Kerbal Space Program 1.0

This forum is for anything that doesn't specifically have to do with Better Than Wolves
hordekips
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:41 am

Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by hordekips »

I'm just here to inform that version 1.0 of KSP has been released and I guess it would be appropriate to start a thread for discussing the new release.

Changelog:
Spoiler
Show

Code: Select all

=================================== v1.00.0 ============================================================

* New:

Editor:
- New Engineer's Report Toolbar App, provides warnings and advice during construction, notifying players of possible design issues with their ships.
- Added 'Cross-Section Profile' Filter to Parts List.
- Added Thumbnail images for Craft files in both Launch Dialog and Craft Browser screens.
- Added 'Merge' button to Load dialog, allowing ships to be loaded without replacing the current one
- Added confirmation dialogs when overwriting a save, launching or leaving editor without saving.


Aerodynamics:
- Complete overhaul of the flight model.
- Lift is now correctly calculated and applied for all lift-generating parts.
- Drag is now pre-calculated automatically based on part geometry, and applied based on part orientation in flight.
- Both lift and drag are dependant on density and the speed of sound; both properly calculated from temperature and pressure.
- Stack-mounted parts can occlude each other for drag calculations.
- Lift-Induced drag now properly simulated.
- Stalls are now properly simulated.
- A new body-lift system meaning parts can induce lift even if they are not designed to do so.


Heat Simulation:
- Completely revised part heating model, energy flux is considered, not merely temperature.
- All game temperatures changed from ‘Kervin’ to proper Kelvin.
- Radiative, conductive, and convective heating and cooling are simulated.
- Parts can have individual radiative, conductive, and convective properties.
- All parts now emit a blackbody radiation glow if they get hot enough.
- Conduction between attached parts is more accurately modelled.
- Parts can occlude other parts from being exposed to sunlight, celestial body albedo/radiation and supersonic flow.
- Reentry/hypersonic flight heating is now simulated.
- Added difficulty Setting to scale aerodynamic heating.
- Atmospheric temperature, and thus density, takes latitude and sun position into account.
- Celestial bodies accurately emit thermal radiation making nearby craft warmer.
- Service modules, fairings and cargo bays can be used to protect parts inside from heat.
- Heat shields provide (finite) ablation-based protection for parts behind them.


Parts:
- New procedural Fairings added, in 3 sizes
- New Heat Shields added, in 3 sizes
- Service Bay parts added in 1.25m and 2.5m sizes
- Several new Landing Gear parts added, in many sizes.
- Many New large airliner and shuttle style wing sections added.
- Large wing sections have internal fuel tanks.
- All old spaceplane parts overhauled with a more up-to-date style.
- Old Avionics Nose Cone overhauled and repurposed as a standalone, non-autonomous SAS module.
- New atmosphere scanner part added.
- New Inline Xenon Tank part added.
- New RT-5 'Flea' Solid Rocket Booster added.
- New Fuel Cell parts added (small and large), convert LiquidFuel and Oxidizer into Electricity when turned on.
- New models for Circular and Ram air intake parts.
- New models for Engine Nacelle parts.
- Several new nose cones and tail sections.
- New Airbrake part. 
- New module for Airbrake parts, responds to Brakes input and can also be used as pitch/yaw actuator.


Internal Spaces:
- Added new IVA space for the Mk1 Inline cockpit
- Added new IVA space for the Science Lab
- Added new IVA space for Mk3 Shuttle Cockpit
- Added new IVA space for Mk3 Passenger Cabin
- Added new IVA space for Mk2 Passenger Cabin


Resources:
- Added 'Ore' resource, which can be mined across the Solar System
- New drill part added
- Ore container tanks added
- ISRU Ore processor unit added, converts Ore into Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer or MonoProp
- Three new Ore scanner parts added
- Added new MapView overlays displaying Ore density for all Celestial Bodies.
- Support for moddability of resources added (including atmospheric and oceanic)
- New Difficulty Setting to scale resource abundance (both stock and modded).
- Asteroids can also be mined for Ore.
- Engineer Kerbals are able to ‘overdrive’ drilling equipment for increased yield (and less safety).


Kerbals:
- Female Kerbals added, with new randomly-generated female names 
- Valentina Kerman (Pilot) added to initial Crew Roster
- Kerbals are now able to clamber onto ledges within reach, because their jobs weren’t dangerous enough already.
- Kerbals can now climb out of ladders onto ledges.
- Tourist Kerbals added. They have zero skills, are unable to control vessels, and are required to keep their heads inside the vessel at all times.
- Kerbals now cost increasingly larger amounts of Funds to hire in Career Games.


