Kerbal Space Program: Making History Expansion Grand Discussion thread.

[Columbia]

8 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

I look forward to seeing the new parts squad has for us, but as foxster says, it will devide the craft sharing community. Any large, complex builds I post will always only use stock parts and as the DLC isn't 100% stock I won't make anything complex from the parts. It's funny, I've had the game for so long and my building skills have progressed so much that I have already recreated the American and Russian early space programs. I don't have any desire to fly those missions with stuff I didn't make from the ground up. 

 I don't doubt that the new parts will give a lot of pleasure to a lot of people though. :-)

Oh my god, someone shares my sentiment with this. 

I honestly doubt that there won't be tons of players classifying "stock" as having the DLC in their install and craft, or at least it would end up being part of the majority of people's creations.

5 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

1.875m parts! Hype hype hype hype!

..To think how much more serious and beautiful the game would look if all the parts were up to that quality of modeling..

[Vanamonde]

Some discussion has been merged into this master thread. 

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I'm kind of okay with the DLC (not completely because I don't think the game is finished), I'm not going to buy it, first because it's free to me, but mostly because it really doesn't come close to anything I'd like to do in KSP, but hey, to each his own. 

But in any case I think they're wrong as to the nature of the DLC.  They would have far more costumers for it if it was about end-game stuff. A capsule + decouplers can easily be added with mods (yes, I know consoles don't have those), but things to do once you've done it all, not so much. I'd rather have an expansion to expand the game to make it "longer" instead of "wider", so to speak.

One could also argue that it appeals to a niche specific group, the "historical reenactment" segment of the community, and that, from a cost-vs-income perspective, is not ideal at all.

The mission editor... "meh". Never used an editor or user created level/scenario/mission in my life and and I don't plan on starting now.  (BTW, those used to be free with the base game) But also, the decision to make it so the missions created with it can only be played by those who also bought the DLC... I don't know about that one. I understand that the idea here is to compel people to buy it, but I don't know if that's such a good idea for the game overall (as opposed to getting those juicy greenbacks).

[AlamoVampire]

Ok. I have a serious set of mixed feelings here. Part of this stems from a lack of information on things like:

1. System Specs? Same or higher need? lack of information available at this time causes this concern. Time will address this one.

2. Compatability for any future expansions? The concern here is this: Will this expansion be a locked in requirement for OTHER expansions in the future? Personally, this one is hit-miss with me. Dont care for the mission editor thing as I dont do career mode, so thats just wasted memory on my machine, personal opinion ofc. I honestly dont recall seeing if porkjets beauty pass on rocket parts is in the expac <personal opinion here is, that when <they DID say some day they would arrive when time permits> they show up, they should be stock, again, personal opinion> but new parts sounds nice, but, I have limited resources on my machine and honestly, dont like having to be tied to an expac that may or may not be useful to me just to make an expac that would <say as an example make KIS/KAS/SPACE Y/Planetary Base become stock which for me, be totally useful> force a less than useful expac on me. Bottom line concern: is this expac paid or not, a mandatory thing for future ones, or is it say like buying map packs on battlefield or call of duty--you can play with out it, and mix and match down the road?

The road of expansion packs can be a tricky one for sure. If its a small memory consumer <like adding say Space Y and its expanded follow up to my machine> and is at least half useful, I may get it, price point depending ofc, but, my hope is that, its like a 2x4 LEGO brick, nice to have, but, you can get away with say 4 1x2 bricks or 2 2x2 bricks to fill the same gap. Am I just wandering off on random hyperbole? Am I making sense? Suffice it to say, I hope this expac isnt a keystone to make others work, and if it is, its like say 5-10 bucks and is a small consumer of limited space ya know? Ok, time to wander off, I hope I made sense lol. Happy exploring space kindly readers.

[RoverDude]

8 hours ago, Hotaru said:

@RoverDude Question about the new Apollo ascent module (which looks brilliant, by the way). EDIT: EDIT2: never mind

I get that the RCS kind of has to be integral the way it's built, but why does it need that integral fuel tank? It looks like it's basically identical to a standard Round-8, why not just have a size-0 (or size-1) node at the bottom of the module so we could put anything we want there? I'm thinking, for instance, of an ion-powered spacecraft where I might want a xenon tank instead of an LFO one, and don't want to be carrying around the extra mass of a drained LFO tank.

The little fuel tank there is purely visual.  It disappears when you mate with a 1.25m part (i.e. the gray band above it), and looks pretty when you snug a 0.625m part in that attachment point (like a spark engine for your ascent stage - the LEM has a little bit of space for LFO)), and also disappears when its lower node is used for a 1.875 part (hence the shroud bit).  And I thought it was more visually interesting than another round disc

[Hotaru]

14 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

  The little fuel tank there is purely visual. It disappears when you mate with a 1.25m part (...)

Extremely cool. I look forward to building things that aren't Apollo ascent stage replicas with it. Thanks!

[Foxster]

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

...the LEM has a little bit of space for LFO...

