Devnote Tuesdays: The Really Hot Edition

[Red Iron Crown]

You guys are ready for the "Wearegoinginto1.0hereisasupriseforyouall" GP2 right?

That would be an awesome surprise, actually. I hope you're right.

[NoMrBond]

That would be an awesome surprise, actually. I hope you're right.

Could just snag and fold in the Outer Planets mod, all the work's already done

[Franklin]

all the aspergers kids who argued that kerbals had no defined genders, so nobody had logical reason to want female models, are probably dumbfounded at the news

- - - Updated - - -

also, with the news of female kerbals, re-entry danger, and new aero all i've got left to complain about is the lack of life support elements. good progress, squad.

[BudgetHedgehog]

all the aspergers kids who argued that kerbals had no defined genders

Technically, the kerbals don't have defined genders. They were intended to not have one but ended up masculine anyway.

[Laie]

You guys are ready for the "Wearegoinginto1.0hereisasupriseforyouall" GP2 right?

come again?

[panzer1b]

Im rather interested to see how the reentry heat works. Also, will it mostly work when you are going in at too steep a trajectory? I sure hope i cant just gun it straight at a plnets center of gravity and survive, cause its a joke as it stands right now. Then again, im hoping it doesnt add too much complexity beyond requiring a more shallow angle for aerobraking or reentry.

Also, while DRE is a great mod in theory, i sure hope the version of reentry added to KSP (if it happens) doesnt add so much complexity like the deadly reentry mod, where i actually need to have specific parts exposed and angled a certain way or the entire thing explodes even on a shallow reentry path. Sure hope it doesnt break my craft i already have.....or burn their pilots to a crisp

[Kerano]

Cool news on the re-entry heat. I wonder if we'll get specific heat shield parts with the update, or if we'll need to fashion our own "makeshift" heat shields out of structural panels and the like?

On the suggestions front, there are a couple of things I'd really like to see in a future update:

1. Contract types which interact with your existing ships (Expand Station, Expand Base)

2. Admin strategies which allow you to prioritize contracts for a price (Avoid Body, Avoid Mission)

- New contract type: Expand Station. Requires X tonnes of fuel, Y crew members, or Z modules to be docked to an existing orbital station of yours. Only available if you currently have a station in orbit around a planet/moon.

- New contract type: Expand Base. Requires X tonnes of fuel, Y crew members, or Z modules to be landed within a certain range (e.g. 1 km) of an existing surface outpost of yours. Only available if you currently have a landed base on a planet/moon.

- New admin strategy: Avoid Body. Effect: New contracts for a specified body will not be generated until this strategy is cancelled. One body can be specified per 5% commitment. Setup cost: 250,000 funds per 5% commitment.

Example 1: Player wants to avoid new contracts at Kerbin, Mun and Minmus - pays 750,000 funds for 15% commitment and selects to avoid those 3 bodies.

Example 2: Player wants to only generate contracts at Laythe - pays 4,000,000 funds for 80% commitment and selects to avoid the other 16 bodies.

- New admin strategy: Avoid Mission. Effect: New contracts of a specified type will not be generated until this strategy is cancelled. One procedural contract type can be specified per 5% commitment. Setup cost: 350,000 funds per 5% commitment.

Example 1: Player wants to avoid asteroid redirects and visual surveys - pays 700,000 funds for 10% commitment and selects to avoid those 2 missions.

Example 2: Player wants to only generate part testing missions - pays 4,200,000 funds for 60% commitment and selects to avoid the other 12 procedural missions.

(Continued here.)

[Superfluous J]

2. Admin strategies which allow you to prioritize contracts for a price (Avoid Body, Avoid Mission)

- New admin strategy: Avoid Body. Effect: New contracts for a specified body will not be generated until this strategy is cancelled. One body can be specified per 5% commitment. Setup cost: 250,000 funds per 5% commitment.

Example 1: Player wants to avoid new contracts at Kerbin, Mun and Minmus - pays 750,000 funds for 15% commitment and selects to avoid those 3 bodies.

Example 2: Player wants to only generate contracts at Laythe - pays 4,000,000 funds for 80% commitment and selects to avoid the other 16 bodies.

