KSP Weekly: The art of making missions

[RoverDude]

@DMagic - fair enough   edited accordingly.  Though my thoughts on personally attacking the artist (and I don't think it was C7 given NASA parts are from 2014) still stands.

@Wallygator - as others noted, we were pretty clear regarding the inclusion of both American and Russian historic parts.  

 

[DMagic]

Dev notes from that time suggest that C7 and HarvesteR were primarily responsible for 0.23.5, though I didn't see anything specific about parts.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/79311516702/devnote-tuesdays-the-forward-progress-edition

[KSK]

1 hour ago, DMagic said:

Personal attacks aside, this has always been a poor argument. Being able to criticize something does not require being able to create that same thing yourself.

Maybe not but having half a clue about what's involved in creating that thing can be helpful for offering constructive criticism. 

[magico13]

On 4/7/2017 at 7:40 PM, SQUAD said:

For example, devs spent time finishing off development of a new Vessel and Part ID system that modders will also be able to leverage and provides persistent IDs for all Vessels and Parts for their entire lifecycle.

Given that I'm writing a new part inventory mod right now (that might extend to full vessel storage), this is a very interesting development. You say for their entire life cycle, can you provide any more specifics? Does the life of a part start at rollout or once it's placed in the editor? I'm hoping for the latter, since Kerbal Construction Time does a lot with ships before they ever roll out (IF they ever even roll out). If the Vessel IDs start at the ShipConstruct level as well then that greatly simplifies a workaround that I've had to do to uniquely identify vessels before they're loaded.

Also, where does the life cycle of a part end? Is it at recovery/destruction? I'm obviously going to be extending that life cycle much, much further so you can reuse specific parts in my inventory mod.

Basically, this looks like it could be really handy for me, but only if it's designed in a way that it's useful outside of the flight scene. Otherwise it's back to hacky workarounds for me, and unfortunately I'll have to use those hacky workarounds until this is released 

[RoverDude]

13 minutes ago, DMagic said:

Dev notes from that time suggest that C7 and HarvesteR were primarily responsible for 0.23.5, though I didn't see anything specific about parts.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/79311516702/devnote-tuesdays-the-forward-progress-edition

Ah!  Looks like you're correct   Thanks for digging that up

[passinglurker]

6 hours ago, RoverDude said:

I am not even sure Hugo made those parts.  Regardless, the personal attacks on someone who's not even here to defend himself are uncalled for.

Regardless of if Hugo or a committee made them the kerbodyne parts are still crap corner cutting parts that no one should use as a guide to making more parts.

Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most eloquent of communicators maybe I'm missing something here so if there is a way to say "this model or texture is bad or rather below the standards I as your paying customer would be willing to pay for" without it being taken by you as a personal attack on the author? then by all means educate me. I've been nothing but trying to be accommodating lately so that I don't drag down the voices of those who share my opinions.

6 hours ago, RoverDude said:

I can't seem to find an example of your own modeling work - I look forward to seeing it.

Maybe not but having half a clue about what's involved in creating that thing can be helpful for offering constructive criticism. 

I may not have much but I believe I'm qualified to judge a fuel tank, and I'm not the only one who has critiqued the work put out by squad.

 

[tater]

I judge quality of things I cannot make all the time. I cook, but I don't vint, or brew, or bake much, for example. I can presumably still have an opinion about a bread, or delicious beverage, right?

What I cannot do, is claim that X change is "easy" having not done it. So if I said that Squad should easily do X, then I'd be talking out my posterior, having no clue about the actual work it would take---so I try hard no to do that.

I'll restate my principle concern regarding new parts:

I don't think they should nod to the extant rocket parts at all, since the stock rocket parts are so very awful looking. Fix the stock rocket parts, THEN make new parts match. That, or make new parts, then fix the extant ones to match the new, more attractive style. Unless the spaceplane parts are getting redone (unlikely), then as a large block of "not ugly" parts, any new rocket parts should match that style/quality, ignoring the rocket parts.

