Dev Chat with HarvesteR (3/28/12)

[Capt'n Skunky]

[13:19] *** HarvesteR has joined #KSPOfficial

[13:19] *** Capt_Skunky sets mode +m

[13:19] <@Capt_Skunky> Before it goes nuts.

[13:19] <@Sordid> Harv! o/

[13:20] <@Capt_Skunky> I will voice people as needed

[13:24] <@Sordid> So what now? Can the server take the load without melting?

[13:25] <@HarvesteR> I\'m hoping this update will be bug-free enough for us to be able to get on with the new update

[13:25] <@HarvesteR> The server should cope better

[13:25] <@HarvesteR> We think we solved the downloads getting cut off part

[13:26] <@HarvesteR> well, the server is under extreme load now

[13:27] <@HarvesteR> we fixed the downloads cutting off on normal days

[13:27] <@HarvesteR> but today isn\'t a normal day

[13:29] <@Capt_Skunky> Multipart download would be a big help.

[13:29] <@HarvesteR> yeah, we\'ll get that up ASAP

[13:29] <je_day> Someone say on twitter to KSP twitter account that '@KerbalSpaceP Your server is getting a 10.0 earthquake right now though...'

[13:29] <je_day> Awesome tweet

[13:29] <@HarvesteR> lol

[13:30] <Causeless> did KSP forums die again?

[13:30] <Causeless> oh hi there HarvesteR

[13:30] <@Sordid> Seems to.

[13:30] <@HarvesteR> it\'s on and off now

[13:30] <@Sordid> Forum not loading for me.

[13:30] <@HarvesteR> sometimes it comes back

[13:30] <Alfastar> HarvesteR

[13:30] <@Capt_Skunky> yeah, they are getting smoked again

[13:30] <Causeless> ok, thank

[13:31] <Engelnicht> Hey, Harv. Just wanted to say thanks. This game is awesome!

[13:31] <@HarvesteR> thanks!

[13:31] <@Sordid> Thanks for a great game, Harv.

[13:31] <@HarvesteR>

[13:32] <@HarvesteR> I\'m glad that our troubles are mostly server-related now

[13:32] <Limb> HarvesteR: whats the specs of the server you\'re on now?

[13:32] <@HarvesteR> no idea

[13:32] <@HarvesteR> but there is room for improvement

[13:32] <@HarvesteR> and we\'re going for a bigger server right now

[13:33] <Causeless> Hey, HarvesteR, not to try and abuse your time in the irc, but when do you think a terrain quality setting may be added? I\'ve noticed a few people saying they get very low speeds in-game

[13:33] <@HarvesteR> we have a new terrain caching system in

[13:34] <@HarvesteR> which is supposed to be configurable

[13:34] <@HarvesteR> but we haven\'t exposed those settings out yet

[13:34] <Limb> Configurable as in how much is cached?

[13:34] <@HarvesteR> later on, it should be more scalable and tweakable

[13:34] <@HarvesteR> yeah

[13:34] <@HarvesteR> because we set it to run pretty close to the 1GB barrier

[13:35] <markodash> no i mean it normally draws about 1 gigs and it was trying to use all 4.5

[13:35] <@HarvesteR> but if you push the game too hard, with large ships, orbiting low at high warp, it might just go over and crash

[13:35] <@HarvesteR> yeah

[13:35] <je_day> HarV it seems it\'s night/very early morning in your country now. How are you?

[13:35] <@HarvesteR> it\'s 11.35am now here

[13:35] <@HarvesteR> we are at GMT -6

[13:36] <@HarvesteR> DST isn\'t up yet

[13:36] <@HarvesteR> should be in a month or so

[13:36] <@HarvesteR> then we\'ll be GMT-5

[13:36] <@HarvesteR> GMT is the baseline

[13:37] <@HarvesteR> there is no such thing as GMT-5 in relation to somewhere

[13:37] <@Sordid> Like what the hell are those blue things anyway?

[13:37] <@HarvesteR> DST here will start on April 1st, according to the windows clock here

[13:38] <@HarvesteR> well, here are the server news now:

[13:39] <@HarvesteR> Well, server news now. Here\'s the plan:

[13:39] <@HarvesteR> we are going to set up a temporary hosting on a mediafire pro link, and set up the store to link to that

[13:39] <@HarvesteR> so we take the load off the server for the time being

[13:40] <@HarvesteR> this is just a quick patch solution, while are upgrading to a better server

[13:40] <@Capt_Skunky> yeah, that link will get passed around within minutes

[13:40] <@HarvesteR> with mediafire pro, you can have a secure link

[13:40] <Alfastar> But HarvesteR, why not make a special KSP download site?

[13:40] <@HarvesteR> that\'s the plan

[13:40] <@HarvesteR> but that will take a while

[13:40] <@HarvesteR> and the servers are pretty much down atm

[13:41] <@HarvesteR> we are going to use mediafire as a temp solution, because it will take some hours to upgrade the server

[Removed lots of ranting]

[13:56] <@Capt_Skunky> If you have a Q for Harv, and I will pass along approved ones.

