passinglurker

Members
  • Content count

    2022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1360 Excellent

5 Followers

About passinglurker

  • Rank
    Salty
  1. Speaking of which I for one don't mind a lack of pictures the last couple of weeks and appreciate the bar for quality WIP shots being raised, and the appropriate amount of time being taken. No point seeing something that's too raw and will likely come out very different by the end no matter what is said.
  2. I'll make this simple for you. Modders make what they want to make and can't be convinced otherwise. In this case they wanted their mods to play well together and with stock so they did what other older modders were already doing like how railroad tracks got built to the width of wagons already in production back in the day. That's all there really is to it to follow or not is your choice users just harass people who venture from the norm because they want their mods to play well together for no extra work but you don't actually have to listen to them. So if you want 1:1 scale sidewinder missiles then just do it the opinions of users are ultimately irrelevant if they don't like it they can learn to rescale with mm scripts or something.
  3. CLS is a mod. CLS based this off the part description Part descriptions were made during early access and are generally as bogus as the old parts looks And finally a kerbal actually does fit going head first (@Beale tested it for attention to detail reasons for his soyuz mod). Go walk a kerbal on top of a jr and look down from directly above you will see that they fit within the hatch circle.
  4. So how do we use the parts we attach to the inside? do we have to jettison the cover? does it turn transparent when we hover over? It would be nice to have a part that is defined from all the parts radially attached to it instead of haveing to hunt for tiny parts with the camera. Great way to turn hollow structural parts like the mk1 fuselage into service modules too. Anyway good luck with your designing and defining of new gameplay elements development of new features is very welcome. Since this idea is still clearly embryonic I'll refrain from wasting time commenting on the service module's looks. Its disappointing to see absolutely no improvement from the apollo capsule though. And of course showing an ancient part like the clamp jr. along side again highlights how badly the old Not!Placeholders need a revamp. Gonna have to agree with everyone else about having a crew tunnel as a mesh switch option it'd show attention to detail especially if given a cutaway view to go with the apollo and lem IVA's, and people can alway use the offset gizmo if they some how want the tunnel and oodle of parts at the same time.
  5. Given the limits imposed by kerbal anatomy the general uselessness of IVA's, and all the other things I'm holding the art up to as paid content already I'm not gonna lose sleep over whether kerbals are using chairs or at least I would understand the technical barrier to this (great touch to add though if you can avoid the heads clipping through the roof). I do hope they bump up the texel density of the egress hatch though the fuzziness against the rest interior is a little jarring hopefully they find time to make a more detailed hatch prop for the final version as IVA's are good for nothing but being stared at, but I understand if they just need a stand in at this early phase.
  6. They're too far gone. The meshes are janky and low polly like they came out of 1996. Meanwhile the UVing is sloppy and inefficient and the texel density is all over the place making a texture retrofit completely impractical (believe me I've tried). The only solution is a complete art asset replacement.
  7. Mods are not for cleaning up a devs mess. Leaning on modding like a crutch is how you frustrate and lose mod makers they want to make their own things not finish your game for you.
  8. Oh hey that's right mesh switching is gonna be a thing that means you could technically have radial and inline versions in the same catalog entry. Or an rd107 with or without the historical divets(not that I mind being divetless just saying it's a possibility).
  9. Yes I can be reasoned with and placated. Shocking I'm sure.
  10. I'd just like to say this is a very good write up. Technical details, insight into the part design process, and the justifications for decisions everything a reader could want. So with your goal stated could we get some insight into how you are gonna address ballance? I'm assuming this is nontrivial given the differences in "realistic" and "kerbal" scales. Regex already addressed the chunky bell so so aside from the usual I don't really have anything to say about the verner in the WIP shot until it's shown in engine with usual AO details, and specular and normal maps.
  11. congrats on getting 2012 posts

