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

[pwlnw]

What about "hold on target prograde/retrograde speed vector" for pilot skills? It is very useful when rendezvous.

[Superfluous J]

What about "hold on target prograde/retrograde speed vector" for pilot skills? It is very useful when rendezvous.

That doesn't work already? I haven't tried it but always assumed it would.

[Kerano]

What about "hold on target prograde/retrograde speed vector" for pilot skills? It is very useful when rendezvous.

That already works, I've used it dozens of times while docking in 0.90.

What would be nice though for pilot functions are:

- Hold position at the prograde horizon, e.g. 90 degrees/East (level 4?)

- Switch from retrograde to stability mode automatically on touchdown (level 5?)

[bdito]

I just want to see them move to their target like a normal pilot would instead of flying right past it 5 or 6 times like a metronome.

[Kerano]

I just want to see them move to their target like a normal pilot would instead of flying right past it 5 or 6 times like a metronome.

True, that is a little annoying... it'd be nice if their accuracy improved as they levelled up.

Right now I usually just flip on and off the direction button so I know which way to move, then do it myself. Or I let the pilot do it but flick in and out of timewarp once he hits the right vector to cancel the torque. Perhaps a little cheaty, but I can't be bothered wasting time waiting for the metronome effect to come to rest on large ships - especially once I have level 5 pilots.

[basic.syntax]

Add more SAS modules, and autopilot will align to the mark with less bouncing around.

As mass increases, you need more gyro's and/or RCS to fight back.

[Starwhip]

I just want to see them move to their target like a normal pilot would instead of flying right past it 5 or 6 times like a metronome.

Yep, I can target the nodes better, but the hold options are good once your near them.

[kofeyh]

I'm not entirely sure I understand.

If squad is going to the effort of updating the aerodynamics model, why is then effectively making it partially-irrelevant by dragging fuel from all tanks? If we can't shift tanks around in stages, then some kind of on/ off option would be grand.

I'd rather be able to make the choice of where fuel is flowed from.

On to other matters. Part count. How many are we going to end up with? Has any consideration, at all, been put into maybe something a bit more customisable on the wing/ tank front? Or simply unloading unused elements to reduce the amount of irrelevant data being kept loaded?

I am a bit terrified as to how big the next update will be. Memory exhaustion has become an issue without reasonably barbaric approaches to texture management. If more parts are continuously added, then it won't be long before 32 bit builds fail to launch.

Also, saddened that we have migrated back to "we're doing some stuff" type cryptic updates again. If you can't talk about it - maybe don't mention it?

Edited January 27, 2015 by kofeyh

[bdito]

I'm not entirely sure I understand.

If squad is going to the effort of updating the aerodynamics model, why is then effectively making it partially-irrelevant by dragging fuel from all tanks? If we can't shift tanks around in stages, then some kind of on/ off option would be grand.

I'd rather be able to make the choice of where fuel is flowed from.

From what I understand it won't be like that. Fuel for a stage will flow evenly from all tanks of that stage only. It won't take fuel from every stage on the entire craft at the same time.

[Alshain]

I'm not entirely sure I understand.

If squad is going to the effort of updating the aerodynamics model, why is then effectively making it partially-irrelevant by dragging fuel from all tanks? If we can't shift tanks around in stages, then some kind of on/ off option would be grand.

As mentioned, it's going to flow evenly between each stage (based on the active engine and placement of the decoupler). It shouldn't be a problem for rockets, it also shouldn't be an issue for planes in NEAR and presumably the new stock aero. The only real concern I have with this is it's going to make Mach effect in FAR incredibly difficult to manage. The way we do it now on a plane is shifting fuel around, but now it seems using a fuel balancing mod like TAC fuel balance (which I have nothing against but shouldn't be required) is going to be our only choice with FAR. Maybe ferram4 should just build one in directly to FAR because you won't be able to use FAR without one.

On to other matters. Part count. How many are we going to end up with? Has any consideration, at all, been put into maybe something a bit more customisable on the wing/ tank front? Or simply unloading unused elements to reduce the amount of irrelevant data being kept loaded?

I am a bit terrified as to how big the next update will be. Memory exhaustion has become an issue without reasonably barbaric approaches to texture management. If more parts are continuously added, then it won't be long before 32 bit builds fail to launch.

I think that is why the are making the fairings procedural. I wouldn't mind seeing something like B9 has for tanks, where you can select your tank options dynamically (LF, LFO, Monoprop, etc). That would help reduce parts, but I'm not sure if that actually removes textures from the game since a texture for each tank type is still required (I think). Wings are a sensitive topic for me, I hate procedural wings. While they may be a lot of parts, I personally wouldn't want it any other way. A TweakScale type implementation would also reduce parts, but If it were my choice, I would want that limited to items on the Structural tab and MAYBE the cylinder fuel tanks.