[13:56] <@Capt_Skunky> PM me that is

[13:56] * @Capt_Skunky watches as 25 PM windows open.

[13:57] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp> harv is there any chance you willbe rebalanacing engines?

[13:57] <@HarvesteR> indeed there is... eventually

[13:58] <@HarvesteR> right now, we\'re mostly focusing on critical aspects of the game, like keeping it from crashing and all that good stuff

[13:58] <@HarvesteR> rebalancing is the sort of thing you do in beta

[13:59] <@Capt_Skunky> <Socket7> Is it wise to release a paid, upgradable game on an unsecure site where it can be leaked by nerdowells who ragequit and call volunteers psycho over things being a day late? Or does mediafirepro have some security features I\'ve never realized that will spank the cantankerous minions who will try and pirate it?

[14:03] <@HarvesteR> heh, it\'s exactly what we are looking at right now

[14:03] <@HarvesteR> I was under the impression there was a way to host secure downloads with a pro mediafire account

[14:03] <@HarvesteR> turns out, that might not be possible

[14:04] <@Capt_Skunky> Yeah, I don\'t think Secure is what you think it means.

[14:04] <@HarvesteR> so we might have to endure some more server hell until the upgrade comes through

[14:04] <@HarvesteR> all we need is a way to lock down our files so that only our store can fetch them

[14:05] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ> Why not release KSP full binaries via torrent? Issue an activation key to each user. On activation, the installer calls home to validate the installation.

[14:09] <@HarvesteR> that would invalidate the nice thing about the patcher system now

[14:10] <@HarvesteR> the idea is that you won\'t be required to download a full copy again

[14:10] <@HarvesteR> patches are small, about a few MB

[14:10] <@HarvesteR> and the patcher itself rquires authentication

[14:11] <@HarvesteR> if we started releasing builds through torrent, we might as well hand out free copies then

[14:15] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless> Might sounds inpatient... but I\'m sure we are all excited for 0.15. What otehr features apart from docking may there be?

[14:16] <@HarvesteR> heh, I\'m also impatient to get working on it

[14:16] <@HarvesteR> the main focus of 0.15 is actually flight planning

[14:17] <@HarvesteR> it\'s pretty much a required feature if you want to launch and find the thing you wanted to dock with

[14:18] <@Sordid> That sounds really awesome.

[14:18] <@HarvesteR> I\'ve started reading up on the theory for that

[14:18] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ>Will the Kraken bug be fixed in 0.15?

[14:18] <@HarvesteR> the technique is called Patched Conics

[14:18] <@HarvesteR> ah

[14:19] <@HarvesteR> yeah, I want to try and fix the Kraken Issue on 0.15

[14:19] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>you say flight planning. this implies an automatic piolet. will that mean you will be making your own Ap or perhaps asking those who made ap plugins already for assistance?

[14:19] <@HarvesteR> especially because Flight Planning should be based on as solid a base as possible

[14:20] <@HarvesteR> Flight Planning and Autopilots are not directly related

[14:20] <@HarvesteR> Autopilots will be made possible though, after having flight plans implemented

[14:20] <@HarvesteR> without an AP, a flight plan will guide you through a flight-director of sorts on the navball

[14:20] <@HarvesteR> to tell you where, and how much to thrust

[14:21] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>what does flight planning imply then?

[14:21] <@HarvesteR> well, the idea is that you\'ll be able to set down Maneuver Nodes on the Map view

[14:22] <@HarvesteR> a Maneuver Node lets you tweak your own orbit, and create a delta-v vector

[14:22] <@HarvesteR> from that, the game calculates a hypothetical orbit were you to execute that maneuver

[14:25] <@HarvesteR> AFK for a few mins

[14:25] <@HarvesteR> brb

[Capt'n Skunky]

[14:25] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless> so what purpose will docking serve after you manage to reach a vessel, and how will the physical act of docking be performed?

[14:27] <@HarvesteR> well, you\'ll need a docking node on both vessels, first of all

[14:28] <@HarvesteR> if you approach a docking node just right, not too fast, not too crooked, a physical attachment will connect both vessels

[14:28] <@HarvesteR> much in the same way parts are connected now, but without actually merging the ships

[14:28] <@HarvesteR> that\'s the 'actuator' side of docking at least.

[14:29] <@HarvesteR> after you dock, we want it to be possible to do these thing:

[14:29] <@HarvesteR> transfer crew, fuel, power, and cargo

[14:30] <@HarvesteR> the things you can transfer through a docking node, of course, depend on the type of node being used, and it\'s location

[14:30] <@HarvesteR> if a node can\'t reach the crew space, there\'s no way for the crew to get there

[14:30] <@HarvesteR> I\'m probably getting too far ahead by now though... these things are the sort of decision we make after getting to play with it for a while, and seeing how it feels

[14:31] <@HarvesteR> Oh, totally unrelated... Is anyone having download cutoff issues again?

