0.25 Discussion thread

[juanml82]

SQUAD had successfully makes us believe that they are "always busy" in doing the development, slowly.

And boom, they give us surprise of this destructible building. I wonder what will be next.

Perhaps... DR, FAR, Kathane, TLS and RT2 all combine in 1 release?

You know it won't. I don't get why people complained in the lines of "Oh, the secret feature is destructible buildings instead of FAR!" when it was clear they weren't going to change the aerodynamic model in 0.25.

They are aiming to add all the gameplay elements first - of which ISRU might or might be one - and then they'll polish and see whether and what kind of reentry damage, aerodynamic model, foodstuffs (I refuse to call consumables "life support") or the unrealistic remote tech (space programs use ground based stations to communicate with space probes, not satellites. Satellites are used for Earth communications and, even then, most of the Internet works with wires, not satellites) they add and how.

The good news is, if you like DR, FAR, Kethane, TLS and RT2, you can download the mods.

[Hannu]

Just being able to launch rockets from somewhere other than the main KSC would be a huge programming endeavor, I imagine.

It is not big work at all, if the game has been programmed correctly. Buildings and everything are memory structures. You can copy them in computer's memory and give another coordinates to other copy. Then you change code which calls functions that draws KSC of handles its functions so that it reads list of all space centers and calls these functions to every space centers. If you want that there are different functions, parts or separate money in launch centers, it takes little more work. But in any case it should not be huge work, if we talk about current properties and functionality of KSC.

That is huge work if you add detailed collision detection and (pseudo)realistic damage models (both physical and visual) to indestructible buildings. But it is not necessary step to build another functional space centers or other buildings around Kerbin (or solar system). It is just visual entertainment.

[KingPhantom]

why do everyone wants FAR and all that? it doesn't fit the original drive of KSP... they are good mods and people who like that style should download and install them. but i'm sure a direct integration to KSP would kill ksp. it's not the stuff that KSP is made of

[Superfluous J]

Just being able to launch rockets from somewhere other than the main KSC would be a huge programming endeavor, I imagine.

It is not big work at all, if the game has been programmed correctly.

I missed this in my first reply to Twreed87, but I agree with Hannu but more strongly. It's not big work at all (in the vast scheme of things). Real Solar System supports multiple launch sites right now so the game is obviously coded for it to work.

[Hannu]

why do everyone wants FAR and all that? it doesn't fit the original drive of KSP... they are good mods and people who like that style should download and install them. but i'm sure a direct integration to KSP would kill ksp. it's not the stuff that KSP is made of

As far as I know, the original idea of KSP was to be more realistic and nerdy game, which demands certain knowhow about physics and mathematics of space traveling and aerodynamics. When I started at version 18 there was much more talk about technical things including better aerodynamic model, re-enty effects and technical resources (living supply and mineable resources on planets). Squad even did re-entry animation to some version but never finished physics. As always, projects change during time. Workers change or get interested in new ideas, community wants to certain things, economic issues may change (to good or bad direction) etc. Squad decided to concentrate developing the KSC and terrestrial economy and career management instead of space and physics things.

I disagree that FAR would kill the game. Probably many players who likes planes have played different flight simulators before KSP and expect similar realistic like aerodynamic behavior. Every serious flight simulator have flight model much more like FAR than very strange KSP's stock aerodynamic, even their "simplified model" -options. Actually I remember than when I played very simple fighter games in Commodore 64 (about year 1989) they had more realistic aerodynamics than KSP. Of course they did not handle supersonic effects and many other things but at least it was possible to stall. Maybe it would be a good idea to put some of the FAR's parameters behind an "Advanced (no not touch if you do not know what you are doing)" -button or in configuration file, but it works very well with default settings.

[Yakuzi]

Actually, I am pretty sure that we're going to get some form of Kolonization in .26, given that part of the building destruction mechanic is rebuilding buildings and that the .26 massive new feature with insane amounts of art development is said to build off of the base of .25. It's a fairly logical conclusion that would be a major upgrade to the game that would allow squad to partially implement their resource mechanic that they couldn't quite make work, and provides a nice end-game with lots of stuff to add to the game.

Alternatively, the 0.26 feauture could be evolution and development of the Kerbal Space Cente itself, where a career player starts off with Jeb's Junkyard launch site or something equivalent and has to unlock/buy the VAB, SPH and other buildings (that potentially could be upgraded). Since the 0.25 destructable feature involves a rebuild option, this option can be used for initial construction, n'est ce pas?

