Devnote Tuesday: 1.2 is getting ever closer!

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Console players, though.

Who knows? In 3 years when 1.2 is on consoles, there may be modding support.

Edited September 7, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[TheDestroyer111]

Oh no.

Does 1.2 increase performance on ALL computers? Because when 1.1 lowered my performance, Project Spiderweb is gonna kill my computer entirely...

[Frozen_Heart]

I need that 303 engine. Looks perfect for 1.25m upper stages. Terrier is way too powerful while the probe engines are too weak.

[Red Iron Crown]

3 minutes ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

Oh no.

Does 1.2 increase performance on ALL computers? Because when 1.1 lowered my performance, Project Spiderweb is gonna kill my computer entirely...

I would guess so, I expect a big part of the gains to be from the improved resource flow code and that should help on any hardware.

[genbrien]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

As time goes on, I am more disapointed by KSP's development.  

why?

[Mycroft]

I'm not disappointed! In fact, I'm happy as Jeb about the development!

[klesh]

26 minutes ago, genbrien said:

why?

 

The botched console release.  Things like KerbNet, implementing it into the scanning, 3,000 green lines all over the map (yes, I know that shot is a stresstest).  I dont recall hearing overwhelming cries for remote tech to be made stock; I never used it as a mod myself.  Things like an art pass on rocket parts not happening, but instead a fuel flow setup that you should really be able to figure out on your own.  At this point we're well past 1.0, yet arbitrary items are still being added out of the blue, while long sought after things like an delta v computer arent developed.  "mod it in" no longer works as consoles can't mod.  

Its like development is a relay race, and everyone who gets the baton takes us into strange new directions.  You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off.  

[Daveroski]

I love the idea.

You can turn it off.

 

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, DV-13 said:

I wonder if really small amount of people have seen those. I suppose, that Nestor is talking about this picture.

*snip*

(Pls, don't ban me)

Those look fantastic! And do I spot much-welcomed gap-filler engines as well?

Which confuses me even more as to why this picture would come from a community member at the risk of being banned and prompting a moderator to check if it's okay after the fact, and not directly from a Squad staffer in response to all those ceaseless requests for info...

 

28 minutes ago, klesh said:

You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off.  

This statement is so utterly, colossally wrong that I am sorely tempted to describe it in ways that might break the forum rules. And you know it.

Having the ability to toggle game elements via the difficulty panel is a feature, an advantage, a boon to every player. It has literally no downside whatsoever. Misconstruing that into a negative aspect IMHO takes active intent to be as misleading and disingenious as possible.

I struggle to even find a different example or metaphor to compare this to in order to highlight how nonsensical this notion is.

 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Streetwind

[klesh]

9 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

This statement is so utterly, colossally wrong that I am sorely tempted to describe it in ways that might break the forum rules. And you know it.

Having the ability to toggle game elements via the difficulty panel is a feature, an advantage, a boon to every player. It has literally no downside whatsoever. Misconstruing that into a negative aspect IMHO takes active intent to be as misleading and disingenious as possible.

I struggle to even find a different example or metaphor to compare this to in order to highlight how nonsensical this notion is.

Thats the great part about opinions, you needn't be tempted or struggle at all. You can just let me have mine.

[Streetwind]

Very well. We shall agree to disagree.

[pellinor]

10 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Quote

You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off.  

I struggle to even find a different example or metaphor to compare this to in order to highlight how nonsensical this notion is.

"You know a game is no good when it comes with a modding interface"

[Mycroft]

19 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

The botched console release.  Things like KerbNet, implementing it into the scanning, 3,000 green lines all over the map (yes, I know that shot is a stresstest).  I dont recall hearing overwhelming cries for remote tech to be made stock; I never used it as a mod myself.  Things like an art pass on rocket parts not happening, but instead a fuel flow setup that you should really be able to figure out on your own.  At this point we're well past 1.0, yet arbitrary items are still being added out of the blue, while long sought after things like an delta v computer arent developed.  "mod it in" no longer works as consoles can't mod.  

Its like development is a relay race, and everyone who gets the baton takes us into strange new directions.  You know a development idea is no good when it comes with the option to turn it off.  

Please stop hating on the developers. It is exceedingly obvious to me that you have very little idea about exactly how much work goes into game development. Just because you never used remote tech doesn't mean that it was not asked for to be stock. I've seen it asked for multiple times. Also, the fact that something can be turned off in no way implies anything about its quality. Just because gravity can be disabled in the stock game, by your own definition, means that gravity is "no good". Also since when do stress tests count as an accurate representation of how good the whole game is? They sort of do, because it should handle stress, but that test was to see how much the game could handle. If you want to complain, PM a staff member. Please don't just come out in front of everyone with a criticism that only displays, well, ignorance. I think we should be thanking our stars that KSP exists at all. If you don't like it, ya don't have ta download it! 

I'm sorry if I seem rude, I just really don't like it when someone badmouths the dev team.

1 minute ago, pellinor said:

"You know a game is no good when it comes with a modding interface"

Hehehehehee that's hilarious! 

