Difference between revisions of "Talk:Version history"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Style of the early releases) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Ion engine == | |
| − | |||
| − | All the preceding waypoints, flagpoints, kerbals, etc, on the Mun from the successfully converted previous save are 3-6km under the surface. I was using this to guage a dark-side landing, and crashed because I thought I had another 4k remaining. :( | + | Errm, i'm not getting the Ion jets, is this a removal or a one-off glitch? <small>— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Geoform|Geoform]] ([[User talk:Geoform|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Geoform|contribs]]) 17:36, 24 May 2013</small> |
| + | :Found it! sry! <small>— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Geoform|Geoform]] ([[User talk:Geoform|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Geoform|contribs]]) 17:49, 24 May 2013</small> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Mun terrain elevation == | ||
| + | |||
| + | All the preceding waypoints, flagpoints, kerbals, etc, on the Mun from the successfully converted previous save are 3-6km under the surface. I was using this to guage a dark-side landing, and crashed because I thought I had another 4k remaining. :( <small>— Preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gwydion|Gwydion]] ([[User talk:Gwydion|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gwydion|contribs]]) 00:17, 6 August 2013</small> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Style of the early releases == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hi, currently all „modern“ releases are unchanged when a new version is released. Now with the additions of the early versions, there is a break in style as they are stated in past tense. Should the early releases be rewritten to make them like the newer entries to remain consistent? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 10:47, 3 March 2014 (CST) | ||
| + | :I was debating that within myself and decided to go with past tense because the information about pre-release versions is relatively new, they've never been played outside of Squad and can't be played now (my additions to 0.7.3 were made while I had it running) and because it is a handy reminder that one is reading about pre-release versions. I weighed all that against the page's consistency, and present tense lost, though barely because this version history is a story. I tend to write my own stories in present tense, and I'm not really fond of the NASB's stupid asterisk past tense translations. What do you think? Finally, on "familiar" what do you mean by ''*if you insist on it, mark it as not fixed;'' on edit 33009 and what does the tag you added do? [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 18:41, 3 March 2014 (CST) | ||
| + | ::About that familiar: Those statements are problematic (especially if they are very hidden) when it does change. For such statements I'm using {{Tl|Check version}} which automatically shows that it is outdated as soon as a new version is released. Of course everything could be marked, I only try to use it where such statements are problematical (like here where it is not directly obvious). Especially as it will mark those as outdated after every version update. The same problem is with the description about the [[RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster]], as you can't guarantee that it stays similar to it's first release. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 13:49, 4 March 2014 (CST) | ||
| + | :::I do see your point, but as far as the parts tabs go, I think Squad changing them significantly at this point would be suicidal, causing such an uproar in the user community that we'd never hear the end of it, even if they made a hotfix to change it back (I'm a little surprised Microsoft removing the Start Button from Windows 8 hasn't made more waves, so I could be wrong about that.) As for the RT-10, if it changes significantly, I'll notice PDQ. I was surprised that it looks exactly the same in 0.1 as in 0.7.3! [[User:Featherwinglove|Featherwinglove]] ([[User talk:Featherwinglove|talk]]) 21:31, 8 March 2014 (CST) | ||
| + | == Console Versions == | ||
| + | Are we going to do console versions as well? [[User:PlanetBuster2246|PlanetBuster2246]] ([[User talk:PlanetBuster2246|talk]]) 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 11:18, 16 July 2016
Ion engine
Errm, i'm not getting the Ion jets, is this a removal or a one-off glitch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoform (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 May 2013
Mun terrain elevation
All the preceding waypoints, flagpoints, kerbals, etc, on the Mun from the successfully converted previous save are 3-6km under the surface. I was using this to guage a dark-side landing, and crashed because I thought I had another 4k remaining. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydion (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 August 2013
Style of the early releases
Hi, currently all „modern“ releases are unchanged when a new version is released. Now with the additions of the early versions, there is a break in style as they are stated in past tense. Should the early releases be rewritten to make them like the newer entries to remain consistent? — xZise [talk] 10:47, 3 March 2014 (CST)
- I was debating that within myself and decided to go with past tense because the information about pre-release versions is relatively new, they've never been played outside of Squad and can't be played now (my additions to 0.7.3 were made while I had it running) and because it is a handy reminder that one is reading about pre-release versions. I weighed all that against the page's consistency, and present tense lost, though barely because this version history is a story. I tend to write my own stories in present tense, and I'm not really fond of the NASB's stupid asterisk past tense translations. What do you think? Finally, on "familiar" what do you mean by *if you insist on it, mark it as not fixed; on edit 33009 and what does the tag you added do? Featherwinglove (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2014 (CST)
- About that familiar: Those statements are problematic (especially if they are very hidden) when it does change. For such statements I'm using {{Check version}} which automatically shows that it is outdated as soon as a new version is released. Of course everything could be marked, I only try to use it where such statements are problematical (like here where it is not directly obvious). Especially as it will mark those as outdated after every version update. The same problem is with the description about the RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster, as you can't guarantee that it stays similar to it's first release. — xZise [talk] 13:49, 4 March 2014 (CST)
- I do see your point, but as far as the parts tabs go, I think Squad changing them significantly at this point would be suicidal, causing such an uproar in the user community that we'd never hear the end of it, even if they made a hotfix to change it back (I'm a little surprised Microsoft removing the Start Button from Windows 8 hasn't made more waves, so I could be wrong about that.) As for the RT-10, if it changes significantly, I'll notice PDQ. I was surprised that it looks exactly the same in 0.1 as in 0.7.3! Featherwinglove (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2014 (CST)
- About that familiar: Those statements are problematic (especially if they are very hidden) when it does change. For such statements I'm using {{Check version}} which automatically shows that it is outdated as soon as a new version is released. Of course everything could be marked, I only try to use it where such statements are problematical (like here where it is not directly obvious). Especially as it will mark those as outdated after every version update. The same problem is with the description about the RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster, as you can't guarantee that it stays similar to it's first release. — xZise [talk] 13:49, 4 March 2014 (CST)
Console Versions
Are we going to do console versions as well? PlanetBuster2246 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