[14:32] <@Sordid> Mine finished fine about twenty minutes ago.

[14:32] <@Capt_Skunky> they can\'t answer Harv

[14:33] <@Sordid> Well, nobody said anything, obviously everything\'s going fine!

[14:33] <@Sordid> Also, why is the Kerbal Space Center floating?

[14:33] <@Socket7> If I can login to download it HarvesteR, I\'ll tell you.

[14:34] <@Socket7> Very slow, but moving

[14:34] <@HarvesteR> cool

[14:34] <@HarvesteR> slow is better than interrupting

[14:34] <@HarvesteR> anyway, back to answering questions now

[14:34] <@HarvesteR> it\'s not that KSC is floating

[14:35] <@HarvesteR> the terrain below it seems to not be perfectly leveled

[14:35] <@HarvesteR> when you\'re dealing with a planet 600km in radius, it gets pretty hard to ensure objects fit on a millimeter scale

[14:36] <@Capt_Skunky> <Aegrim> ask him if we\'ll be able to make ships in space piece by piece using docking

[14:36] <@HarvesteR> about that, we\'re looking at several different options

[14:37] <@HarvesteR> it could be possible, in theory, to assemble a spacecraft out of pieces in orbit, by docking the pieces together

[14:37] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>how do you plan on having dockign working? will it allow use to basically merge ships and thus all rcs and module sbecome avalible form one commpand pod? and will it allow us to transfer fuel into on ship then undock and return and leave a station refueled?

[14:37] <@HarvesteR> but I think that would also be a pretty slow, tedious process

[14:37] <@HarvesteR> this is the discussion I was having with the other guys a few days ago

[14:38] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ> My d/l just died for the 3rd time ... 80mb this time

[14:38] <@HarvesteR> hmm

[14:39] <@HarvesteR> ok, I just informed Alex, he was asking

[14:39] <@HarvesteR> back to docking though, we concluded that there are basically two ways to have docking in the game

[14:39] <@HarvesteR> Vessel-level docking, as we call it, connected vessels together, but keeps them as separate entities

[14:40] <@HarvesteR> this makes sense for temporary dockings, like a shuttle docking to a space station

[14:40] <@HarvesteR> and enables things like crew transfers and such

[14:40] <@HarvesteR> then, Part-level docking, would connect parts to other parts, and merge them as a single vessel

[14:41] <@HarvesteR> that makes more sense for more permanent docking, like constructing a space station

[14:41] <@HarvesteR> although we\'re not sure if we want to have part-level docking yet, as there are other ways to do the same thing, which are possibly less tedious in the long run

[14:40] <@Capt_Skunky> <markodash> is there any work going into a horizontial VAB for aerospace?

[14:42] <@HarvesteR> about spaceplanes, hehe, 0.15 should be a nice update if you\'re a fixed-wing man

[14:43] <@Sordid> Oh? Any details?

[14:43] <@HarvesteR> hehehe

[14:43] <@HarvesteR> we are still going to make an official update thread for it

[14:43] <@HarvesteR> so it\'s a little early to tell

[14:43] <@HarvesteR> but there will be a new building at the space center soon

[14:44] <@HarvesteR> and I have to say, it\'s looking pretty cool already

[14:44] <@Sordid> Oh you tease.

[14:44] <@HarvesteR>

[14:45] <@HarvesteR> I get to have my fun too XD

[14:45] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>I don\'t see much need for permenate docking as even mir and ISS had to move modules around many times to configure them right. thus it seems like a moot point and would be quite unused. however I also want to ask will you be adding docking IDs so modders will be ableto have only their docking port dock with a set set of other ids? for example it would look silly for a stock doking module to doock with some mods 3 meter docking thing

[14:46] <@HarvesteR> ah yeah good thing you mentioned that

[14:46] <@HarvesteR> docking nodes will have a 'key', which is essentially a string, that determines what type of node they are

[14:46] <@HarvesteR> nodes can only connect to the same type of node, or others listed as compatible ones

[14:46] <@Capt_Skunky> <Damnyoujapan1>Ask Harv if he want to elaborate on 'cargo' please

[14:47] <@HarvesteR> Cargo is a concept we\'re still thinking about

[14:47] <@HarvesteR> but I think there will eventually be two types of cargo

[14:47] <@HarvesteR> there would be a difference between \'cargo\' and \'payload\'

[14:48] <@HarvesteR> \'payload\' is composed of ship parts, like a space station module or a sattelite

[14:48] <@HarvesteR> \'cargo\' is a more abstract thing

[14:48] <@HarvesteR> like Mun rocks

[14:48] <@HarvesteR> they\'re not part-derived things, and they go inside cargo containers

[14:49] <@HarvesteR> those are also the sort of thing you can transfer between docked vessesl

[14:49] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox>Are consumables like oxygen planned?