- New admin strategy: Avoid Mission. Effect: New contracts of a specified type will not be generated until this strategy is cancelled. One procedural contract type can be specified per 5% commitment. Setup cost: 350,000 funds per 5% commitment.

Example 1: Player wants to avoid asteroid redirects and visual surveys - pays 700,000 funds for 10% commitment and selects to avoid those 2 missions.

Example 2: Player wants to only generate part testing missions - pays 4,200,000 funds for 60% commitment and selects to avoid the other 12 procedural missions.

Example 3: Player is happily avoiding 10 planets, wants to a single other planet as well. Oh crap it's gonna cost me 2.75 million funds just to ignore contracts for Eeloo?

Ignoring missions and bodies is a time and grind (in this case a Mission Control Clickfest) saving feature. It should not cost in-game money.

However without the money cost for the strategies, I *love* this idea.

[Bill Phil]

Yeah...

Why should I pay to AVOID contracts? That doesn't really make that much sense. I think filters for the contracts is what we really need.

[Kerano]

Example 3: Player is happily avoiding 10 planets, wants to a single other planet as well. Oh crap it's gonna cost me 2.75 million funds just to ignore contracts for Eeloo?

By this point in the game I don't usually have a problem with money. You can comfortably make 2.75 million with just 2 Eeloo contracts (3 at most).

But if it's a problem you could always pay upfront for the highest commitment level, and change your preferences later for free. I imagine the UI for "Avoid Body" as having a list of planets/moons with checkboxes you can select and deselect, up to the maximum allowed number for your commitment level.

The setup costs were just approximate suggestions anyway, and could be made much lower (or nonexistent). The functionality and control is what I'd really like to see.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Kerano

[basic.syntax]

"avoid" strategy, or, "I like doing these other things, more than X" - Good idea, but what players will like doing more - is so fundamental to game play, I think it should go into New Game / advanced setup options / contracts preferences. On other hand, a new player won't know what they don't like doing until they are asked to do it, so it does deserve some kind of tweakable option inside a currently running game, which puts it right back into the Administration building. Hmm.

[Northstar1989]

<p><strong>Mike (Mu):</strong><span> Well, the drag system is all but finished. The change in flight dynamics is fun but we will require a rebalancing of a number of parts. We will be merging in the updated lift dynamics and then hoping to push it to the QA team later this week so they can have a play. I’ve been also looking at implementing a new re-entry heat system to run alongside. This should all make for a much more interesting atmospheric experience!</span></p>

AWESOME! Re-entry heating was always something I felt the game wouldn't be complete without! Would it also be possible to have G-force limits worked into the system like with Deadly Re-Entry: i.e. if G-forces exceed more than 25 G's for too long (really only ever an issue during excessively steep re-entries from interplanetary velocities) the Kerbals on board the craft die?!

<p><strong>Jim (Romfarer)</strong><span><strong>:</strong> First of all, I just want to thank everyone who commented on the Engineer’s Report features last week. The part where you listed up the things you were “always†forgetting when building rockets and planes. This week I’ve been going over the comments and turned it into actual features for the app. It’s not too late to come with more suggestions though as most of the tests still have to be written. But i just want to stress that the point of the app is not to hold your hand while you build, it is more a tool to alarm you of possible issues which may be hard to spot during construction but would lead to major grief later on. Such as “hatch obstructed†this was a really good suggestion. </span></p>

I have two features, and two features only to request for the Engineer's Report:

First of all, a Delta-V readout in the VAB/SPH! There is NOTHING more annoying than designing a lander, only to find out it doesn't have quite enough fuel to get back into orbit! Sure it can be unexpected and challenging, but it shouldn't be an issue we run into because THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY to accurately know our craft's Delta-V without digging into parts configs to precisely figure out how much of our vessel is dry mass vs. fuel and performing some rather complex mathematics to figure out our vessel's Delta-V for each stage. It's really not a very difficult feature to implement, and should do a LOT to help new players learn how to design usable craft with enough Delta-V to carry out their missions... Look at how Kerbal Engineer Redux (or MechJeb2- which just steals the code from KER) calculates Delta-V to figure out how to implement this is stock...

