Devnote Tuesday: "Point sharp end towards space"

[White Owl]

I used to use docking mode, until I figured out that it's just as easy to use the translate buttons in staging mode, once I'd figured them out. Maybe easier...sometimes when things are really misaligned, it's easier for me to get them back in alignment with staging mode because I don't have to constantly flip between translate and rotational modes (which sometimes causes me to forget which mode I'm in, screwing things up even more ).

I figure the existing docking mode was added because flipping between translation and rotation modes is how docking works in Orbiter, and to potentially free up those six keys so KSP doesn't use quite so much of the keyboard. I tried it a few times, saw that it works well... but using two sets of keys is actually easier for me than switching modes over and over.

[KerbMav]

I used to use docking mode, until I figured out that it's just as easy to use the translate buttons in staging mode, once I'd figured them out. Maybe easier...sometimes when things are really misaligned, it's easier for me to get them back in alignment with staging mode because I don't have to constantly flip between translate and rotational modes (which sometimes causes me to forget which mode I'm in, screwing things up even more ).

As long as there is no real difference in display or piloting, there really is no real need for a second mode.

[Renegrade]

I figure the existing docking mode was added because flipping between translation and rotation modes is how docking works in Orbiter, and to potentially free up those six keys so KSP doesn't use quite so much of the keyboard. I tried it a few times, saw that it works well... but using two sets of keys is actually easier for me than switching modes over and over.

I like to keep my hand on the mouse (I'm always moving the camera to make sure things are lined up nicely. I try to avoid using docking aid mods - reduces updating work ), not really possible if I'm hnijkl-ing. (gesundheit!)

I don't switch modes all that often, and my main mode is translation (which is the off-hand).

By the way, the docking mode can also be enabled in a hold-to-switch mode. I don't get any mileage about of it, but that might be a useful tip for those who get confused about which mode they're in.

(One thing I like about the docking mode is that in translate mode, it's the same controls as IVA)

[StrandedonEarth]

I don't think this would be a good idea. This would make it disproportionately harder to use for those who need it most, new players, who are unlikely to have spare funds lying around to take advantage of this.

I was only half-serious. For small rockets it would end up being a token amount, no more than 100 roots, maybe more like 20-50

[monstah]

Heck, while it doesn't seem very likely, it's possible the size of planets and orbits will change too.

Honestly? I wish they'd pull a whole new suprise system on us on 1.0 launch.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Paying for an engineers report would make sense if we had to worry about wages at all. Do we have to pay the pilots to board the capsule? Do we have to pay the scientists to do experiments? No, they just do it. The engineers should be no different.

[Perry Apsis]

Could the Engineer's Report be something we run on demand, like by clicking on a button, rather than every time we place a part?

[cantab]

It's hit me that how the Engineer's Report is likely to be done is really obvious:

It will be a button in the stock toolbar. Click it and the report window opens. When open, it recalculates every time you place a part - remember, this thing is probably showing delta-V now. Click the button again and it closes. When closed some or all calculations could be stopped to improve performance.

You know, just like how the current mass/size/part count information widget works, and just like how KER works.

[Hodo]

Realistic ISP! Nice!

I foresee much crying about a more "realistic" KSP.

Aerodynamics based on reality, NO!!!! lol

Fuel flow rates based on something akin to real life... NO!!!

What my brick of a rocket that is as wide as Maui, wont work anymore NO!!!!

I find Squads push to a more realistic environment refreshing and a much welcome addition to the game.

[JimmyAgent007]

As long as realistic doesnt mean tedious then Im all for it. Stock aero never really bothered me at all, but I will be happy to see it change.

[GusTurbo]

It's hit me that how the Engineer's Report is likely to be done is really obvious:

It will be a button in the stock toolbar. Click it and the report window opens. When open, it recalculates every time you place a part - remember, this thing is probably showing delta-V now. Click the button again and it closes. When closed some or all calculations could be stopped to improve performance.

You know, just like how the current mass/size/part count information widget works, and just like how KER works.

This sounds like the most logical thing. Also, with the Engineer class giving delta V, I think that means we will get delta V while in flight, like Flight Engineer.

[TMS]

Has anybody actually confirmed that delta-v readouts will be available in the VAB/SPH?

[regex]

Has anybody actually confirmed that delta-v readouts will be available in the VAB/SPH?

All we know is that engineers learned something about something that sounds kind of like it :/

[dryer_lint]

It's hit me that how the Engineer's Report is likely to be done is really obvious:

It will be a button in the stock toolbar. Click it and the report window opens. When open, it recalculates every time you place a part - remember, this thing is probably showing delta-V now. Click the button again and it closes. When closed some or all calculations could be stopped to improve performance.

You know, just like how the current mass/size/part count information widget works, and just like how KER works.