Also, saddened that we have migrated back to "we're doing some stuff" type cryptic updates again. If you can't talk about it - maybe don't mention it?

I agree but after the barn fiasco, we can only say we did it to ourselves. Maybe people will learn not to be overly critical from this. It's one thing to dislike a feature but people were obsessing over every little texture from very limited and early screenshots and we ended up with a tier one that is very "blah" as RoninPawn put it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Alshain

[chrisb2e9]

I agree but after the barn fiasco, we can only say we did it to ourselves. Maybe people will learn not to be overly critical from this.

Bingo! This community can be it's own worse enemy. Not a surprise really, people create their own personal hells.

[CaptainKipard]

I agree but after the barn fiasco, we can only say we did it to ourselves. Maybe people will learn not to be overly critical from this. It's one thing to dislike a feature but people were obsessing over every little texture from very limited and early screenshots and we ended up with a tier one that is very "blah" as RoninPawn put it.

RoninPawn's video on the subject was blah, more like. There was very little substance to it. I'm also not sure why you're trivialising the great texture quality gap between what we saw and other things in the game.

Anyway, one would think that the logical course of action after the barn fiasco would be for Squad to keep exposing themselves to criticism which, let's face it, makes the game better. "We did it to ourselves" is a weird way of looking at the situation. "We" are not to blame. "We" expect a product. Squad either deliver it or not. That's how it works. You as a consumer shouldn't be making excuses for a company of any kind, which exists for the purpose of making things for you.

[basic.syntax]

I'm also not sure why you're trivialising the great texture quality gap between what we saw and other things in the game.

The features and functions of four levels of building upgrades seems to a have been postponed out of .90, because of the outcry about model and texture issues. And so we are have been stuck with three levels, and a different balance to career mode progression, than what they originally planned. I think the game would have survived, and career mode progression would be smoother, if they had released the first level as-is, and improved model and texture later.

[Sean Mirrsen]

That's how it works. You as a consumer shouldn't be making excuses for a company of any kind, which exists for the purpose of making things for you.

The companies... mostly exist for the single purpose of taking your money. That's how it tends to work.

Also, do note that the art assets are supposedly being improved for the Tier 0 buildings. If they're brought more in line with the quality of the rest of the game, I won't mind them in the slightest. KSP is too far from a serious simulator to really discard the silliness of starting with a barn for the VAB. Remember, a lot of the early parts were made from stuff found lying by the side of the road.

[CaptainKipard]

The companies... mostly exist for the single purpose of taking your money. That's how it tends to work.

"Tend" is the operative word here. It's what you should expect, but not what you should accept. A free market is where customers demand the most for the least amount of money and businesses do as much as is profitable with the least ammount of effort. It's a tug of war, but for customers to side with the business is just weird. You're not a dairy cow. You can be a responsible consumer, and reward a decent job with loyalty, and if Squad go on to make more games, with a purchose of those games. I still haven't decided whether Squad deserve my custom in the future. I'm leaning there, but once in a while I'll read something on a tuesday that makes me doubt it.

[Alshain]

RoninPawn's video on the subject was blah, more like. There was very little substance to it. I'm also not sure why you're trivialising the great texture quality gap between what we saw and other things in the game.

Anyway, one would think that the logical course of action after the barn fiasco would be for Squad to keep exposing themselves to criticism which, let's face it, makes the game better. "We did it to ourselves" is a weird way of looking at the situation. "We" are not to blame. "We" expect a product. Squad either deliver it or not. That's how it works. You as a consumer shouldn't be making excuses for a company of any kind, which exists for the purpose of making things for you.

Because there was nothing wrong with the barn, it was beautiful even in those screenshots. Far better than the current tier 1 & 2, which those just need to be replaced. People were nitpicking a little too much and that did not make the game better, it made it worse.

The only error with the barn was their assumption that nobody (including modders) would want a tier 1 SPH & Runway.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Alshain

[CaptainKipard]

Because there was nothing wrong with the barn, it was beautiful even in those screenshots. Far better than the current tier 1 & 2, which those just need to be replaced. People were nitpicking a little too much and that did not make the game better, it made it worse.

If you think there was nothing wrong with the barn, and half the people think the opposite you're losing nothing by waiting for something better. You're gaining something later. That's a positive thing. It's called delayed gratification. You didn't lose the barn. You never had it in the first place. You'll get a better barn soon. The net effect is a better game.