R&D:
- R&D Tech Tree completely revised. Several new nodes added; many, many parts reassigned for a better progression.
- Kerbal Scientists are now able to restore inoperable experiment modules.
- The Science Lab has been retooled to run long-term research on experiment data, providing much higher amounts of science over time.


Graphics:
- New Smoke effects added to Launchpads
- New Surface Effects added whenever rocket engines fire near terrain
- New Water Effect added whenever rocket engine fire near water
- Revised all part shaders for improved rendering of lighting effects and shadows.
- Main Flight UI can now be made transparent.


Career:
- Added new Tourism contracts and tourist kerbals.
- Added ISRU resource extraction contracts.
- Added Grand Tour contracts.
- Replaced Rescue contracts with Recovery contracts, which can ask the player to recover a part, a kerbal, or both, and can spawn on the surface of planets, with “props” nearby.
- Added two 'immediate' Strategies to convert existing Reputation and Science into Funds.
- World First contract line now extends all the way out to Eeloo, and is dependent on player progression.
- Record contracts are now always active, and will complete in order even over the course of a single mission.


Tutorials:
- All tutorials revised and rewritten to explain most game features.
- Expanded Flight Basics Tutorial to cover the essentials of launching into orbit.
- Added new Return from Mun tutorial.
- Added new Science and R&D Tutorial.
- Added new Docking tutorial.


Flight:
- 'Warp To' action added to orbit context menu. Allows warping to a specific spot along your trajectory.
- 'Warp to next morning' button added to KSC toolbar.
- Asteroids can now be found orbiting near Dres.
- Engine thrust now varies according to Isp and throttle setting, instead of the other way around.


Controls:
- Completely revised Input Mapping system. 
- Flight input bindings is now much more straightforward and more flexible as well.
- Duplicate control bindings for Docking/Staging modes now replaced by a much more robust system based on secondary key bindings.
- Joystick Axes are now consistently enumerated and persist across sessions.
- Up to 10 joysticks with 20 axes each now supported.
- Added secondary channels for Axis Bindings.


Cameras:
- New 'Chase' Camera mode added, old mode now called 'Locked'.
- Added Camera wobble/vibration effects during flight (engine vibration, explosions, ground roll, G-force, and many more)
- TrackIR support added to all game views (toggleable independently in game settings). (FreeTrack also reported to work)
- Added FOV control to main flight camera. (Hold ModKey and zoom)




* Bug Fixes and Tweaks:

Editor:
- Fixed several issues with editor attachments, attachment node orientation and symmetry.
- Shift+Clicking a 'frozen' part in the editor will detach it from its parent.
- Fixed several bugs with cloned parts and persistence.
- The editor no longer requires a full scene reload to load new craft files.

UI:
- The KnowledgeBase panel for Vessels now shows 'Max Accel' and 'Estimated burn time to 0m/s' (as shown on navball) fields.
- Several part context menu actions now properly apply to symmetry counterparts automatically.
- Added new custom cursors.

Simulation:
- Fixed 'infiniglide' bug.
- Switching SOIs no longer causes the next orbit to change at high time warp rates.
- Added a warp speed limit when approaching an SOI transition.
- Kerbal EVAs should no longer fly off when disembarking in space.
- SAS now disengages autopilot modes automatically (and falls back to stability assist) in cases where the target vectors would change very rapidly.
- Parachute deployment should no longer cause vessel disassembly at high physics warp rates.
- Deployed parachute sway now actually has an effect on the vessel.

