Devnote Tuesdays: The "Let's Do the Time Warp Again" Edition

[pwlnw]

we’re pretty much done evaluating the new forum software, and are now waiting for its development to be completed and we’re looking to have a few more questions answered.

If the main problem is the unstable work when the avalanche effect - there is no reason to change vbiletin to IPS.

All these "engines out of the box" is not designed for a large community. They are both bad . Caching is ineffective when so much personalization for user (personal ignore list, ban, personal styles) . You should first try vboptimize addon with aggressive caching.

In the rest, vbulletin is "feature complete" software. I don't understand what else may be need on forum ? To discuss the game, we do not need anything special.

[DBT85]

Having mentions on the new forum would be cool, if its possible.

So I could reply to someone and say that @KerbMav has a good point, or that @TriggerAu is working on a mod for that, and those people get a little notification that they were mentioned.

[Jirnsum]

I've had multiple issues with improper staging where first the launch clamps would release before igniting the main engine, or all engines ignite, and the docking clamps are tied to the staging of the booster. All resulting in big bangs and fireworks

[Kerano]

This week, I finished up the new lift model for the lifting and control surfaces which I started last week. I also revised the fuel flow logic for air-breathing engines. To support things like wet wings and such in the future, turbine engines now drain resources evenly from all tanks in a stage (the stage grouping allows setting up drop-tanks and such). This should also help with maintaining a balanced craft as fuel is drained out, and reduce the need to use fuel lines excessively.

Sounds good. I hope while you're at it you can also fix the air flow logic.

(Credit for the diagram to ScottKerman.)

Other than that, I was able to get a feature I had to leave out a long time ago up to a nearly complete state now. I call it ‘TimeWarp-To’. Basically, it lets you select a point ahead of you in your trajectory, and have the game auto-warp up to that point as fast as is reasonable (given the time gap).

Excellent, now just need some sort of alarm system to allow multiple simultaneous missions without manually keeping track of crafts (or using a mod).

Sorry, I can’t really say much this time, I’ve been working on a highly experimental project we’re not even sure is going to be a thing yet, we’ll have to see how it progresses.

Hmm... multiplayer?

This week I’ve been focusing on the new Engineer’s Report app which will replace the Craft Info app. We are keeping everything in the old app, changing the app name and adding a new feature to it: Design Concerns. This is a list of possible problems for your vessel all ranging from simple possibly unimportant issues to crucial errors which will render your vessel unflyable. We already have a list of design concerns in the works but we are always looking for suggestions. So what are the things you “always†forget about when designing a vessel?

Good things to remind about... let's see:

- Adding crew (prompt if there are any empty slots when launching)

- RCS thrusters (prompt if have monopropellant tank OR docking port; prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Monopropellant tank (prompt if have at least 1 docking port; prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Solar Panels/RTGs (prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Batteries (prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Probe core/crew module (prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Reaction wheel (if no crew module; prompt for each section separated by a docking port)

- Docking port (prompt for crafts beyond ~100 parts or ~100 tonnes)

- Ladder (if have landing legs or wheels)

- Parachute (if have crew module; also check if sufficient parachutes)

- TWR < 1 (takeoff warning; check TWR of first stage containing a liquid fuel engine)

- Total delta-v < ~4500 m/s (orbit warning)

Edited January 21, 2015 by Kerano

[Cirocco]

So what are the things you “always†forget about when designing a vessel?

struts. Especially in spaceplane wings.

"Right, here's our new nice and big rocket/spaceplane. Looks pretty neat! and halfway believable too! let's launch"

*press launch button, craft immediately collapses in on itself, taking the runway/pad with it*

"Oh... struts... right..."

[Dazpoet]

I think the mest valuable thing for an Engineers report app would be the ability to add things to a checklist oneself. Ofcourse it should come with a standard config but adding the ability to tweak it would be amazing. Maybe even have the ability to add profiles since my periodic cargo/supply transports to bases rarely have the same demands on them as my sciencevessels and neither of them match what I want on my training landers for leveling up Kerbals.

[Caelib]

So what are the things you “always†forget about when designing a vessel?

It is usually the antennae!

[Superfluous J]

Hmm... multiplayer?

Oh geez I hope they haven't demoted multiplayer to "a highly experimental project we’re not even sure is going to be a thing yet" because I don't think the forums (old or new) could handle the searing hot flames.

[Ringotuna]

I like the dev notes, thanks guys.

I've picked up on some things:

On my end, I’ve been doing my part on the aerodynamics overhaul, but also picking up long-standing issues and unfinished features that were left from previous updates.

Sorry, I can’t really say much this time, I’ve been working on a highly experimental project we’re not even sure is going to be a thing yet, we’ll have to see how it progresses.

Getting three things ready before the end of the month. Two are still being under pen and paper, so I still don’t have much to discuss about those.

