SQUAD

KSP Weekly: What a week!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, XrayLima said:

 Thought though, using a 0.625 connection at the top means either a Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Jr is used on the LEM and the CM nose or a 0.625 -1.25 adapter is needed to adapt to the Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port . Neither is going to look too good I wouldn't think? I might be being old fashioned but I'm not a fan of the 0.625 Clamp-O-Tron Jr for crew transfers, even if they do now allow it.  Thoughts?

 

Interesting, I've always used the 0.625 Docking Jr on top of the Mk 1-2 for my LEMs.  It makes sense to use the lightest possible docking port for the lander, and on the top of the CM it allows for a good looking LES attachment, provided you translate the LES cone down over the Jr port.  I try not to think about it being too small to fit a kerbal through. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19.3.2017 at 4:04 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Any chance of getting the magazine with a white background, so we can print it out without wasting humungous amounts of ink?

This opens a new possibility to charge the User for additional Cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

Interesting, I've always used the 0.625 Docking Jr on top of the Mk 1-2 for my LEMs.  It makes sense to use the lightest possible docking port for the lander, and on the top of the CM it allows for a good looking LES attachment, provided you translate the LES cone down over the Jr port.  I try not to think about it being too small to fit a kerbal through. :wink:

I do the same. Sometimes (when I'm in the right mood) I EVA the Kerbals to change them into the other craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well.  They're both grey I guess.

Spoiler

File:X200-32 FT.pngFile:Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tank.png

Honestly, I've given up on anything happening on this front.  Just release a rock-solid 1.3 (which it looks like you will) and I'll rely on mods for my parts.

Edited by klgraham1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18.3.2017 at 3:19 PM, RoverDude said:

It (barely) fits two Kerbals.  And those Kerbals better be very very close friends :wink:

A advice not to use with USI because of "unplanned" colony growth?:D

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLC - we have all known it was eventually coming, so I don't get the outrage. A few but vocal group will get it for free. The rest of us will either skip it or pay up. You may think that is unfair, but life isn't always fair. It is what it is. 

Art pass - I thought I would add an opposing viewpoint since most of the comments are pushing Squad to change the aesthetics to a more unified look. The original take on the game I thought was a cartoonish space program with rockets built from spare/recycled parts. If you accept the premise then the parts not matching makes sense. Having to Macgyver things together makes sense. I personally don't care for the clunky decouplers but I have learned to hide batteries and mono tanks inside some of them (works for me). I personally don't want them  all looking like spaceplane parts. YMMV. What I would like to see is more rocket parts (habitation, work space, etc) for long term space flight and station parts. If they change the look of the original parts, I won't get upset but I don't find it particularly needed. Feel free to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

I have no comment on the latter, as that would be an NDA issue.

Half Life 4 confirmed??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Wouldn't it be the opposite?  Wouldn't you want to get the core finalized before expanding?

On the buisnes @RL it is better to include something new. Get the feedback and than decide what will you overhaul or get dropped.

IMO, because of New Parts commIng in, most Players would try them at first. The old Parts will be used lesser and the majority will forget they ever existed. And as developer you have than a much cleaner "short list" to overhaul.

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

Edited by Urses
I have to get some time to find out how to integrate a auto sig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Urses said:

On the buisnes @RL it is better to include something new. Get the feedback and than decide what will you overhaul or get dropped.

IMO, because of New Parts commIng in, most Players would try them at first. The old Parts will be used lesser and the majority will forget they ever existed. And as developer you have than a much cleaner "short list" to overhaul.

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

...but the new parts aren't a replacement for the 1.25m and 2.5m parts.  They're a different size entirely.  Why would they stop using 2.5m parts when 1.8m parts are added?

Edited by klgraham1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Why would they stop using 2.5m parts when 1.8m parts are added?

New toys are more inspiring?

If a Kid get a electric train would he play with a old wood one?:wink: And yes i said a kid, because in every man lives a child who demands new and better toys (like my one:D).

And we have some old tricks wenn we will go with small parts for bigger deals (like Asparagus or Onionstaging?).

And like i said there where is your quote from. "Curiosity for new-ish".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP MKI Lander can.

You served us well, but will be replaced with a much more impressive version.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Urses said:

New toys are more inspiring?

If a Kid get a electric train would he play with a old wood one?:wink:

Nope ... the munchkin of mayhem would play with the box :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people want such a lack of diversity or imagination in the appearance of parts. As long as models and textures are of a consistent standard quality that's all I really care about. I'm all for raising the standard of the lowest to be in line with the rest, but in general styling I'm perfectly happy for some parts to follow one aesthetic theme and for others to follow another. Just look at this:

46c642366603d89cfb014e84caa2bc76.jpg

Where is the consistency of which you speak? These two vessels look totally unlike each other - by the standards of most space sci-fi you would barely credit they were made by the same species - yet these were not only vehicles of the same species but of the same mission launched on the same rocket!

I want diversity. I want parts that give me the range and freedom to make crafts that could have come from any era, be made for any purpose. Someone made a point about LEGO before - there are plenty of LEGO parts that simply do not belong together, don't look right together, don't work together. This is the same as the starting point for KSP. The magic is in making them work anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going on with the loud and clear Xbox one progress, when you guys said early next year i thought you would have had it out by now. (pls respond)

7 hours ago, klesh said:

 

Interesting, I've always used the 0.625 Docking Jr on top of the Mk 1-2 for my LEMs.  It makes sense to use the lightest possible docking port for the lander, and on the top of the CM it allows for a good looking LES attachment, provided you translate the LES cone down over the Jr port.  I try not to think about it being too small to fit a kerbal through. :wink:

a kerbal could fit if it wiggled 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Red Shirt said:

Art pass - I thought I would add an opposing viewpoint since most of the comments are pushing Squad to change the aesthetics to a more unified look. The original take on the game I thought was a cartoonish space program with rockets built from spare/recycled parts. If you accept the premise then the parts not matching makes sense. Having to Macgyver things together makes sense. I personally don't care for the clunky decouplers but I have learned to hide batteries and mono tanks inside some of them (works for me). I personally don't want them  all looking like spaceplane parts.