Parts:
- LV-N “Nerv” Engine now runs solely on Liquid Fuel and has no gimbal.
- OSCAR-B tank can now be surface attached
- Air-breathing engines now drain fuel evenly from all tanks in a vessel.
- Fixed radial decouplers not applying ejection forces correctly.
- Parachutes no longer cause massive G spikes when opening.
- Control Surfaces can now be deployed as flaps, controllable via context menus and Action Groups.
- Stats of Antennas revised for a proper progression with the more advanced models.
- Added nicknames to all engine parts.
- Revised and balanced part costs.
- Balanced fuel amounts for Mk2 and Mk3 tanks.
- Balanced engines (Isp/thrust/mass) in line with the new aerodynamics.
- Added fuel gauge to LV-1 “Ant” engine.
- Materials Bay now faces away from the part it’s radially attached to.
- RoveMate rover body is now a probe body as well.
- The unshrouded solar panels are now non-retractable.
- Balanced probes electric charge usage, mass and crash tolerance.
- Lowered crash tolerance of the Structural Pylon to 70 from 999!
- All parts given ‘bulkhead profile’ tags in cfg files. Profile tags inferred automatically for parts missing this field.
- Cargo bays now properly detect enclosed parts, and can be grouped to make larger bays.
- Experiment Modules, Solar Panels, Antennas and such will not deploy while stowed inside a fairing or cargo bay.
- RCS thrusters will not function if stowed inside a closed cargo area (or fairing).
- Lifting surfaces will not generate lift if stowed inside a closed cargo area (or fairing).

Audio:
- Much improved flight ambience sounds for Kerbin and other bodies with atmospheres
- Added new sound effect when pulling high G forces.
- Eliminated audible gaps on several looping clips.

Effects:
- Improved sound/particle effects for all Air-Breathing engines
- Splashdown effects no longer spawn underwater.


General:
- All part textures converted to DDS format, load times are now 3x faster.
- Fixed a serious persistence bug which prevented Scenario/Training saves from updating scenario modules properly.
- Fixed persistence bugs which caused state data from Upgradeable Facilities to carry over to other saves.
- Fixed an issue which caused Kerbals to not be generated randomly enough, which led to slowdowns with larger Crew Rosters.
- Fixed issues with the terrain during scene switching making scene load times faster.
- Fixed terrain scatter generation which was causing memory leaks.
- ‘Elon Kerman’ added to name pool.
- Crew name generator can now output 10,000+ female names 
- Fixed an issue with markers in the KSC scene potentially causing the game to lock up.
- Restructured GameData folder, integrated the NASA folder into the Squad one.
- Valentina Kerman added to Main Menu’s Space scene. 

Gameplay:
- All contracts other than World Firsts or Records are halted until the player reaches space.
- Prevent “stacking” of various contract types.
- Resource parts added into satellite, station, and outpost contracts.
- Prose of contracts involving kerbals re-evaluated with gender appropriate text.
- All contracts in career given balanced income for all three currencies.
- Science and reputation no longer scale with the celestial body of a contract, and are handed out more conservatively in general.
- All strategies in career given equivalent exchange rates.
- Aggressive Negotiations strategy given a discount on building repair/upgrade.
- Recovery Transponder strategy now lowers maximum recovery rate, while raising minimum recovery rate.
- Facility upgrade costs re-evaluated, lowered by about a quarter overall.
- Kerbals now properly receive experience for suborbital flights.
- Part Test contracts now request much saner flight parameters.
- Survey contracts choose much saner locations to survey.
- Sensor Experiment Modules are now able to perform experiments in all situations.

Debugging/Modding:
- The R&D Tech tree is now defined in a cfg-file. 
- The cfg file for the Tech Tree is defined separately for each save.
- GameVariables methods are now all virtual and can be overwritten by mods.
- Added a new set of debug tools to tweak Physics parameters.
- Added a new set of debug tools to tweak R&D tech tree nodes and part assignments.
User avatar
Taleric
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Okinawa

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Taleric »

Playing stock on normal with all option like "revert" off. I love it!

The optimization is very apparent on my PC. I approve of their deadly reentry/atmospheric changes and looking ahead at the tech tree there is plenty new stuff.

Getting my unmanned craft running is actually challenging at the moment (prior to Mun science). It will take me over 24 game hours to try everything and it is no BTSM, so far very good though.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

I got two launches off before running into a showstopper bug with reentry and heatshields and spent most of the rest of the day which I had set aside to play trying to help people solve it on the forums :P

Career balance is whacked. There's an obvious gaping hole in the building progression where the "barn" is supposed to go. You basically buy the first upgrades, then the launch limits essentially become irrelevant. Still a ton of the same nonsensical node purchase decisions as well.

There's some cool stuff in it, but it's a definitely a rush job.
User avatar
Stormweaver
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Stormweaver »

FlowerChild wrote:I got two launches off before running into a showstopper bug with reentry and heatshields and spent most of the rest of the day which I had set aside to play trying to help people solve it on the forums :P
One day we'll be told why SQUAD want to flag everything as immune to physics, one day.