That little bit of LFO plus a tank of Xenon plus an ion engine plus a fuel cell array would make a great little ship...except fuel cell arrays are so stupidly big and fugly!  

(Don't suggest using fuel cells instead - they should weigh and perform as 1/6 of an array but are broken in that respect). 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Foxster

[Deddly]

Broken or (un)balanced? "Broken" seems a bit harsh, doesn't it?

[Pawelk198604]

I Did not played game long time but when i tried to play it today i read article on Steam that would be new Expansion Pack does is true? :-) 

When it would be released?

[Gargamel]

Literally 4 threads above this one. 

 

[Vanamonde]

It's true, @Pawelk198604, but no release date has been set yet. See the accouncements. 

Meanwhile, your thread has been merged into the master discussion thread. 

[Gargamel]

On 3/19/2017 at 8:39 PM, gargamel said:

Literally 4 threads above this one. 

 

 

23 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

It's true, @Pawelk198604, but no release date has been set yet. See the accouncements. 

Meanwhile, your thread has been merged into the master discussion thread. 

 

Well dangit, now I gotta edit my post V!

[purpleivan]

On 18/03/2017 at 11:02 PM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

1.875m parts! Hype hype hype hype!

This is reminding me to have a crack at some KSP parts. I've been thinking about it for over  a year, but never seem to find the time when I have the energy.

[AccidentsHappen]

If I bought KSP from the website in 2011-2012 but only moved to steam after 2013, does the free DLC rule still apply? Sorry if someone's already asked this question, I'm in the last carriage of the hype train; I had to run after it

[TopHeavy11]

I think this is the first time that I have been as excited for a minor update as a larger one! 1.2.9 looks like a beautiful update, what with the missions, mission builder, language localization  and the recently released images of the 1.875 lander can/other unknown 1.875 parts. What are you most Exited for in this new patch?

[p1t1o]

Updates.

***

Dear Squad,

Please take your time with the DLC, do as much QA and experimentals as you need so that the DLC does not require patching, and then a hotfix, and then another patch 3 months later, and then another patch after another 6 month round of user feedback. I have been patiently waiting for KSP to convert from a project-that-still-needs-work to a fully complete game that no longer requires any fixes, with bugs only popping up rarely.

I continue to wait patiently because I know how good a product it is, and how difficult it must be to get it perfect.

But I dont think I can stand a whole seperate other battle to get a DLC up to code at the same time.

I imagine that modders will thank you as well.

With respect,

P1

[The Aziz]

Making history is a DLC, not the 1.2.9/1.3 update.

[Hodari]

Like pretty much all games out there these days, I don't think KSP will EVER reach that stage.  There's always going to be new stuff that can be added, bugs that need to be fixed, or SOMETHING that can be adjusted to make the game better.  And hopefully, they will continue to make those changes for as long as the game is popular enough to justify them doing so.  The game is pretty much "complete" now, so you're free to stop patching it and stay with whatever version you prefer, but it doesn't sound like they'll be finishing development on it any time soon.

[p1t1o]

54 minutes ago, Hodari said:

Like pretty much all games out there these days, I don't think KSP will EVER reach that stage.  There's always going to be new stuff that can be added, bugs that need to be fixed, or SOMETHING that can be adjusted to make the game better.  And hopefully, they will continue to make those changes for as long as the game is popular enough to justify them doing so.  The game is pretty much "complete" now, so you're free to stop patching it and stay with whatever version you prefer, but it doesn't sound like they'll be finishing development on it any time soon.

Not at all.

There are NO games that are in a permanent state of update and content adding, it makes no sense as a commercial venture.

I obviously didnt mean literal perfection, but KSP clearly suffers from many, many more bugs than the majority of A-list games, and bugfixing is a significant part of ongoing development. And pretty much every other game on my extensive steam list is feature-complete, not that it would be impossibel to add more content, but they are just completed projects, whereas KSP seems several steps behind that point. Thats not to say that A-list games dont suffer from bugs, but you generally expect them to be bug-free, and mostly you are not disappointed.

Its not a criticism especially, or otherwise an indictment of Squad, but KSP still requires more work before it can stack up, bug-wise against A-list titles.

Im not talking content, the limit to that is the economic/commercial endurance of the project, plus it would seem that extra content would come in the form of more DLCs from this point on.

Im just talking stability and bug-like problems, things like planetary surface seams, wheels working like wheels, surface friction, exploding bases etc etc.

And Im not even pushing for timescales because I know how finicky software projects are when it comes to that. 

I just dont want to get the DLC only to find that some parts are buggy and I need to wait 6 weeks to get them fixed. Followed by a hotfix...then anotehr patch etc etc. know what I mean?

And if they could finalise the "fixing" of base KSP as well, then I'd be a happy bunny indeed, but I dont see that taking any less than another year.

[DerekL1963]

10 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

There are NO games that are in a permanent state of update and content adding, it makes no sense as a commercial venture.

