's already been poured, and the architect's vision?

Quote contrary. He is asking to have a proper concrete plan of a development that appeals to the core audience and adds more value to the building. In terms of educational value, simple gameplay fun and "meat" that every game requires to progress and sell. Nothing he talks about requires any fundamental redesign of a game - it's all just building on top of the existing features - as modders have perfectly proven in many examples that regex himself gave. (And here I'd also want to highlight that some of the features he mentioned are probably already planned for the future versions of the game, like improvements to the aerodynamics are, or more content and points of interest on a planets)

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[timsfitz]

The Devnotes were interesting. I wonder what other new parts we're getting besides SP+?

[mythic_fci]

The Devnotes were interesting. I wonder what other new parts we're getting besides SP+?

An entire revamp of ALL the spaceplane parts. Cue the hype.

[cantab]

It baffles my mind that people think a game with little green men needs to be realistic.

Just because the ships are crewed by funny-looking aliens rather than never seeing the crew at all doesn't mean the game should be wilfully unrealistic.

KSP isn't a simulator, but it is a physics game, and it would be better if it follows real physics except where needed for gameplay or technical reasons. For example small (and thus over-dense) celestials help the gameplay by making it quicker to orbit and more feasible to get huge things in space. Lack of axial tilt is I believe a technical limitation or issue, maybe one day it should be fixed. Stock aero is neither and warrants improving, but maybe X-Plane levels of realism would be bad for gameplay.

And incidentally Orbiter, Euro Truck Simulator, and so on are simulators and games. They are not mutually exclusive things to be.

[tater]

Sky_walker, I explicitly referred to KSP as maybe being a zeroith order simulation. It depends on where you put the cutoff for "simulation," I'd certainly not use KSP to plan a real spaceflight, even with all the mods possible

I know nothing at all about the limitations of Unity, I'll take your word for it. Suffice it to say that I find some old board games (hex board ) to be "simulations" at a very low level to the extent that they seem to result in outcomes consistent with reality (even if entirely abstracted). If you mean "simulation" in the sense of the link you posted above, then yeah, not even close.

I'd just like decisions to be made with an eye towards more, rather than less realistic in terms of expected outcomes from a given player input, how we define that semantically ("low-order simulation," or "somewhat more realistic game") doesn't matter to me.

[Sky_walker]

I know nothing at all about the limitations of Unity, I'll take your word for it.

Try to watch this, it'll give you some vague idea of how huge challenges did developers met with the Unity engine:

It's the video where KSP developers, including Harvester, explain various internals and behind the scene processing that goes on in the game. It's hardly everything, I'm not even sure if in that video they talk much about the obstacles they couldn't jump over (I'm pretty sure they mention at least the n-body problem), but definitely gives you some better idea on how challenging KSP development was.

I'd just like decisions to be made with an eye towards more, rather than less realistic in terms of expected outcomes from a given player input

Than we agree with each other

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[JDCollie]

Personally, I really want the physics simulation to be accurate. That is the aerospace model, as well as multi-SOI trajectory affects (assuming it is possible in Unity). Not because I care about a true-to-life simulation experience, but because the challenge of succeeding in a powerful dynamic modelling system like that is just fun for me. I will say though, if the move is made toward a more challenging beginning experience (with larger planets, accurate drag, accurate ISP, etc) then I think more effort should be put into making the near-Kerbin experience even more engaging (because newer players will be spending even more time there than before)

As for the size of Kerbin and the Kerbol system in general, I don't see the problem. Couldn't it be possible for Squad to make a launch option where you could choose your solar system size? As I understand it, if you were just selecting which assets would be loaded, then it wouldn't have much effect on the game's performance other than a larger download, yes?

[ferram4]

Try to watch this, it'll give you some vague idea of how huge challenges did developers met with the Unity engine:

It's the video where KSP developers, including Harvester, explain various internals and behind the scene processing that goes on in the game. It's hardly everything, I'm not even sure if in that video they talk much about the obstacles they couldn't jump over (I'm pretty sure they mention at least the n-body problem), but definitely gives you some better idea on how challenging KSP development was.

And yet all of these are not issues with the Unity engine itself; they are issues stemming from how computers are set up in general. The original Deep Space Kraken was the result of floating point errors, and there's no way around those, and any game with very large relative changes in velocities will have to deal with that. N-body is not precluded in any way due to the engine; hell, if you wanted, you could simply run the forces of gravity through the same physics engine used for the parts and everything should work out, though the lack of symplecticity would result in some energy gain over time. However, that's a problem with the algorithms being used, not the engine itself, and you can easily code around that. Don't believe me? It's not like there's a mod in development to add it or anything.

This idea that modeling something realistic is impossible in Unity is one of the greatest cop-outs this community has. I don't know where it started or why people keep repeating it. It's the worst attempt to defend non-realistic gameplay, because your argument falls apart completely the very second someone proves that it can be done, especially because it implicitly assumes that the only reason for not doing it is because you can't do it. You know, I'd bet money that if FAR didn't exist, everyone would say the same thing to excuse the stock aerodynamics system.

There are reasons to argue against realism on the basis that it is unfun, but don't sit there and say that such things can't be done as the reasoning. Most of what you're talking about can already be done in sims like Orbiter and X-plane, and they already had to tackle the same challenges that KSP would in implementing those levels of features. Code is code; it doesn't decide to melt if you combine it with a certain engine.

[Red Iron Crown]

From Maxmaps' twitter feed:

Looking at some of the modified work Porkjet sent us. Expectation status: BTFO*

#Hypeplane is taxiing to the runway.

*Blown The F*** Out

[Sky_walker]

However, that's a problem with the algorithms being used, not the engine itself, and you can easily code around that. Don't believe me? It's not like there's a mod in development to add it or anything.

Performance. Fact that something is done in a mod, doesn't mean it works well on a fully deployed game.

I believe that that's exactly what devs mentioned as a reasoning for why n-body physics will never be in KSP.

And that performance limitation is directly a problem with the engine - Unity 5 seems to migrate it (multi-core physics) though we don't know when or if at all KSP will be ported to Unity 5.