[klesh]

Actually, its on steam, so it will be automatically downloaded.

 

Thanks for your opinion on my opinion. 

5 minutes ago, pellinor said:

"You know a game is no good when it comes with a modding interface"

Consoles.

[Mycroft]

Just now, klesh said:

Actually, its on steam, so it will be automatically downloaded.

 

Thanks for your opinion on my opinion. 

You're welcome. Oh by the way, the auto download can be disabled. 

 

Oh wait...

That must mean that the auto download feature is no good! 

[klesh]

Just now, Mycroft said:

Oh wait...

That must mean that the auto download feature is no good! 

It was so good, they removed that feature.

 

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/1/618463738393175663/

[passinglurker]

9 minutes ago, pellinor said:

"You know a game is no good when it comes with a modding interface"

Lol I'd disagree but I can't think of a game with a modding community that isn't at least partially fueled by community bug, balance, and beauty fixes because the core game felt lacking to some one

I think it just comes with the territory of games most lack something mods just let you see it and do something about it.

Edited September 7, 2016 by passinglurker

[Mycroft]

7 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Lol I'd disagree but I can't think of a game with a modding community that isn't at least partially fueled by community bug, balance, and beauty fixes because the core game felt lacking to some one

I think it just comes with the territory of games most lack something mods just let you see it and do something about it.

But does that mean that the game is no good? In other words has no value?

[Squelch]

11 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

Just because gravity can be disabled in the stock game, by your own definition, means that gravity is "no good".

Well gravity does suck...allegedly

 

6 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I think it just comes with the territory of games most lack something mods just let you see it and do something about it.

Just about every sandbox game could be described as lacking something, so providing the ability to modify the game to suit individuals needs and wants is really a no brainer.

Are there a set of rules that dictate what should and shouldn't be in any given game? Some of the best ones have broken any perceived conventions and are later hailed as groundbreaking. It is the territory indeed.

[passinglurker]

10 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

But does that mean that the game is no good? In other words has no value?

I'd say good is subjective. To someone who's into little open and shut case puzzle games like tetris then this would be no good for sure

[Capt Snuggler]

5 hours ago, klesh said:

As time goes on, I am more disapointed by KSP's development.  

I don't think that's fair. Recently I have been really exited about the features being developed.

Though I am sad that the rocket part revamp has been shelved (especially after seeing the pic posted above) the Devs have done a great job with the up coming features and I'm happy to be getting them.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Capt Snuggler

[Columbia]

3 hours ago, Mycroft said:

snip

You hold a good point, but maybe you can..

..let him have his own opinion? It doesn't really matter. Agree to disagree, instead of trying to change his outlook, maybe?

 

[luizopiloto]

6 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Hey, I know, maybe someone can create a mod that will replace the crappy stock models with these without changing any stats or affecting play balance at all. You know, like Squad should have done in 1.2. 

If squad want the community to finish the game... why not opensource the entire game so we can bring KSP to it's full potential?

[ShotgunNinja]

For the parts: as I understand these were using physically based rendering (PBR). Now, that is a completely different lighting model, and while the actual implementations in 3d engines are each one unique in some way, most if not all of them require the use of light probes (that doesn't play well in an environment such as the one in KSP, to put it mildly). And assets have to be designed for PBR from the start. The architecture of the game engine too need to be designed to provide the data required for PBR, that is not a trivial task. I know that unity new 'standard shader' is some kind of poor-man PBR implementation, but I also know that you don't just change something like that in a game on the run.

So my guess is that they were overly optimistic in what could have been accomplished in the new Unity standard shader, without too much re-engineering of the whole thing. This is unfortunate, but c'est la vie. From PR side they didn't want to disappoint, and people keep asking for these parts. Hence the release of the unfinished assets, in my opinion, as a form of 'good gesture'. That is welcomed, maybe whatever work was done will not be completely wasted.

For the biome maps instead, why were they linearly interpolated (filtered) in the first place I don't understand. You want to filter them when used for rendering the biome overlay on the planets. But when evaluating them to check if the vessel is in a biome, you should just do nearest sampling of a 2d array of values, without interpolation at all.

[juanml82]

4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Those look fantastic! And do I spot much-welcomed gap-filler engines as well?

Which confuses me even more as to why this picture would come from a community member at the risk of being banned and prompting a moderator to check if it's okay after the fact, and not directly from a Squad staffer in response to all those ceaseless requests for info...

 

This statement is so utterly, colossally wrong that I am sorely tempted to describe it in ways that might break the forum rules. And you know it.

Having the ability to toggle game elements via the difficulty panel is a feature, an advantage, a boon to every player. It has literally no downside whatsoever. Misconstruing that into a negative aspect IMHO takes active intent to be as misleading and disingenious as possible.

I struggle to even find a different example or metaphor to compare this to in order to highlight how nonsensical this notion is.

 

I think what he means is that, if you're developing a game and a new, not particularly heavily requested, feature has to come with an on/off toggle, maybe you should consider investing the man-hours needed for it in some other new feature.