Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)

[Sandworm]

Spacecraft, not rockets. On assent the one flight control they might have hands on is the abort lever, and even that can be triggered by any number of automatic systems. For KSP to make a rocket with a kerbal more stable or otherwise easier to control is a deliberate step away from simulation.

The one "rocket" that I know of that was flown by hand was an experimental V1. But today we would call the V1 a cruise missile or drone, rather than a rocket.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Sandworm

[theend3r]

Spacecraft, not rockets. On assent the one flight control they might have hands on is the abort lever, and even that can be triggered by any number of automatic systems. For KSP to make a rocket with a kerbal more stable or otherwise easier to control is a deliberate step away from simulation.

The one "rocket" that I know of that was flown by hand was an experimental V1. But today we would call the V1 a cruise missile or drone, rather than a rocket.

I dislike it too but since it's good practice to slap on some probe core to all of your ships anyway I don't think it will change much for me. If they made all the probe cores upgradeable (e.g. like Interstellar does) then I would have no problem at all.

[metl]

So if we change the terms around, can someone please clear this up, in case I am still not understanding something. I am concerned that unless I have a PILOT (even a basic one) sitting in the craft (or a basic probe core), I will NOT be able to "lock" the heading ala reaction wheels (current SAS function.) Is that how this will now work?

If so, then I stand by the issue of if I build an Apollo mission with a CM and a LEM using the 3-kerbal pod, I will need to take two pilots or place a probe core on one of the ships. Assuming they also fix the timewarp-rotation kill, then unless I have two SAS enabled modules (probe or pilot), if I bump one or the other too hard and it starts spinning, then I am going to have to EVA the pilot, fly over, enter the spinning craft, turn on the SAS, stop the spin, EVA back over to the other and try again. And be honest, has anyone ever truly been able to kill ALL rotation without using SAS or the timewarp kill? There is always just enough residual that you end up chasing the docking port around (0.1 m/s is really annoying when applied in the right direction.)

I don't think everyone is asking for much. Leave the basic SAS (or reaction wheels or whatever term you want to use to refer to the heading hold feature) and add the others as upgrades for the actual "Pilot" or probe core. Maybe that is what they are doing, and everyone is getting confused because of the way Harv stated it?

[Rune]

So if we change the terms around, can someone please clear this up, in case I am still not understanding something. I am concerned that unless I have a PILOT (even a basic one) sitting in the craft (or a basic probe core), I will NOT be able to "lock" the heading ala reaction wheels (current SAS function.) Is that how this will now work?

If so, then I stand by the issue of if I build an Apollo mission with a CM and a LEM using the 3-kerbal pod, I will need to take two pilots or place a probe core on one of the ships. Assuming they also fix the timewarp-rotation kill, then unless I have two SAS enabled modules (probe or pilot), if I bump one or the other too hard and it starts spinning, then I am going to have to EVA the pilot, fly over, enter the spinning craft, turn on the SAS, stop the spin, EVA back over to the other and try again. And be honest, has anyone ever truly been able to kill ALL rotation without using SAS or the timewarp kill? There is always just enough residual that you end up chasing the docking port around (0.1 m/s is really annoying when applied in the right direction.)

I don't think everyone is asking for much. Leave the basic SAS (or reaction wheels or whatever term you want to use to refer to the heading hold feature) and add the others as upgrades for the actual "Pilot" or probe core. Maybe that is what they are doing, and everyone is getting confused because of the way Harv stated it?

That is a really convoluted way of looking for a problem where there isn't one. In this very particular case you could:

a) Engineer your ship better by putting the equivalent of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AKA: a probe capable of fancy autopilots) on either the lander or the CSM, and put the mission's pilot on the other. Everything works just like it does now, only with extra SAS modes depending on the pilot's level and the probe you choose.

Put the pilot on one ship to keep it steady, and do the docking with the other one as the active docker, solving the lack of forethought with some fancy piloting. From staging mode with the left hand on the WASD keys and the right hand on the IJKL and HN keys, it's actually a fun and exciting experience that really polishes your skills as a pilot.

Rune. Other than that, you got it perfectly, as I understand things.

[metl]

That is a really convoluted way of looking for a problem where there isn't one. In this very particular case you could:

a) Engineer your ship better by putting the equivalent of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AKA: a probe capable of fancy autopilots) on either the lander or the CSM, and put the mission's pilot on the other. Everything works just like it does now, only with extra SAS modes depending on the pilot's level and the probe you choose.

