Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kerbal Space Program 1.0 Released After 4 Years of Development

Posted by Soulskill on from the onward-and-upward dept.

hampton2600 writes: The beloved space simulator game Kerbal Space Program has just hit version 1.0 after four years in development. It has risen to prominence in public beta, but the full release brings a host of new features: "The flight model has had a complete overhaul, meaning the lift is now calculated correctly to all lift-generating parts, which includes lifting bodies. The drag simulation has also been completely revised, and uses automatically pre-calculated data based on the each part’s geometry, to be finally applied based on not just the orientation of parts in flight, but also taking other parts into consideration. ... A new heating simulation has been implemented together with the improved aerodynamics. Now, not only temperature but also energy flux is considered when making heat calculations, meaning radiative, conductive, and convective heating and cooling are all simulated and all parts have their individual thermal properties. Parts will emit a blackbody radiation glow if they get hot enough." To the mun!

99 comments

  1. First launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    n/t

    1. Re:First launch by TechnicalFool · · Score: 1

      721MB?
      "If you install games to your systemdrive, it may be necessary to run this game with admin privileges instead."
      Be honest, what else has been packaged with that torrent? Because that's larger than the genuine zip file, and I've been running KSP from drive C: since forever.

      --
      09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
  2. Awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everything that I know about orbital dynamics, I learned from KSP. Thank you!

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Awesome! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obligatory : https://xkcd.com/1356/

    2. Re:Awesome! by N!k0N · · Score: 4, Informative

      also, this -- https://xkcd.com/1244/

    3. Re:Awesome! by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love how true that all is. You have Musk making Kerbal references in his tweets. I've seen engineers from SpaceX doing likewise. I was once chatting with a researcher working on a Titan probe concept and he responded at one point with something like, "Well, like what one experiences on Eve in Kerbal Space Program...."

      The development team really should be proud.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    4. Re:Awesome! by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I thought Kerbal was missing N-Body mechanics

    5. Re:Awesome! by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      I thought Kerbal was missing N-Body mechanics

      That's probably why I ask questions like this: http://physics.stackexchange.c...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to help the dev team with the mathematical side, I'm sure they would be grateful.

    7. Re:Awesome! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Its not missing, its intentionally ignored for the sake of gameplay. Getting normal gamers up to speed on stable orbits with 2 body physics induces enough rage quits. The ability to easily have stable orbits is a bit more important than the neat tricks you can do with a better gravitational model.

      I would love to be able to pull off tricky low energy tranfers and use multi-body gravitation to send ships on slow tours of the solar system for very little fuel costs, or put a satelite in a halo orbit.... fun stuff but.... nothing that I would want to trade stable orbits for.... the simplified physics makes it easier to get to a point where you understand it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:Awesome! by TechnicalFool · · Score: 1

      Eggrobin's WIP mod "Principia" implements N-body mechanics. It's pretty interesting, but also underlines why 2-body patched conics are a fine compromise for a game.

      Forum thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogra...

      For the latest build, lurk around #principia on Espernet and ask Egg when he's awake.

      --
      09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0
  3. Brilliant! by Skidborg · · Score: 1

    Now I just need all my mods to update for compatibility.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    1. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go hardcore KSP, play without mods!

    2. Re:Brilliant! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Hardcore is without mods? Lol! Depends on your mods man.

      I was playing since before science mode existed so, by the time career came out, I found I could just monkey stomp the tech tree. I tend to run mods which add new game mechanics that add challenge. For example, Tac Life Support which means kerbals need supply of water, food, and oxygen and electricity.... that is one of the few things that kept me from early moon missions (solar panels are not available right away).

