Kerbal Space Program Jebruary Edition

[Pelf]

[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Hi again,

Still catching up on 0.17 development... Next up is the new Scenarios and Multiple Game Saves system.

In 0.17 you will be able to keep multiple ongoing games, each saved on its own folder. Think of those as city saves in SimCity. Each is its own independent "instance" of the game. Same thing now with KSP: When you start a new game, you get prompted with a dialog where you give a name to your new save, and will later be able to tweak some startup settings, like game mode (Sandbox or Career), maybe some difficulty options, and so on.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/2h2fv.png[/t]

(Mind that the "Career" option is greyed out, for the very simple reason that there is no Career Mode yet)

Each game you start can then be resumed through the "Resume Saved" option, which pops this screen up:

[t]http://i.imgur.com/8OpMO.png[/t]

Here you can choose which game to resume, or delete them.

This is how 0.17 manages multiple game saves. Each new game is saved on its own folder inside KSP/Saves, and has its own persistent and quicksave SFS files. Also, vessels you create are also saved to a Ships folder inside the current save folder, so they're not accessible from other games (would make no sense if they were shared). However, the KSP/Ships folder is publicly accessible from all saves, and will now contain "stock" vessels to get you started (If you edit a stock craft, it will be saved on your own profile, and won't overwrite the original).

Apart from Multiple Game Saves, 0.17 also lets you play Training and Instant-Action type Scenarios. Those are accessible from the main menu as well. Here's what a Scenario Loading dialog looks like:

[t]http://i.imgur.com/E6FiH.png[/t]

(Never mind the placeholder for the image. That is still a WIP)

Scenarios allow you to do tutorials or "missions" of sorts, outside of a Career or Sandbox game. These are primarily meant for training and get-up-and-go type scenarios, for instance, a scenario where you start with a vessel orbiting the Mun, so you can practice Mun landings without having to build a Mun-worthy ship and launch it there first.

Scenarios aren't restricted to flight scenes though. SFS files were significantly overhauled for 0.17, and they now have game parameters defined in them, so each scenario can allow or deny access to certain areas of the game, and also regulate use of game features, like vessel-switching, time warp, viewing the map, saving a craft, ans so on. It all depends on the type of scenario you're running. For instance, a vessel building tutorial will have the VAB's Load button greyed out, because you're supposed to be following the tutorial. Similarly, a flight tutorial will not allow you to switch vessels, as that would defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

This is what Scenarios and Save Profiles is all about. Next, we'll talk about the new Scenario Logic Module system and Tutorials.

Cheers[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Hi again,

As I said earlier, this one is about the new Scenario Logic Modules system thing. Here's how it works:

One of the main goals for 0.17 was to create new, more involved tutorials, to try and ease that learning curve into the game. The old tutorials we had were very simple and very outdated placeholders, which we set in hurriedly before the game was published for the first time. Yes, those tutorials were written over a year ago, and had no significant updates to them ever since... They were pretty useless now, and that dialog full of text was very uninteresting and uninviting.

So, with the new scenario loading system in place, we now had a very good place to put proper tutorials in, where they don't interfere with normal play. That also meant we could design them a lot more easily too, because we don't need to worry about the tutorials being skipped by players... If you started a tutorial scenario, it's probably because you want to play it through, so we can have very convenient (from a design standpoint) restrictions set up, which make writing a playable tutorial a whole lot easier.

That's all good, but we needed a system to let the game run the tutorial logic itself now. We went through several ideas for this... At first we considered setting them up as copies of the main game scenes, with scenario scripts attached as needed. This would work, and would be relatively easy to set up, but it would also be extremely limiting, and would generate a lot of duplicated assets too, which would be a major headache to manage after a while. Another thing I really wanted was to make these scenarios plugin-friendly, so mod authors could write their own tutorials and missions if they wanted.