[Alshain]

If you think there was nothing wrong with the barn, and half the people think the opposite you're losing nothing by waiting for something better. You're gaining something later. That's a positive thing. It's called delayed gratification. You didn't lose the barn. You never had it in the first place. You'll get a better barn soon. The net effect is a better game.

Your missing the point. We weren't talking about when the barn came about, we were talking about Squad not posting detailed information and the fact that I can't blame them for not wanting to.

[lincourtl]

The companies... mostly exist for the single purpose of taking your money. That's how it tends to work.

I think that's too cynical a reading of the state of indie game development. At least my overall impression of Squad is counter to that opinion. Of course they want to make money, but I think Squad, and HarvesteR in particular, really are trying very hard to create something unique which represents their singular vision of what games can and should be.

I don't always agree with their decisions, or their way of accomplishing their goals, yet I don't feel betrayed, or as if I've been taken for a chump. I don't feel used. Considering how many hours of enjoyment I've gotten from KSP, and how little of my money Squad has gotten in exchange, if anything it's we who have been using them.

And really, I think that's true of most indie game developers generally.

$12 is what I paid way back when, and if I have it to spare after 1.0 is released I'll buy the game again. Perhaps multiple times for use as gifts.

[FlowerChild]

If you think there was nothing wrong with the barn, and half the people think the opposite you're losing nothing by waiting for something better. You're gaining something later. That's a positive thing. It's called delayed gratification. You didn't lose the barn. You never had it in the first place. You'll get a better barn soon. The net effect is a better game.

You're losing the ability to play test with a gameplay element in place that will affect the balance of the game later. You're also losing the ability to provide relevant feedback on that gameplay. I have no doubt that there were visual problems with the barn level, but I do think both the community and the game suffered for having it removed entirely, instead of included as is and corrected visually in a later release.

There's a detectable gap in the gameplay progression of stock career right now where the jump between the levels of building upgrades is far too large, and I think this is a direct result of a planned level of upgrade being left out of the 0.9 release. That gap has limited the community's ability to provide relevant feedback on the progression as it's obvious that what we're playing is not what's intended.

So, to me, the net effect is better visuals, not a better game (probably a slightly worse one actually), because its removal prevented the rest of us providing any feedback on anything other than the visuals. Given that I assume the building upgrades were primarily included as a *gameplay* element to provide progression in career mode, and not just as visual decoration, I consider it a real shame that the scale of the hooplah over the barn effectively prevented us from evaluating and providing feedback on the primary function of the things.

Edited January 28, 2015 by FlowerChild

[tater]

The barn does nothing for me, I don;t care one way or another, I don't even look at the buildings, and I certainly don't crash into them.

[Crzyrndm]

The only real concern I have with this is it's going to make Mach effect in FAR incredibly difficult to manage.

I can't say that I've ever required actively balancing the fuel in my spaceplanes with FAR (mach effects aren't *that* insane...). A little thought in design to ensure stability on re-entry after all the fuel is essentially gone, but never once have I even thought of changing fuel flow because of mach effects. If the plane is that close to being uncontrollable, my solution is increasing control authority in the design stage, not pumping fuel in flight

[HafCoJoe]

I have a strong feeling Jeb's going to shorten "Design Concerns" to "DCs" XD. Only Jeb though. I myself will probably have a glace before every launch.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Avera9eJoe

[CaptainKipard]

You're losing the ability to play test with a gameplay element in place that will affect the balance of the game later. You're also losing the ability to provide relevant feedback on that gameplay. I have no doubt that there were visual problems with the barn level, but I do think both the community and the game suffered for having it removed entirely, instead of included as is and corrected visually in a later release.

There's a detectable gap in the gameplay progression of stock career right now where the jump between the levels of building upgrades is far too large, and I think this is a direct result of a planned level of upgrade being left out of the 0.9 release. That gap has limited the community's ability to provide relevant feedback on the progression as it's obvious that what we're playing is not what's intended.

So, to me, the net effect is better visuals, not a better game (probably a slightly worse one actually), because its removal prevented the rest of us providing any feedback on anything other than the visuals. Given that I assume the building upgrades were primarily included as a *gameplay* element to provide progression in career mode, and not just as visual decoration, I consider it a real shame that the scale of the hooplah over the barn effectively prevented us from evaluating and providing feedback on the primary function of the things.

This is all fine. I see the point about testing, but again it's not our fault. It's the fault of Squad for coming out of beta as soon as they stepped into it.

[Superfluous J]

This is all fine. I see the point about testing, but again it's not our fault. It's the fault of Squad for coming out of beta as soon as they stepped into it.

You are presuming they ever made it to beta