      Construction time to add ship build time mechanics, Deadly Reentry for heating effects (might be obsolete now, at least partially), FAR for better aero (I hear its getting even better), RemoteTek to simulate antena range and signal delay, scansat for mapping/scanning features, cacteye for telescopes, realchute for better parachutes, stage recovery, KIDS to make thrust/throttle/ISP/altitude relationships to work more correctly (default KSP makes fuel consumption vary with atmospheric pressure instead of thrust, so throttle input relates to thrust not fuel usage, KIDS has options to fix that) ....then once it is hardcore and good top it all off with Astronomer's visual pack to get clouds, auroras, dust storms, etc to make it real pretty.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Brilliant! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Actually, hardcore is WITH mods. If you think you have done everything in KSP and it's too easy, try Realism Overhaul. I dare you. A realistic representation of our solar system (including a real sized "Earth" rather than the 1/5th or so of the stock one), engines that don't throttle, engines that only ignite once, various different fuel systems, far weaker (i.e. more realistic) solar panels, more realistic "reaction wheels" for attitude control, Life Support (along with its nasty side effects of weight and, well, being out of air kinda sucks), radio signal travel time and associated delay for unmanned missions (and if you want to have a burn on the other side of the planet, you better either have a relay network running or have some kind of programmable board computer to do it, for you will not be sending any signals there)...

      If you think stock is "hard mode", you ain't seen nothing yet. KSP has one of the most active, most awesome modding communities of any game I ever have put my eyes on. There is literally a mod for anything you might want to have in the game.

      Yes, there's even a coffee maker.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Stoners call it by larpon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Herbal Space Program

    1. Re: Stoners call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am intrigued by your so called gerbil space program, please go on.

    2. Re: Stoners call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you say "Purple Space Program" ?

    3. Re: Stoners call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, nevermind, I'll eat this sunflower seed instead...

    4. Re:Stoners call it by AlCapwn · · Score: 1

      Reddit is over here

  5. Does it run on Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardyharhar!

    1. Re:Does it run on Windows? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      Only the x86 version for now. The x64 version has actually been pulled from 1.0 because it doesn't.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    2. Re:Does it run on Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You remind me of this person

      I make my living off the evening news
      Just give me something
      Something I can use
      People love it when you lose
      They love dirty laundry

      Well I could have been an actor
      But I wound up here
      I just have to look good
      I don't have to be clear
      Come and whisper in my ear
      Give us dirty laundry

      We got the bubble headed bleached blonde
      Comes on at five
      She can tell you about the plane crash
      With a gleam in her eye
      It's interesting when people die
      Give us dirty laundry

      Yeah, her.

    3. Re:Does it run on Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They remind you of Don Henley?

  6. I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Kunedog · · Score: 0

    While this feels a bit like a slashvertisement, I'll let it slide for a game this good.

    1. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by hab136 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Steam version is also DRM free; Steam is just used as a downloader. Once downloaded you can move it to another directory or even another computer, and even uninstall Steam.

      You could always buy directly from Squad as well and just download a ZIP file.

      KSP has never had DRM.

    2. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      You don't archive games by storing the installation folders. GOG gives you the full independent installer which is the proper way.

    3. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Whats the difference? I let steam update it, and then copy it off to another directory for mod installs so I can keep a pristine copy around. Sometimes I make two copies so I can run different mod sets.

      I see no issue here, plus I have steam already so why go anywhere else if I already use it? Don't really need an installer.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0

      Steam goes away, or changes their policies, or stops supporting this game. Your machine crashes. What then?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing then. He already copied it all. Pay attention.

    6. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOG quits business, your machine burns, what then?

      Grow the fuck up.

    7. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moon comes crashing to earth, the sun explodes and the spark of life on earth is extinguished, but I downloaded from GoG so no worries!

      None of your scenarios are all that likely, but I have already backed up the installs for all of my games, in fact that's a feature of Steam. So back to the drawingboard for you to come up with another argument on why steam bad.

    8. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      They stop making floppy disks, bugs eat your manuals, your hard drive crashes. Oh no!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Megane · · Score: 4, Funny

      The moon comes crashing to earth, the sun explodes and the spark of life on earth is extinguished

      Then restore from the last save and add more struts.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    10. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You don't archive games by storing the installation folders.

      Maybe you don't, but I do, when they don't depend on registry entries. I got tired of installing Civ and AlphaC on every build via the installer, then the official patches, then the unofficial patches, so I just 7z-exe'd the directories.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Adriax · · Score: 2

      Human sacrifices! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    12. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      If there's no registry crap, then all the installer is doing is inflating files into a folder. Who cares if it's InstallShield or 7Zip doing it?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Right, but you still have to do the research if the game has "registry crap". It's more relaxing to just have the installer take care of all that.