[klgraham1013]

I'll just say, as with deformable terrain, I think people are reaching a bit. The buildings can be destroyed. That's what we know. My guess is on a management, RTS style, upgrade system ie: You can only unlock 3m rocket parts once you've upgraded the VAB to tier 3.

[klgraham1013]

Actually I remember than when I played very simple fighter games in Commodore 64 (about year 1989) they had more realistic aerodynamics than KSP.

Wow. I'd love to know what games you were playing.

[Hannu]

Wow. I'd love to know what games you were playing.

I can't remember name of the game. It had a flat world, light blue sky, green ground and blue sea. Here and there was trees made of sprites (a sprite was simple graphic object (about 16x16 pixels one color) in ancient computers and there could be 8 sprites simultaneously on screen). Field of view was from cockpit. First there was couple of groups of land forces against player. At least tanks and anti aircraft missiles. They advanced slowly and could destroy your air field if you let them advance too far. There was another airfield but it was long way from where the battle was and caused fuel problems. Sometimes pair of fighters attacked to player and it was time of little (extremely joystick-consumptive) dogfight. Fighters could be destroyed by air to air -missiles and ground targets had own missile type. There was also a machine gun which could destroy both but only from short range. Fighter had flares or chaff which helped to avoid enemy missiles. When all enemy ground forces were destroyed, navy attacked with ships. Then player had to get anti ship missiles (from airfield) and went to fight on sea. If player succeeded to destroy the ships he won the game and got points. It is probable that I remember some details wrong.

Then there was fuel tanker plane in the game, but I never learned how to make aerial refueling. I always crashed to the tanker when I attempted. Moreover, you needed also ammunition supplies during the game, so it was necessary to land on airfield.

[Red Iron Crown]

I can't remember name of the game. It had a flat world, light blue sky, green ground and blue sea. Here and there was trees made of sprites (a sprite was simple graphic object (about 16x16 pixels one color) in ancient computers and there could be 8 sprites simultaneously on screen). Field of view was from cockpit. First there was couple of groups of land forces against player. At least tanks and anti aircraft missiles. They advanced slowly and could destroy your air field if you let them advance too far. There was another airfield but it was long way from where the battle was and caused fuel problems. Sometimes pair of fighters attacked to player and it was time of little (extremely joystick-consumptive) dogfight. Fighters could be destroyed by air to air -missiles and ground targets had own missile type. There was also a machine gun which could destroy both but only from short range. Fighter had flares or chaff which helped to avoid enemy missiles. When all enemy ground forces were destroyed, navy attacked with ships. Then player had to get anti ship missiles (from airfield) and went to fight on sea. If player succeeded to destroy the ships he won the game and got points. It is probable that I remember some details wrong.

Then there was fuel tanker plane in the game, but I never learned how to make aerial refueling. I always crashed to the tanker when I attempted. Moreover, you needed also ammunition supplies during the game, so it was necessary to land on airfield.

ACE: Air Combat Emulator. I played a bunch of it on my C64 back in the day, though I'm not sure I'd say it had a realistic aerodynamic model.

It also had a co-op multiplayer mode, where one player flew and the other selected targets for the missiles.

[SkyRex94]

I don't think the 0.26 feature is upgradable buildings:

Look what had to be implemented to make destroyable buildings?:

A state for each building saving if its 'destroyed' or 'not'

The destruction switches this state. And the rebuild after destruction switches it again.

Nothing i would call 'serious Groundwork'

To make buildings upgradable you just need more states and things to do with an upgraded building, so that seems unlikely.

Aproaching it scientificly:

Obviously a lot of ArtWork was needed: To create the Destructed Models, the animations the explosions, the collapses and fireballs.

But you can't reuse the Artwork for the buildings, because you need new models for every new building you want to destroy.

And its obviously viewable, i mean it 'is' the secret feature so it isn't the groundwork needed for it.

The buildings aren't destroyed dynamicly as seen in Squadcast, it's the same animation for the same building, and it's the hole building or nothing, so no 'just blow the edge of the roof' and the rest stays intact. What i mean is it's an animation for each building played when the system desides to change the state of the building to 'destroyed'.

BUT they have splitted up the 'clickable buildings' into more seperate buildings. What i mean is that the water tower and the launch pad are different buildings physically, and each commdish or the different sections of the runway. Splitting the models into new functional groups and setting the borders for them was something that has been done.

So i don't see any groundwork to make lets say the VAB upgradable or buildable at the beginning, although they could use the splitted models to lets say add the water tower to the launch pad, but i don't see what gameplay value that could have, maybe you've ideas for that but i don't think it is upgradable buildings at all.

What has also been done is something like a 'health state' for the buldings, to detect when it has got so much damage that it'll blow up.

