[QUOTE]More news now:
I spent the better part of yesterday's afternoon and this morning working on the seat assignment system for the crews. That bit isn't really EVA territory, I know, but it needed to get done now, because this is where the EVA and IVA systems meet. It's also the base of the crew transfer system.
So, what does this mean exactly? In a nutshell, it is now possible to have Kerbals leave the command pod on EVA, leaving their seat available. When they return, they take the first seat that's not taken already, meaning if only a single Kerbal leaves the ship, he'll return to his current position.
I also rewrote some of the logic that binds parts to their internal space representations, so that now having an internal space model is optional, even if the part is able to carry crew. If no internal model is defined, the crew portraits simply won't show up, as is the case with Kerbals on EVA now. The cool thing about this, is that we now have the option to add first-person EVAs, using the IVA system. The internal space mesh for an EVA model could be the inside of the helmet. It's all coming together in a very nice full-circle-like way. I like that very much.
So, now that the Kerbals can leave the ship, walk (or float (or clamber)) around, and board ships again, I think we can safely say EVAs are officially implemented in the game.
Goes without saying though, that really doesn't mean we're finished. There are still a heap of issues, large and small, to get through... The low-gravity walk system isn't finished, there is still no fuel system for the EVAPack, nor any thruster effects or sounds, the game needs to display UI indications for things like not being able to board when a craft is full, or not being able to leave if the airlock is obstructed, things like that. They're all relatively trivial now, but they will still take time to get implemented.
In any case, we're making good, solid progress here, and I'm very happy with what we have. This could be one of the most interesting updates yet.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
Btw, will the kerbals be able to swim in water ? Because I can't remember seeing anything about that.
Yes.
Also by the way things are shaping up I think internal experimental releases might go some time next week, with full release in maybe 2 weeks.
I kinda pictured the crew system for KSP to be like Men of War.
There if you have one guy in a tank and you're driving it, he's in the driver's seat, but while doing that you can't operate any of the other systems because he's occupied with driving. But when you stop and go to use the turret he'll automatically go to the gunner's seat and then you can't drive it till you stop using the turret. Same for other systems like reloading, can't rotate the turret while reloading the gun because he's busy.
Blatantly stolen from SA user Illectro (AKA szyzyg on Youtube)
[quote]Decided to write up a quick simulation of the Kerbin system to show how on-rails planets are unrealistic - the actual core of the integrator is a non-optimized RK4 with adaptive stepsize, it runs with an error constraint of 1 part in 10,000,000 and models all the bodies at about 2-3million times normal speed. I could probably use an algorithm more optimized towards gravitational N-Body and get a factor of 10 or more speed improvement.
As you can see, minmus orbit it highly variable, it's still deep inside the Hill's sphere so it should be stable on long time periods, but, its orbit is now a precessing elipse. [/quote]
[quote]This is a long term model of the moons of Kerbin, each Second covers 300days of gametime (1200 rotations of kerbin!) . Integration was performed using a simple adaptive 4th order Runge-Kutta integrator (very primitive!). Compute time was about 1 second per 30 days.
3 orbits are show:
Massless particle in Keostationary Orbit
Mun
Minmus
Kerbin is in the middle, Kerbol is off out of frame. The positions are shown relative to the barycenter of the kerbin system.
Removed from the rails minmus orbit is erratic, but it is stable over the long term since it's deep inside the hills-sphere of the Kerbin-Kerbol system[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zLEys597PY[/media]
[QUOTE]Hi everyone,
I think I've been away of the Forums a little bit because I've been working in some website issues and other stuff of the game. Recently I started working on something special that is not posted in the Planned Core Features, but I think it would be a surprise.
As you know, EVA's are now one important feature to implement in the game. That means, we'll be able to see and control a Kerbal ourselves. We want to include Kerbals more in the game because they were too aside of it.
Well, what I'm working on (not EVA's), has to be with that... so, I think you can start imagine what this is about.
I'll post again with a little spoiler of this later.