Planes got seamless parts that combine to make something that looks intentional, including probe cores, etc. Rockets? Everything sticks out, and pretty much nothing is seamless.  When someone makes a stock Shuttle replica, the parts that make it look kludged together---are the stock rocket parts, not the spaceplane parts.

Tanks that don't combine to look like a single, long tank. Nosecones that don't match the tank options. Separators/decouplers that look silly, and interstages that can look odd (below a heat shield, for example, since the heat shields are slightly wider than the part they attach to). Obviously the decouplers, etc would presumably need new parts made, but perhaps they could rescale the 3.75m part that is flush? I can't say, I don't do models. Many of the other issues seem to be texture related, however, which I imagine is less work.

I guess it doesn't matter, I'll simply continue to use nearly zero stock rocket parts in favor of mod parts that are not ugly. The thing is that new parts that are otherwise really good might go out in the same bathwater if they copy the bad art style of the extant rocket parts.

[RoverDude]

Good to see an example of your work.  Thank you for sharing.  Regarding your question:

29 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Now I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most eloquent of communicators maybe I'm missing something here so if there is a way to say "this model or texture is bad or rather below the standards I as your paying customer would be willing to pay for" without it being taken by you as a personal attack on the author?

Two points.  Both regarding your second quote:

32 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Regardless of if Hugo or a committee made them the kerbodyne parts are still crap corner cutting parts that no one should use as a guide to making more parts.

 First, opening up by calling something 'crap' is not a conversation, it's just an attack.  So I think you started answering your question in your own post.

Second.  Lots of assumptions are being made.  Do not confuse 'Part A matches Part B' with 'Part A is being used as a guide for part B'.

[tater]

RoverDude, in the upcoming DLC, is the CM for the Kerbal version of Apollo the stock 2.5m command pod? Let's assume it is---It'll be sad to see it on-orbit, attached to your cool MEM (Munar Excursion Module) if the decoupler linking the CM with the SM is the terrible 2.5m decoupler we have now (this would be true with a new CM, actually, too). I'd say the same about attaching the MEM to stock tanks, as well. Cool lander pod attached to tanks that don't do it justice.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by tater

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

First, opening up by calling something 'crap' is not a conversation, it's just an attack.  So I think you started answering your question in your own post.

Well I can repeat myself
 

They get by at a distance on their pallet, but when you get close it becomes apparent that they don't have the pixel density of other parts their size and the meshes are jaringly jagged and low poly looking.

or in other words thanks to a combination of insufficient texture space and inefficient UV mapping they fail to deliver the same pixel densities as other parts in the catalog of similar size and they have insufficient polygons allocated to smooth thier appearance at this scale as well. These traits are widely considered to be flaws. better?
 

8 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Second.  Lots of assumptions are being made.  Do not confuse 'Part A matches Part B' with 'Part A is being used as a guide for part B'.

Well I more than welcome you clearing things up thank you. Ever since I regrettably turned you off with initially aggressive language I've been grasping for a firm understanding rather fruitlessly.

but could you tell me how these two phrase's meanings are so different? The Saturn parts are clearly borrowing elements from other less well done fuel tanks. The conduit boxes, the slanted sidewalls, the riveted pressure vessels... its all there plain as day.

[RoverDude]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

RoverDude, in the upcoming DLC, is the CM for the Kerbal version of Apollo the stock 2.5m command pod? Let's assume it is---It'll be sad to see it on-orbit, attached to your cool MEM (Munar Excursion Module) if the decoupler linking the CM with the SM is the terrible 2.5m decoupler we have now (this would be true with a new CM, actually, too). I'd say the same about attaching the MEM to stock tanks, as well. Cool lander pod attached to tanks that don't do it justice.

 

Sorry, NDA.  But there's an old adage RE assumptions.

[klesh]

Just now, RoverDude said:

But there's an old adage RE assumptions.

Think of the children on the forums!!!!  

 

How did the Tellemundo™ operations go last evening?

[tater]

Gotcha.