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I don't understand why people want such a lack of diversity or imagination in the appearance of parts. As long as models and textures are of a consistent standard quality that's all I really care about. I'm all for raising the standard of the lowest to be in line with the rest, but in general styling I'm perfectly happy for some parts to follow one aesthetic theme and for others to follow another.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here no one is advocating everything be "spaceplane light grey" with color coded dark/light grey and yellow stripes for fuel content or anything like that

As Rocketeer says old parts should be brought up to the same standards of quality, but when people refer to a unified aesthetic they are referring to things like porkjets aborted revamp or what roverdude described as " not junk, but not human proportions either.  Chunky, with a slight cartoony feel with a bit of accompanying oversaturation." a lot of this is fairly subjective but to be clear as one of the loudest pushers for this that I believe different styles are fine (rockomax vs. jeb's junkyard) but different aesthetics are not (nova skillo vs. porkjet)

Though unless there are plans in expanding on the mk1 parts I do think most of the 1.25 meter parts (especially engines and tanks) should be converted to space plane style so that small space planes don't look so kitbashed (and it doesn't help that 1.25m parts are some of the oldest and most "placeholder quality" parts around)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:


46c642366603d89cfb014e84caa2bc76.jpg

I would love to see reflecting metal tanks, deep shiny blacks, clean gold foil, engines that look like engines... That's the kind of parts diversity I'd love to see in the game, things that look like spacecraft, not like junkyard dirt in drab grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@passinglurker I want some of my crafts to look a bit kitbashed, it makes them look more modular and functional.

@regex I hear what you're saying, but the drab grey has never, ever bothered me even a bit. They look like what they are - drums full of fuel. There's also some appeal for me in the 'my dad made it on his workbench with a soldering iron and some old cans' look. I know that's not everybody's taste, but it was definitely part of what drew me in to KSP so fast back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if anyone needs a baseline to make rocket parts overhaul, Ven's Stock Revamp is pretty solid example of how it may be done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, evileye.x said:

I think if anyone needs a baseline to make rocket parts overhaul, Ven's Stock Revamp is pretty solid example of how it may be done...

I know I'm not in any kind of majority on this, this is a very personal opinion: I'm not a raving fan of Ven's Stock Revamp. I played with it for a while in a single career game... and to this day that's been the only career I used it in. I was not a fan of the overall look, I kept having difficulty with quickly identifying the parts while building, and I didn't like some changes that in my opinion went beyond a 'simple' visual restyling.

No offense to the author, as it is clearly obvious a lot of effort was put into the pack. I liked some of the ideas worked into it, just not the overall effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

played with it for a while in a single career game...

But which version have you tried? Because you know in last versions, Ven's Revamp became very Pork-a-like if you know what I mean..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I want some of my crafts to look a bit kitbashed, it makes them look more modular and functional.

Hey if you want to strap mk1 nacelles to your 2.5m rocket body I won't stop you and if they made a set of 1.25m rocket parts AND expanded the MK1 style set we'd might even be on the same page, but if I had to choose one I'd want the sleeker option when it specifically comes to 1.25m parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Coolwhip1280 said:

What is going on with the loud and clear Xbox one progress, when you guys said early next year i thought you would have had it out by now. (pls respond)

I'm pretty sure they have no idea. It went from 'we are working on it' to 'soon' to 'early next year' to 'it'll be ready when it's ready'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SleepyInsomniac said:

I'm pretty sure they have no idea.

I find this doubtful. More likely they have a pretty good idea, but it's not as soon as anybody asking will be happy with. If you can't give unhappy people good news (yet), you're best off not giving them any news at all (until you can).

Based on nothing but conjecture and imagination, I suppose that Squad got shafted by FTE over the console port. I imagine that the effort just to make the console game playable is a protracted, tedious, unrewarding bughunt, and that BlitWorks' team of videogame gurus is being well compensated for their time and effort at that god-awful job - also out of Squad's pocket. I imagine that implementing new content patches to the console release (which are required to keep the majority player-base happy and keep the enterprise on the rails at all) at the same time as fixing the problems for console is only adding the problems and making things slower, but at this point it's probably vital to making the console endeavour credible again. I expect the only thing that's keeping KSP from flat failing right now is the overwhelming success it's already had on PC - those sales are likely all that's funding any ongoing development whatsoever right now, because I bet Squad hasn't come close to breaking even on the cost of the console version yet, and the deficit is still getting bigger the longer the process goes on.

If KSP had been released to console first, it would probably have sunk like a stone.

Edited by The_Rocketeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

 I bet Squad hasn't come close to breaking even on the cost of the console version yet, and the deficit is still getting bigger the longer the process goes on.

If KSP had been released to console first, it would probably have sunk like a stone.

I imagine the projections for the console versions presumed it would be out on XBox, PS4 (globally) and the Nintendo WiiU.    Lets not forget that the game is still not certified for sale on the European PS store, and the WiiU version is vaporware.  Thats got to be hell on a bottom line.   

 

As far as FTE goes, I still can't believe they were chosen.   They must've been the lowest bidder, because their resume is not impressive.   Lol, have a look at their new firefirghter game they just released on steam:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/549680/

I cant help but laugh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now