[14:49] <@HarvesteR> consumables are planned currently as \'life support\' in general

[14:49] <@HarvesteR> we\'re not yet 100% certain on how exactly that will be handled though

[14:51] <@HarvesteR> but that\'s the fun part of the game... the part I\'m itching to get to after we finish up the stuff we\'re working on now

[14:52] <@Capt_Skunky> <Byter|watchingLost>you said you add a new building. has it something to do with the runway?

[14:53] <@Capt_Skunky> lol

[14:53] <@HarvesteR> the runway is in for an overhaul too on this update

[14:53] <@HarvesteR> but yeah, they\'re related

[14:53] <@HarvesteR> in a way

[14:53] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>life support is a touch thign because tempature and oxygen comes into play. you sort of have to split it up because o2 is refurbishable, food is not with out a green house or something, and heat needs radiators ofsort. and what about power?

[14:55] <@HarvesteR> There are several ways we can think about life support. The most involved would be to simulate all consumables separately, and have them each have their own rules of how they\'re used and renewed... The simplest, on the other hand, would be to treat life support as a time limit for a crew in space.. I\'m not saying we\'re going for one or the other, but we\'re still deciding what we want to

[14:55] <@HarvesteR> see out of life support as a feature

[14:55] <@HarvesteR> power, now, is planned as a separate system

[14:56] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox>Would it be a good idea to have 2 basic types of docking nodes? One temporary for crew/fuel/consumable transfers, and another more permanent type for large station and deep space vessels?

[14:56] <@HarvesteR> we did think about that

[14:56] <@HarvesteR> but I\'m not sure about that permanent docking node though

[14:58] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp>even deep space ships need to lose stages. look at the Boeing IMIS and a few other mars mission approches. they mostly all jettison a tank or 2 or reconfigure along the way. I still wonder if once docked you will have control over both ships from one ship but can still separate or not.

[14:59] <@HarvesteR> once you\'re docked, you should still have control over your current ship

[14:59] <@HarvesteR> if you accidentally undock yourself from the docking port though, your fault

[15:05] *** Capt_Skunky sets mode +v cBBp

[15:05] <@Capt_Skunky> There cBBp, you can ask yourself now

[15:05] <@Capt_Skunky> those were big questions (wall of text)

[15:05] <+cBBp> wht about the other? if you dock to a large station and need to correct some things you need to switch to the station to control it. and if you chain several ships and make this large station the control of the station from one ship drops dramatically. for example. say you made a MIR replica and launched each module as it\'s own ship. seperatly they are fine at manuvering

[15:06] <+cBBp> but once docked and assembled you have 6 or 7 modules. if you don\'t have contorl over all RCS modules attached to the station and say you are piloting form mir core. you have all the other modules as dead weight who\'s RCS and gyros arn\'t working and controlling the station would be much harder. see what i mean?

[15:06] *** Capt_Skunky sets mode -v cBBp

[15:06] <@HarvesteR> docked ships are going to be handled by a new component, called an Assembly

[15:07] <@HarvesteR> Assemblies will manage docked vessels in much the same way vessels manage attached parts

[15:07] <@HarvesteR> basically, once docked, one of the vessels will be seen as the \'root\', and the other as an attached child

[15:07] <@HarvesteR> that then becomes a tree structure

[15:07] <@HarvesteR> which we can manage pretty much like what we do with parts

[15:08] <@HarvesteR> so an Assembly then has it\'s own orbit component, which is used instead of the vessel orbits, once you go on-rails while docked

[15:08] <@HarvesteR> it also serves as a base for things like resource transfers

[15:09] <@HarvesteR> and yea, it should be possible to have vessels docked to docked vessels

[15:09] <@HarvesteR> but the control system itself remains unchanged

[15:09] <@HarvesteR> you can only control a single vessel at a time

[15:09] <@HarvesteR> and you switch from vessel to vessel just the same, regardless of whether they are docked or now

[15:10] <@HarvesteR> *not

[15:10] <@Capt_Skunky> <Damnyoujapan1>will saved assemblies be accessable in the Vab as subassemblies?

[15:11] <@HarvesteR> yeah, that\'s where I was going next

[15:11] <@HarvesteR> apart from docking, we will also need to revise the .craft file format, so we can save pre-docked ships

[15:11] <@HarvesteR> like a Saturn V rocket with a LEM attached

[15:13] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ>Are there any plans to implement (in v2 or v3 or later) any kind of multiplayer mode? I\'m thinking about trading features down the line -- supplying goods to permanent bases on e.g. Kuropa, Kanymede, Keimos, Khobos, Katurn orbit, Mun etc.

[15:13] <@HarvesteR> ahh

[15:13] <@HarvesteR> well, the SFS system did make that a more plausible idea now

[15:14] <@HarvesteR> there is even a player-made mod now that merges save files together, and seeds them, to keep a persistent multi-world synced up

[15:14] <@HarvesteR> that\'s pretty cool, but it\'s not real-time MP yet

[15:14] <@HarvesteR> but MP is not something we want to tack on as an afterthought

[15:14] <@HarvesteR> we want to make a good job of it

[15:15] <@HarvesteR> so it\'s probably going to be an expansion pack or something of the sort

[15:15] <@Capt_Skunky> Oh no! The dreaded DLC?