    14. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Crap, my disk 4 of The Humans won't read....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0

      No Steam, no backups. Try installing that on a new PC without Steam.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Man, did 1 AC post all 3 in an effort to start a negative diatribe?

      I downloaded the installer from GoG, so I can install as many times as I want. The Steam one isn't an installer. So, you have your game directories backed up - yay for you. You're still running from the original install. Pay attention and read the GPP for all that it says. And do try to "install" that backup to a new PC without Steam.

      Note, I do have some Steam stuff, but if I can get it on GoG vs Steam, GoG always FTW. Hell, I'll get it on GoG even if I have it on Steam, because then I can make an actual physical copy that is installable whenever and wherever I want.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Can't you buy it anymore directly from them? Back when I got it there was no Steam or GOG support (and the snow was THIS high and we had to walk uphill both ways, and without shoes...)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      None of your scenarios are all that likely

      It really depends what timescale you look at.

      Is steam likely to go away in the next few years? no
      Is steam likely to go away in the next few decades? far more likely

      I have already backed up the installs for all of my games, in fact that's a feature of Steam

      "backups" made with the steam backup tool require steam to restore and installing steam on a new machine requires a connection to the steam servers. AIUI even on the same machine offline mode has a limited duration and can be unreliable. So all steam "backups" really do is save you download time they don't save you if steam goes away.

      The other option is to copy the installation directory manually. That may work for some games but for others it's likely to fail either because of steam dependencies or because the application needs installation procedures beyond simply copying the files from the games directory. Steam doesn't provide any information on which games this procedure will work for, so the only way to find out is to test (and make sure you test on a clean install)

      gog OTOH provide standlone installers as their default option.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    19. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we all know you haven't tried.

      For many games it is relatively simple to get the game installed without steam using the steam backup tools. Now if it is a game with DRM then your SOL but then if you used GoG you either wouldn't have DRMed games, or you would be in the same boat.

      Again get a better argument, cause yours fails hard.

    20. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try installing that on a new PC without Steam.

      I have, and it works fine. Either the installer from GoG is just a self-extracting executable and nothing more, or whatever registry twiddling it does is not needed for the game to run fine.

    21. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

      Even if there is registry crap, can't 2 registry exports and diff take care of that? Just run the diff'd registry hunk and you should be golden.

      The only other thing to watch out for is those shared libraries, like VC, VC++, MFC42, DirectX 9.0c (June / July / etc...) and so on that are added by the installer, and maybe compatibility settings, such as when the game requires admin. Might be a good idea to backup what the MS DirectX WebInstaller installs, just to be on the safe side.

    22. Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free by Damarkus13 · · Score: 1

      And do try to "install" that backup to a new PC without Steam.

      You just copy the directory over and it runs just fine. You can even package the game directory up in your own executable zip file, if you absolutely must have an "installer".

      DRM on Steam has always been optional.

  7. I love KSP, but sometimes... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Now, not only temperature but also energy flux is considered when making heat calculations, meaning radiative, conductive, and convective heating and cooling are all simulated and all parts have their individual thermal properties."

    But, in typical Squad fashion, they gave us the ability to overheat - but failed to give us the ability to cool off.

    They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.

    Seriously, I love KSP - but the developers don't always think through the consequences of their design decisions. With the 1.0 update to the aerodynamics and engine performance, I'll no longer be recommending it to friends. The part of the game you spend the least amount of time doing (launching into Kerbin orbit) has now become a wearying slog with a steep learning curve and a roadblock to the fun parts of the game.

    1. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 2

      I would respectfully disagree. The old "aerodynamics" was only bearable because people ignored it completely, building oversized rockets with TWRs in excess of 3-4 and launching into space at ridiculous speeds. SSTOs are no longer a dead concept either, for example.

    2. Re: I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the Kerbals's still immediately flip upside down when doing EVAs? That bug is very annoying.

      Anyhow, I like the game, but the graphics engine the game is developed in is a pig. It could be so much better...

