KSP Weekly: The flight of the Norge and forging missions

[regex]

8 minutes ago, Enceos said:

This method of butt switching was introduced with the heatshields. Remember, they have two nodes, one makes a shroud and another doesn't.

Ah, yeah, I never liked that, found it unintuitive and fidgety. Thanks for clarifying.

21 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

I'm tired of a few unpleaseable critics inundating every announcement thread with endless niggling complaints about visual details which are either barely noticeable or entirely invisible, the self-righteous demands that Squad should abide by their subjective aesthetic preferences, and their abusive attitude toward Squad people. 

Ahah! Thank you for clarifying. Apathy doesn't mean much, but this? You've gotten directly to the point.

[mattinoz]

So given no one official can probably answer this due to NDA's and other jazz....but curious the tank butts are army green, for want of better colour name, and I can only think of one lifter that was ever that colour and can't even confirm that as even most of the google searches show a mix of a white variation. 

Just curious if tank but colour will respond to tank colour with the obvious hidden question are we getting tank colour variations to pay with. Wiil there be a weight penalty for dark colours.

These teaser parts prompt more questions than they answer. Or I'm an over thinker like my father and my father's father.

Edited May 13, 2017 by mattinoz

[regex]

4 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

So given no one official can probably answer this due to NDA's and other jazz....but curious the tank butts are army green, for want of better colour name, and I can only think of one lifter that was ever that colour and can't even confirm that as even most of the google searches show a mix of a white variation.

Delta II's upper stage looked kind of like that. Soyuz was at one point similar, Salyut as well. I had thought Molniya, or even Agena, but the only color photo I can find quickly of the former is a dirty white and the later was various whites.

[Mikki]

Every preview of the "Making history" parts make me extremely happy, the saturn and soyuz tanks for example will change rocket design significantly and open the way for more unique spacecrafts design in general, especially the fuelled tanksize adapters are going to "kick our butts" for sure.
Errmm and i just can`t wait for the release, where can i bite in? Grraaa!

[Vanamonde]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

Small details add up to make a big difference. Especially when you are trying to follow the lead like porkjet's. Is it really wrong to hope the artists at squad would show similar passion?

(before anyone asks it's a pork-alike mk16 parachute replacer imagined as if it was manufactured by kerlington instead of just found by the side of the road)

Is that an example of a good one or a bad one? Because I'm not seeing a significant difference. 

[TheKosmonaut]

I still think it's a bit silly to be hung up on parts at all. As many of you all point out, mods can and will outpace stock as far as parts are concerned, mostly because a modder can be dedicated to parts whereas the stock Devs have hands in several pots. I use VSR a lot for a better (more consistent) look to stock rocketry parts.  

But this is all besides the point, the big news that everyone brushes past is the mission planner addition. I suppose it's just easier to latch on to parts because that's what we can see right now. 

Point is, while discussion about the DLC, parts, etc are all welcome, of course, getting bogged down by this with over-negativity or siding against that with over-positivity is not really helping anything or anyone. 

[rudi1291]

Lots of good stuff in this weekly. The engine looks nice. I really like that it changes with node size. Will that also change things like drag? And how are node sizes other than the specified handled?

[passinglurker]

7 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

Is that an example of a good one or a bad one? Because I'm not seeing a significant difference. 

That's the point. Through attention to detail I made a part that fit in with porkjets overhauled mk1 pod had I cut corners on the details there would have been a discernible difference between the two parts.

The problem with the parts I've ragged on is that there is a discernible difference  between them and the parts that set the standard for kerbals aesthetic mostly because they are missing details such as scratches, grunge/grime, paint imperfections, AO shadows,etc... It makes the parts look like they come from different universes. Though some are better than others (I actually liked vostok a lot more than the saturn tanks that sparked this)

Anyway that's why I care about the small details, but this isn't a subjective preference. I've always referred to the aesthetic of the finalized art already in the game this is the standard squad chose for themselves when they integrated porkjets work. If you want to go into this more or into what I specifically find wrong with a specific part there is a separate thread for that

[basic.syntax]

Some very nice engines to go beneath a very nice command pod. Keep up the good works!

[MiffedStarfish]

New parts are always exciting, building is my favourite part of the game. As for the mission builder, I'm not to interested. From what I understand it will simply be a way to set mission perimeters and required objectives to flights, which I doubt I will ever use planning my regular missions beyond trial running it when I get the expansion. I don't think it's a throwaway feature, but I highly doubt it will change the way the game is played and give direction to players the way it is (I think) intended. This is just my opinion from several fairly vauge previews, and I could be completely wrong if the mission builder does more than what I hypothesised. 

[RoverDude]

2 hours ago, rudi1291 said:

Lots of good stuff in this weekly. The engine looks nice. I really like that it changes with node size. Will that also change things like drag? And how are node sizes other than the specified handled?

Yes, the drag cube would be recalculated appropriately.  And the mesh used is driven by the node used on the engine, so it really does not care what it is you attach it to.

 

[RoverDude]

(And there's been green paint on a Saturn V before - though other colors are a lot more common).

[KerrMü]

5 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

I'm not apathetic about the parts. I think they look fine. I'm tired of a few unpleaseable critics inundating every announcement thread with endless niggling complaints about visual details which are either barely noticeable or entirely invisible, the self-righteous demands that Squad should abide by their subjective aesthetic preferences, and their abusive attitude toward Squad people. 

This reflects my perspective on this matter almost perfectly. There is a difference in beeing constructive or beeing annoying. 