[15:15] <@HarvesteR> (not confirming anything at this point=

[15:15] <@Sordid> Oh here we go.

[15:15] <@HarvesteR> and no, not DLC

[15:15] <@Capt_Skunky> Lookie Lookie!

[15:15] <@HarvesteR> I don\'t believe in charging for extra static content

[15:16] <@HarvesteR> that\'s what mods are for

[15:16] <@Capt_Skunky> Yay!

[Capt'n Skunky]

[15:16] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> how would staging on interplanetary vessels work?

[15:16] <@HarvesteR> but I like the idea of an expansion pack that adds new features

[15:16] <@Sordid> Though I have to say, the idea of multiple players with their own separate space agencies and separate budgets pooling their resources to do something grand sounds really awesome.

[15:16] <@HarvesteR> and new possibilities

[15:18] <@HarvesteR> Oh, new announcement on the servers

[15:18] <@HarvesteR> we\'ve ditched the mediafire idea, because it seems they don\'t really offer an option to have a private download

[15:18] <@HarvesteR> we are now setting up a new, beefier server

[15:19] <@HarvesteR> it should be up and running in a few hours, and we will eventually move the entire site there

[15:19] <@HarvesteR> for the time being though, we will offload the downloadable files to it

[15:19] <@HarvesteR> so the community and downloads will be separate

[15:19] <@Capt_Skunky> <N3X15> Why is KSP not using a relational database like SQLite for persistance? Wouldn\'t it be more effective?

[15:20] <@HarvesteR> for a save format you mean?

[15:20] <@N3X15> Yeah

[15:20] <@N3X15> A few other people asked about this.

[15:20] <@HarvesteR> the SFS format was created to be as straightforward and robust as possible really

[15:21] <@HarvesteR> we did think about using established formats, like XML or something, but in the end, it was just adding needless overhead

[15:22] <@HarvesteR> the SFS is just what we need really

[15:22] * @N3X15 nods

[15:22] <@HarvesteR> it\'s easy to work with, human-readable, and so far, we\'ve been able to keep it organized I think

[15:22] <@HarvesteR> also, you don\'t see it by looking at the file, but there is a system for saving and loading metadata

[15:22] <@HarvesteR> parts use it to store part-specific data

[15:23] <@HarvesteR> like the amount of fuel in a tank

[15:23] <@HarvesteR> which wouldn\'t make sense to have in the definition of a SAS module

[15:23] <@HarvesteR> we do have plans though, to create an upgraded format later, called SGS

[15:23] <@HarvesteR> SFS = Saved Flight State

[15:23] <@HarvesteR> SGS = Saved Game State

[15:24] <@HarvesteR> but for now, we\'re good with that

[15:24] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless>for 0.15, are you going back to the 4-week updates, or are you going to take the time to try and iron out as many bugs as possible?

[15:25] <@HarvesteR> I\'m rethinking the way we do updates here, and we might possibly do some changes to our system

[15:26] <@HarvesteR> the initial idea was to return to the 4-week cycle as before, and indeed, we are not going to do a .14 sized update again anytime soon

[15:26] <@HarvesteR> we\'re not THAT crazy

[15:26] <@HarvesteR> but, the 4-week cycle is lacking in some respects

[15:26] <@HarvesteR> Lately, I\'ve been thinking of running a dual-3-week cycle

[15:27] <@HarvesteR> 3 weeks to go crazy and take the game apart, 3 weeks to fix the mess

[15:27] <@HarvesteR> and a release at the end of each 6 weeks

[15:27] <@HarvesteR> but we still have to discuss that as a team really

[15:27] <@HarvesteR> it\'s just an idea at this point

[15:28] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> Harv, would it be a good idea to have a \'Lock Docks\' function, similar to staging? Will Assemblies have a way to jetison specific nodes at will? Perhaps a bank of dock actuator buttons?

[15:28] <@HarvesteR> well, I had imagined that un-docking would work only from child-to-parent

[15:29] <@HarvesteR> that is, you can undock the vessel you\'re commanding, but not undock others from it

[15:29] <@HarvesteR> but, that would be a nice thing to have implemented as a contextual action for docking nodes

[15:29] <@HarvesteR> which is an idea I\'ve been playing with for a while

[15:29] <@HarvesteR> actually, now that we\'re on the subject, I\'ve been wanting to have a discussion on this

[15:30] <@HarvesteR> the staging stack isn\'t enough to control everything a ship can do

[15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> on that note

[15:30] <@HarvesteR> so several systems are being placed in separate actions 'channels'

[15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko>is a staging overhaul going to be required for docking? considering how much will change (multiple capsules per vessel, even at launch) it might be needed

