Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

[Pablo49]

As silly as this sounds why not do it in alphabetical order? The KSP team already requires your full name in the registration, so why not simply open downloads to last names starting with A week one, etc?

I think that would cause more trouble than not. Going to anger a lot of people who have a late last name. What happens when you can't get on during the time allotted for your name? And would you provide downloads to Let's Players? KSP gets a lot of attention from them, too. Just better to let the server struggle a bit as everyone grabs their download, and hope for improved server performance as time goes on.

 

[Moach]

i had suggested Harvester could move the registration process to some form of installer, then with this running on the clients machine, they could perhaps rely on torrent protocol for distribution (it is a mad fast system, and shouldn't be thought of as a piracy machine)

DCS did this for DCS warthog, i DL'ed the 2GB of it in under 20 mins :hmm:

or they could get another server for the download mass... so at the very least we have forum access while the DDoS attack week is on

 

[HarvesteR]

There are a lot of solutions for the server troubles, and we're already planning implementing them. The problem is, none of the solutions will improve the situation right now. We can only prevent this from happening next time.

Before everyone asks "why didn't we do this before then", the plain answer is, we did. We are running a much more powerful server than last time, but the sheer amount of people trying to download at the same time is vastly larger than we thought would be.

The only possible solution now is one that has no upper limit. That leaves us with two choices: Cloud servers or torrents.

The cloud server option looks better, because unlike a torrent, it still lets you download from the browser, without having to rely on a client app that might not work.


Cheers

 

[garyw]

Before everyone asks "why didn't we do this before then", the plain answer is, we did. We are running a much more powerful server than last time, but the sheer amount of people trying to download at the same time is vastly larger than we thought would be.

Which is always the way. When something new comes out people want it RIGHT THERE AND THEN. They can't wait. All you can do is scale up and even then it might not be enough.

The only possible solution now is one that has no upper limit. That leaves us with two choices: Cloud servers or torrents.

Possibly, Cloud servers aren't unlimited (I know, I work for a cloud provider!) they are just servers in a datacentre and depending on how 'elastic' the environment is there is still an upper limit in terms of bandwidth, server resource, memory and so on. Certainly, the whole idea of the cloud is that they can be scaled up much more quickly than in a traditional environment so from that angle it may be an option.

 

[HarvesteR]

Certainly, the whole idea of the cloud is that they can be scaled up much more quickly than in a traditional environment so from that angle it may be an option.

That's what we like most about this option. We only really need huge amounts of bandwidth for a couple of days every two months or so. Cloud servers are great for that, because they charge you by how much you use, and they scale automatically.

It would be a waste to set up new dedicated servers, only to have them sitting idle for 95% of the time. On a normal non-release day, our current server uses only about 5-10% of its capacity.

About their upper limit, yeah, the only option that is infinitely scalable is torrents, but a good cloud server will certainly be several orders of magnitude more powerful than what we have now. A torrent-based system would require us to implement a new patcher client from scratch, and I really don't like the idea of having that single point of potential failure.

Cheers

 

[Moach]

is it not funny how this thread seems to come alive with KSP-forum topics whenever the international week of spam rises? it seems this is the fallback place for the forumless kerbal crowd

i'm actually getting 404's from the KSP forum now.... this thing is getting popular at a rate so extreme it's alarming


and i have not yet been able to patch.... :blink:

 

[Codz]

is it not funny how this thread seems to come alive with KSP-forum topics whenever the international week of spam rises? it seems this is the fallback place for the forumless kerbal crowd

Eh, I still avoid posting at that place since NovaSilisko's posts about how bad it was spam and moron wise.

 

[garyw]

It would be a waste to set up new dedicated servers, only to have them sitting idle for 95% of the time. On a normal non-release day, our current server uses only about 5-10% of its capacity.

Absolutely. I'd suggest that you check that the cloud provider will allow you to suspend the machines when not required, you'll pay for the storage they consume but won't need to worry about bandwidth. Also, as long as one of the public facing hosts are templated it should be very quick to scale out and if the internet pipes are burstable you should have better up time for the next release

 

[Moach]

Eh, I still avoid posting at that place since NovaSilisko's posts about how bad it was spam and moron wise.

more recently it's not been like that anymore.... as some of the mods suspected, those trolls are just children who will bore easily and move on to bother someone else... if not, then one day they either grow up, or get banned :hmm:


it's not the uber-geeky orbiter crowd, but it sure seems the KSP community has come to an above-average level of maturity (by internet standards, at least)

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Any word on when the DL server wil stop catching fire from overloads? I thought that I had made a successful DL, but no such luck: Empty zip file.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

I think that would cause more trouble than not. Going to anger a lot of people who have a late last name. What happens when you can't get on during the time allotted for your name? And would you provide downloads to Let's Players? KSP gets a lot of attention from them, too. Just better to let the server struggle a bit as everyone grabs their download, and hope for improved server performance as time goes on.