Related to the stock game (staying out of NDA territory, and avoiding making an a of you and me (  ), if a player were to use the extant 2.5m decoupler with any new, nice looking parts (or even our old friend the mk1-2 command pod), it would instantly make the craft unattractive. If the SM was constructed of either small 2.5m tank, it would be uglier still. Stick a poodle on the back, and we have a symphony of ugly.

I would say that since when I play stock (every new update, I play stock for a while to make constructive criticisms here (and praise any improvements), my primary parts are 2.5m rocket parts---all of which I pretty much hate aside from the CM. Cleaning those up alone would make the stock rocket game so much more attractive. I can't speak to the effort required, I'm not qualified, but I can certainly say that changing the 2.5m parts pretty much at random could only be an improvement.

[RoverDude]

15 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

but could you tell me how these two phrase's meanings are so different? The Saturn parts are clearly borrowing elements from other less well done fuel tanks. The conduit boxes, the slanted sidewalls, the riveted pressure vessels... its all there plain as day.

You are mixing two things, and calling them both 'less well done'.

There are technical considerations (some objective - like pixel density and UV efficiency), and some subjective (like having the rim of a Saturn V tank actually match the color of a rim of a Saturn V tank... instead of being tan).

Then there are subjective considerations, such as the shape and style of a greeble.  This includes defining what looks appropriate for a Kerbalized version of a part.  And the ultimate curator of that would be our art lead (Leticia).

And that's pretty much all I can say on the topic, given NDA's and such. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by RoverDude

[DoctorDavinci]

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Sorry, NDA.  But there's an old adage RE assumptions.

When you assume you make a Mule out of You and Me 

[passinglurker]

7 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Sorry, NDA.  But there's an old adage RE assumptions.

Talking about what parts Squad may leverage for making history is a speculation. A Speculation that some people see as potentially problematic hence why we talk about it to try to ward it off before it becomes reality. If we are wrong all along and look like fools for it then I'd say that's mission accomplished.

[RoverDude]

22 minutes ago, klesh said:

How did the Tellemundo™ operations go last evening?

We had to send a rescue mission to the rescue mission's rescue mission, but all is ok now

14 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Talking about what parts Squad may leverage for making history is a speculation. A Speculation that some people see as potentially problematic hence why we talk about it to try to ward it off before it becomes reality. If we are wrong all along and look like fools for it then I'd say that's mission accomplished.

Speculation is fine.  Pulling out pitchforks and acting like the world is on fire because of assumptions... not so much.  There is plenty of good speculation out there, even speculation that is not complimentary of Squad.  

'I wish they would do X because of Y'

vs

'It looks like they are doing X, and X is horrible and they are bad people who do bad work because Z is really the only way to go because of the very obvious case that they are doing Y.  So let us all protest X, because long live Z!  Also, you are a bad bad person (and an unrefined cretin) if you like X!' 

Hyperbole, but I expect the point is made

Voice your concerns.  Air your suggestions.  And don't expect any acknowledgement other than what you see in the final product (i.e. there is no need to flog the horse.  The horse is dead.  It is so dead that it has long since been turned into paste and eaten by a kindergartner).

Edited April 9, 2017 by RoverDude

[passinglurker]

37 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

You are mixing two things, and calling them both 'less well done'

I'm sure your work meets the standards of smoothness and pixel density but in defining what is kerbal Leticia seems to be incorporating elements from parts that much of the community sees as artistically obsolete. Elements we want to see replaced and eliminated not validated and vindicated in new parts going forward. It leads to speculation that old parts are here to stay which creates worry. Which in turn could effect sales and at the end of the day creative freedom must be balanced against consumer expectations

Going "all hail porkjet" was a poor way to go about it yes I've since redacted those statements, but the point stands that much of the community clamors for a revamp of the rocket parts, and as long as Squad acts all hush hush about it we can only speculate from what information we are given and worry because the last time Squad acted all hush hush things did not turn out in the communities best interests (The rush to 1.0 the torrent of bugs that persisted until relativly recently, the failed console launch that still suffers from these bugs. This all makes it hard to trust squad.)

Either way I welcome this worry turning out to be for nothing, but until then I feel that scrutiny is important given the history of this game's development. Though I hope in the future to keep the raising of concern much more civil.