I'm loving launching things into orbit in the new aero. Only time I ever really messed around with FAR was the short stint testing the BTSM version - which lacking fairings and such made it an...experience) and once a bit more recently just flying planes. But theres a lot of satisfaction in getting your turn angle just right and riding an SRB most of the way into orbit without touching any controls :3
PatriotBob wrote:Damn it, I'm going to go eat pumpkin pie while I still think that it tastes good.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

Stormweaver wrote: I'm loving launching things into orbit in the new aero. Only time I ever really messed around with FAR was the short stint testing the BTSM version - which lacking fairings and such made it an...experience) and once a bit more recently just flying planes. But theres a lot of satisfaction in getting your turn angle just right and riding an SRB most of the way into orbit without touching any controls :3
On that note: are gravity turns working for you? The above seems to imply they are, but my rockets seam to have an alarming tendency to go in straight lines, and not perform a turn from an initial small lean unless I apply additional control input.

I'm using fins a lot, so maybe that (unnaturally) has something to do with it?
User avatar
Stormweaver
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Stormweaver »

FlowerChild wrote:
Stormweaver wrote: I'm loving launching things into orbit in the new aero. Only time I ever really messed around with FAR was the short stint testing the BTSM version - which lacking fairings and such made it an...experience) and once a bit more recently just flying planes. But theres a lot of satisfaction in getting your turn angle just right and riding an SRB most of the way into orbit without touching any controls :3
On that note: are gravity turns working for you? The above seems to imply they are, but my rockets seam to have an alarming tendency to go in straight lines, and not perform a turn from an initial small lean unless I apply additional control input.

I'm using fins a lot, so maybe that (unnaturally) has something to do with it?
No, fins are good - it doesn't take many though. Just make sure your pad TWR is pretty low (I think I'm going for around 1.3-1.5, havn't really looked at the numbers though) and you should get a nice arc going. I have no idea how efficent various launch profiles are at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if launching at ~30 degrees might end up being the new TWR 2.0 given how thin the atmosphere feels.
PatriotBob wrote:Damn it, I'm going to go eat pumpkin pie while I still think that it tastes good.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

Stormweaver wrote:No, fins are good - it doesn't take many though. Just make sure your pad TWR is pretty low (I think I'm going for around 1.3-1.5, havn't really looked at the numbers though) and you should get a nice arc going. I have no idea how efficent various launch profiles are at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if launching at ~30 degrees might end up being the new TWR 2.0 given how thin the atmosphere feels.
Yeah, I tried it again on another launch and it appears to be working, not sure why it didn't seem to before. The rate of turn seems to be unnaturally slow, but I'm not sure what's up with that, or if it's just my own perceptions.
User avatar
Stormweaver
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Stormweaver »

FlowerChild wrote:
Stormweaver wrote:No, fins are good - it doesn't take many though. Just make sure your pad TWR is pretty low (I think I'm going for around 1.3-1.5, havn't really looked at the numbers though) and you should get a nice arc going. I have no idea how efficent various launch profiles are at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if launching at ~30 degrees might end up being the new TWR 2.0 given how thin the atmosphere feels.
Yeah, I tried it again on another launch and it appears to be working, not sure why it didn't seem to before. The rate of turn seems to be unnaturally slow, but I'm not sure what's up with that, or if it's just my own perceptions.
You could always try nudging the rocket over a bit more at launch if it's feeling slow - I was doing that a lot in the beginning, and there doesn't seem to be any real disadvantage to not going straight up.

Ah well. I'm going to be spending more of my time tommorow doing science methinks. Probably be more engaging than career -.-
PatriotBob wrote:Damn it, I'm going to go eat pumpkin pie while I still think that it tastes good.
User avatar
Larmantine
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:28 pm
Location: Latvia

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Larmantine »

I was quite hyped when I saw Manley's video on 1.0, but when i unlocked the first node in science tree, and checked the ones further, I realized that I've never ever have felt such a huge buzzkill.
weldaSB wrote:Edit: grammer
User avatar
Taleric
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Okinawa

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Taleric »

Damn I think I found that bug or a play feature :(

I had a science station in orbit of Minmus fully loaded plus 10 reports/samples. A solar array probe was on the last leg of rendezvous and I think it loaded in during the probes time warp.

Lab and crew obliterated! I was so violent I had to read the debug to see what happened, nothing left.... Said it was all due to overheating.