The solution was the ScenarioModule system. In a nutshell, it's exactly the same thing as a PartModule, only instead of being attached to a Part object, ScenarioModules get added to an empty game object which just sits on the scene, running whatever modules get added to it.

ScenarioModules are loaded using the same system PartModules use, so that means they can be loaded from user-made plugins. They're also "borrowing" most of the base code as well, which means they're fully integrated with the ConfigNode and persistence system. You're even able to use [KSPField] attributes on them, to make variables automatically persistent. The modules also have a "targetScene" variable on them, so you can specify on which scene you want them to run in. Modules will only run on the scene you assign them to.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/q9hgz.png[/t]

This turned out to be a pretty cool solution. It makes writing scenario logic very straightforward, and best of all, it's modder-friendly, so yes, this ultimately means mod-makers will be able to write their own missions for KSP.

ScenarioModules also provide a very nice base to create tutorials then. Tutorials are nothing more than scenario logic which pops up a dialog with instructions for the player to follow. But that's a topic for a new post.

Cheers[/QUOTE]

[joshjet]

[QUOTE=Pelf;37345002]-KSP stuff-[/QUOTE]

Career mode is a welcome addition if you ask me.

[LooperNor]

[QUOTE=joshjet;37345086]Career mode is a welcome addition if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

It's a planned feature, so you'll obviously get it.

I wonder when though.

That's definitely gonna add loads to the game.

[Neo Kabuto]

[QUOTE=LarparNar;37345127]It's a planned feature, so you'll obviously get it.

I wonder when though.

That's definitely gonna add loads to the game.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how much of Nova's old design stuff they'll be using for it. He seemed to have quite a bit figured out.

[dije]

Made a heatshield because I was bored:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/aBxNqh.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1kzfAh.png[/img]

[Aphtonites]

Are there any decent video tutorials for the new parts SDK out there?

[CardBoardBox]

heat shield makes capsule look 100% better.

also, like the dragon capsule tiles being tossed on there :D

[Skwee]

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37346091]heat shield makes capsule look 100% better.

also, like the dragon capsule tiles being tossed on there :D[/QUOTE]

[img]http://neil.fraser.name/news/2010/dragon-tps.jpg[/img]

?

[Aphtonites]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZQwAs.png[/IMG]
A moment of silence for Alsen Kerman please, as he died from having his torso crushed by debris in a tragic spaceplane accident.
[video=youtube;bq54jb_5WCI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq54jb_5WCI[/video]

Also, Space photography! I played around with Mechjeb and got a satellite to orbit kerbin.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/b2mgP.png[/IMG]

[CardBoardBox]

Spent the Day getting my fake Kerbal Sized up to the real thing. I am pleased to say it looks like Dragon will be a 2.5 m pod. But it will defiantly be a 7 crew pod. I am not yet sure if I will be making it the same seating arrangement as the Real Capsule. I might have the front be Commander and co-pilot to look out the forward facing windows. and then Seat the rest behind them in a 2-3-2 sort of a way. what do you all think?

Also, I got the top ring to be the exact same size as the ring atop the Stock Capsule. So any docking apparatus or item they add to theses will work on mine.

[IMG]http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp358/CBBP/Fitting.png[/IMG]

[K0mori]

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37344283]square cube rule?[/QUOTE]

When you increase the dimensions of an object, the surface area increases at a square rate while the volume increases at a cubic rate. Thus doubling the dimensions for the size of the capsule should quadruple the weight of the capsule. But even then, we can't rely on simple formulas to mass produce parts. We need to balance the parts around gameplay. Well, I need balance parts, anyway. :P

[CardBoardBox]

[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;37348607]When you increase the dimensions of an object, the surface area increases at a square rate while the volume increases at a cubic rate. Thus doubling the dimensions for the size of the capsule should quadruple the weight of the capsule. But even then, we can't rely on simple formulas to mass produce parts. We need to balance the parts around gameplay. Well, I need balance parts, anyway. :P[/QUOTE]
or you could steam me...