You're writing on the forum of one such game right now...   I know of at least one other (New MOO).  So, yeah, you're wrong there.  The model has changed, and there's no reason to foresee it going back unless we for some unknown reason abandon digital distribution and go back to physical media only.
 

12 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

I obviously didnt mean literal perfection, but KSP clearly suffers from many, many more bugs than the majority of A-list games

KSP isn't an A-list game.   Apples and the thing least like apples you can imagine.  (And even A-list games are going the route of permanent updating and DLC.)

[p1t1o]

@DerekL1963

I have to disagree on most fronts there, KPS wont be permanently in development, I doubt that very much. Permanent? MMOs are a different kind of animal, I grant though. That is a comparison I would call apples-to-oranges. KSP is very far from the MMO model.

As for a comparison to A-list, I dont see why KSP cant aspire to the same level of quality, I have no idea how else to define "A-list". That they are an independant seems irelevant. In any case, I merely wish for KSP to have a similar level of stability, nobody can say that they dont mind bugs hanging around forever or that they dont mind new ones being constantly introduced. That is what I mean by "complete".

No, there is no permanent update model. Remember the hoo-haa when we changed version of unity? What happens when that is obsolete? Re-write the entire thing for a new engine and call it an "update"? It would have to be a project onthe same scale as a whole new game, which it literally would be.

[DerekL1963]

7 hours ago, p1t1o said:

I have to disagree on most fronts there, KPS wont be permanently in development, I doubt that very much. Permanent? MMOs are a different kind of animal, I grant though. That is a comparison I would call apples-to-oranges. KSP is very far from the MMO model.

Since I didn't mention MMO's, I completely fail to see your point.   You're disagreeing with something I didn't say.
 

7 hours ago, p1t1o said:

No, there is no permanent update model.

From a pedantic point of view, you're correct...  the new model has only really been around for a few years, so you could weasel and say "there is no permanent update model".   Realistically, you're way off base - ongoing upgrades/updates and DLC for the life cycle of a game are steadily becoming far more common.  Games and apps that are "once and done" are steadily becoming the oddballs.

[322997am]

Let's just say this, I like new content, but nobody really likes paying for it. But squad has to have their crab so I will pay. No sarcasm. Seriously. Now my concern is associated with a backstory that may be over in a few months. My parents were never helicopter parents except when it comes to money. They take my gift cards that I get for my birthday and buy math textbooks for me. Ok, I don't care I earn a few bucks here and there anyway. But this money is in cash, and steam doesn't like cash. This problem will be solved as I negotiated that I could get a job over the summer and keep half and give half for my private school I got into. Now, I will buy the DLC when I have my own money. Ok, I am one of the kids/teens that have the opportunity to buy this. But many do not. And they know that the ppl who bought it before 2013 get the DLC for free. I understand why this is done, but doing a "veteran" priority will build a 50 ft wall between the old and new, and people who have the DLC vs those who don't. I honestly could see this community dying from this. My solution: don't do the 2013 veteran thing. Not worth it.   Should have read sources.

Edited March 23, 2017 by 322997am

[mattinoz]

On 19/03/2017 at 9:06 AM, Deddly said:

What if multiplayer came as a DLC? Back in 2013, they said:

Since those things would represent a very large amount of development time and cost, I don't see a problem with that. Those who aren't interested in the features they are producing don't have to pay for it, so it seems fair enough to everyone.

Source

 

 

There could well be a game changing feature set in this expansion. I mean the following is just a random off the top of my head list of things that have a better than good chance of being needed to really make the pack work, If they are really cover human space exploration to date:-

1.  Mun missions need a folding rover with some minor crane and construction systems to allow it to fit in the base of the lander.
2.  Folding parts for various exploration satellites.
3.  Lots of new science parts with various time requirements
4.  "Fog of war" mechanic on maps so the player feels like they have a sense of achievement from exploration. 
5.  Spaceship One and Whiteknight both in the atmosphere and suborbital at the same time.
6.  Air bags for those throwing yourself at the ground (on Mars) and hoping to fly moments.
7. Mission planner to me implies some dV targets coming out of the mapping part of those mission plans.
8. dV targets means some way to check target in craft builder.

[kBob]

3 minutes ago, 322997am said:

 I honestly could see this community dying from this. My solution: don't do the 2013 veteran thing. Not worth it. 

That would just alienate those who promised if they bought an early release they would get future DLC for free.  Those of us who didn't and were not made that promise have no reason to be jealous, it's just the way it worked out (and I missed the cutoff by only eight months).  Also there's a lot of this going around and we don't even know how much the DLC will be, if it's really expensive sure I can understand the problem and frustration of not being able to afford it, but what if it's like $5 or $10, I think most of us can save up that much in fairly short time...or wait for a Steam Sale, I often do that if I deem a DLC is a bit overpriced (ok I'm old I've learned patience but I do remember what is was like when I was young and how much slower time went by back then, but still I counsel patience, good things come to he/she who waits).