And a detection system to detect when a non-craft-object got hit by something. until now only crafts are affected by any collision. With 0.25 also the KSC buildings achieve the ability to detect a collision on themselves and react to it (with exploding).

And a system had to be implemented to modify the current state objects in the game (assuming a destructed building will have a different collision mesh than an intact one) and this model replaces the place of the intact model while this building has the state of destroyed.

(But that could've been already there, i don't know, maybe mods like KerbinSite using that already)

And we have to think of a purpose for the 0.26 feature, because upgrading buildings to unlock parts doesn't make any sense. We have a unlocking system for the parts already: called TechTree. Destroying buildings is fun cause of explosions and has an effect on your budget. Upgrading wouldn't be fun to watch, would cost money and i can't think of anythink getting unlocked through that. Maybe the planets but that would counteract the freedom to go where you want.

AND they needed to apply animations on non-craft-objects in the first place. Every non craft thing is just static right now.

Maybe you can build a new launchpad or runway anywhere on Kerbin, but (apart from making the game harder or change the view) there isn't any purpose in that either since the equator is already the best launch position.

And Craters are a much too easy feature to be the BIG 0.26 Groundwork needed feature. just apply an overlay Crater texture at the coordinates you impacted. Or you mean deformable terrain, but i think that would be far tooo big as you'd have to save the currenct shape of every single planet in the game everytime you save, and i can't see groundwork for that since KSC is just destroyable and not deformable.

Maybe it'll be more Buildings on Kerbin, that would be a big art project too.

OR they've finally decide to flesh out all the planets a bit with Geysiers and Vulcanoes and Solar erruptions and waterfalls and caves, using the ability to apply animations to non craft objects.

But honestly i'm not sure which is the most realistic since all the ideas have pros and cons why and why not they should make it.

Personally i'd like something with all the other planets, not just Kerbin, to flesh out the things to do at your destination instead of making Kerbin prettier.

Besides: We get new Explosions, it seems they are to scale to the part exploding. So do you think they also applied these to the asteroids? We won't have a crater but if an E-Class Asteroid makes a huge massive Fireball-Shokwave on impact there will be much more reason to redirect them on collision course, and much more fun to crash them on purpose?

[skeevy]

snip

I had something similar on the Atari Jaguar when I was a kid, but I cannot remember the name of it for the life of me.

But growing up playing games like that makes me rofl when kids these days complain about how ANY game has bad graphics. KSP has horrible graphics.....sigh, just shut up. Here, take this Atari 2600 with Pitfall and Breakout. Go play them then tell me how bad KSP's graphics are. I guess our generation is different in that regard -- When you grow up with games where graphics take a back seat to game mechanics and fun game play, you appreciate games for what they do over how they look. I actually have a hard time playing newer games because game mechanics and game play take a back seat to the graphics. I'm glad KSP takes game mechanics first over graphics.

For example. Having never played a God of War game, I took the controller from a buddy of mine's son (son is my age) and beat the boss he had been stuck on for over a week (some crab looking thing iirc). When he asked how, I answered the game pops up with what button I'm supposed to hit and when, so I hit em or I do the same square, square, square, or square, square, triangle combo.... That game, while looking good, has nothing on SNES button mashers that required precision timing. This game isn't a button masher....yeah, yeah it is dude -- you run around and mash on the buttons it pops up for you to mash on...that's the very definition of a button masher... We still have that argument to this day, lol.

Edited September 29, 2014 by skeevy

[klgraham1013]

snip

I'd love some of your ideas to be implemented. Caves would be ideal for bases. Waterfalls and volcanoes are both great ideas. Some natural easter eggs to find as apposed to what we have now.

My thoughts on upgradable building aren't necessarily what I want, but where I think Squad may be going. The contract system is far from what I want, but that's what they choose. I'm actually surprised there hasn't been any talk about an update to contracts.

[Artfact]

I'm in for the flashing out of planets, making the destruction of these buildings/objects costly would both add to the game mechanics as well as provide an immense visual boost.

I'd love it!

[Hannu]

ACE: Air Combat Emulator. I played a bunch of it on my C64 back in the day, though I'm not sure I'd say it had a realistic aerodynamic model.

It was ACE. I succeeded to download a C64-emulator and that game and I have to say that memories grow sweeter with time. I was wrong, KSP has better aerodynamics model. However, ACE had a possibility to stall. But was framerate really so low?

[Renegrade]

It was ACE. I succeeded to download a C64-emulator and that game and I have to say that memories grow sweeter with time. I was wrong, KSP has better aerodynamics model. However, ACE had a possibility to stall. But was framerate really so low?

