Do you want features to be removed?

[Sharpy]

On 2.02.2017 at 1:09 PM, Moh1336 said:

The administration building.

I have never seen a purpose for this building. I used it once out of curiosity, but I have never seen a need for it in career. Maybe it is more useful in later careers?

What?! No!

A small, challenging helipad? The pool to test how robust your rovers are? I absolutely refuse to have it removed!

[razark]

2 hours ago, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

Isn't any reply to this, in some coded form "I don't like this feature and anyone who uses it is obviously wrong"?

We all know that if you don't play exactly the way I do that you are not only obviously wrong, but also a horrible person that doesn't even realize that you're not actually having fun!

 

 

Seriously, though, think of it as more of a vote for options.

[John FX]

On 01/02/2017 at 5:15 PM, razark said:

Not that.  I mean the menu itself.  I'd like to click on it, not wait for it to finish flying about the screen.

I suggested this a couple of years ago, to reduce the amount of time it takes to animate between menus.

Now, I don`t think it will happen.

EDIT :

3 hours ago, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

Isn't any reply to this, in some coded form "I don't like this feature and anyone who uses it is obviously wrong"?

I don't think anything should be removed because I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy this game in different ways to how I do.

No, it`s people expressing their opinion and how they would customise their own game. They are saying "Myself, I don`t like this feature, my game would be improved by it being removed, your mileage may vary"

Edited February 9, 2017 by John FX

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

3 hours ago, razark said:

We all know that if you don't play exactly the way I do that you are not only obviously wrong, but also a horrible person that doesn't even realize that you're not actually having fun!

 

 

Seriously, though, think of it as more of a vote for options.

But as I've tried to point out before, because a **lot** of people don't seem to realise this, is that the more options you add to the system, the more you add to the testing work. Software isn't perfect and every *combination* could potentially throw up new and unexpected scenarios.

So, you create a game that, say, takes 45 hours to test. You add a single option to vary the game and, in all thoroughness, you ought to now spend 90 hours to test. Of course, in reality you cut corners and say "of course" some features don't interact and so you only need to check on one of the settings. And then you end up generating all female scientists as your rescuees, or similar.

---

Or, to put it another way - a lot of people seem to believe that adding options/checkboxes to software is "free" when in fact it's the opposite - it either adds to the testing costs or it produces more unique combinations that aren't tested.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Damien_The_Unbeliever
Summary at end

[MinimalMinmus]

4 hours ago, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

But as I've tried to point out before, because a **lot** of people don't seem to realise this, is that the more options you add to the system, the more you add to the testing work. Software isn't perfect and every *combination* could potentially throw up new and unexpected scenarios.

So, you create a game that, say, takes 45 hours to test. You add a single option to vary the game and, in all thoroughness, you ought to now spend 90 hours to test. Of course, in reality you cut corners and say "of course" some features don't interact and so you only need to check on one of the settings. And then you end up generating all female scientists as your rescuees, or similar.

---

Or, to put it another way - a lot of people seem to believe that adding options/checkboxes to software is "free" when in fact it's the opposite - it either adds to the testing costs or it produces more unique combinations that aren't tested.

In some of the cases pointed before, it's not at all "removing an option" but really "removing a restriction", namely, say, the fact you shouldn't be FORCED to burn antiradial on Gilly to prevent an early case of nervous breakdown. As of me, I don't really consider myself really saying "The admin building should be removed" but rather "The admin building is currently as useful as dung, let's make it more useful".

[Sharpy]

21 hours ago, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

Or, to put it another way - a lot of people seem to believe that adding options/checkboxes to software is "free" when in fact it's the opposite - it either adds to the testing costs or it produces more unique combinations that aren't tested.

OTOH removing them reduces the amount of consecutive testing in future iterations of the game. Simpler code - less ways it can cause trouble.

[Nathair]

On 2017-02-09 at 1:39 PM, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

a lot of people seem to believe that adding options/checkboxes to software is "free" when in fact it's the opposite - it either adds to the testing costs or it produces more unique combinations that aren't tested.

I don't think it's free, I think it's worth it. Big difference.

[Raphaello]

I only know KSP from 1.2 and I can see it as a pretty stable piece of code. It is probably the most stable release in history (looking at the amount of issues people complained before).

Theoretically speaking less code = more stability and less effort BUT once you get your codebase under control - is it really that beneficial to remove code? I bet it is not . All of us - Kerbonauts - are practical folks, theory does not bother us much.

As @Nathair said - it's worth it.

[Acolyte]

I have started playing this game only a month ago, so I am still a noob, but I can't see anything that needs removing. The admin building doesn't do much, and the one strategy I used (rep->sci) yields hilariously bad results. But I can just ignore it, so it can stay.

