KSP Weekly: Venerating the Venera

[Sirad]

11 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Sadly 3d art doesn't work like this if a texture is "don't-call-them-placeholders" quality then the model and most importantly the UV map(the bit that says which swath of texture goes on which facet of polygon in a model) will be about the same meaning flaws like inconsistent texel densities and inefficient layouts will still exist not to mention some parts are missing vital normal and specular maps which necessitate re-exporting the models through unity to enable the needed shaders. Basically with all the effort it would take to shoe horn a better quality texture into a "don't-call-them-placeholders" quality part in a way that is consistent with the peak quality parts in stock you'd be better off just modeling from scratch (to fit the existing collider so that there are no vessel loading issues of course).

I just didnt realized that i had to describe the complete remodeling process to get the 'passed qc' stamp from you on my short words of 'replacing textures' Sorry. For the future i'll change that.

 

[Alpha_Mike_741]

Wait wait wait, stock texture switcher ?

 

Soot covered SpaceX-e Falcon 9 replicas ...

Spoiler

HHHHHHHHHEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[passinglurker]

5 minutes ago, Sirad said:

I just didnt realized that i had to describe the complete remodeling process to get the 'passed qc' stamp from you on my short words of 'replacing textures' Sorry. For the future i'll change that.

 

No need to get defensive just making sure the potential ramifications of what you were asking were understood. To keep the exact same old models but replace textures would basically get you something on par with the kerbal renaissance pack extra ram requirements and all.

[Daveroski]

New Mollyprop tanks for the DLC is all well and good, however you made a song and dance about needing probes and satellites for coms and unmanned missions and have produced no probe sized RCS parts. The smallest available parts are 5-10 times bigger, heavier and more powerful than they need to be.

 

[Mako]

2 hours ago, Sirad said:

I just didnt realized that i had to describe the complete remodeling process to get the 'passed qc' stamp from you on my short words of 'replacing textures' Sorry. For the future i'll change that.

 

This is not a fair response. Your assertion that a new texture is all that is needed to make the old parts look as good as the new parts is not accurate. There is nothing personal in the reply you quoted, so why make it personal?Nevertheless, your suggestion would probably be acceptable to many/most people.

I'm not familiar with modelling and texturing techniques, and while I do not always 100% agree with @passinglurker I do 100% appreciate their explanations and attention to detail. 

[Urses]

15 hours ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

Stock texture switch hype! Also, first

We need a dispatcher on SQUAD-Team...

For so many hype trains on the rails we have a big chunk on collision warnings ahead

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

2 hours ago, Daveroski said:

/wall snip

RCS is mostly needed for docking. In my builds i deactivate all options in RCS and let only translations be.

For a prob you need only a wheel and trust adjastabel engine?

[Azimech]

2 hours ago, Daveroski said:

New Mollyprop tanks for the DLC is all well and good, however you made a song and dance about needing probes and satellites for coms and unmanned missions and have produced no probe sized RCS parts. The smallest available parts are 5-10 times bigger, heavier and more powerful than they need to be.

 

You've got a point there. And not just RCS parts.

[Daveroski]

12 minutes ago, Urses said:

/wall snip

My probes leave a station. Land on the orbited body. collect science and then return to the station and dock.
IRL we have no stations in orbit around The Moon. If we did, samples and measurements would be collected the same way.

 

[Mako]

2 hours ago, Daveroski said:

New Mollyprop tanks for the DLC is all well and good, however you made a song and dance about needing probes and satellites for coms and unmanned missions and have produced no probe sized RCS parts. The smallest available parts are 5-10 times bigger, heavier and more powerful than they need to be.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Azimech said:

You've got a point there. And not just RCS parts.

It seems like Squad is teasing out one part each week. I'm guessing we still have many, many weeks before the expansion is ready based on how little we know and how many questions we still have, so I suspect that it'll be a while before they get around to showing all the new parts. That being said, it would be nice to know for a fact they're working on those and other parts.

[klesh]

I think I'm going to call it Mollyprop from now on.  I like it.

[Daveroski]

26 minutes ago, klesh said:

I think I'm going to call it Mollyprop from now on.  I like it.

I like that you like it.

[Alshain]

On 6/9/2017 at 3:00 PM, SQUAD said:

So yes, we can confirm that stock texture switching will be a thing.

 

Stock or Expansion.  You were discussing the expansion (which is basically not stock) so I just want to confirm the texture switching will be in stock?

[HebaruSan]

4 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Stock or Expansion.  You were discussing the expansion (which is basically not stock) so I just want to confirm the texture switching will be in stock?

 

[Alshain]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

 

Ah, ok.  Thanks

[John FX]

On 09/06/2017 at 9:00 PM, SQUAD said:

And yes, in case you were wondering, updates and support for the core game continues!

I had serious doubts until the money (take two) bought the rights, now I have large amounts of confidence they want the game to be good enough to get a return on their money. That means future sales, that means improvements beyond this point.

