Mako

Stretching the limits of my memory leaves me thinking it was something about how symmetry worked (or didn't) with either attachments to it or with attaching it to ships. I'm probably just mistaken, but if there's any chance I'm not it was quite a while ago. Broken or not, updating the appearance of that part could only improve things, but I agree it would still be worse than the cubic octagonal strut.

5+ years on and I don't think I've ever used this part. I mostly blame my disuse of it on the fact that I'm not terribly creative, but it doesn't help that it's very ugly (and if I'm not completely mistaken was broken in some way for a while). I can't say I'll have any more use for it revamped than I do now (I honestly forget it even exists most of the time), but it'd be nice to know it got done up as well for consistency's sake.

By my understanding, Squad no longer owns any part of KSP or Kerbals, having sold the property to Take-Two Interactive. Therefore, it is solely up to Take-Two to make merchandise happen as they're now the only people who can legally do so. This comes up from time to time since Take-Two's purchase over a year ago, and the only "official" word we have received so far is that it's being worked on. That was said by Squad's PR person quite a while ago, and I've never seen any official word from Take-Two themselves. I'm a bit surprised, really. Take-Two has proven time and again that they love money much more than they love delievering a good product, so over-priced, cheaply-manufactured, licensed merchandise seems like the kind of thing they would love to send your way.

It's not an easy problem to tackle, but I do think you've hit on what is often a contributing cause, if not the root cause, of a lot of users' frustrations with many software titles. In the case of KSP specifically, we've never really known what to expect beyond the next update. And rarely, if ever, has the next update has been perfectly clear or detailed. Surprises are probably a good thing in general, but the community hasn't had a clear idea of KSP's future post-launch. Based on my experience with other titles and other dev teams It feels like that's because Squad itself hasn't had a clear idea. Right now it feels like they're still working on KSP because they don't know what else to do and Take-Two is still sending money, so why not? It seems unlikely that that's the case, but that's how it feels. Whatever the case may be, I don't think anyone can say that Squad is providing enough info to have any idea what to expect, even about something as specific as the currently underway art revamp. It can be tough to manage, but I always feel like providing as much honest information as possible is best. I know some folks in this forum like to point out that some people will misunderstand any communication and use that as an excuse to not share any info, but that just strikes me as failing to communicate clearly on the dev side and failing to comprehend on the user side. Just accept that there will be some of that, and work through it. It seems better than the alternative, and no one would have to be any more engaged than they currently are with the community. You're right that it's not an easy, quick thing to tackle, but maybe it doesn't really matter. Maybe the numbers guys at Take-Two have figured out that KSP sold well enough that any DLC will likely sell enough to justify continued development with or without a lot of community engagement. Or maybe, like how you're feeling about KSP, it's a work in progress and we'll see improvement. As I said earlier: I do want you to be right.

@Lisias Tylo said it better than I could of. Just to clarify: Everything besides what Squad employees have posted in this thread, including your posts, is speculation. You seem to have based your speculation on what Squad has said and some optimism. I appreciate this. This is what I would like to see. I've based my speculation on what I've observed from Squad while following KSP's development for the last 5 years, on what I've observed from other game development projects from before and after KSP, and on my natural predilection for pessimism. This is what I expect to see. I would love for you to be right and for me to be wrong. I would love for Squad to prove me wrong, but from what I've seen so far I don't expect them to. I expect KSP to remain a great idea with decent execution and unrealized potential. Making video games is hard, and sometimes good enough just has to be good enough. I'm happy with what I have, but it doesn't mean I don't want more or I stop seeing room for improvement.

Speaking of near offensive, your misunderstanding of klgraham's post(s) (and mine by proxy) is pretty much there. To be fair, text is not always a good way to convey nuance, but it also seems to be a case of seeing what you want instead of what's there. No one is asking for Squad to copycat Porkjet's style, however we would like to see them try to copy Porkjet's best practices when it comes to asset creation, such as efficient UV mapping and effective normal/specular map use. As for the guidelines/style guide side of things, yes, they change over the life of a franchise, and possibly even over the life of a single title, especially as development teams changes. But that implies there is a guideline to begin with. The disparate styles existing in KSP are a result of many peoples' styles and likely a total lack of a style guide in favor of getting working parts in updates. Now, that the parts are in the game, there's no rush to revamp them... unless development time is coming to an end. And since there's (presumably) no rush, there's time to do things right by following best practices and enacting a style guide. From what I've seen (just taking the part previews into account), there isn't a style guide. And that's what our posts have been about. It's not about the fact that the design style has changed, it's that it has never been consistent or coherent and the preview revamped parts don't show any sign of improving that situation.

The thing is, I'm less interested in anyone emulating the exact style of Porkjet's parts, and far more interested in current Squad emulating the technical proficiency exhibited by Porkjet. Squad can do whatever style they want, I'd just like them to at least implement Porkjet's best practices when it comes to asset creation.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. The thing is, and this is a (mostly) rhetorical question here, but what's worse? That we're looking at the results of having a style guide, or that we're looking at the results of the lack of a style guide? Both answers speak volumes and neither inspires hope...