However it is important that things can be removed from the game by the player to customise the players experience. For example right now I use the mobile science lab quite a bit, as funneling science through it while I do other contracts works ok for me. But one day in another career I might want to go full-biome hopping and ignore the lab, or maybe turn down its multiplier.

Compulsory-dev-deletions bad, Optional-player-deletions good.

[Motokid600]

How about replacing the rcs sound effect with something that doesn't sound like someone blowing into the mic?

[FleshJeb]

The current implementation of the aero occlusion system.

The pre-1.0 aero was too "handwavy", and the current system is not handwavy enough.

Sometimes you just want to slap a battery or other greeble on and say "That looks cool, it's integrated into the craft somehow, let's fly."

Given that the shapes of and the values for the parts are fairly arbitrary, it doesn't make sense to make them function in a more strict system.

[John FX]

16 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

How about replacing the rcs sound effect with something that doesn't sound like someone blowing into the mic?

It`s not impossible that is actually what the recording is.

Edited February 11, 2017 by John FX

[Galileo]

On 2/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Motokid600 said:

How about replacing the rcs sound effect with something that doesn't sound like someone blowing into the mic?

i got a good chuckle out of this!

Edited February 21, 2017 by Galileo

[Spacetraindriver]

The only feature I want removed is lag. Like why did the developers include it? 

[Dafni]

I wish the whole KSPedia thing would be optional. The asset bundles load far longer than anything else, and I never use them.

I can see how beginners would appreciate KSPedia, so I am not suggesting to remove it. It is quite nicely done and all, it just should be optional.

[Tex_NL]

Autostruts. But even more I want the NEED for autostruts to be removed.
I know, autostruts solve a number of issues. But in return they introduce a number of others especially in cases where autostruts can not be disabled/removed. If the need for autostruts is fixed the struts and the bug that come with them can go out the window too.

"Autostruts are evil. They are the spawn of the devil!"

And before they even introduce it: Localization. I have absolutely no desire to have me game bloated by dozens of text files and textures I will never ever use.

2 minutes ago, Dafni said:

I wish the whole KSPedia thing would be optional. The asset bundles load far longer than anything else, and I never use them.

I can see how beginners would appreciate KSPedia, so I am not suggesting to remove it. It is quite nicely done and all, it just should be optional.

Good point. Why include a KSPedia when you have a wiki? Update AND maintain the wiki and you don't need a KSPedia.

[Dafni]

3 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

And before they even introduce it: Localization. I have absolutely no desire to have me game bloated by dozens of text files and textures I will never ever use.

Good point. Why include a KSPedia when you have a wiki? Update AND maintain the wiki and you don't need a KSPedia.

Both good points. If the localization is the same as KSPedia (i.e. it loads the whole kit and kaboodle even if you dont use it) then yeah, please keep it. IMHO different language packs should be like mods, grab what you need from some kind of online inventory and install only what you need. But we dont know yet how they will go about this, right? Lets just hope they dont introduce even more needless files into the base game.

And I agree on the Wiki thing too. Please just update and maintain the wiki, could have saved so much work on SQUADs side, and so much loading time on our end too.

[John FX]

One `feature` I would like to see gone is the need to load all assets at launch. Mods have been made which allow on the fly loading of textures and in the cheat menu you can reload assets so the fundamentals are possible. This would mean things like localisation etc would not affect the memory load of users not using the features.

Of course it may require more than a cursory examination to be possible so it won`t happen. I get the impression there are not many coding heavy hitters in the team.

I know it`s only rendered and would not be possible in a game but this is what Unity can do real time to give you an idea of just how many features of Unity are not being exploited...

 

[Tex_NL]

1 minute ago, John FX said:

this is what Unity can do real time to give you an idea of just how many features of Unity are not being exploited.

It is 'rendered' in real time. But there is very little physics calculation. KSP is VERY heavy on physics. Maybe in a few years when PCs are a few orders better. But until them you'll have to choose.

[John FX]

1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:

It is 'rendered' in real time. But there is very little physics calculation. KSP is VERY heavy on physics. Maybe in a few years when PCs are a few orders better. But until them you'll have to choose.

 

1 hour ago, John FX said:

I know it`s only rendered and would not be possible in a game

 

[Sharpy]

On 9.02.2017 at 4:08 PM, razark said:

We all know that if you don't play exactly the way I do that you are not only obviously wrong, but also a horrible person that doesn't even realize that you're not actually having fun!

I bet you love watching random parts tumbling down Gilly slopes for hours without being able to switch to other craft.

[Wjolcz]

Destructible buildings. What a waste of polygons.

[StupidAndy]

I REALLY want them to get rid of the fairing textures, they're SO UGLY

it looks like, what's the word? there isn't even an analogy to describe it!