Second, a Thrust-Weight Ratio readout in the VAB/SPH! It would be nice to know BEFORE trying to launch a craft that it doesn't have enough thrust to even make it off the pad! This is *ESPECIALLY* important if we are playing without Reverts of Quicksaves, as otherwise we could bankrupt our entire space program simply because we don't have access to a number that only requires a quick calculation to determine. Sure, we COULD go and look at the Thrust of each engine and then compare that to the vessel mass, but having to close the game and perform a bunch of math to design our rockets really takes a lot of fun out the of game! TWR is a simple number that even a 1960's computer could have calculated in a few milliseconds given the right information on thrust and vessel mass...

I would also recommend that the coding for the Engineer's Readout be made accessible to modders (who might want to expand it or reference it), and that it be set up to eventually account for changes in TWR (and sea-level TWR on different planets/moons) with a stock engine Thrust/ISP fix (so engine THRUST *increases* with decreasing atmospheric density, rather than fuel consumption decreasing... The atmospheric compression curve should also expand to allow performance to decline even further at pressures greater than 1 atmosphere- like on the surface of Eve, which otherwise would become substantially easier to get off of with the revised drag model...) which is probably one of the most-requested features here on the forums, and a HUGE pet-peave of mine that such a simple aspect of rocketry isn't simulated realistically in KSP... (especially when it would actually *IMPROVE* the performance of stock rockets by allowing them to dump mass more quickly at high altitudes, resulting in reduced total gravity-losses to orbit...) Once again, Kerbal Engineer Redux already has got you covered when it comes to figuring out how to account for a Thrust/ISP fix (at least, with both KER and RealFuels installed, it accurately accounts for changes in TWR at sea-level on different planets, and can tell that your liftoff Thrust Weight Ratio will be higher on Duna, for instance, due to thinner atmosphere increasing Thrust *as well as* reduced gravity reducing weight...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited January 30, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Toastedbuns]

I'm sitting here with 10 FPS with my mothership so this news is a godsend.

[Commander Zoom]

Agreed that we need a stock delta-V display. It's a ridiculous and irrational omission. The data is necessary for so many things, and obfuscating it/requiring people to download a separate mod is doing no one any favors.

[bdito]

Agreed that we need a stock delta-V display. It's a ridiculous and irrational omission. The data is necessary for so many things, and obfuscating it/requiring people to download a separate mod is doing no one any favors.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Frankly, it's absurd that there isn't, at a very minimum, a deltaV and TWR readout for each stage.

[Technical Ben]

All sounds great!

Looks like it's time to get my Kerbals "exosolar" so I can at least put my save to rest, as re-entry heat is going to be a totally NEW build design decision which will make all my craft obsolete.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Technical Ben

[ImJake]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Frankly, it's absurd that there isn't, at a very minimum, a deltaV and TWR readout for each stage.

I actually prefer to wing it and see if a design will get me to where I need to go, and base my designs off of previous missions. Maybe a dV and TWR panel could be in could be a part of an upgraded VAB.

[FlowerChild]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Frankly, it's absurd that there isn't, at a very minimum, a deltaV and TWR readout for each stage.

I would disagree. I play without a deltaV display, have extensively explored the game to the point where I don't think there's anything major I could accomplish that I haven't before, and I don't really want one in my particular install as I enjoy improvised rocket design.

Having too many mathematical elements being introduced into a game makes it begin to feel like work to me. I also enjoy the possibility of failure in my missions and designs as some of the more interesting moments I've had playing have been trying to come up with contingency plans on the fly when things go wrong, and I find "winging it" on rocket design results in a more enjoyable experience for me overall.

The data is necessary for so many things

It's really not. It may feel that way if you are habituated to having that info at your finger tips, but I've yet to run into anything so difficult in the game that I felt the need for such a display or even equivalent paper calculations, and I've played the game quite extensively. In fact, most of my time spent playing KSP has been with my own mod for providing additional challenge, so I'd say that stock could actually get a fair bit harder and still not require deltaV or TWR displays.

Edited January 30, 2015 by FlowerChild

[bdito]

Fair enough. You can certainly get away without using it, I wouldn't deny that, and I would never say someone should play one way or another. It's all personal preference.