I, too, am not a fan of the repeated texture. It makes the part look like it was rushed out the door with not enough time to avoid cutting corners, or not enough design direction/creativity to come up with a cohesive, full-height design. However, the end cap is an improvement, especially after the giant, featureless black hole end cap on the probe core last week. The trade-off this week of decent end cap for repeating body texture is not a great value proposition. And if, like a few others have mentioned, whites or other colors don't match between new and old parts, that's a problem. This, and other inconsistencies, makes me wonder if there is a style guide for part development, or if the artists are just winging it and hoping for the best. I recall something about a new hire for the position of art director a while back; I hope they, in particular, are reviewing the feedback regarding the art this and these past weeks. Consistency amongst assets is important, but not so much that you're repeating textures...

@Nozza Negativity aside, passinglurker's critique on the quality of the work shown has never come across as just complaining and is far from the "it's not porkjet so I don't like it" summary you've decided it is. Porkjet is only brought into the discussion because Porkjet's quality of work is the best we've seen in stock KSP to date, and accepting anything less seems like accepting a downgrade in quality. The technical ability demonstrated in some of the previews is subpar when compared to other parts already in the game. That is the argument being made here. The problem is it then comes down to lack of advanced ability of the current artists (I don't mean this as an insult, I can't draw my way out of a paper bad in real life or on PC), indifference, or development considerations. Not everyone is a skilled artist, and sometimes in game development "good enough" has to be considered good enough to ship. However, it doesn't mean that it stands up to art that is already in the game. Porkjet's work isn't being evaluated here on its style, but on its technical expertise. It does things well on the artistic side of things as well as the game asset side. It's not unattainable by folks other than Porkjet, but we haven't seen the current team at Squad attempt to meet the same quality level. It's clear they're trying something -- no one can deny that -- but what they are showing isn't as proficient as what's come before. You can like a style and still find faults with its execution, and you can agree that something is technically excellent and still find it unattractive, and everything in between... but what is being discussed (again, negativity aside) is the technical excellence displayed in Squad's previews. Your breakdown of the discussion is inaccurate and skewed (even when we factor in negativity).

This is something I can completely get behind. There is no downside to everyone being a bit nicer (the world could certainly use it) as long as you accept that being nicer in and of itself is unlikely to affect the outcome.

Fair enough, as long as we're not arguing that friendly wording makes criticism more accurate. It might be less unpleasant, but it's not inherently more accurate. Three things with regards to this. 1) Continued negativity from a community can and has caused creators to leave projects. I'm not saying it will happen here or that all of Squad would stop working, but there is plenty of history of people departing projects because of vocal opponents. We're people with feelings and, most importantly, limits. 2) I don't think anyone criticizing Squad's work is doing it for community recognition, so I doubt the lack of recognition will dissuade the less friendly critiques. 3) The issue with picking a version and sticking with it means you're limited to the mods available for only that version. This means giving up on any new stuff the community comes up with as well as giving up on new stock features/improvements. The thing is, when development ends no one will have to make that hard decision. Modding will continue after the last version of KSP hits the download servers. In fact, it might even thrive in an environment where modders don't have to worry about future stock changes breaking their work. And mods could focus on fixing and improving the stock game without concern for the effort being made redundant or untenable. The end of KSP development is not exactly a bad thing for a variety of reasons, and mods are one area that will likely benefit greatly. Lastly, and this is not a numbered response to your post specifically but rather KSP development in general: One day development will end. When it does, Squad will either dissolve or begin to work on something new (be it KSP 2 [hopefully without the limitations of KSP] or something else entirely). More games doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. And I'm probably not creative enough, but I just don't see where else KSP can go from here. I have to say I'm in the clean it up, bux fix, and polish the heck out of it and call it done camp. Continuing to bolt stuff on in a largely directionless fashion (as its felt to me and we have no evidence [roadmap] to the contrary) seems like a way to drag a good game down.

I don't think it increases the quality of the critique in the slightest. It does make the tone on the critique less offensive, and there is probably merit in that, but "nice" criticism is not inherently more correct or valid than "mean" criticism. The frustration exhibited by the tone of some posts is understandable, and also isn't helpful in and of itself. The criticism being offered however, regardless of tone, seems to me to be accurate in its assessments of the quality of work being shown. And no matter how nice you try to make the phrase "Your work is objectively unacceptable," it will always be a hard thing to hear. We can try to be as nice as possible, but the truth isn't always so kind. A person who cares about the work they do will likely be some amount of hurt hearing this (as you said, we're all human with feelings), but will hopefully see past their feelings as they realize how they can improve what they do. We often learn more from our mistakes than from our successes, and in this it helps to have someone point out our mistakes and suggest ways to correct or avoid these problems. Humans with feelings will, however, eventually give up -- no matter how much they care -- when met with enough negativity. It is not a great reaction, but it is an understandable, and I'd bet near 100% relatable, reaction. It seems like there is and growing number of folks who would not be opposed to this outcome, so try as anyone might, the tone may persist because being nice would encourage rather than discourage further development.

This is neat! I was mostly unaware of and unfamiliar with nomographs until this thread caught my attention. They seem like something I could really geek out over. Nice work!

Oh, I absolutely get that. My point was that you can already do that with very little fuss, so why wait for something that I imagine is unlikely to come and likely to be more work for Squad to implement than it is for a user to get going today with no external tools/mods necessary. One could weakly argue that Squad already did implement what is being asked for by using the options at the new game menu and the cheat menu. I don't think there's a single good reason to wait, if that's what you want to play now.