Cheers.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:28:26 PM by aLeXmOrA »
[/QUOTE]
[B]HO BOY[/B]
Docking, calling it now. Also, that was posted by aLeXmOrA for those of you wondering.
[QUOTE=Pelf;36542225]Docking, calling it now. Also, that was posted by aLeXmOrA for those of you wondering.[/QUOTE]
Docking doesn't really have much with "Including Kerbals more in the game because they were too aside of it"
I'm going for a training system or cities or something.
Kerbal fisticuffs in space?
[editline]29th June 2012[/editline]
Rocket plunging faster down to ground, the other 2 kerbals are trying to wrestle Jeb off of the controls :v:
Kerbal dating sim. Take breaks from flights to follow the lives of our brave crew's spouses. Like that one episode of From the Earth to the Moon.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;36542251]Docking doesn't really have much with "Including Kerbals more in the game because they were too aside of it"
I'm going for a training system or cities or something.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing custom Kerbals, with your own names and details.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;36543868]I'm guessing custom Kerbals, with your own names and details.[/QUOTE]
Just name all of them Jeb.
Every.
Single.
One.
Jeb cloning vats.
I really want someone to draw that now.
KSP Now have a Dev-blog
[URL]http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/[/URL]
also a new wallpaper (in the site)
My theory is basically the mass effect 2 reconstruction sequence on jeb every time as to why he comes back 2 weeks later :v:
When the solar system gets added, do you guys want it to be more analogous to our solar system or pretty different from it?
different
is there any better SAS? sometimes when my rocket gets to a certain altitude it starts turning / dipping (not rolling). then when i change from firs stage to second it rolls uncontrollably sometimes. it's very hit or miss. i'm trying not to install mods because i ALWAYS got to the mun with mods (like engines and other parts, i'm just looking for a better SAS that can keep me going straight) and feel it is kind of cheating... but i guess i might have to.
I want planets with very thick atmospheres so that most stuff you build burn up.
[QUOTE=krail9;36544674]My theory is basically the mass effect 2 reconstruction sequence on jeb every time as to why he comes back 2 weeks later :v:[/QUOTE]
Launch pad repair cost = $400,000
Rocket = $15,000,000 - $18,000,000
Rebuilding Jeb for each failed rocket = $192,952,028,592,000,000
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Hi,
So, there is some distress going on about this upcoming parts rescale thing, so I thought it best to do an update on this matter, to keep speculation to a minimum.
First and foremost, keep in mind at all times that anything and everything is subject to change at all times. This applies also for things we say on our dev threads (we too are human and have a right to change our minds). What I mean by this is that nothing we post during the course of an update should be taken as a 100% certain fact. That means no one should be taking any 'preemptive action', so don't go about rescaling parts yet.
So, here's the deal with the rescale, in as much detail as possible. Mind that this might still change in the future:
Rescaling ship parts was made necessary by the addition of Kerbal EVAs. Kerbals are supposed to be 1 unit tall, which is a scale that works nicely with the physics. Why? Basically, PhysX assumes 1 unit in Unity is a meter. That means an object 1 unit large will behave as a 1m object in real life. To understand why this is important, consider how a building and a small box would fall to the ground. They behave very differently, and without a proper convention for scale, the physics engine wouldn't have any way to figure out one from the other.
This effect is due to the acceleration of gravity being constant for all objects. If everything accelerates at 9.81m/s2 towards the ground, a 1m large object will move many more times its own size in a given stretch of time than a 100m large one would.
So, this explains why a Kerbal must not be smaller than 1m. I tried making them tiny, only 0.4m tall, and got a pretty interesting (and jittery) notion of how insects and small animals experience physics. Needless to say, it didn't work so well.
Anyhow, back to the subject of the rescale itself: To fit a 1 unit tall Kerbal into a command pod, we figure that the pod would have to be rescaled to match. This raises a problem in which all mods made so far would become out of scale with the rest of the game.... That could be solved with some auto-scaling system, but it's a bit more complicated than that.