[15:30] <@HarvesteR> heh, just in time

[15:30] <@Capt_Skunky> Yup

[15:31] <@HarvesteR> well, what I want to do, and mind that this is not planned for 0.15 yet

[15:31] <@HarvesteR> is to revise the staging system completely

[15:31] <@HarvesteR> or at least add whatever is missing to it

[15:31] <@HarvesteR> so I have a couple of ideas, some conflicting, that I wanted to talk about

[15:31] <@HarvesteR> the first is the so-called \'hotbar\'

[15:32] <@HarvesteR> it\'s a UI area where you can drag part icons to, to remove them from the staging sequence

[15:32] <@HarvesteR> those would be mapped to number keys, and you could activate them manually there

[15:32] <@HarvesteR> that\'s one idea

[15:32] <@HarvesteR> then there is another concept I\'ve been going over, which I call \'action groups\'

[15:32] <@HarvesteR> action groups are simpler really

[15:33] <@HarvesteR> and already unwittingly partially implemented

[15:33] <@HarvesteR> they\'re things like SAS, Gears and RCS

[15:33] <@HarvesteR> only there would be more of them

[15:33] <@HarvesteR> those control parts that do the same things, as a group

[15:33] <@HarvesteR> both systems have pros and cons really

[15:34] <@HarvesteR> because some part types are better fitted for action groups, others are better with hotbar-style mapping

[15:34] <@HarvesteR> others though, should be controlled individually

[15:34] <@HarvesteR> and lastly, others work best as part of a sequence

[15:34] <@HarvesteR> as you can see, we have our work cut out for us

[15:35] <@HarvesteR> I\'m not trying to think up a single unifying control scheme thoug

[15:35] <@HarvesteR> but I don\'t want to have a lot of similar-but-not-the-same systems in either... that would just be confusing

[15:36] <@HarvesteR> I would like to keep it as simple as possible though, without detracting from flexibility

[15:37] <@Capt_Skunky> <Ascensiam> What environments are most likely for new planets, and are they going to follow the same size-to-gravity as Kerbin?

[15:37] <@HarvesteR> well, we want to keep the entire Kerbal star system in more or less the same scale

[15:37] <@HarvesteR> although it\'s not exactly a scale per se... it\'s more of a paradigm we\'re trying to follow

[15:38] <@HarvesteR> radius is 1/11th of the original, G at surface is the same

[15:38] <@HarvesteR> so far, that\'s been working well

[15:38] <@HarvesteR> although we did break that with the Mun

[15:38] <@HarvesteR> Most games exaggerate the size of the moon on the screen quite a lot

[15:38] <@HarvesteR> because of the larger FOV on-screen, the moon would appear to be a speck

[15:39] <@HarvesteR> you can see that in Orbiter, which makes no compromise

[15:39] <@HarvesteR> but here, we wanted it to feel right, so the mun is much larger than the moon-earth relationship

[15:39] <@HarvesteR> anyhow, about other planets, we want to keep going with the solar-system-spoof idea

[15:40] <@HarvesteR> so there\'ll be an analogue for most \'popular\' celestial bodies

[15:40] <@HarvesteR> and we\'ll get creative with the less known ones

[15:41] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 1) Will there come ever merchandise? If yes, what are the requirements? 2) How many times is KSP purchased? Can the devs live with the money they get from people buying the game/donating?

[15:41] <@HarvesteR> Merchandise is planned for the near future, although there is no ETA on that atm

[15:41] <@HarvesteR> but I can tell you this, I want a Kerbal plushie just as bad as you do

[15:42] <@HarvesteR> :=

[15:42] <@Capt_Skunky> I think everyone does

[15:42] <@HarvesteR> hehe

[15:42] <@HarvesteR> we\'re looking at easier stuff first though, because things like bespoke plushies require quite the investment

[15:43] <@HarvesteR> you can only make it feasible if you produce thousands of them, which means we need to be sure thousands of people would want one

[15:43] <@HarvesteR> so we\'re probably going to get started with simpler things, like T-shirts and such

[15:44] <@HarvesteR> but no estimates on that right now...

[15:44] <@Capt_Skunky> <kHurtiZ>Please would you move the Nav ball to the right? The centre has the rocket, and the navball tends to obscure it, whereas there\'s masses of space over to the right. Other UI suggestions: the altimeter should be close to the velocity indicator (as you often need to see both figures at the same time); and also add Pe and Ap indicators in the main flight screen.