 

EDIT :

On 10/06/2017 at 4:03 AM, Vanamonde said:

Forum: Why don't you make new parts? 

Squad: We're making new parts. 

Forum: Why don't you show us the new parts? 

Squad: Here are the new parts. 

Forum: Those suck. Make them better, make different ones and make more of them. 

Squad: Sigh. 

Forum: Why are you so secretive and don't tell us what you're working on? 

 

Well, thread over, close down the forum. Any future people wishing to know what happened, refer to this post. There is nothing more to say

Of course reality is that the forum is made from many people so IMHO it goes a little more like this...

Forum user A: Why don't you make new parts? 

Squad: We're making new parts. 

Forum user A: Cool

Forum user B: Why don't you show us the new parts? 

Squad: Here are the new parts. 

Forum user B: Cool, they look nice

Forum user C: Those suck. Make them better, make different ones and make more of them. 

Squad: Sigh. 

Forum user D: Why are you so secretive and don't tell us what you're working on? 

Forum user C: Because everything they do sucks.

Forum user A: I quite liked the parts

{Intense forum argument}

Squad: Sigh. 

Moderators: OK, we are locking the thread until you calm down, stop making it so personal.

Edited June 13, 2017 by John FX

[Cadet_BNSF]

I can't get over being able to move the fuel lines from both ends. Trying to build anything just got twenty times easier.

[Alshain]

13 hours ago, John FX said:

I had serious doubts until the money (take two) bought the rights, now I have large amounts of confidence they want the game to be good enough to get a return on their money. That means future sales, that means improvements beyond this point.

 

EDIT :

 

Well, thread over, close down the forum. Any future people wishing to know what happened, refer to this post. There is nothing more to say

Of course reality is that the forum is made from many people so IMHO it goes a little more like this...

Forum user A: Why don't you make new parts? 

Squad: We're making new parts. 

Forum user A: Cool

Forum user B: Why don't you show us the new parts? 

Squad: Here are the new parts. 

Forum user B: Cool, they look nice

Forum user C: Those suck. Make them better, make different ones and make more of them. 

Squad: Sigh. 

Forum user D: Why are you so secretive and don't tell us what you're working on? 

Forum user C: Because everything they do sucks.

Forum user A: I quite liked the parts

{Intense forum argument}

Squad: Sigh. 

Moderators: OK, we are locking the thread until you calm down, stop making it so personal.

And that is why we don't have a beautiful barn for our first tier buildings and instead have a ugly blue-grey thing.

[LoSBoL]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

Forum user E: And that is why we don't have a beautiful barn for our first tier buildings and instead have a ugly blue-grey thing.

Forum user F: I don't get it, A barn? In a Space Program? what's wrong with wat we got now? I don't like that stupid barn.

 

[basic.syntax]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

And that is why we don't have a beautiful barn for our first tier buildings and instead have a ugly blue-grey thing.

not helping, but it was supposed to be "preceding / in addition to" the blue-grey thing (which is not ugly IMO, but not inspiring, either.)

Tier 0,  however it's designed, is still needed to restore the originally planned career-mode balance. 4 upgrade levels would spread the upgrade costs better. If Tier 0 was not something like Roverdude's sounding rockets (currently unlikely due to the game-design focus on Kerbals first) I don't think it would change what players see first, but distribute the current Tier 2 to 3 jump in costs / allowed parts/mass/size - across T2 to T3 and T3 to T4.

Edited June 14, 2017 by basic.syntax

[cfds]

3 hours ago, Alshain said:

And that is why we don't have a beautiful barn for our first tier buildings and instead have a ugly blue-grey thing.

Nope, the reason why we do not have a beautiful barn is that the space center buildings are not moddable. The quoted block is the reason why we do not have an ugly barn. Or do you honestly believe that SQUAD would have improved on the "early development preview" that they showed us?

Edited June 14, 2017 by cfds

[John FX]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

Nope, the reason why we do not have a beautiful barn is that the space center buildings are not moddable. The quoted block is the reason why we do not have an ugly barn. Or do you honestly believe that SQUAD would have improved on the "early development preview" that they showed us?

I would rather have had the barn we were shown than no barn because that was the choice.

I would rather a game function well and look bad, than function bad and look good, if that is the choice.

Obviously everyone would prefer it to look good and function well but that was not a choice we had.

 

[liweih]

To me, it seems like they were quite hungry when designing the RCS tank.

[LoSBoL]

2 minutes ago, liweih said:

To me, it seems like they were quite hungry when designing the RCS tank.

whohoo, Japanese rocketparts confirmed! 

Edited June 14, 2017 by LoSBoL

[Deddly]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a friendly reminder that this is the wrong place to be talking about the barn.

Those RCS dumplings tho...

[John FX]

22 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a friendly reminder that this is the wrong place to be talking about the barn.

Those RCS dumplings tho...

Those dumplings gave me a right good chuckle. Spot on.