Just reverse the order each KSP version (A-Z 0.18, Z-A 0.19, A-Z 0.20,...). And I meant, open up access to each user in alphabetical order, open to them from here-on-out. That way the demand on the servers can be managed based on the pace accounts are opened up at. Not familiar with lets players, but if that counts as PR, reserve first slots for reputable ones before the general public. With regards to cost, its the only solution that would cost Squad nothing, and as a bonus consider this; the KSP forums have something of a reputation, moreso in the past, of being invaded by the general pests of the internet. I would think that it would be fairly easy to weed out the most frustrating, based on a basic civility test of whether or not they can handle waiting in line for something, no? Of course the additional server method could work better, but why not try a simpler one?

On that note, though congrats to the team on a release better than expectations. The overall visual feel for the game has improved tremendously through the 0.16-0.17 jump. Well done! :thumbup:

 

[Codz]

I would think that it would be fairly easy to weed out the most frustrating, based on a basic civility test of whether or not they can handle waiting in line for something, no? Of course the additional server method could work better, but why not try a simpler one?

The thing is, most of them are paying customers, not just forum members. Also, such a method simply isn't fair to said customers, especially if you go by weeks.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

The thing is, most of them are paying customers, not just forum members. Also, such a method simply isn't fair to said customers, especially if you go by weeks.

probably weeks to cycle through the whole population eh?

 

[Codz]

The only fair way to do something kind of like what you suggest is to randomly select accounts into groups, regardless of name or social status.

 

[Moach]

taking turns isn't gonna solve anything.... it's gonna give everyone grief, but to what end?

the ideal solution would be to move the download burden to a cloud-server which can expand to accommodate the intermittent demand from these "gold rushes"

a more considerate approach would be to queue download requests by arrival and have them wait in line for a while.... could be a huge while, but whenever one finishes, another begins.... and the forum wouldn't be virtually shut down in the meantime


either way - whatever there is to be done (and something will be done) will only take effect upon next time... this one, we're gonna have to wait it out



they're on it already.... not sure if there's even anything they can do right now... prevent it from happening again, sure... but right now? - being a game dev myself as well, i wouldn't count much on it


it should back up and become usable again by the week.... patience is in high demand for now :compbash2:

 

[Hielor]

Moving back to the program itself instead of the issues downloading it...

One of the computers I've tried this on has the front-facing cockpit window as opaque. The side windows are still transparent, but the front window isn't. Makes it a bit difficult to fly... I've turned the graphics settings all the way down on this machine, that might have something to do with it.

On that note, the performance seems to have gotten even worse on this machine in this patch. Without the graphics settings turned down it was unplayable, and even with the settings all the way down it's pretty laggy. The lag seems worst when the horizon is in view (e.g., looking at the craft horizontally) and seems to largely disappear when I'm looking straight down at the craft (so there's only a small bit of terrain in view) or straight up (so there's no terrain in view). I'd noticed the same thing in previous patches, but it definitely seems worse now.

As for other bugs I've found in a few minutes of playing (only with spaceplanes, no rockets yet)...
- Control surfaces probably shouldn't be providing lift in their "neutral" position when they're attached. As it is, a spaceplane with only a single vertical fin and rudder will have its lift vector off to one side or the other by a small margin.
- Some of the stock aircraft seem nearly unflyable, although that may be more due to the limitations of this computer and flying with a keyboard. As an example, the Albatross has almost no roll control (stock design doesn't have any outboard ailerons). Adding ailerons partway between the leading and trailing edges of the wings (so they're not too far behind the CoG) seems to help a lot. The Ravenspear (lol, XR2) seems extremely unstable, or perhaps over-controlled, in pitch. Do canards provide a lot more control authority than they used to? Seems like it...
- The "aerodynamic nose cone" is just slightly smaller at the base than the 1m parts, which makes for an odd and not-very-aerodynamic-looking transition.
- If a part is behind the "show CoG/lift vector/thrust vector" button, clicking the button also selects the part and starts dragging it around.

Things I like...
- CoG/lift vector/thrust vector are fantastic. Makes designing complex things a lot easier and a lot less guesswork.
- Cockpit views are great for spaceplanes (at least, on the computer where the windows are actually transparent :lol
- Having the stock designs available is neat. It gives design ideas and makes it easier to just start playing around with the game.