[15:44] <@HarvesteR> The UI is in for some reworking, and pretty soon also

[15:45] <@HarvesteR> I also dislike how the navball obscures the view, but at the same time, the navball is the most important instrument on the UI

[15:45] <@HarvesteR> so we\'re thinking up some ideas to improve the general UI layout

[15:46] <@HarvesteR> and more immediately, I want to add a UI Scale optino to the settings, because I do think the UI is too large right now, and also a UI transparency option

[15:46] <@HarvesteR> as for moving it to the right, that\'s where the crew avatars are, and it\'s not a very immediate focus area

[15:46] <@HarvesteR> the ADI on aircraft cockpits is centered for the same reason

[15:47] <@HarvesteR> but most significantly, we will add a system we\'re calling UI Master Modes soon

[15:48] <@HarvesteR> basically, the UI instruments would each have several modes in which they could operate

[15:48] <@HarvesteR> the navball, for instance, would be toggleable between surface (current), orbit, and maybe something else

[15:48] <@HarvesteR> the speed reading toggles between surface, orbit, and later target-relative

[15:52] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 3) HarvesteR, what do you like the most at KSP as a game? Building rockets, missions or finding bugs(xp?)? Or something else? 4) How many devs get full time paid for full time developing KSP?

[15:52] <@Capt_Skunky> Trying to move things along.. quite a few questions in the queue

[15:54] <@Capt_Skunky> I think Harv has stepped away from the PC... sit tight folks.

[15:58] <@HarvesteR> sorry I was on the phone

[15:58] <@HarvesteR> back now

[15:58] <@Capt_Skunky> I figured as much

[15:59] <@HarvesteR> well, just to finish up on the UI thing, the idea is that each piece of the UI would be configurable, and Master Modes then would act as a preset

[15:59] <@HarvesteR> so you could quickly alternate between Flight mode and Docking mode, for instance

[16:00] <@HarvesteR> If you\'re familiar with how Photoshop has its \'workspaces\', the idea is more or less the same

[16:00] <@HarvesteR> now, about the other question

[16:00] <@HarvesteR> the thing I like most is finding things that surprise me... things that weren\'t programmed explicitly

[16:01] <@HarvesteR> like the wings flexing with C7 parts

[16:01] <@HarvesteR> or how coming into the atmosphere too quickly can actually break a ship into pieces

[16:01] <@HarvesteR> or names like 'Generick Kerman'

[16:02] <@Capt_Skunky> <markodash> can we get a thick atmosphere monn/planet ahead of the full system release? it would be a change of pace from the normally airless bodies

[16:02] <@HarvesteR> oh

[16:03] <@HarvesteR> well, yeah, I don\'t think we\'d be able to release the entire solar system in a single update

[16:03] <@HarvesteR> because our terrain system still has no support for things like gas giants, or ring systems

[16:03] <@HarvesteR> so we\'ll probably start with the rocky planets first

[16:04] <@HarvesteR> and yeah, those will have several types of atmosphere

[16:04] <@HarvesteR> the venus-like planet would have a thick atmosphere

[16:04] <@HarvesteR> the mars-like one would have a very thin one

[16:04] <@HarvesteR> should make for some pretty interesting flying there

[16:05] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko> is the ambient light going to stay as-is, or will it change depending on celestial body? (airless bodies have none, atmospheres have some)

[16:05] <@HarvesteR> that\'s already more or less implemented actually

[16:05] <@HarvesteR> there is already a system in place to vary the global ambient light based on the vacuum colour and the colour set for each celestial body

[16:05] <@HarvesteR> right now though, it\'s very subtle

[16:06] <@HarvesteR> but it should be cool to have a reddish-looking desert planet, or a purplish looking one

[16:06] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> 5) Will there come a more interacting tutorial?

[16:07] <@HarvesteR> we will add more tutorials later I think, as they become more necessary

[16:07] <@HarvesteR> as far as more interacting, I\'m not quite sure what that means

[16:07] <@HarvesteR> we do plan on having training missions though

[16:07] <@HarvesteR> the SFS system allows for one-off instances, and those could be used along with a tutorial to create a training mission

[16:08] <@HarvesteR> you could potentially start from orbit, with a ready-to-go spacecraft

[16:08] <@Capt_Skunky> <Aegrim> Will they ever make a cool launch animations effect, with the smoke flying everywhere during ignition before the game takes over and the rocket flies off

[16:09] <@HarvesteR> definitely. The smoke trails and particles system is long overdue for an overhaul

[16:10] <@Capt_Skunky> <BrownFox> Harv, how are you planning on developing the in-game economy? Part prices already exist; how about ways of earning coins? Perhaps in-game \'X-Prizes\', asteroid mining challenges and things of that nature?

[16:10] <@HarvesteR> well, the original idea was that you\'d earn money from doing flights

[16:11] <@HarvesteR> but we do have other ideas too

[16:11] <@HarvesteR> you could, instead of earning money and spending it directly, be assigned a periodic budget

[16:11] <@HarvesteR> that would make more sense if KSP were a government program

[16:11] <@HarvesteR> if you see it as a private program though, earning money through missions makes more sense

[16:12] <@HarvesteR> but I think in the end we\'ll probably go with a middle-ground approach, where you\'d earn not just money from missions, but generate interest in the space program from achieving goals

[16:13] <@HarvesteR> and interest could result in more money, through sponsorships possibly, or something of the sort

[16:13] <@HarvesteR> all that remains to be decided though

[16:14] <@HarvesteR> but the initial idea is that money will come from doing flights, and doing flights will cost money... if you do it right, they will make more money than they cost

[16:14] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp> did you ever thing kerbal would get as popular as it has when you first started on it?