Edited April 9, 2017 by passinglurker

[Frozen_Heart]

If squad does update some of the needed old parts for making history (aka the 2.5m command pod as the apollo command module), will only people with the expansion get the new graphics for the old parts?

[klesh]

45 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

If squad does update some of the needed old parts for making history (aka the 2.5m command pod as the apollo command module), will only people with the expansion get the new graphics for the old parts?

 

No one knows and those that do won't be able to say yet.   My guess is no.   If you want any of the content in MH, then you'd need to buy it.

[Majorjim!]

4 hours ago, stibbons said:

There's no part of "paying customer" that entitles one to dish out baseless personal insults.

Agreed, personal attacks are reductive.

4 hours ago, stibbons said:

There's also no part of "paying customer" that qualifies one for an opinion on "sub standard", but that's hardly the point.

So upon what exactly is ones 'opinion' supposed to be based? Seeing as @passinglurker posted some of his lovely looking modding work I would say that suffices.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Majorjim!

[Azimech]

On 8-4-2017 at 1:40 AM, SQUAD said:

For example, devs spent time finishing off development of a new Vessel and Part ID system that modders will also be able to leverage and provides persistent IDs for all Vessels and Parts for their entire lifecycle. This is core expansions functionality that will allow missions to do all kinds of crazy stuff.

I'm absolutely thrilled by this, it makes identifying problems much easier. But ... I feel this should be part of the stock game.

Quote

Happy launchings!

Thanks! The update this week is certainly of a level I appreciate!

And thank you as well for the ambient light adjustment sliders, it makes driving at night so much more realistic and enjoyable!

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Azimech

[JPLRepo]

5 hours ago, magico13 said:

Given that I'm writing a new part inventory mod right now (that might extend to full vessel storage), this is a very interesting development. You say for their entire life cycle, can you provide any more specifics? Does the life of a part start at rollout or once it's placed in the editor? I'm hoping for the latter, since Kerbal Construction Time does a lot with ships before they ever roll out (IF they ever even roll out). If the Vessel IDs start at the ShipConstruct level as well then that greatly simplifies a workaround that I've had to do to uniquely identify vessels before they're loaded.

Also, where does the life cycle of a part end? Is it at recovery/destruction? I'm obviously going to be extending that life cycle much, much further so you can reuse specific parts in my inventory mod.

Basically, this looks like it could be really handy for me, but only if it's designed in a way that it's useful outside of the flight scene. Otherwise it's back to hacky workarounds for me, and unfortunately I'll have to use those hacky workarounds until this is released 

Starts from placement in the editor/ShipConstruct.
Ends at recovery/destruction (but nothing stopping a mod from re-adding it).
Works in any scene.

55 minutes ago, Azimech said:

I'm absolutely thrilled by this, it makes identifying problems much easier. But ... I feel this should be part of the stock game.

Thanks! The update this week is certainly of a level I appreciate!

And thank you as well for the ambient light adjustment sliders, it makes driving at night so much more realistic and enjoyable!

<snip pic>

 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

I'm sure your work meets the standards of smoothness and pixel density but in defining what is kerbal Leticia seems to be incorporating elements from parts that much of the community sees as artistically obsolete. Elements we want to see replaced and eliminated not validated and vindicated in new parts going forward. It leads to speculation that old parts are here to stay which creates worry. Which in turn could effect sales and at the end of the day creative freedom must be balanced against consumer expectations

[...]

I'll toss in my $0.02 here: I think the 3.75m parts are a good design aesthetically, but they are poorly implemented technically. The rhino is one of the best designed engines in the game IMO. It's only implementation that's holding it back. For example, the mammoth vs. the KS-25:

They are the same overall design of engine, however the KS-25 has details that make it shine, like the caution text, better modeled regenerative cooling tubes, and more tris.

I think that there is nothing wrong with the design of the 3.75m tanks, and they would look great with an art pass.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Mad Rocket Scientist

[klesh]

That comparison is the very definition of a picture being worth a thousand words.