    3. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That isn't even the main problem. The main problem is they made massive changes to the game *as* the 1.0 release. Everything else in KSP has had months of testing (perhaps even years) and they change fundamental things like the aerodynamics model without letting it be tested by the established community?

      The last beta should be identical, or really close to, the first production release. If it isn't, you're doing it wrong!

    4. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit the sheer complexity of the paid version is what's keeping me away from paying anything near full price. The demo was fairly simple - attach a stupid amount of boosters to a nose cone and hope for the best, but recently i've been watching lets plays and it seems to be far more complicated to do similar things and i'm just not sure i'll be on the right side of fun vs frustration.

    5. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, the old aerodynamics was pretty horrible. Add a nosecone to your blunt-tipped rocket and it increases the drag? What kind of logic is that? It needed to be fixed.

      There's a couple balance issues I'd like to see fixed, mind you. For example, it's possible to make small solar ion-powered aircraft in Kerbal. But only small ones, because all of the ion engines available are tiny, and all of the fixed solar panels are tiny, so while technically it's possible to make bigger craft, the necessary part spam makes the game unplayable. Fuel for ion engines is also absurdly and unrealistically expensive for no obvious reason. Yet solar panels and RTGs produce orders of magnitude more power than they should for a given size, if ion engine power to thrust ratios for a given ISP are used as the baseline.

      Drop xenon costs, tweak power production / consumption for existing hardware, and add in nuclear reactor power sources (after all, they have nuclear rockets, we know kerbals understand nuclear physics), and and you could balance that out pretty well in terms of both gameplay and at least slightly more approaching realism.

      (Note that one may be tempted to say that the ion thrusters are far too high power, but at least that's plausible if we assume that they're MPD thrusters with some type of advanced cooling system - you can get crazy power to weight ratios (by ion standards) out of MPD thrusters if you could somehow supply them many megawatts of power and dissipate all the waste heat - they manage it in pulsed mode, at least. But Kerbal's solar panel area-to-thrust ratios at the given ISP are not even close to being compliant with the laws of physics)

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    6. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything else in KSP has had months of testing (perhaps even years) and they change fundamental things like the aerodynamics model without letting it be tested by the established community?

      But isn't that so in the Kerbal spirit? ;) Hmm, what's the coding equivalent of forgetting a ladder? :)

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
    7. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But, in typical Squad fashion, they gave us the ability to overheat - but failed to give us the ability to cool off.

      Parts act as blackbody radiators and will cool off just like any object would.

      Solar panels also now act as passive radiators (source) so they now have dual functionality.

      They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.

      I dare say the new model makes it *easier* to get a rocket or space plane flying. Too easy, actually... my rockets and planes from 0.90 are all way too fast and destroy themselves much faster than they used to. I haven't had time to really dig into the new mechanics but so far it's promising that my 2000+ ton rockets might actually fair better than before!
      =Smidge=

    8. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Terwin · · Score: 1

      I have to admit the sheer complexity of the paid version is what's keeping me away from paying anything near full price. The demo was fairly simple - attach a stupid amount of boosters to a nose cone and hope for the best, but recently i've been watching lets plays and it seems to be far more complicated to do similar things and i'm just not sure i'll be on the right side of fun vs frustration.

      I suppose it depends on how you play.
      If you start out in career mode(restricted funds and parts) with hard settings(no revert to launch/hangar for when things go wrong) and just start experimenting, you may well get frustrated if you ignore the contracts(income source) and keep running out of funds.

      On the other hand, if you start out with the sandbox mode(no limits on funds or parts) and get the feel of what works and what does not, you should enjoy the game much more.

      Alternately you could start in science mode(unlimited funds, but you need to collect science to unlock advanced parts), to first learn the basics then add complexity as you add in new parts.