[16:14] <@HarvesteR> it\'s a weird feeling really

[16:14] <@HarvesteR> sometimes I felt good about it, and expected good things from the game

[16:15] <@HarvesteR> other times I felt like I was working on something no one could possibly like

[16:15] <@HarvesteR> it\'s been a roller-coaster ride of personal opinions about the game

[16:16] <@HarvesteR> one thing I can say for sure though, I definitely didn\'t expect the game to get this big this fast.

[16:16] <@HarvesteR> The state of the server is proof of that

[16:16] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> the whole community knew what update 0.15 would be focused on. Can you give us an idea where 0.16 will go about?

[16:16] <@HarvesteR> well, it depends a little on what we can actually achieve for 0.15

[16:17] <@HarvesteR> we know what we want to add for it, but from that to actually getting those features in, there\'s quite a lot of work

[16:17] <@HarvesteR> but ideally, after flight planning and docking, the next big thing would be making the Kerbals themselves more present in the game

[16:18] <@HarvesteR> so I\'d very much like to add EVAs then

[16:18] <@HarvesteR> but we\'ll see

[16:18] <@HarvesteR> it also depends quite a lot on which base features still need implementing to get there

[16:18] <@HarvesteR> and we don\'t know that until we start planning the actual update.

[16:18] <@Capt_Skunky> <Ascensiam> When will the sun become a solid object that can overheat ships and supply a small variety of dangers?

[16:19] <@HarvesteR> pretty soon, if everything goes as planned

[16:19] <@HarvesteR> but we are not planning on adding a physical surface to the sun though, only a visual one

[16:20] <@HarvesteR> you\'ll be vaporized before you even get close to it, so there\'s no point in having a collidable surface

[16:20] <@HarvesteR> I can say though, that I\'m pretty happy with how it\'s shaping up

[16:20] <@Capt_Skunky> <Byter> how many moons will saturn (or katurn) have? you cant add so many of them...it would be a 'orbital mess' because the map view would change your orbit all the time...and: is there still a free-flight mode without credits and missions and that stuff?

[16:21] <@HarvesteR> I can\'t say for sure just how many moons we will add... that is the kind of thing we judge by feel

[16:21] <@HarvesteR> but we want to have a large enough amount that you can explore for quite a while

[16:22] <@HarvesteR> at the same time though, there\'s no point in adding 300 bits of rock that look exactly the same

[16:22] <@HarvesteR> we want each celestial body to be unique in its own way

[16:23] <@HarvesteR> about the free-flight mode, that will never go away. Missions are not like game 'levels', they\'re more like quests.

[16:23] <@Capt_Skunky> <NovaSilisko> is there any precedent or preferred 'backstory' for the game? alternate universe/dimension? alien construct like some have proposed?

[16:24] <@HarvesteR> well, not in a very formal sense... The Kerbal universe is not in any way linked to the real one, and I wouldn\'t like to set down a very rigid storyline either

[16:25] <@HarvesteR> games to me are not about telling stories... for that we have movies, books and tv

[16:25] <@Capt_Skunky> And comics

[16:25] <@HarvesteR> games to me are about creating worlds the player can experience

[16:25] <@HarvesteR> and from that, he\'ll create his own stories

[16:26] <@Capt_Skunky> <witeken> What do you do in the weekend? Do you read the forums? Typ a few lines of code? Or do you just do private stuff/play KSP yourself?

[16:26] <@HarvesteR> hehe, I usually try as hard as I can to forget I have a job

[16:26] <@Capt_Skunky> ROFL

[16:27] <@HarvesteR> and I really need to check myself from going into the forums or doing game-related things... I could very easily get sucked into working through the weekend

[16:27] <@HarvesteR> and then burning out the week after

[16:27] <@HarvesteR> getting rest is as important as the work itself really. It\'s like braking before a corner

[16:28] <@HarvesteR> you might crash if you don\'t

[16:28] <@Capt_Skunky> <cBBp> any chance we will see a game supported animation system that works like sounds or effects and is universal between parts?

[16:28] <@HarvesteR> yeah, we do want to add that as soon as we can

[16:28] <@HarvesteR> for that, we will probably have to create our own animation system, and that\'s not a small task

[16:28] <@HarvesteR> but it is something we want to do

[16:29] <@Capt_Skunky> <Causeless> how about weather? how will any weather systems work, not just for Kerbin, but other planets?

[16:29] <@HarvesteR> weather is another feature I\'d very much like to see

[16:29] <@HarvesteR> although first, I\'d like to at least have a cloud system in

[16:30] <@HarvesteR> the cloud system would allow us to have clouds over Kerbin, and possibly a basic form of weather, and if done right, it would also enable us to create gas giants

[16:30] <@HarvesteR> or planets completely covered by clouds, like Titan