Thank god I wasn't the only one who was pretty much thinking this from the start

[cantab]

Has anybody actually confirmed that delta-v readouts will be available in the VAB/SPH?

No, but I really don't think Squad would be absent-minded enough to put it in flight but not in the VAB. Of course some members probably do believe Squad would do that.

[Wallygator]

I support the idea of a VAB based engineers report.

1) It should be "on demand" at any time within the VAB interface (Perhaps hitting Alt-E generates the report)

2) It should not run continuously in the background while parts are being selected and positioned

3) A cost should be associated with it - which should be based on difficulty (Low = Free, High = reasonable cost based on part count)

Nuff Said.

In flight? Give me KER.

[BudgetHedgehog]

3) A cost should be associated with it - which should be based on difficulty (Low = Free, High = reasonable cost based on part count)

Yeah, no. As I've said before, do we pay pilots to enter the capsule? Do we pay scientists to run experiments? No. They either do it for free or are paid "off-screen" by someone apart from the player. The Engineers should be no different.

[Wallygator]

Yeah, no. As I've said before, do we pay pilots to enter the capsule? Do we pay scientists to run experiments? No. They either do it for free or are paid "off-screen" by someone apart from the player. The Engineers should be no different.

I appreciate your view, but I fundamentally disagree with the concept of kerbals (regardless of role) doing anything for free. The career player should be challenged with the costs covering the entirety of his/her program. Its either a KSP space PROGRAM or it is a series of non-interlinked KSP space PROJECTS.

I believe the Devs are thinking program rather than projects, therefore ALL costs should be represented in some sensible manner - not just ignored as occurring "off screen".

[NovaSilisko]

No, but I really don't think Squad would be absent-minded enough to put it in flight but not in the VAB. Of course some members probably do believe Squad would do that.

Well, for quite a while you had to roll your ship out to the pad and open the map view to receive a mass value for it...

[BudgetHedgehog]

I appreciate your view, but I fundamentally disagree with the concept of kerbals (regardless of role) doing anything for free. The career player should be challenged with the costs covering the entirety of his/her program. Its either a KSP space PROGRAM or it is a series of non-interlinked KSP space PROJECTS.

I completely agree with that - at the end of the day, it's currently no space program, it's people doing odd jobs and not getting paid for it. But that's what it is now, there's no reason to make Engineers any different to Pilots or Scientists. They should all be working for a wage, IMO. Granted, this may change in 1.0 but I hope they don't make just the Engineers cost anything, that would annoy me more than making all of them working for free. Consistency, man..

[Superfluous J]

Well, for quite a while you had to roll your ship out to the pad and open the map view to receive a mass value for it...

In fairness this could just prove that as we get closer to release, more and more of this stuff is becoming available at the expected times and places.

[Wallygator]

In fairness this could just prove that as we get closer to release, more and more of this stuff is becoming available at the expected times and places.

Yes, It does seem like Squad is taking time to reassess the "player workflow" and provide the required information at the correct times in the correct context. This, and a redo of the various interface components to assure reduced clicking and mouse work would grant them a "doffing of my hat" should I pass them on the street (which would ideally occur on a mild summer evening on Jermyn Street... Sorry, I was diverted by my own wit there...)

[John FX]

I don't agree with the concept of having wages for kerbals or any other constant drains on resources, like the 'punish the lazy' mod. After a while of launches, the kerbals you had on long voyages would be sucking all the funds/rep/science from your program and all your missions would have to be unmanned to keep costs down or you are stuck doing repetitious actions to maintain the levels of funds/rep/science.

Then you aren't playing at building a space program, you are playing at being the accountant for a space program or grinding to stay still...

That said, I *would* like to see a time based machanic introduced, like Kerbal Construction Time. For me this adds new complexity and interest to the game without making it a grindfest. It can be turned on and off per save as well so you can just play normal sandbox or career if you like.

[Starwaster]

I don't agree with the concept of having wages for kerbals or any other constant drains on resources, like the 'punish the lazy' mod. After a while of launches, the kerbals you had on long voyages would be sucking all the funds/rep/science from your program and all your missions would have to be unmanned to keep costs down

Only if you were deducting some outrageous amount of wages for them!

There is such a thing as balance and I'm sure nobody is suggesting applying such wages as to require your KSP administrator to sacrifice his first born to secure that loan.

[Franklin]

I foresee much crying about a more "realistic" KSP.

Aerodynamics based on reality, NO!!!! lol

Fuel flow rates based on something akin to real life... NO!!!

What my brick of a rocket that is as wide as Maui, wont work anymore NO!!!!

I find Squads push to a more realistic environment refreshing and a much welcome addition to the game.

Yeah, this is gonna be an interesting update.