      Also, there are quite a few players who have various tutorials and such on youtube and there should shortly be new ones for the new version. (search youtube for Scott Manley if you want to see plenty of tutorials from a seriously capable player)

      If you enjoy fireworks, you may just find yourself making deliberately bad design decisions to see how spectacularly they blow up... (recommend you use sandbox mode for this)

      Finally, if there is anything you do not care for or would like to change in the game, 'there's a mod for that.' Personally I like Kerbal Engineer Redux(gives you calculated thrust-to-weight and delta-v per stage both while building and while flying as well as many additional useful details like altitude above terrain and how much higher or lower you would need to be to do a vertical 'suicide burn' to get to 0 altitude and 0 vertical velocity at the same time), and Stage Recovery(in career mode it gives you a partial refund for parts that would survive landing when they leave the physics bubble)

    9. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      [quote=DerekLyons]They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.[/quote]

      This kind of thought is the same as the people who all raged and said they will never play minecraft ever ever again if they make torches run out.

      I've played it from the start and the most recent flight models are really cool and impressive. I thought they were a lot more fun. I'm sure there will be a mod to make the game easier to you but really, it feels like this is new generation it must award me 5 stars and say Good job! You're the best! Or else people won't play with it.

      Generation Megaman is too hard.

    10. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      Eh? You haven't heard of FAR? That thing was an essential mod for a long while now. Squad simply officialized it, as far as I know.

    11. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Talderas · · Score: 2

      my rockets and planes from 0.90 are all way too fast and destroy themselves much faster than they used to.

      Note the implication that prior to 0.90 his rockets still destroyed themselves.... just in 3 minutes rather than 2.5 minutes.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    12. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of thought is the same as the people who all raged and said they will never play minecraft ever ever again if they make torches run out.

      No, it's not. If they implement a better aerodynamic model in KSP I might have to learn the new physics but in the long run I'll have a better experience (the 0.90 aerodynamic model sucked, building working planes was a frustrating and overall horrible experience). If torches run out in Minecraft they'll be forcing us to spend more and more time re-lighting the areas we control, which is boring as hell. The longer you play, the more areas you need to have well-lit, the more % of your game you need to spend replacing torches. So no, it's not at all the same thing. Making a game more fun versus making a game wasting more of your play time... totally different things.

    13. Re: I love KSP, but sometimes... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Modding is the answer. Take a look at the "universe replacer" (google for images).

      Space has never looked this awesome.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But, in typical Squad fashion, they gave us the ability to overheat - but failed to give us the ability to cool off.

      Parts act as blackbody radiators and will cool off just like any object would.

      True - but making parts radiators aren't the same as giving us the ability to add radiators. Players shouldn't have to spam passive radiators instead of being able to add (much more efficient) active radiators.

    15. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      You might be over-estimating the effect heat actually has, the actual sources of heat or the rate at which it builds up.

      I know i haven't had sufficient opportunity to test things out for myself yet, but it really does not seem like heat is really a factor outside of atmospheric effects.
      =Smidge=

    16. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I haven't fully tested either, but heat buildup is reported as being a real problem for LV-N's.

      Other than that, if heat doesn't have the ability to cause problems, then it's just eating CPU cycles to no good end - and KSP is already compute bound.

    17. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      There's definitely a time investment and the frustration level can be really high. It can be several aggravating hours to do some complicated things, like "intercept an asteroid that's not passing particularly close, point it back at your home planet and put it in a stable orbit". But there's always easier ways to do things and tricks that make complicated things easier, even without mods. Of course sometimes the answer is to just give up and redesign your ship, or send two ships instead of one.

      Tearing your hair our and then finally succeeding is a pretty nice feeling but it's definitely one that I have less time for with a fulltime job, and I can't imagine playing KSP once I have kids (until they're old enough to start learning orbital mechanics...so like, 6).

      All that said...some parts of the game are still relatively easy. You can have a hell of a lot of fun with strapping a lot of boosters on and hoping for the best, and you can land on the Mun without a full, deep understanding of what you're doing. Kind of like how you can play adventure games/RPGs without going for 100% completion, I think you can probably get your money's worth without blowing a bunch of time and anger on the hard parts of Kerbal, and without even touching the (excellent) mod scene.

    18. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it did get a bit more complicated; think of it this way: Your friends don't necessarily have to play THE latest version. Just tell them to play an old version, and if they get interested enough in rocket science, they can upgrade (assuming of course that you can download the older versions. I've personally never tried to).

    19. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, not only temperature but also energy flux is considered when making heat calculations, meaning radiative, conductive, and convective heating and cooling are all simulated and all parts have their individual thermal properties."