Forgive the devs if they’re a little skinny on the notes this time around, as you’ll be getting a deep look into what they’re working on very soon.

I'm wondering what this experimental project may be and if it's something the other devs could be planning/working on for the next update.

Now HarvesteR did say in his note:

Everyone is working on something of their own, but I’ll leave that to each one to write about.

Perhaps he put that there to keep speculation to a minimum? In most previous dev notes, everyone's always 'working on something of their own'. Max also claims the devs are 'a little skinny on the notes this time around'. Is there something prompting them to say these things in this week's edition to keep something secret?

Now I'm beginning to wonder... will the aerodynamic overhaul be the primary feature of this update or is there another large feature coming our way?

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ringotuna

[michaelsteele3]

The perfect update for impatient people like me

[Aethon]

From a post on Reddit by jafar_ironclad :

"Here's a non-comprehensive list, Romfarer, complete with single-word implications:INEFFICIENT: Fuel type loaded aboard a stage which no attached engines or thrusters can burn. Add appropriate thrusters or remove inefficient fuel type.

ATTENTION: No communication equipment detected on this vessel.

ATTENTION: Thrust-Weight Ratio very high for this early-mid stage. May be impaired by atmospheric density at high throttle. For Kerbin SOI missions, consider mounting a low thrust-high efficiency engine, or increasing the weight of following stages.

INEFFICIENT: Mounted reaction wheels highly underpowered for mass of this late stage. Reduce stage mass, or add additional reaction wheels.

CRITICAL: Thrust-Weight Ratio less than 1:1 for the first thrusting stage. Use a stronger engine, mount additional boosters, or reduce weight of later stages.

HAZARD: Center of Lift not sufficiently aligned with center of rocket mass (VAB only)

CRITICAL: This crewed command stage has no engines or parachutes. Mount appropriate velocity-arresting equipment if you intend to land with this stage.

CRITICAL: Center of lift displaced horizontally relative to center of mass, plane off balance (SPH only).

HAZARD: This radially-mounted stage may not decouple safely in atmosphere due to weight of stage. Mount Sepratron rockets on this stage to help direct them clear of the main vessel when decoupled, or wait until escaping from atmosphere before decoupling.

HAZARD: Center of lift potentially too far forward/back relative to center of mass.

HAZARD: Less than three landing gear detected/landing gear needed on both sides of center of mass (SPH only). Add and position landing gear.

HAZARD: Not enough parachutes to safely land this stage without applying braking thrust. Reduce stage mass or increase parachutes.

HAZARD: No electricity-generating parts detected on vessel. Mount solar panels or an appropriately sized battery reserve.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Aethon

[Space_Kraken]

Warn if:

No power source (solar panels / RTG)

No reaction wheels / RCS

No ladder

The hatch is obstructed

CoM is off balance

Stage Engine thrust is obstructed (staging is wrong and the engine is set to fire before the decoupler under it is released or there is something that blocks the exhaust)

Weak/wobbly joints (if possible) - actually I would like to see some indicator showing the maximum load this of that joint is capable of withstanding.

First stage TWR is <1

Not enough total dV to orbit

This. 10chars

[cicatrix]

ATTENTION: No communication equipment detected on this vessel.

Who needs antennae? We bring all the science with us!

[Magion]

Jim (Romfarer): This week I’ve been focusing on the new Engineer’s Report app which will replace the Craft Info app. We are keeping everything in the old app, changing the app name and adding a new feature to it: Design Concerns. This is a list of possible problems for your vessel all ranging from simple possibly unimportant issues to crucial errors which will render your vessel unflyable. We already have a list of design concerns in the works but we are always looking for suggestions. So what are the things you “always†forget about when designing a vessel?

You might wanna check WernherChecker. It's similar to that, so you can download it if you don't want to wait for 0.91.

[/shameless-selfpromoting]

[Bloody_looser]

Changing fuel flow logic is not good at all.

[Red Iron Crown]

Changing fuel flow logic is not good at all.

Care to expand on why you think that is so? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering why you think it's undesirable.

[Olterin]

Hm, a non-toggleable change in fuel flow logic ... not sure how to feel about that. I mean, fuel balancing is ultimately something that the player should be in charge of, right? I could come up with gameplay reasons why I'd want my tanks to drain in sequence on an air-breathing engine (such as wishing for more stability as the flight goes on, which requires a CoM/CoL relative shift), and then there are of course times when it's more convenient for the fuel load to automatically balance itself out.

[Alshain]

Care to expand on why you think that is so? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering why you think it's undesirable.

Well it's part of what I find fun about building an aircraft. Getting it balanced properly to fly. It's not the end of the world or even the worst thing Squad has done but it's a bit irritating that they are going to dumb it down for people who can't learn to play the game at the expense of the experienced players.