  12. Read the rest of my post first I agree that the game play is cobbled but the barn or the absence thereof has nothing to do with that. Also I wouldn't trivialize the production of a whole games worth of consistent quality 3d art. The barn as the unity asset flip we saw could not be improved the only option was to start over and squad opted not to in the name of rushing a console port. First It had been previously established by one of squads former lead artists and generally accepted by the community that kerbals are not Orks. Second the "ad hoc' design wasn't chosen because the devs at the time thought it was a good fit, but instead to mask the rushed shoddy workmanship. Say what you want about goofy tropes vs. serious tropes but using one or the other to justify bad art/ballance/code is not OK. Being made well comes first what it's styled to look like comes second/third/later... Only people I see howling about that issue in particular after seeing the barn would be the LOLKERBALZFLYTRASH crowd. That being said I'm getting sick of being characterized as unreasonable. I give squad thier due when they make the right decisions such as implementing mesh and texture switching, rebalancing the monoprop tanks, making parts that look good, etc... I may be pessimistic, but I do not actively fish for new reasons to "complain" like you all want to believe I do in order to try to discredit me. Something we can agree on. It may have been seemingly linear for better or worse in the earliest parts of its progression but compared to stock it was an excellent experience that encouraged experimentation and learning to break out into the larger game, and showed the meticulous care and attention to detail @FlowerChild puts into his game ballance mods. Its this sort of passion and attention to detail that I want to see in stock KSP in general not just in its art. Part of the problem is that the issues with the career mode are so multifaceted that simply using @sarbian's custom barn kit mod to smooth out the tiering would hardly put a dent in the balance issues. Only complete overhauls like BTSM, RO, CWP etc go far enough to make a difference. The other part of the problem is that squad (despite haveing ample opportunity while stopping to rewrite the code base 3 flipping times) never opened up the facility art assets to modding. Eeeeh... If children of a dead earth and procedural mods is any indication I'd say procedural tanks can't be visually appealing at least not at the standards PJ brought us too. @Shadowmage's SSTU mesh switching has more potential I feel. Anyway last I checked procedural tanks from squad was never at stake or even on the table. At least not publicly.
  13. IMHO they need to stop and revamp thier old parts first. There are to many canonized place holders like nova's parts and chunks of programmer art like the heatshields. The rocket revamp has been requested for a long long time now and further delays only make it worse.
  14. For those reading along it did not. They made thier own separate conscious decision to omit the tier 0 from the balance instead of just use pallet swapped tier 1 buildings as non-eye-gouging placeholders, and even with 4 tiers career mode would still be a steaming pile of disjointed half baked gameplay ideas anyway, but ultimately how the tiers are balanced and how the tiers appear are separate issues. Don't let users like this combine them in order to discredit the value of mass public feedback. Also "complaining" saved the round8 from being recycled as a xenon tank you're welcome stock-purist spacecraft-exchange users.
  15. Well he won't hear me but for anyone else reading along the barn had more wrong with it than just the texture You're confusing a desire for quality consistent work with a desire for next gen hyper graphics I only want the former. Anyway this is not a fault brought on by the exclusion of the barn. This is squad's unwillingness to give career mode a balance and polish pass and it's a problem that can't be narrowed down to a single flaw like 3 tiers vs. 4. All of carrer mode is this disjointed hodgepodge of ideas they never bothered to iron out. No one's bothered to fix the tiering issue because the old devs put it off to be fixed with everything else "later" and the new devs decided there is nothing wrong with the core game and moved on to localization and DLC. But here's some easy not-crap-barn solutions if you need 4 tiers... Option A: use the same building set for more than one tier (for example tier 1 buildings cover both tiers 1 and 0) its better to reuse a minimally decent asset than it is to use the barn as it was previewed. Option B: the same as A only give tier 0 a pallet swap so its easier to tell apart at a glance. Option C: stop being cheap and make a decent looking barn. You can do almost anything with the right code. In the end the number of tiers and the appearance of the tiers are separate issues, and there is no reason squad can't implement a 4th tier right now without the barn.