      But, in typical Squad fashion, they gave us the ability to overheat - but failed to give us the ability to cool off.

      They also gave us a more advanced (and accurate) aerodynamics and engine performance model - but at the cost of the game's much vaunted simplicity and user friendliness.

      Seriously, I love KSP - but the developers don't always think through the consequences of their design decisions. With the 1.0 update to the aerodynamics and engine performance, I'll no longer be recommending it to friends. The part of the game you spend the least amount of time doing (launching into Kerbin orbit) has now become a wearying slog with a steep learning curve and a roadblock to the fun parts of the game.

      Really? I had no idea. Considering that I've been playing this a bit, I find it amazing that I've never really had to worry about temperatures.

    20. Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about the rest of you but the new aerodynamics are still very stable compared to FAR. There you had to watch how you built. With v 1.0.2 I can launch a long rocket and have it tumble if I don't have aerodynamic stability but it will NOT break apart like the real ones do. It is a small concern because getting into orbit is still as easy as pie. I am waiting for the game to add the option to turn on REAL aerodynamic effects.

      As for entering. With ver 1.0.2 I still have not been able to get a spacecraft to burn up. Reentry is still easy as sin, even with the heating control set to 120%

      Get with it Squad. Add some real challenge, not just pretty lights.

  8. The End of Early Access by Xharlie · · Score: 1

    Thus ends the single known example of Early Access done properly. Truly, this was a bitter-sweet moment in gaming history.

    1. Re:The End of Early Access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Just because you didn't play other games, doesn't mean that this didn't happen before.
      Check Assetto Corsa.

  9. No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you RTFA, and then click for their main page... http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/ ...then you get sound. Seriously, no one complaining about that but me?

    1. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, no one complaining about that but me?

      Well, this is Slashdot .... people use NoScript around here.

      Sounds? Forced Ads? I have not seen any of it in a long time.

    2. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 0

      If you RTFA, and then click for their main page... http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.co... ...then you get sound. Seriously, no one complaining about that but me?

      For me, it's the fact the graphics still look crap. Not interested in purchasing still.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, me too. I wish the games industry would go back to the stagnant iterations of the same game with ever-shinier graphics that characterized it throughout the last decade. All this crowdsourcing indie stuff is bullshit. Like Minecraft. What the hell is that? I mean I know you can build pretty much anything you can imagine inside it, but 16x16 textures on meter cubes? What the actual fuck?

      And while I'm on the subject, what is up with this non-linear emergent gameplay wank? Who the hell has time for that? I just want to be led by the hand through a sequence of pretty levels. Is that really too much to ask? Sandboxes are for kids.

      Just give me my Call of Battlefield and stop confusing me with all this new shit.

    4. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I realize your post is intended as a troll somewhat.

      I don't know, for me it's about games like Ori and the Blind Forest or Grand Theft Auto V (on ultra). Good game play, good graphics, good fun.

      Like Minecraft. What the hell is that?

      It was a game that was promised to be a fully featured RPG and originally based on opensource code, then became a derivative which was created without a clean room implementation, which would still make the new code subject to the opensource license it fails to adhere to and genuinely it's popularity is not based on the base game at all, but the massive modding community.

      but 16x16 textures on meter cubes? What the actual fuck?

      Honestly, it just looks shit to me even on ultra settings and mods to provide higher resolution textures mods.

      And while I'm on the subject, what is up with this non-linear emergent gameplay wank?

      I have to admit, I frequently find that storylines aren't as in depth as linear story progression. On the other hand, some games have noticeably less fluff because of this.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:No autoplay complaint? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Use a real browser.

      One that forces you to click-to-play any plugin (option in Chrome, for instance).

      It's probably the Twitch one that's playing for you, on that page.

    6. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I want a game I get a game. If I want beautifull graphics and storyline I see a movie. Kerbal has nice graphics. It's a matter of taste. Personally I don't like GTAs style at all. Ori is nice though. Linear levels and "hit X to proceed" gameplay simply sucks balls. It's either sandbox or an actual GAME, where you can also lose. Where you have to have some type of skill to do something. Interactive movies should be stripped of the "game" status and sold as interactive movies.

