Jump to content

Devnote Tuesday: Full Steam Ahead!

SQUAD

By SQUAD
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hcube

Hcube

Posted
Posted

Agreed ! Some small details that actually aren't that small make the game look/feel unfinished and not ready for 1.0 !

For example, the Mk-3 IVA "in customs and shippings" : i have seen nothing in any devnote about it, will they leave it blank in 1.0 ? That is the kind of unfinished thing that web reviewers will not miss, and they will probably describe the game as being "unfinished, lazy developers"...

Also the Mk-1 inline cockpit, unfinished since [insert very old version here] !

Or, the worst thing, the manoeuver nodes that often can't be placed on a interplanetary course, very glitchy and gamebreaking !

I love this game but i feel like a bugfix-only update is in order before 1.0

Otherwise, my previous comment tells all about my excitement for the next update features !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted
SQUAD DON'T REALLY NEED TO MENTION EVERY SINGLE BUG THEY'RE FIXING IN THE DEVNOTES.

Although it would be nice if they did. It would give the community some idea of the amount of work they are doing and how the development of the game is progressing. It would deflate those who claim no bugs ever get fixed too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cantab

cantab

Posted
Posted
In all fairness, I asked about it when they were released as I also had a "why the heck did they add that?" initial reaction, and the destructible buildings were just an incremental step in developing upgradeable buildings
Well, even there the art team spent a while making the destroyed buildings that they could have spent making a better barn instead.

But that said, the destructible buildings aren't useless. As far as gameplay goes sure they don't do much, but they look cool and that's going to help market the game. Remember, we aren't Squad's customers, it's the people who haven't bought KSP yet that are. (Which I think is one reason Maxmaps spends more time on Reddit and Twitter than here - both those are full of potential customers in a way this official forum isn't.)

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the secret feature is robotic parts.
While awesome, I'm going to say that if 1.0 has robotic arms then they, and the rest of the release, will be buggy. That's a major and complex new feature to be adding, and one that has a direct impact on the vehicle physics.

Not that a buggy 1.0 is anything out of the ordinary in software. What will really count is how quickly Squad can patch the bugs that their own testing team missed after 1.0 has released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted
Welcome to the forums! I'm sorry but Lagrange points are very unlikely. KSP physics system simplifies gravitational influences down to one planetary body; crafts are only influenced by the nearest one, and there's a complete hand-off when transferring from one sphere of influence (wiki info link) to the other.

That doesn`t exclude Lagrange points, it just forces them to have a sphere of influence. If there was a very small gravity field and no physical body that would work just as well and there would be no need to change a single thing about the KSP physics system.

They would be quite hard to find and stay inside though so it would be an extension of gameplay for more advanced players.

A good thing in my eyes.

Robotic parts? I`d be very happy with just a powered hinge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ignath

Ignath

Posted
Posted
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the secret feature is robotic parts. We already have a stock rotatron module, just hidden away and not applied to any stock parts, but it's in the game without any plugins. Maybe it's an expansion of that? Would be great for space shuttles and stuff.

I've been hoping for something like this since we got the Claw in .23.5

Nothing would expand the possibilities for creation more than some stock robotic parts. Plus, a stock Canadarm would be awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KN_Namida

KN_Namida

Posted
Posted
That doesn`t exclude Lagrange points, it just forces them to have a sphere of influence. If there was a very small gravity field and no physical body that would work just as well and there would be no need to change a single thing about the KSP physics system.

They would be quite hard to find and stay inside though so it would be an extension of gameplay for more advanced players.

A good thing in my eyes.

Robotic parts? I`d be very happy with just a powered hinge.

The way KSP simulates physics though, if Lagrange points were to be implemented that way... you'd be essentially asking for mini black holes. Singularities.

Passing through such points would either fling you away at impressive speeds or destroy your ship :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Phil

Bill Phil

Posted
Posted
The way KSP simulates physics though, if Lagrange points were to be implemented that way... you'd be essentially asking for mini black holes. Singularities.

Passing through such points would either fling you away at impressive speeds or destroy your ship :(

That's a result of how planets are implemented. It's probably pretty deep on the ocean of code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jgold1701

jgold1701

Posted
Posted
The way KSP simulates physics though, if Lagrange points were to be implemented that way... you'd be essentially asking for mini black holes. Singularities.

Passing through such points would either fling you away at impressive speeds or destroy your ship :(

Im not really asking for all the lagrange points here. I understand that L3-L5 can be simulated with some precision driving in the current model. I would just like some kind of implementation of L1 and L2. This makes sense because NASA will be sending the new James Webb Space Telescope to the Sun-Earth L2 position in a couple years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nemrav

Nemrav

Posted
Posted
It's a module called joint motor test, Yargnit went crazy with it for a few weeks after it came out

Someone made a part which uses it too

The last I heard about robotic parts was from chad, he was saying it was something SQUAD is always wanting to do, but it always gets shoved low in the priortity list...

Also I would like it if someone leaked (we're counting on you Kasper, you can do it) the test part SQUAD used when testing that module...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoMrBond

NoMrBond

Posted
Posted
The last I heard about robotic parts was from chad, he was saying it was something SQUAD is always wanting to do, but it always gets shoved low in the priortity list...

Also I would like it if someone leaked (we're counting on you Kasper, you can do it) the test part SQUAD used when testing that module...

Was there a particular reason Yargnit always used the octagonal strut for this? I mean did it have the transforms for the MODULE{} in the .mu or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlowerChild

FlowerChild

Posted
Posted (edited)
It's a module called joint motor test, Yargnit went crazy with it for a few weeks after it came out

Oh wow...thanks for that. I was totally unaware, and just started playing around with it. That's modding gold right there :)

If someone wants a quick part to give it a try, I just threw this together to test it out:


PART
{
	// --- general parameters ---

	name = BTSMXXXMotorTest
	module = Part
	author = FlowerChild

	// --- asset parameters ---

	MODEL	
	{

		model = Squad/Parts/FuelTank/fuelTankOscarB/model
		scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
	}

	rescaleFactor = 1

	// --- node definitions ---

	// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z

	// Oscar B values for reference
	node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1742737, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.1742737, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

	// --- editor parameters ---

	TechRequired = unassigned
	entryCost = 3200
	cost = 4750
	category = Pods
	subcategory = 0

	title = Zoomy zoom zoom

	manufacturer = zoom

	description = Zoooooooommmmmm!

	// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision

	attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

	// --- standard part parameters ---

	mass = 0.5

	dragModelType = default

	maximum_drag = 0.2
	minimum_drag = 0.2
	angularDrag = 1

	crashTolerance = 8

	breakingForce = 50
	breakingTorque = 50

	maxTemp = 1200

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleJointMotorTest
	}
}

Just drop that in a config file and off you go. It'll show up as an Oscar B (small black tank) in your command tab.

Edited by FlowerChild
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
The way KSP simulates physics though, if Lagrange points were to be implemented that way... you'd be essentially asking for mini black holes. Singularities.

Passing through such points would either fling you away at impressive speeds or destroy your ship :(

Well, you COULD set up a THIRD SOI within the Lagrange point's SOI where there is a 0-mass body in the center. So within a certain distance you're attracted to it, but when you get too close that attraction goes away.

But that's just a kludgey hack to make the other kludgey hack work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwhip

Starwhip

Posted
Posted
Well, you COULD set up a THIRD SOI within the Lagrange point's SOI where there is a 0-mass body in the center. So within a certain distance you're attracted to it, but when you get too close that attraction goes away.

But that's just a kludgey hack to make the other kludgey hack work.

At that point, it seems that N-body would be more efficient... though laggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...