Kerbal Space Program 1.0 Released After 4 Years of Development 99
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!
Re: (Score:1)
"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.
Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory : https://xkcd.com/1356/ [xkcd.com]
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Awesome! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Kerbal was missing N-Body mechanics
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Kerbal was missing N-Body mechanics
That's probably why I ask questions like this: http://physics.stackexchange.c... [stackexchange.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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 st
Re: (Score:1)
Forum thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogra... [kerbalspaceprogram.com]
For the latest build, lurk around #principia on Espernet and ask Egg when he's awake.
Brilliant! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:3)
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
Stoners call it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free (Score:1)
Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Human sacrifices! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I See it made it to GoG.com DRM-free (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 op
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...)
I love KSP, but sometimes... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... (Score:5, 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)
That was done on purpose. (Score:2)
Temptation is not needed to tell the truth - ion thrusters are deliberately overpowered. They even received a buff a version or two back.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Modding is the answer. Take a look at the "universe replacer" (google for images).
Space has never looked this awesome.
Re: (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!
Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... (Score:4, Interesting)
But isn't that so in the Kerbal spirit? ;) Hmm, what's the coding equivalent of forgetting a ladder [fjcdn.com]? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re:I love KSP, but sometimes... (Score:5, 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 [reddit.com]) 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=
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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=
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Clueless assumptions (Score:2)
I'm 52 years old - quite a bit older than the modern "everyone gets a gold star" generation.
Re: (Score:2)
The End of Early Access (Score:1)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong answer. Allow me to correct:
Well, this is Slashdot... nobody RTFA.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No autoplay complaint? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Come on! (Score:5, Funny)
It's not rocket science ... oh, wait ...
Fly Safe! (Score:2)
It's Been an amazing ride.
Dang (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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".