You see, we are not dealing with a simple rescaling of everything here. Standing a Kerbal next to a 2.5x large SRB felt pretty weird... SRBs are supposed to be large things, but the stock SRBs are supposed to be small ones. This also goes for several other parts. It felt like standing next to a building, so that put things in perspective a bit.
So, I've realized that we are looking at two things that need to happen now. One, we need to create a larger command pod, that will plausibly hold three 1m tall Kerbals in it. Two, we need to rescale everything else, because a 1m diameter part isn't large enough to even hold a single Kerbal anyway.
Here's the thing: The early-game command pods are not supposed to carry three crew. They would carry a single crewmember, then as you progress in the game you'd get larger and better pods, able to carry more Kerbals at once. The mk1 pod is not meant to be an early-game command pod then. It's supposed to be a more advanced thing. The three-Kerbal standard was set as a placeholder, until we have a proper crew management system in the game, and you're able to assign crews to your missions.
Anyway, that still doesn't solve the issue that a current-scale mk1 pod isn't able to plausibly hold even a single Kerbal. Parts will still need to be rescaled, but not by so much anymore. To fit a single Kerbal into a pod, we're looking at a scale factor of somewhere between 125% and 150%.
That means two things will happen here. One, all parts will get rescaled to this new factor. This much scaling is safe enough for us to apply an automatic rescaling factor, and I've been doing tests here with that, and it looks pretty much ok. Most parts feel just the right size with that factor.
Now, this still doesn't solve the fact that we need to cram three Kerbals into a pod. And for that, we're creating new parts, that will be able to carry our trio of victims intrepid explorers, without violating any laws of three-dimensional space.
Those new parts will be larger, and they will not replace the stock content, except in cases where we really dislike the parts and want to see it improved (in which case it will be replaced by a better version of the same size).
So, what does this all mean for mods? Well, as I said before, it doesn't mean anything YET, but in all likelihood, some automatic rescaling will be done, assuming all "size 1" parts are meant to be attached under a one-kerbal command pod. To reduce confusion, a cfg parameter would be added to optionally bypass the automatic rescaling, for new part models.
And what about the space center assets then? Right now, all I can say is that we'll have to see it when we get to it. Some buildings might need rescaling, in order to feel right. Others might not. It really depends on how it all comes together. I do think the launchpad and VAB will have to get larger. The runway might need to as well, but that really is up to how large we want that runway to be. Again, we'll have to see it to know.
And what of the rest of the universe? That much I know already: There is no point in rescaling planets and moons. After you climb to a few km altitude, the actual size of your vessel becomes really meaningless. It could be a few cm large, or a hundred meters long, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Even at an extreme 2.5x auto-rescaling, you stop noticing the relative sizes after you get some distance away from the ground... So this issue really only concerns the space center facilities, the Kerbals, and the parts.
So, to wrap this up, the plan then is to apply an auto-rescale to all parts, but only make them large enough to plausibly hold a single crewmember, and also create new, larger parts that will hold three, which won't replace the stock ones. Space center facilities will be rescaled on an ad-hoc manner, because they're a bit out of scale even now anyways.
The moral of all this is that mod makers shouldn't do anything yet. Not until we have this figured out, at which point we will let everyone know what will need to be done, if anything.
That's about it I think. I hope it clears up any concerns.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HarvesteR][QUOTE]So is the auto-re-scaler planned to be a part of the game, or will that be something used by the dev team to auto-rescale all the parts prior to the game update, so that the game doesn't need to rescale them itself?[/QUOTE]
The auto-rescaler is really just a number we multiply some values by. It's applied when the game is loading assets, so there's no need to make it any more complicated.
In fact, if this works out well enough, I think we could go as far as having a per-part rescaling factor (which would, of course, default to our standard), so mod-makers can tweak the size of their parts without having to re-export. It should be quite useful actually.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LfU5G.jpg[/img]
That face.. he KNOWS the ship he is working on is going to explode.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