Guess I will just treat it as a lab accident and creep into docking range in the future lol.
User avatar
Stormweaver
Posts: 3230
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Stormweaver »

Taleric wrote:Damn I think I found that bug or a play feature :(

I had a science station in orbit of Minmus fully loaded plus 10 reports/samples. A solar array probe was on the last leg of rendezvous and I think it loaded in during the probes time warp.

Lab and crew obliterated! I was so violent I had to read the debug to see what happened, nothing left.... Said it was all due to overheating.

Guess I will just treat it as a lab accident and creep into docking range in the future lol.
Hit alt-F12 to open the debug menu in-game, open the physics tab, go to the heat(?) tab and enable the heat readings in the menus.

SQUAD neglected to put any indiction of heat into the game alongside their thermal overhaul. As a result, heat will slowly bleed from high-tolerance parts to the rest of the ship and...well, eventually blow up. Confused the hell out of me when I lost my first few science-Jrs.
PatriotBob wrote:Damn it, I'm going to go eat pumpkin pie while I still think that it tastes good.
User avatar
kregoth
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by kregoth »

I have owned and played this game sense the only thing you could find in space was the mun, and there was no tracking station or a solar map. But I still crashed on the Mun, which was extremely rewarding and made me want to play more. I still love this game, I just wish they did better job on the career mode.

For the years of development this game went through though, you'd think by watching their playerbase they would have figured out how to make progression more rewarding. This game is a sandbox game, why the hell did they have a system that prevents the very nature of sandboxing? I dont want to be rewarded with numbers you dumbasses! I get it, they wanted to simulate an actual space agency, to bad they failed at making it "Fun" for the players.

The moment they mentioned making a tech tree, was when I knew they made a mistake. New parts should be unlocked through natural progression of gameplay aka Sandboxing. No need for a tech tree, let the player get new parts for just doing shit! Get your first rocket into a stable orbit, new parts! observed Goo on Duna? new parts. Loose a Kerbal on the Mun? You guessed it NEW PARTS! Actually reward the player for playing the game, and for failing at it! This also would have allowed the player more control on what direction they wanted to go in, and less save scumming "Sense you'd get new parts "better heat shields" after crashing your shit into Eve's atmosphere for the first time!"

Other than that, I still love this game. It's a game that I know i'll play on and off for many years to come. though I'll probably just stick with sandbox mode and mods.
FlowerChild wrote:My theory is that stupidity acts like an infectious organism on the net. Unless it's regularly pruned from your "garden", it will inevitably overwhelm it and kill off everything else.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

kregoth wrote: The moment they mentioned making a tech tree, was when I knew they made a mistake. New parts should be unlocked through natural progression of gameplay aka Sandboxing. No need for a tech tree, let the player get new parts for just doing shit! Get your first rocket into a stable orbit, new parts! observed Goo on Duna? new parts. Loose a Kerbal on the Mun? You guessed it NEW PARTS!
Well, going to have to disagree with you there kregoth, in a rather rare manner :)

The above sounds absolutely terrible to me. Would have been even less interesting to me than what's currently in career mode.

I think "sandbox" is used far too often these days as a design justification rather than simply as the descriptive label it started out as. To me, it's like saying "it's a shooter! Thus everything should be resolved through shooting stuff!" :)
User avatar
kregoth
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by kregoth »

FlowerChild wrote:Well, going to have to disagree with you there kregoth, in a rather rare manner :)

The above sounds absolutely terrible to me. Would have been even less interesting to me than what's currently in career mode.
It's better than farming for science points :P I wanted to feel like I'm experimenting with what I got and getting results for it. The RnD area had nothing to do with Research and Development, I wanted to feel like I was partaking in the research by helping with experiments need for the next development. instead it's just a depot where you spend points on.