[CardBoardBox]

[QUOTE=-Xemit-;37348830]You got that slightly wrong. It's like when you increase the size by a factor of x the surface area will increase x^2 times and the volume (and thus weight) will increase x^3 times.

I agree that the parts should be balanced based on gameplay but formulas could be a good base for tweaking so that the values are not pulled out the ass and totally arbitrary.[/QUOTE]

and if you remember the original balancer simple scaled the real VA weight down.

[Dacheet]

I hope they fix the way portraits work so you can show more than 3 crew members in the craft.

[CardBoardBox]

[QUOTE=Dacheet;37349116]I hope they fix the way portraits work so you can show more than 3 crew members in the craft.[/QUOTE]
I wish they had a basic tutorial on how to make the portraits and interior looks work :) I get the basis of it but missing some vital data it seems.

[Dacheet]

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37349165]I wish they had a basic tutorial on how to make the portraits and interior looks work :) I get the basis of it but missing some vital data it seems.[/QUOTE]

Did you ask the devs?

[Pardalis]

I don't get why the portraits are still like 2 FPS or something

[CardBoardBox]

[QUOTE=Dacheet;37349257]Did you ask the devs?[/QUOTE]

good luck getting in contact with them.

[Maloof?]

[QUOTE=latin_geek;37349363]I don't get why the portraits are still like 2 FPS or something[/QUOTE]

I think they work best like that, at least at the moment. The point of them isn't to give a real-time view into what they are up to; I think it's more about simply gauging their moods and whatnot.

Writing a full 25 fps animation system would be a lot of work for the devs; currently, smooth changes between animations and finely tuned movements aren't required. As soon as we head towards 'real-time' framerates the devs have to worry about all that extra stuff

[MadPro119]

[QUOTE=latin_geek;37349363]I don't get why the portraits are still like 2 FPS or something[/QUOTE]

I think it adds character.

[Nutt007]

[QUOTE=Maloof?;37349403]I think they work best like that, at least at the moment. The point of them isn't to give a real-time view into what they are up to; I think it's more about simply gauging their moods and whatnot.

Writing a full 25 fps animation system would be a lot of work for the devs; currently, smooth changes between animations and finely tuned movements aren't required. As soon as we head towards 'real-time' framerates the devs have to worry about all that extra stuff[/QUOTE]

They actually do move. The 2 FPS is just to make it look like a really bad camera feed. That's what Sillisko told me anyways.

[Majr]

I would rather them be at a normal framerate, but you get static and frame loss from sudden bumps.

[lordcrypto]

dynamically adjusting framerate/video fuzz/etc based on g forces/speed/antenna connection would be sweet

[MadPro119]

I think the farther away the worst he camera should get

[NanoSquid]

[QUOTE][t]http://i.imgur.com/ZQwAs.png[/t][/QUOTE]

LOL IDUNNO

[CardBoardBox]

Help I need advice. I slapped Orion windows into it. Agree or Disagree?

[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/droopihollow.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Droppie.png[/IMG]

[Majr]

[QUOTE=MadPro119;37350321]I think the farther away the worst he camera should get[/QUOTE]

Well aren't we viewing the cameras from "on-board" the ship? Unless you count zooming out, we're never getting farther away.

[dije]

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37346091]heat shield makes capsule look 100% better.

also, like the dragon capsule tiles being tossed on there :D[/QUOTE]My first model too :zoid:

[NikolaT]

[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;37351221]Help I need advice. I slapped Orion windows into it. Agree or Disagree?

[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/droopihollow.png[/IMG]
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1417259/kerbal/Droppie.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

I think that maybe smaller windows set into the sides of the module but still looking the same direction would be cooler. Sort of like Gemini

[Darkmonkey]

[QUOTE=ultradude25;37352107]Well aren't we viewing the cameras from "on-board" the ship? Unless you count zooming out, we're never getting farther away.[/QUOTE]

I figured we were watching from mission control unless we assume direct control of a kerbal