Put the pilot on one ship to keep it steady, and do the docking with the other one as the active docker, solving the lack of forethought with some fancy piloting. From staging mode with the left hand on the WASD keys and the right hand on the IJKL and HN keys, it's actually a fun and exciting experience that really polishes your skills as a pilot.

Rune. Other than that, you got it perfectly, as I understand things.

I guess (a) would work just fine, but that seems like bit of a stretch to justify stripping a ship from being able to simply hold a steady heading without another part (although admittedly on large craft that is already needed with the SAS modules unless rotation is already almost nil.)

( is a bad assumption. There are some players that do not like manual docking as it is and use MJ just for this reason. I enjoy docking and I enjoy the challenge. Others do not and that is okay.

EXPANDING on the basic SAS functions is a really cool idea. LIMITING, not so much. That being said, the idea of losing the pilot mid-mission and having to really fight to not lose the whole mission might provide some intense moments

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I would say that the one way to really get things clear here would be to just be patient, wait a couple of weeks until 0.90 is **available**, install it and see how things actually work. I can't believe how much heat, light and noise has been generated in this discussion due to *speculation* about upcoming features.

[metl]

But that is half of the fun

That being said, Squad has yet to disappoint me so I imagine it will be better than the speculation... speculates? Lol!

[AlexinTokyo]

My real question for you, metl, is what mission parameters you're considering that make it so critical to have exactly one pilot, one engineer, and one scientist on an Apollo-style mission?

I'm not asking this to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely interested.

[Superfluous J]

My real question for you, metl, is what mission parameters you're considering that make it so critical to have exactly one pilot, one engineer, and one scientist on an Apollo-style mission?

I'm not asking this to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely interested.

I'm not Metl but is it really that weird to want to pilot the ship, do science, and have someone around in case you snap your landing gear off?

[Wanderfound]

I'm not Metl but is it really that weird to want to pilot the ship, do science, and have someone around in case you snap your landing gear off?

No, but I'd expect folks to deal with it the same way the real Apollo did: don't take a scientist unless you can find one that is also a pilot.

[LethalDose]

I have similar concerns about docking apollo style missions as expressed above. Pilots are going to be so vital that it's going to seem requisite to include them on missions. I'd REALLY like to see a 2-Kerbal 1.25m Gemini-style pod to support this new 0.90 job system.

install it and see how things actually work. I can't believe how much heat, light and noise has been generated in this discussion due to *speculation* about upcoming features.

lol you must be new here...

[Sandworm]

I would say that the one way to really get things clear here would be to just be patient, wait a couple of weeks until 0.90 is **available**, install it and see how things actually work. I can't believe how much heat, light and noise has been generated in this discussion due to *speculation* about upcoming features.

No. Later is not the time. Squad is in a lockdown mindset, unwilling to backtrack on released features. Once a feature is done it is done. They might do some tweaking hear and there for balance, but they will not remove anything post-public release. Other than the old parts and KSC, which were just models, have they ever admitted a mistake and removed a feature? This is a common issue with startups. Any removal seems like a backstep, rather than a correction. So now is the one and only time for us non-beta testers to have any input.

[Corw]

No. Later is not the time. Squad is in a lockdown mindset, unwilling to backtrack on released features. Once a feature is done it is done. They might do some tweaking hear and there for balance, but they will not remove anything post-public release. Other than the old parts and KSC, which were just models, have they ever admitted a mistake and removed a feature? This is a common issue with startups. Any removal seems like a backstep, rather than a correction. So now is the one and only time for us non-beta testers to have any input.

Yes they did. Resource mining

[Konnor]

My hope for Apollo-style missions resides in multiclassing: if someone in the lander happens to be, say, pilot-scientist, and the command module is left in hands of another pilot, multiclassed or not, then there should be no trouble with docking even without extra probe cores.

[Superfluous J]

The very first thing I'm going to do in 0.90 is an Apollo-style mission. I may even put it on YouTube.

[Rune]

The very first thing I'm going to do in 0.90 is an Apollo-style mission. I may even put it on YouTube.

Do it with neither pilots nor probes.

Rune. If not, I will!

[Ted]

Miscellaneous

Unity is now 4.6.1, but isn't much better and won't be until Unity 5 comes out.

Just a correction on that, while the released version of Unity is now 4.6.1, we're still using 4.5.5 for 0.90 and most likely will release it built with 4.5.5 across all platforms. We haven't upgraded the project to 4.6.1 as there are few fixes and benefits that it will bring initially and thus is best left for later.

[klgraham1013]

That being said, Squad has yet to disappoint me so I imagine it will be better than the speculation... speculates? Lol!