They idea was just to have the player have a more active role for unlocking things and obtaining parts through research by doing experiments provided by RnD. and through just playing the game, like if a empty fuel tank "accidently" rammed into the Sol, well we would learn something wouldn't we? lol
FlowerChild wrote: I think "sandbox" is used far too often these days as a design justification rather than simply as the descriptive label it started out as. To me, it's like saying "it's a shooter! Thus everything should be resolved through shooting stuff!" :)
Haha I agree, I wasn't really sure how to reference what I was getting at. perhaps just free-form play? lol
FlowerChild wrote:My theory is that stupidity acts like an infectious organism on the net. Unless it's regularly pruned from your "garden", it will inevitably overwhelm it and kill off everything else.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

kregoth wrote: They idea was just to have the player have a more active role for unlocking things and obtaining parts through research by doing experiments provided by RnD. and through just playing the game, like if a empty fuel tank "accidently" rammed into the Sol, well we would learn something wouldn't we? lol
I can see what you're getting at, but at the same time I think having a free form system like that where the player would still feel a real sense of accomplishment for completing various milestones would be exceedingly difficult to pull off in KSP. Gating progression in a wide-open environment like KSP where everything is essentially possible right from the start is not something I could really see happening without substantial additional systems being added to the game, and I think gating of some form is really essential to give progression meaning.

Obviously with what I've done with BTSM, I think the game needs much tighter constraints on the earning and spending of science points to be more engaging (at least without a massive amount of additional development), so I think we're pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one.
Haha I agree, I wasn't really sure how to reference what I was getting at. perhaps just free-form play? lol
I've had a number of recent run-ins with people that use a name or genre or backstory (or "Kerbals!") to justify game design decisions that has made that kind of argument a personal pet-peeve of mine, so please don't take it personally that I feel obliged to point it out as an inherently flawed argument that has somehow gained far too much traction in gaming circles as of late ;)

I've seen it so much that I've essentially become habituated to face-palming each time. How people have come to believe that the label you have on something should determine what kind of contents you should be making to put in it, instead of the other way around, is a constant source of confusion for me...

"I have all these tasty blueberries with which to make jam!"

"But my jar says it's for strawberry jam"

"Can't we just change the label?"

"No...it's called 'STRAWBERRY jam', throw away the blueberries"

;)

It's like some odd logical short circuit where people forget that words are symbolic representations of concepts, instead of the other way around, and somehow that idea has gained common acceptance without anybody questioning the underlying flaw in it.
User avatar
kregoth
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by kregoth »

Haha I have it categorized in steam as a Space Simulator lol. I've never liked genre naming, I prefer when games tell me how the game works, rather than just saying it's a RTS with RPG elements. seems pretty constraining when you compare your game to others.

I haven't really messed with your mod much, other than doing a few launches enough to make orbit around kerbal and then a smash landing on the Mun. I did try getting the easy Kerbal science, which made me smile! I like what you did for adding life support, and deciding to use deadly reentry. Sadly I'm just against the idea that you need science "points" in the first place.
FlowerChild wrote:My theory is that stupidity acts like an infectious organism on the net. Unless it's regularly pruned from your "garden", it will inevitably overwhelm it and kill off everything else.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

kregoth wrote:Sadly I'm just against the idea that you need science "points" in the first place.
Well, until I see someone actually invest the time in implementing a better approach, I'll treat that as the farting in the wind that I usually refer to as "theoretical wankery" ;)

It's all well and good to have such theories man, but until you actually see how they play out in practice, there's really not much to support them. I can't think of a game that really works in the manner that you're describing, and I certainly don't see systems already in place within KSP that would lend themselves to making it happen. You might find that you're actually not such a fan if you were to put it together that way.
User avatar
kregoth
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by kregoth »

oh its theoretical wankery for sure, I doubt it something that could be done easily.

I wanted something more along the lines where doing certain experiments actually unlocked stuff that would fit what you're experimenting on. instead doing an experiment in Kerbal, gets me the same damn thing (though different amount) if I did it on Eve. Where I would rather have it so that when doing things on or around Eve that you get parts that help you more with Eve and other atmospheric bodies.

I wanted the game to feel like it was reacting to what I am doing, if the first thing I want to do is try and send a probe to Jool, than as I continue to get closer to that goal the game unlocks more pieces to help me reach that goal. Making it feel like the RnD building is working for me, rather than me working for it.