    7. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize your post is intended as a troll somewhat.

      GP is not trolling, he is just sarcastic.

    8. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Kerbal has nice graphics

      No, it really doesn't. I'm someone who spent a lot of time developing tech that made use of normal, specular maps, generated 3d terrain procedurally etc. As such, I have acquired an eye for numerous details. I can unfortunately very quickly identify poor meshes, poor use of lighting, poor use of shaders etc. Calling such things 'nice graphics' seems a bit of a stretch to me.

      It's a matter of taste.

      No doubt, my particular taste tends to be good graphics mixed in with good game play and/or storyline.

      Going back to my original point, I won't buy this product because the graphical quality does not meet my expectations in a game.

      I am perfectly fine not being their target audience, however that means they have to be perfectly fine with not receiving my money or interest. Which they probably are because they seem to be making a good chunk of money at the moment.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    9. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a game that was promised to be a fully featured RPG

      No, it was promised to incorporate elements of RPG, adventuring and exploration... and they did.

      and originally based on opensource code

      What the actual FUCK have you been reading? The problem with OSS licenses comes from the mod community who decopiled the game, extended it and licensed the extensions under OSS licenses (which was a stupid move; you can't put your license on code you don't own). The game was NEVER EVER based on opensource code or anything similar. Please, get your shit together.

      it's popularity is not based on the base game at all, but the massive modding community

      I never used a mod and, with few exceptions, none of my acquaintances have ever used one (the few exceptions tried some minigames and that's all). Also, PlayStation and XBox versions, massively popular, can't be modded. So, again... pull your head out of your butt.

    10. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Wrong answer. Allow me to correct:

      Well, this is Slashdot... nobody RTFA.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The problem with OSS licenses comes from the mod community who decopiled the game

      That's something else, unrelated to how Infiniminer sources were used with the first variant of Minecraft.

      I never used a mod

      I don't care.

      Also, PlayStation and XBox versions, massively popular, can't be modded.

      True. But this is unrelated to Minecraft's initial rise to popularity.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    12. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a game, not a fucking painting. That's a pathetic reason not to play something.

    13. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      It's a game

      Indeed, and I don't like playing games that look like shit.

      That's a pathetic reason not to play something.

      I am not paying for something that looks like shit, nor do I want to play something that looks like shit.

      I don't get why people like you think the fact I don't want to do something I don't like is some how owed because you've got lower standards.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's something else, unrelated to how Infiniminer sources were used with the first variant of Minecraft.

      Infiniminer sources were never used in any version of Minecraft (it's not even written in the same programming language) so, again, I don't know were you got it was based on OSS. It wasn't.

      True. But this is unrelated to Minecraft's initial rise to popularity.

      The initial rise to popularity came BEFORE the modding community decided to reverse-engineer the game and add a mod system. Mods are great and there's (used to be, at least) an active community of modders. The community of people who play without mods is way bigger.

      You have a twisted vision of the history of Minecraft, as if you got your information from bits and pieces of half-read bad-written articles and forum posts. That's not a basis for any kind of opinion, especially an opinion as specific as the one in your previous post. Your sources are wrong, your opinion makes no sense.

    15. Re:No autoplay complaint? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thank you for the new insight and correcting my misinformation.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  10. Come on! by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not rocket science ... oh, wait ...

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  11. Fly Safe! by szyzyg · · Score: 1

    It's Been an amazing ride.

  12. Dang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just built my first halfway decent space station, got a quad nuclear rocket transfer vehicle docked to it and was preparing to outfit it with probes and landers for a round trip to one of the gas giants for a multi-planetary expedition. Oh well it'll be worth having to start over if I get some decent flight dynamics. Every aircraft I've ever built has been un-flyable at some point in its flight profile for no apparent reason and some of my rocket designs have had to have some "interesting" modifications to make them behave.

    1. Re:Dang by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      KSP has had this unique property among the early access games I own, that the early game feels like the most fun part. I'm sure opinions differ but hey, it's fun to see how fast I can get a space program off the ground with whatever new features there are.