Nuff said about that and back on topic. Thanks for the preview pic. Both, engine and tankbutt are looking good. I wonder if every engine will have unique tankbutts or if they´ll be standardized. Nothing wrong either way, I´m just curious. Part preview pics are always appreciated, as well as the improvements to landing lights and shadows. You could have said "that´s a unity bug, not much we can do here". Trying (and succeeding) to improve it anyway... Just thanks for that.  

[RoverDude]

4 minutes ago, KerrMü said:

I wonder if every engine will have unique tankbutts or if they´ll be standardized. 

A combination of both, likely. 

[TriggerAu]

I've thought long and hard about whether I should post this in this thread, but if its the wrong place then feel free to move it my friendly moderators.

Porkjet did a bunch of work with KSP. Amongst which he did a bunch on the plane parts and it went into stock. He started on some similar stuff in rockets working with some testers and ideas and then moved on to other pastures. That WIP was then released for people to use and Squad put that piece of work on hold indefinitely - which has been clarified in a previous KSPWeekly. If that work kicks off again then I'm sure it will be announced

I've not seen PJs discussion pdf held up as a standard for style/asthetics, and as it wasn't finished (for he rocket parts) I'd not assume it as a standard for future rocket parts. The idea of people following that is not a Squad one to my knowledge - but I am on the dev team, and not the art team - people seem to use the term Dev quite loosely at times.

Anyways, don't want to start another round of discussions on it, just wanted to share some info that might clarify for some peeps. Now we can get back to discussing what happened this week   

[EBOSHI]

It is an impulse.

[RoverDude]

To dovetail onto what @TriggerAu said.

On the art team, we've had specific and detailed discussions on what direction we wish to establish for the artistic standard, and what our shared vision of what a 'Kerbal' part looks like.  Everything from palette choices to deciding what the appropriate level of detailing will be for engines.  Some are technical (like which shades of white and gray to use, or the correct specularity level for fuel tanks), and some are more artistic (like saturation levels and the choice to use hand-drawn AO vs baking it). 

There's an art review process (And Leticia usually has a few things for me to change), and sometimes there are minor tweaks to what we have put up for preview (and sometimes major ones, if we find later that a piece of geometry is causing an issue).  We are comfortable in the art direction, and based on feedback, quite a few players are as well.  

Chris did a lot of really great work.  But as noted, and @TriggerAu is correct on this, his PDF is not the standards guideline we use (we have quite a few other internal art documents, and an art review process as noted).  And even then, I have seen almost as many different interpretations of what is 'pork-alike' as there are modders trying to emulate it   At the end of the day, the art team has an artistic direction and guidelines and style that are specific and unique to KSP, and the product of an entire team, not one individual artist.  And we're very comfortable with the style and the direction.

Edited May 13, 2017 by RoverDude

[klgraham1013]

9 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I have to admit you have a point there. Maybe with all the staff turnover they forgot which assets are placeholders, or even that there are still placeholders!

They could use their eyes to find out what's still placeholder.

8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Well, I didn't really mean just art assets.

Oh, I see.

[RoverDude]

Also to be clear, because we are having assumptions start to grow legs.  I see a lot of people using the word 'Placeholder' which has a very specific meaning, when what they are actually describing is 'a part that looks dated, and it would be nice if Squad replaced it with something prettier'.   I am not aware of any current staff who have referred to any of our art assets as a 'Placeholder'.  

[basic.syntax]

Thanks RoverDude and TriggerAu for taking the time to write up some of the team's current thoughts and directions... your comments would fit well in the top post  

[tater]

The green color is zinc chromate, which is naturally yellow, or yellow-green. Often some black was added, hence the olive tone. In addition to being anti-rust/corrosion, it is also highly toxic which prevents mold, etc. 

Edited May 13, 2017 by tater

[Superfluous J]

11 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Correct, with the appropriate amount of 'stuff' (along with colliders and the correct drag cube) appearing based on how you snap it into place.  

 

So... procedural?

[Wjolcz]

I'm with @passinglurker and @regex here.

However, I do realise that since I already paid for the game and this "democracy" in which "quite a few" are happy with how the game looks and plays is a thing you could at least not beat around the bush. Saying "we don't care we already have your money" would have worked just as well. And to be frank, I'm quite happy I will get the DLC for free because of that.

Call me one of these "angry no matter what". I don't care. I wasn't always like this. However, being a player and supporter since 0.11 I'm saddened by what had happened to this once great game full of devs that used to listen to the community. Now that the older members of the community were driven off by the "kerbal" approach, where it's all about explosions, I'm waiting for someone else to develop a game with the same concept except actually caring about delivering something with quality to it instead of slapping a "BOOMONEPOINTZEROIT'SFINISHEDOURJOBHEREISDONEBABYYYY" tag to it for whatever reason.

I'm disappointed but I knew the risks of early access. I am the one to be angry at myself for wasting the money.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Veeltch

[swjr-swis]

13 hours ago, mikerl said:

I'm curious to what that little Spanish phrase means in English.  I know a little so I'm thinking it means "clearer than water", but I could be wrong or missing some sort of context on that one.

I can't see the image myself (for some reason the forum hides that there is even something there, not even a link), so I am missing context, but it's the Spanish equivalent of the English phrase 'crystal clear'. One of those phrases that should not be taken or translated literally.

[tater]

I'd hardly call the expense of a couple glasses of wine for many hundreds of hours of entertainment a "waste of money."

Generally, I want to see things look better, and in the case of career mode (my pet peeve with KSP), I want it to just, well, be better. Not just for me, but because I think it would make KSP better for everyone. None the less, I can't really work myself up to think I've been somehow put out by their design choices, even when I often disagree with them. KSP remains probably the best value for money I've ever gotten in a game title (that or Minecraft, since my kids have both played MC for at least the same total hours as I have played KSP for about the same expense).