Personally I find that if I want to make a vessel efficient then the info takes out all the guess work (or manual calculating, ughhh). Especially when you have restrictions on parts and weight early in the game. I've just seen so many people complain about it that I'd guesstimate the vast majority would want something of that sort implemented into stock.

[FlowerChild]

Personally I find that if I want to make a vessel efficient then the info takes out all the guess work

Well, I think that's precisely why I find it to be less fun that way actually

To me, *knowing* that a mission will succeed, or that one approach is more efficient than another without experimenting with different designs to prove it, tends to make the in-flight portion of the game rather dull. For me, I think the fun in KSP comes from the interplay between the design and flight aspects of the game, and how mistakes in one area can be compensated or planned for in another.

I know that for others their fun comes almost exclusively from the design portion, and they'll even use autopilot in flight as they're basically just using it as a proving grounds for their designs. Others probably find their fun exclusively in the flight portion and will use preexisting rocket designs as a result. I think if you're really into both aspects though, having some variance introduced into your designs through improvisation can lead to some fun experiences you might not have otherwise.

I've just seen so many people complain about it that I'd guesstimate the vast majority would want something of that sort implemented into stock.

Well, don't forget that people only complain about the state of things when it's not to their taste, whereas there's not much reason to say anything at all if it is. I suspect you'd hear a fair amount of complaining if such displays suddenly became mandatory, and I know one of the first things I'd do is try to mod them out of my own install

Edited January 30, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

I would like a Dv and TWR readout. I would use it. And if you normally wing it, you still can. It would be an option.

[FlowerChild]

I would like a Dv and TWR readout. I would use it. And if you normally wing it, you still can. It would be an option.

I'm not sure if requiring players to put on selective blinders about on-screen information is really a reasonable approach to this. If it's present and in your face, the natural tendency is to make use of it, even if it is to the detriment of your own fun.

I also wonder if such an approach might be oversaturating new players with information they really don't need, making the game appear more complex or harder than it actually is.

Anyways, suffice it to say I understand why this has been a point of contention for Squad with regards to the design of KSP. How much info is provided to a player is a rather crucial aspect of game design, and less info can often times be more fun. To use an extreme example, a 360 degree field of view in an FPS game might be useful for a player once they get used to it, but in most cases would also be detrimental to the fun of a game as it would take a lot of the tension out of it.

Are deltaV and TWR displays a similar design issue? I think they potentially are, and I think Squad has been wise to hesitate on just adding them in as a result.

Edited January 30, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

No one said it has to be in your face. It could be in the Info tab. I hardly look at it all that often, but that's me. I'm saying that the option should exist, and if it did I would use it. And sometimes I wouldn't, a lot of my creations have began to work first try now...

[FlowerChild]

No one said it has to be in your face. It could be in the Info tab. I hardly look at it all that often, but that's me. I'm saying that the option should exist, and if it did I would use it. And sometimes I wouldn't, a lot of my creations have began to work first try now...

<shrug> Well, to my mind players already do have the option to install any one of a number of mods to do that, and the info in question is potentially dangerous enough to their overall enjoyment of the experience that having it locked away behind the additional safeguard of having to manually install a mod to do so is a reasonable way to approach it.

Ultimately a call needs to be made at a certain point about how the game is intended to be played by the designers of the game. I do not think it's fair to put it on the player to act as their own game designer and make these kind of decisions about what info they should and shouldn't access while playing for the sake of their own fun, when they may not even have enough experience with the game to make an informed choice about it. If you give players this kind of info, I think it is then entirely reasonable to expect them to make use of it in their pursuit of "winning", and that it's Squads job as the designers of the game to make a judgement call on what tools they think players should have access to.

I agree that adding such a feature would probably be trivial for Squad, but I don't think it necessarily means that they should. By leaving it in the hands of mods, they're essentially saying "you can have this info if you want it, but you're acknowledging that the game isn't intended to be played this way by installing one".

[Bill Phil]

True. However, I tend not to use mods with Dv and TWR because they have so many other things that aren't very related.

A simple thing, perhaps an official add-on would be in order, the same accessibility as a mod, but still stock.