I didn't have ACE, but I had Jet (from subLOGIC) for the C64, and the framerate was literally a slideshow. I doubt it exceeded 2 fps at any time, and was often multi-second frames. Plus it took like ten minutes to load.

The C64's CPU and graphics chips were fairly advanced at the time, and quite a number of 2D games were running 30-60 fps (and evenly too, none of this microlag that DirectX gives us)... but it was a classic, 8-bit design in both areas. The 6510 (a 6502 variant) could execute an instruction in only 2-6 clocks, which was amazingly fast, but the instructions were incredibly simple and mostly only ever worked on 8 bits of data at a time and lacked things like oh... integer multiply. Oh and it ran at a whole megahertz.

So it's not surprising that it chokes on math-heavy 3D games..and any physics simulations in said games are more like very clever sleight of hand designed to have the look and feel of a physics event (pre-compiled or hand-crafted simple event conditions/tables, etc), rather than wastefully calculating it.

[Ketsa]

I played ACE at the time, do not remember low frame rate at all. smooth fun.

[Technical Ben]

It is not big work at all, if the game has been programmed correctly. Buildings and everything are memory structures. You can copy them in computer's memory and give another coordinates to other copy. Then you change code which calls functions that draws KSC of handles its functions so that it reads list of all space centers and calls these functions to every space centers. If you want that there are different functions, parts or separate money in launch centers, it takes little more work. But in any case it should not be huge work, if we talk about current properties and functionality of KSC.

That is huge work if you add detailed collision detection and (pseudo)realistic damage models (both physical and visual) to indestructible buildings. But it is not necessary step to build another functional space centers or other buildings around Kerbin (or solar system). It is just visual entertainment.

This. Programming is about taking steps. Walking to a destination is not hard, climbing a mountain is. Setting multiple spawn locations for a rocket is a a change in 3 numbers in the computer (location in 3d space). Adding the artwork is a lot of time, but I'm sure Squad is up to it.

[klgraham1013]

Setting multiple spawn locations for a rocket is a a change in 3 numbers in the computer (location in 3d space). Adding the artwork is a lot of time, but I'm sure Squad is up to it.

I do question that logic, though you may know more than me on the topic. To me, since the terrain of any planet in Kerbal isn't a smooth surface, there would need to be geometry detection to determine if a building could be placed. If the terrain is "carved" around the building, that takes work as well. I would simply argue that your "changing 3 numbers" argument is a bit reductive.

Though, I haven't programmed seriously myself in over a decade. I could be a tad out of touch.

[worir4]

I do question that logic, though you may know more than me on the topic. To me, since the terrain of any planet in Kerbal isn't a smooth surface, there would need to be geometry detection to determine if a building could be placed. If the terrain is "carved" around the building, that takes work as well. I would simply argue that your "changing 3 numbers" argument is a bit reductive.

Though, I haven't programmed seriously myself in over a decade. I could be a tad out of touch.

Who cares if the runway is a bit bumpy?

[klgraham1013]

Who cares if the runway is a bit bumpy?

Ok. Now we need an off road dirt track for rovers.

edit: Multiplayer rover races for scope complete!

[Alshain]

This. Programming is about taking steps. Walking to a destination is not hard, climbing a mountain is. Setting multiple spawn locations for a rocket is a a change in 3 numbers in the computer (location in 3d space). Adding the artwork is a lot of time, but I'm sure Squad is up to it.

The way this game is, I think you probably need a 4th point, the point of origin (like Stargate!... kidding) because you need to know which planet your on/orbiting. Because of it's system of orbits, I doubt the game uses a universal coordinates for the whole planetary system. But I don't know that for a fact, I'm making an educated guess. Some of the more talented modders would probably know for sure.

[Alshain]

Ok. Now we need an off road dirt track for rovers.

edit: Multiplayer rover races for scope complete!

That would be awesome. You should suggest this to AlphaAsh for KerbinSide, he might do it!

[MassDivide]

The way this game is, I think you probably need a 4th point, the point of origin (like Stargate!... kidding) because you need to know which planet your on/orbiting. Because of it's system of orbits, I doubt the game uses a universal coordinates for the whole planetary system. But I don't know that for a fact, I'm making an educated guess. Some of the more talented modders would probably know for sure.

Unity uses universal X Y Z.

[Penguinhero]

So we know the space center's destroy able but what about the second one on the island? And what about all the Easter eggs in the game? How cool would it be to visit the Stonehenge on Vall and accidentally hit one and cause it to collapse, or smash the space kraken on bop to peices? There more than meets the eye than just the space center with this update and I hope squad relished that too. So what do you think?