An excellent release, as usual, and I might be able to start playing again now that I no longer need to feel like I'm cheating every time I use less than 100% thrust :lol:

Keep up the good work!

 

[mojoey]

Moving back to the program itself instead of the issues downloading it...

One of the computers I've tried this on has the front-facing cockpit window as opaque. The side windows are still transparent, but the front window isn't. Makes it a bit difficult to fly... I've turned the graphics settings all the way down on this machine, that might have something to do with it.

On that note, the performance seems to have gotten even worse on this machine in this patch. Without the graphics settings turned down it was unplayable, and even with the settings all the way down it's pretty laggy. The lag seems worst when the horizon is in view (e.g., looking at the craft horizontally) and seems to largely disappear when I'm looking straight down at the craft (so there's only a small bit of terrain in view) or straight up (so there's no terrain in view). I'd noticed the same thing in previous patches, but it definitely seems worse now.

As for other bugs I've found in a few minutes of playing (only with spaceplanes, no rockets yet)...
- Control surfaces probably shouldn't be providing lift in their "neutral" position when they're attached. As it is, a spaceplane with only a single vertical fin and rudder will have its lift vector off to one side or the other by a small margin.
- Some of the stock aircraft seem nearly unflyable, although that may be more due to the limitations of this computer and flying with a keyboard. As an example, the Albatross has almost no roll control (stock design doesn't have any outboard ailerons). Adding ailerons partway between the leading and trailing edges of the wings (so they're not too far behind the CoG) seems to help a lot. The Ravenspear (lol, XR2) seems extremely unstable, or perhaps over-controlled, in pitch. Do canards provide a lot more control authority than they used to? Seems like it...
- The "aerodynamic nose cone" is just slightly smaller at the base than the 1m parts, which makes for an odd and not-very-aerodynamic-looking transition.
- If a part is behind the "show CoG/lift vector/thrust vector" button, clicking the button also selects the part and starts dragging it around.

Things I like...
- CoG/lift vector/thrust vector are fantastic. Makes designing complex things a lot easier and a lot less guesswork.
- Cockpit views are great for spaceplanes (at least, on the computer where the windows are actually transparent :lol
- Having the stock designs available is neat. It gives design ideas and makes it easier to just start playing around with the game.

An excellent release, as usual, and I might be able to start playing again now that I no longer need to feel like I'm cheating every time I use less than 100% thrust :lol:

Keep up the good work!

Your computer just needs more boosters.

I had an idea Harv, in map view, there is no time to impact icon where the trajectory collides with the orbital body. Is this a planned feature? I would think it would help those trying to time burns and such.

 

[Hielor]

Also, just noticed that the airplane parts are in severe need of being balanced against both themselves and the rocket parts. As examples...
- The Mk1 cockpit has a mass of 1.25...and the Mk3 has a mass of 1. The Mk3 should be at least 3x the mass of the Mk1, given that it carries three people... Also, the Mk2 cockpit, which is visually beefier than the Mk1, has a mass of only 1.
- The Mk1 fuselage has a dry mass of .3 and a capacity of 150. The Mk2 fuselage, which is visually 3-4x the size of the Mk1, also has a dry mass of .3 (...what) and a capacity of 150 (...what). The Mk3 fuselage, which is visually 2-3x the size of the Mk2, has a dry mass of .3 (...what) and a capacity of 225 (less than 2x the Mk1 even though it looks like you could fit 8 Mk1s in a Mk3...)
- The Mk3 to Mk2 adapter, despite being ~3x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass (of .2) and the same capacity.
- The Mk2 to size 1 adapter, despite being ~2x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass and the SAME capacity.
- The FL-T400 fuel tank is about the same size as the Mk1 fuselage (a bit shorter)...but has a lower dry mass (of .25) and more than double the capacity (400).
- The FL-T200 fuel tank is significantly smaller than the Mk1 fuselage, but has a higher capacity (200) and (as expected) a lower dry mass.

 

[HarvesteR]

Your computer just needs more boosters.

I had an idea Harv, in map view, there is no time to impact icon where the trajectory collides with the orbital body. Is this a planned feature? I would think it would help those trying to time burns and such.

It is a planned feature. I wanted to add that back in 0.15, when we did the patched conics thing, but we ran out of time. Soon™ though.

Cheers

 

[mojoey]

I have to admit, I feel like the KSP devs are way more down to earth than Mojang, simply because...well...you're awesome