Other than that, I'm not sure how to theorize my idea anymore. though creating something like this is a lot more complex than a tech tree. And the only way I could think of making it sorta work, would to tie it all into the contract system, which wouldn't be ideal at all.
FlowerChild wrote:My theory is that stupidity acts like an infectious organism on the net. Unless it's regularly pruned from your "garden", it will inevitably overwhelm it and kill off everything else.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

kregoth wrote: Other than that, I'm not sure how to theorize my idea anymore. though creating something like this is a lot more complex than a tech tree. And the only way I could think of making it sorta work, would to tie it all into the contract system, which wouldn't be ideal at all.
Yeah, that's the thing: often times being more free form winds up resulting in more canned responses :)

The only way I could think of doing something like that, would be to basically have specific experiments tied to specific results/parts that you unlock as you use them, hence why I said I think you might find the results to be less fun than you anticipated.
User avatar
DaveYanakov
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:17 am

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by DaveYanakov »

If the Dead Parrots have taught me anything, skill and experience combined with a budget tighter than a whalebone corset will result in the greatest comedy of all time. The BTSM tech tree combined with the budget system as it stands results in a tremendous sense of accomplishment when you finally get past the hurdles and I would not want that to be tampered with.
Better is the enemy of Good
User avatar
kregoth
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by kregoth »

In case it wasn't clear, I have nothing against BTSM, I think it's brilliant and I plan to give it a full play through once I actually have time to(I'm kinda homeless ATM). It's a lot closer to what I wanted out of career, as it has far better challenge and decision making.
FlowerChild wrote:My theory is that stupidity acts like an infectious organism on the net. Unless it's regularly pruned from your "garden", it will inevitably overwhelm it and kill off everything else.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

kregoth wrote:In case it wasn't clear, I have nothing against BTSM, I think it's brilliant and I plan to give it a full play through once I actually have time to(I'm kinda homeless ATM). It's a lot closer to what I wanted out of career, as it has far better challenge and decision making.
Like I said above, please do not take any of that personally man. I have a lot of respect for you and we usually agree on a wide range of topics.

You just happened to stumble into one that I've been been arguing with folks about for a long time now, so my response was more along the lines of a general rant rather than a specific response :)

I think the point Dave was making above is that budgetary constraints, particularly in the newest experimental "Zeta" builds that I've been putting out which incorporate the building upgrades now in KSP (couldn't do it in 0.9 as that aspect wasn't really open to modding), add a lot to the game and the overall progression, which I heartily agree with. It's made the progression MUCH more interesting and multifaceted, but I still have a lot of work to do in tweaking the specific parameters to get it just right.

If you get a chance to try it out again at some point (sorry to hear about your situation), I think you'll be surprised at how much things have changed overall (more robust contract integration being another aspect of that, and the way I've worked the new aero system into the tree being another).
User avatar
dawnraider
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:00 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by dawnraider »

I haven't played KSP since something like .24 (!), I really need to get back into it. I've followed development of KSP loosely though not really BTSM at all, though it sounds like I definitely need to have another look. I think what Dave mentioned with budgets (which weren't a thing when I last played) will help a lot with my enjoyment of the game. There weren't really many constraints (other than the tech tree itself) on progression then, which kind of made the game a bit dull.
Come join us on discord! https://discord.gg/fhMK5kx
Get the Deco Addon here!
Get the Better Terrain Addon here!
Get the Vanilla Mix TP here!
Get the Conquest TP here!
User avatar
Taleric
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:37 pm
Location: Okinawa

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by Taleric »

Finally repaired my PC and got to the mining portion of the tech tree.

(If you have two video cards and they are physically bridged beyond the mother board mind their connection. I believe mine became corrupted and it took a long time troubleshooting through chrashing freezes and power issues to finally ID I should just remove the connection.)

On KSP's mining portion it is pretty power intensive and Minmus has very poor yields. If I were playing BTSM or other mods it would be easy to kill the crew/probe due to power loss.

For what KSP 1.0 is I believe the ore features are well balanced. The optimization pass has been a blessing for my PC performance.

All I have left are the RAPIER engines to play with and the various crazy missions. The missions could definitely yield countless game hours to tackle the far flung ones.

I have to say KSP is up with MC in terms of game play and modding value. Despite some missed potential two incredible games in the span of 5 years is not bad lol.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: Kerbal Space Program 1.0

Post by FlowerChild »

Taleric wrote: For what KSP 1.0 is I believe the ore features are well balanced.
I actually believe it to be relatively useless for anything practical, which is something I've gone on at length about in the BTSM thread over on the KSP forums, so I won't repeat all that here ;)

The gist of it is that the ore/resource system sounds cool, but I don't think it will really get used for any practical in-game reason given the overhead involved. I've run into similar problem with the resource system in BTSM in the past, and the one currently in stock is actually more player-time consuming to make use of.

So yeah, this is actually one of those rare instances where I believe a stock feature is too hard to make use of :)
Post Reply