Making History preview - critique and discussion

[AlamoVampire]

2 hours ago, regex said:

So why did you bring it up in the first place?

You're either egging on Squad to look into NDA violations or you're trolling.

Id say its both. Which is why i pointed a question at Uomo.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[passinglurker]

4 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Id say its both. Which is why i pointed a question at Uomo.

 

Iirc the original overhaul picture with the pbr shaders was either a leak or personal project that who's reaction got out of hand. We have no way to know without official word but it's within the suspension of disbelief that what we got of the overhaul was simply damage control and not a real promise of anything.

Though in my opinion this doesn't really change why we think squad should revamp it's rocket parts.

First last we heard squad gave us a "indefinite hold" maybe some day about the rocket parts, and without a firm no it's like they are dangling the possibility before us like a carrot on a stick. If they are gonna do that they need to put their money where there mouth is and so in the end we need them to make new parts to the same aesthetic standards we would expect from a revamp so as to not build technical debt against performing the revamp some day.

Second there are untapped discerning customers who would buy into ksp and subsequent dlc if they saw the game progressing and it's dlc tied into the refinement of the core game instead of just tacking things on after the fact.

Edited April 12, 2017 by passinglurker

[Vanamonde]

Please don't get caught up in challenging each other and accusations of trolling. 

[HebaruSan]

6 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Seeing as I see no reason for such opacity, I now ask @UomoCapra if you kind sir could shine the light of clarity to this question:

Will we see at some point the beauty pass porkjet did or some other unifying art pass to bring a sense of a more unified style to the base game? Or are all plans that were previously stated to be coming in this area scrapped officially?

He may not know the answer to that question. SQUAD knows what they've done in the 1.3 release, and they're currently focused on working on the expansion, but future decisions about whether an art pass will happen simply may not have been made yet. Consider how you would feel if they said "we plan to" or "probably" based on how they expected their market situation and priorities to play out, and then later it turned out they guessed wrong about those factors and the real answer was "no". On the other hand, what would they have to gain from issuing a definitive "no" now? It wouldn't even quiet down the repeated questions about the status of the revamp; they'd just turn into even louder complaints about it having been cancelled.

I think this is the most definitive official statement on the PJRPR:

On 12/2/2016 at 6:33 PM, SQUAD said:

We have been listening to all the concern about what happened to the Rocket Parts Revamp and we wanted to shed some light on that topic. The reality is that the development focus had to shift towards other matters, that is why we decided to make the already completed parts from porkjet’s PartOverhauls public, which you can download here.

Despite the change in priorities, this doesn’t mean that we will put this project aside indefinitely, we may continue porkjet’s work in future installments, but for the time being it is not within our immediate work plans.

This basically puts SQUAD in a position of maximum flexibility. They still own those models and textures, so they can decide in some future release to bring them back and finish them. Or they can forget it ever happened and continue with the current stock parts forever, with the mod available for those who want it. Both of those choices would be consistent with their public statements up till now. I see no reason to expect one of their developers to go against this carefully crafted pair of paragraphs unless and until a definitive decision is reached, in which case the announcement would probably be in a Weekly rather than a random reply by a dev.

[Wjolcz]

How much time they could've saved themselves if they finally decided to go for procedural parts instead of keeping it LEGO... The historical pack would be nothing but just a few new sets of textures that could be switched by right-clicking the tanks in the VAB/SPH. No 3D moxelling required (=more time for texture fine tuning). And I would be 100% OK with that.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Veeltch

[Ten Key]

If I had to zero in on one single part to throw out and redo, it would be the 2.5 meter decoupler. It works well enough as part of a rocket, but it's also the obvious linkage between the Mk 1-2 command pod and its service module. And in my opinion, those two parts just do not work together.  

[tater]

17 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

How much time they could've saved themselves if they finally decided to go for procedural parts instead of keeping it LEGO... The historical pack would be nothing but just a few new sets of textures that could be switched by right-clicking the tanks in the VAB/SPH. No 3D moxelling required (=more time for texture fine tuning). And I would be 100% OK with that.

Note that while I agree with this 100%, it is also possible to have both worlds at the same time. You can have tanks that scale in diameter and length, and have those values snap to the stock game's length requirements---though honestly, those are silly, nothing worse than wobbly snakes because somehow a rocket that otherwise looks like a rocket is made of 10 small tanks that are barely attached.

[qzgy]

On 4/12/2017 at 7:51 PM, Ten Key said:

If I had to zero in on one single part to throw out and redo, it would be the 2.5 meter decoupler. It works well enough as part of a rocket, but it's also the obvious linkage between the Mk 1-2 command pod and its service module. And in my opinion, those two parts just do not work together.  

I hate most of the decouplers, with the exceptions being the 0.625m and 3.75m ones, which, while ok, are a bit on the thick side.

Edited July 7, 2017 by qzgy

[Dman979]

Some posts have been removed. Please do not get personal, even if it is meant as a joke, because on the internet you can't tell if it's a joke or for real.

[passinglurker]

15 hours ago, qzgy said:

I hate most of the decouplers, with the exceptions being the 0.625m and 3.75m ones, which, while ok, are a bit on the thick side.

The making history 5m decoupler actually got praise from me it shows the sort of love and attention to detail that I wanted from this DLC all along now if only we could get some verification that this love is being extended to the fuel tanks as well. Hopefully they can keep pace with the texture work in @Nertea's recent creations