  13. That was done on purpose. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Note that one may be tempted to say that the ion thrusters are far too high power

    Temptation is not needed to tell the truth - ion thrusters are deliberately overpowered. They even received a buff a version or two back.

    1. Re:That was done on purpose. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest version cut them back to their previous values, and then further made them utter garbage in atmosphere.

    2. Re:That was done on purpose. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Why? It's not like people were using ion thrusters too much. Most people don't want to use them because you can't accelerate the game much with them on (which is IMHO pretty stupid, they could just treat the ion thrusters as a 10x more powerful thrust source and then only simulate physics on one frame out of 10 or similar... they're so low thrust that even that would be less likely to destabilize the simulation than nuclear rockets on physics time warp) (in that regard, I don't know why time warping doesn't just self-limit itself based on the amount of forces being applied to the craft... ). And the cost of the fuel is just an absurdity, it's neither realistic nor useful toward balancing gameplay.

      If there's anything that needs to be nerfed it's the nuclear rockets, almost everyone uses them and they make the game far, far easier. I know it's hard to make a "realistic" nuclear rocket design with real world-ish thrust/isp figures that's not overpowered for the game; the reason they're not used in the real world isn't because of weaknesses in that regard, but because they're difficult to make and the public is afraid of them. So why not make that their weakness in the game? You could even up their atmospheric Isp and maybe thrust to a more realistic value... but make it so that for every second the rocket is being used, there's a tiny risk of a runaway criticality incident in the reactor (come on, we know how kerbals cut corners on engineering ;) ) that could lead to the explosion of the engine. That risk would deter some players from using them, while others would consider it an acceptable riskto the mission if low enough (perhaps one in every 10 spacecraft you send to Mun explodes in transit ;) ), and still others would design spacecraft to be able to handle the loss of engines via isolation, redundancy, etc.

      I think it'd be good for both gameplay and realism - "Here's awesome cutting edge technology that we haven't quiiiiite worked out the bugs on!". Totally in the Kerbal spirit.

      --
      "...but Republicans plan to come back with a new plan, where they just slash the tires on all the ambulances."
  14. Clueless assumptions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    it feels like this is new generation it must award me 5 stars and say Good job! You're the best! Or else people won't play with it.

    I'm 52 years old - quite a bit older than the modern "everyone gets a gold star" generation.

    1. Re:Clueless assumptions by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      What I said may not fully apply to you, simply as you aren't the gold star generation, but I'm seeing this come up frequently from that gen for not just KSP.

      You might be part of the older crowd but I wonder if you were part of the dial up age when online gaming first brokered, or played games before that. Games were actually hard back then.

      Part of the problem now is regardless of generation, internet is common place, you don't have to know anything that requires thinking to get games installed and configured anymore. This is allowing a different breed of people into a world that used to be reserved for the more intellectual on the problem solving side, it was full of challenges and people accepted them.

      If some drag effects and heat re-entry make the game a pile of shit you wouldn't recommend to friends, that says something.

      If you said you'd rather the game wasn't that hard for yourself, that you may mod it to be easier for you, or would have liked an option for the new flight system or old, I could respect that.

      But dismissing the game as immediately too hard not fun any more, you're not leaving a lot of space to accept your issue beyond someone who won't play anything harder than angry birds.

      There's a large group of people who behave that way and really stifle some cool innovations from indy developers. Usually I find it's often the children, teenagers that mostly make up this crowd.

  15. congratulations on the initial release of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orbiter for Dummies ;) GG, it's a great game.. I just like my sims a little simmier!

    1. Re:congratulations on the initial release of... by Sowelu · · Score: 2

      So add a few mods that put more displays and controls inside the IVA screen (sitting in the cockpit), tack some unreliable cameras to the outside of your craft, and feel the joy of flying a ship by squinting at computer monitors inside your computer monitor. Docking maneuvers are even hairier than normal, though if you manage to shear off a camera somehow, I guess you always have the old fallback of "send someone outside on EVA and have them radio you that you need to shift left a couple of centimeters". Reentry is exciting because all you have is flames visible through your window (if you have a window), your altitude and descent gauge, and a little icon of your ship over a topo map.