passinglurker

The problem with paying.for art assets is if you can't equal or top what modders make in your own art style then there isn't a point in anyone buying it. Some studios like paradox get around this by being very open with their business model but squad isn't that open. So if tt wants to make monetized cosmedics they will need to first shake up the art team and get rid of those silly "these aren't placeholders we know what is kerbal better than anyone" ideas they have, then do the rocket revamp to unify the aesthetic, and then maybe they can start shipping quality reskins without drama or backlash otherwise people won't see the point in it unless they are like on console or something. Again that's the devs being neck deep not the pr guys (cause squad as they remind us is a big team now of course they have dedicated pr guys) this is literally their job they have nothing better to do.

The devs don't write the devnotes any more they don't really have an excuse for not announcing 1.4 other than trying to ration and milk information

Well on my end considering this is in addon dev its always safe to assume updates may break something and make plans and backups accordingly.

No worries I'm in the process of brushing things off, finishing a few todo's that accumulated, and bringing things inline with localization and stuff. But to make up for the wait I'll share that the next update will definitely have the batteries, and drones as previewed before, a porkjet/C7 style inline docking port as teased on reddit, a set of gimbaled SRB's to cover the need for high thrust in the early game, and a 1 seat crew cabin

The key thing to flying Federatsiya on a Zenit replacement made to use zenit infrastructure is that one of the zenit launch pads has a crew access tower already built as part of the numerous failed attempts to replace soyuz so it saves on construction. As is often the case with launch vehicles and spacecraft the cost of launch pad construction supersedes all other design considerations.

I'll decide whether to believe that when I see what's in store for 1.4

Take two is a publisher not Rockstar. Technically even mod friendly titles like civilization also fall under their umbrella. To me I don't see ksp any better or worse off than they were before if they are really better off and flush with cash then I expect 1.4 to be the long needed art and balance polish pass and I expect them to stop making comprises of quality to fit in with old parts. If that doesn't happen then nothing's changed its business as usual with me not buying dlc cause I'll be too busy managing my modded installs to make time for anything new they add like mission editor's.

Does this include quality art or are we still pretending that programmer art is acceptable for the indefinite future?

exactly but if you some how modded or broke the game to do otherwise that is what it would happen parts would remain fixed relative to each other

Nope and if you some how did then whatever you are attached to will not move with the port but would remain hanging in space.

Ok but [excrement]posting aside seriously what is going on here? I just checked the parts/misc/potatoroid folder, and the only mesh file is Cube.mu yet the part.cfg for the asteroids points to a potatoroid.mu Has anyone else gone asteroid hunting in 1.3? Edit: Oh and I brought Cube.mu into blender and its definitely just a cube

It's also definitely small enough to have been hiding under the mk16 chute this whole time so yeah clarification is needed EDIT: also the ambient occlusion around it suggests it's part of the vostok mesh, and not a removable piece

Here I even have a visual aid incase anyone is still confused The invisible bit where the arrows are coming out is the node object I mentioned. Assuming the docking functionally of the voskhod airlock is the same as what we have in stock now then it should work the same way.

As people have been saying its like the inline docking port. Instead of referring to an attachment node in the config dockingports like this are pointed to separate node object in the parts mesh. This node object is then animated to move with the rest of the part and only activates when the part is in its deployed state

Trying to streamline this to a yes/no list is a waste of time any worthwhile modpack/modpack curator needs to be able demonstrate that they can dedicate the time to add value and provide support for thier pack otherwise they will be met with the same rejection every other modpack effort has met in this community outside of a select few like realism overhaul. That means they actually need to talk to the mod authors. The concept of modpacks largely appeals to the users that bring them up as a means of getting internet points via low effort content. Afterall Kerbal is more robust to mod than something like minecraft, or a bethesda game where such packs are very popular, but because of this robustness there really isn't a need to merge mods for compatibility in kerbal. Things more often than not just work, and that means a mod pack curator will need to put in even more effort than other games to justify thier packs existence. The curators who realize this soon quit modding or step up to add value/make original mods of thier own. The curators that don't realize this inevitably release a buggy pile that draws the ire of everyone involved making them even more hostile to the idea of future modpacks.