[Superfluous J]

Hm, a non-toggleable change in fuel flow logic ... not sure how to feel about that. I mean, fuel balancing is ultimately something that the player should be in charge of, right? I could come up with gameplay reasons why I'd want my tanks to drain in sequence on an air-breathing engine (such as wishing for more stability as the flight goes on, which requires a CoM/CoL relative shift), and then there are of course times when it's more convenient for the fuel load to automatically balance itself out.

I wonder if it won't be toggleable, and if it's not you could disable tanks and/or install a mod (Goodspeed comes to mind instantly for this) to put the fuel where you want it.

Heck, if it's not toggleable I bet within 24 hours there'll be a mod to disable it.

[Robotengineer]

Good notes, though some concerns have arisen.

Fuel Logic.

I have always assumed that the design constraints of fuel's affect on dry/wet CoM was one of the things that made designing planes fun. As it is I don't know the details of the new aero model I am probably not correct, but it looks like you are offsetting the difficulty of building planes in the new aero by automating some of the design process.

TimeWarp-To.

This sounds similar to something in two popular mods, KAC and MJ. While I support integration of mods into stock, I would really rather see the full plugin integrated, KAC not MJ. After playing with KAC a while it is 2nd to KER in usefulness, and it and KER would be at the top of my list of plugins to be stocked.

Forum Switch.

I am neutral-ish on this subject, and have a few questions. Would the current forum be transferred? Will it be hosted on Curse? Will it look a lot like what the demo IPS 4?

On the last two questions, I dearly hope it is not hosted on Curse, and I prefer the current forum to the demo IPS 4.

Looking forward to the unveiling of some of the secret features. Barn 2.0?

[2001kraft]

Air intakes..

I ALWAYS forget them.

I never forget solar panels though, because I'm obsessed with them and every mission I do consists of at least 5 solar panels and that's literally the 3rd thing I place.

Lol.

As for the time warp situation.....

Kerbin -> Eeloo transfer takes time..lot's of time...

Is it possible to teleport time instead of warping it?

I'm also extremely excited for control surface revamp. Hoping with all the hope that we won't have infiniglide any more.

[Bloody_looser]

Care to expand on why you think that is so? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering why you think it's undesirable.

Sure thing. Currently, fuel balancing is an essential part of plane building. So, changes in fuel flow are supposed to make things easier. But I'm not that hard-core to whine about that

For light atmospheric planes these changes won't make any difference at all. If such craft is utterly broken, it won't fly either with current fuel flow, or announced. Likewise balanced one will fly under both conditions.

For heavier space-planes current (heads to tails) fuel flow is good, since nose getting lighter makes them more flyable in upper atmosphere.

And finally the thing which concerns me most of all. Space-planes tend to have not only LF tanks but LF+O. Air breathing engines draining evenly from all the tanks will lead to even more plumbing then currently.

[TMS]

Sure thing. Currently, fuel balancing is an essential part of plane building. So, changes in fuel flow are supposed to make things easier. But I'm not that hard-core to whine about that

Agreed, it isn't really hard... just fiddly and time consuming.

For heavier space-planes current (heads to tails) fuel flow is good, since nose getting lighter makes them more flyable in upper atmosphere.

The adjusted lift model is reported to negate the need for high AoA (which light front-ends permit):

Increased lift output will change quite a lot more than just how much payload you can carry. With wings requiring less speed or less air density to produce enough force to take off, we can tune other parameters to solve other problems, without compromising the air-worthiness of existing craft. Furthermore, early testing shows that planes now fly at much more reasonable angles of attack, fly faster at low altitudes (due to less drag from wing surfaces at lower AoAs), and remain controllable when flying fast at high altitudes.

From:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108006-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-Let-s-Do-the-Time-Warp-Again-Edition

And finally the thing which concerns me most of all. Space-planes tend to have not only LF tanks but LF+O. Air breathing engines draining evenly from all the tanks will lead to even more plumbing then currently.

I had that thought as well. However, I thought the choice of words: "I also revised the fuel flow logic for air-breathing engines" and "turbine engines now drain resources evenly from all tanks in a stage" was significant. It implies that the choice of engine determines the fuel flow, rather than fuel flow being determined by the resource. As such, 'turbine engines' could draw evenly from LF or LFO tanks.

Or I might be over-analysing...

[nadreck]

Forget stuff, yes, I do sometimes, and sometimes I have simply mixed up staging. Action groups too as was mentioned, but something that doesn't happen often but is incredibly frustrating when it does, is hatches that are either completely blocked or that have an obstruction that makes it impossible to exit without being flung off spinning out of control at high speed if you EVA. So a hatch obstruction warning is something I would like.

[KerbMav]

Kerbin -> Eeloo transfer takes time..lot's of time...

Is it possible to teleport time instead of warping it?

The calculations would have to be done regardless - and higher time warp means more errors, I think.

And finally the thing which concerns me most of all. Space-planes tend to have not only LF tanks but LF+O. Air breathing engines draining evenly from all the tanks will lead to even more plumbing then currently.

Now you have even me concerned.