You weren't disappointed by silly contracts, a poor tech tree, or overpowered strategies?

Yes they did. Resource mining

He spoke of features that had made it into public release. Resources never made it. So, no.

[phunk]

Resource transfer logic reworked - can now transfer evenly from multiple sources into target one at the same time.

Any word on doing the opposite, transferring evenly from one source to multiple destinations?

[Vrana]

I have very mixed feelings on this patch.

I do not like a good bit of these new "features" and i do not understand Squad at all tbh. They remove features because they are not fun and overy complex (resources, the constant delay of proper aerodynamics, life support, communication channels) and then they implement stuff which imposes artificial difficulty (no SAS, no orbit lines) and which only a child would find "fun" (attempting to control a wildily flailing spaceship while flying blind) so they have a reason to implement RPG like elements to game.

Squad, im fairly sure the majority of your players are people who study physics at least as a hobby and not a bunch of schizofrenic kids. Do not be afraid of complex and realistic systems if you want "difficulty".

Your game is unique and this is why it sells. When you try to forcefuly implement features from more standard titles you diminish the very thing which made you a sucsess story.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Vrana

[Parkaboy]

I have very mixed feelings on this patch.

I do not like a good bit of these new "features" and i do not understand Squad at all tbh. They remove features because they are not fun and overy complex (resources, the constant delay of proper aerodynamics, life support, communication channels) and then they implement stuff which imposes artificial difficulty (no SAS, no orbit lines) and which only a child would find "fun" (attempting to control a wildily flailing spaceship while flying blind).

Squad, im fairly sure the majority of your players are people who study physics at least as a hobby and not a bunch of schizofrenic kids. Do not be afraid of complex and realistic systems if you want "difficulty".

Difficulty is not the main point here. The operative word is "fun". If it is fun and difficult, you want to try harder, but if it's boring and hard, the you might as well be studying instead of playing. Most of the time, fun can only be judged by trying - stuff may seem fun on paper but nor when implemented in the game, and vice-versa. Personally, most of the changes proposed here seem fun to me, but I'll wait until I actually get to play the game to give a veredict.

[klgraham1013]

They remove features because they are not fun and overly complex (resources, the constant delay of proper aerodynamics, life support, communication channels) and then they implement stuff which imposes artificial difficulty (no SAS, no orbit lines...so they have a reason to implement RPG like elements to game.

*bold to emphasize ridiculousness.

Take a look at what the community is doing. When there are multiple mods for the same idea, start paying attention. Life support, aerodynamics, visual enhancements, and information readouts all have several variations. That would say there is some demand. There is some popularity behind these ideas. Yes, we may get better aero, but I seriously doubt KER or TAC-LS (Even Snacks) will ever be stock.

I would say, even mods which do something unique from any other seem quite popular as well and should be looked at by Squad. We all have our own lists, so I will refrain from making one here.

Edited December 9, 2014 by klgraham1013

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

No. Later is not the time. Squad is in a lockdown mindset, unwilling to backtrack on released features. Once a feature is done it is done. They might do some tweaking hear and there for balance, but they will not remove anything post-public release. Other than the old parts and KSC, which were just models, have they ever admitted a mistake and removed a feature? This is a common issue with startups. Any removal seems like a backstep, rather than a correction. So now is the one and only time for us non-beta testers to have any input.

IF squad are listening for feedback (and there's not a lot of evidence for that at the moment, given their general interaction on the forums) then surely the right place to be giving this feedback would be on the development forum? But wait, we're not talking about feedback on actual features. We're experiencing a lot of guessing. IF we had a definitive description of how the new features were proposed to work, and we were asked for feedback on it, then you may have a point. But I expect that anything that has made it to experimentals IS going to arrive with the public, minus any actual bugs.

[Red Iron Crown]

IF squad are listening for feedback (and there's not a lot of evidence for that at the moment, given their general interaction on the forums)

You mean aside from changing how kerbal experience works, and sending the Tier 0 KSC models and textures back to the VAB for a rework, both because of negative community feedback?

[J.Random]

Also, SAS doesn't really exist as a thing any more - it's only available if you have pilots in the ship. RW and pods provide torque.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. From DevNotes: the Stability Assist perk/skill is not an SAS we use now, it's the good old "no dampening, strict hold direction, try to return into set position, disable WASD" OLD SAS!

Basically, pilot skills are a set of additional SAS type modes which allow the pilot to lock onto various vectors.

Level 0 where they start with the Stability Assist (old SAS)