Ideally even if they aren't willing to say what will be in 1.4 they'll at least assure that it's coming.

They said in the past they had an internal roadmap and there isn't a wave of departures like after 1.2 so there really shouldn't be a reason to delay telling us what comes next assuming there is something coming next.

I'm not talking about pusedo-mods like cheat menus and save hacking that make modding a dirty word. I'm talking true mods that add new content. also the map issue I refer to is how in recent titles you can't change one thing in a cell (say add a weapon spawn, or a door to a new map) without overwriting the whole cell making it hard for modders to operate without stepping on each other's toes. Bethesda isn't accommodating every new title makes it harder to mod than it used to be they are just making a token effort to milk their reputation, and they've dragged their feet cleaning up mod theives on their official repository too. It's not a high bar to find a company that communicates better than squad but Bethesda ain't it.

PFFT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You've never seen the convoluted hoops people have to jump through to mod thier games have you? Imagine a big game that's rough around the edges the writing has some holes, the balances is sloppy, and its not the most stable pile of code either but its big selling point is moddability. Now imagine that game despite advertising this selling point providing no official tools until over 6 months after release, The toolkit is only compatible with expensive pro level software, and there is absolutely no documentation, and the game doesn't handle map changes all that well to boot... Bethesda is worse in virtually every way.

This wouldn't be the case if they finally took the time for a polish pass. Another reason I refer to old parts as "place holders" is because thier stats have hardly changed since they were added in early access and its not because they got it right the first time. The Ion engine in particular suffers from inflated thrust because some one stated the xenon tanks with an arbitrary poor mass fraction that makes even the ant engine+fuel a better choice in all but the most impractical long burn scenarios. Make the tanks lighter and the ion engine's thrust and isp can be curbed to more reasonable levels while still maintaining usability.

Another reason I push for development transparency is that given the controversies, desires, and expectations surrounding the "vamp" I think squad would have an easier time selling unrelated DLC while advertising that this pays for them implementing the vamp gradually as a series of free updates. Personally if I were to buy in I'd want these better assets to be for all not just dlc buyers. EDIT: Also I'd be less reflexively picky about the art that's included in a free update Personally I found this clarification deeply offensive as if players and @NovaSilisko can't recognize excrement when they see it. Most users certainly aren't as picky as me but with every art preview the common response is "This looks/sounds great! Can you please please please please please apply these same looks and ideas to the old rocket parts?" The developer created notion that the old parts are fine and aren't a priority only feeds the speculative frenzy because a unified production quality and aesthetic is such a fundamental and obvious step in development its hard to fathom what they could possibly consider a higher priority after 1.3

Citation needed. I want hard statistics.

I think you are underestimating the amount and value of work that would be involved in this. Then let no one say they are buying DLC to support development. Just like calling certain parts "placeholders" Its "misinformation". It gets people thinking Squad will make kerbal better with this money but in reality there is no hard commitment.

That varies by community there are plenty of examples of communities that enjoy more open development without unmanageable drama, and considering this isn't some big money riding e-sport I think KSP would be safe.

There will always be some degree of speculative "background noise" due to all communities haveing thier share of bright eyed newcomers that think they're the first ones to come up with some obvious unimplemented idea like multiplayer, or terraforming, but those who stay and become active in a community learn to do better sooner or later. The fact of the matter is that more information discourages speculation to a degree and the withholding and teasing of information encourages it. Personally I can't think of a happier time here than during the development of 1.2 before the developer exodus it was probably some of the most active and candid communication this community ever got from the devs, and emulating that would go a long way towards stopping speculations from turning into expectations. I'm confused I thought the last 3 weeks were arguments about art previews not the fundamentals of speculations, what causes them, how to to curb them, and whether they should be curbed?