SQUAD

KSP Weekly: The flight of the Norge and forging missions

Recommended Posts

For me it isn't that i'm concerned with the art roverdude is currently producing as it is for some. Those parts are some of the best looking ones in ksp and that engine looks better than even porkjets new rocket engines imo.

 

What i'm concerned about is that the old parts done by Nova will be left in that state indefinitely, with only dlc holders getting art updates even to the older parts like the 'new' apollo cockpit. Novas old parts fit just fine in the game back then when everything looked like that, but now look they belong in a completely different game to what KSP has become.

Share this post


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

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'.

So when I say the UV map of an old part is inefficient (hard to walk without tripping over one), or that the endcaps are the wrong size (mk1 pod, mk16 parachute, etc), or that the colliders are some weird wonky size/shape (RT-10, inline docking port, etc...), or that the part description is misleading (lander cans), or that the stat balance is arbitrary and nonsensical (mk1-2 pod) and all the other technical problems old placeholding programmer art have I'm really just saying "Its perfectly fine I just wish it were prettier?". 

I don't think so. The label of placeholder means so much more than just cosmetic production quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By calling things 'Placeholder' you are inferring a hard commitment on the part of Squad that does not exist.   

This is not only incorrect, it is misinformation.  

 

(Edit)

And to be clear, by all means voice your opinions and suggestions and concerns.  As @nestor noted, we do observe and listen.  But it's probably best to avoid phrasing that infers a hard commitment, since these things tend to grow legs and transform themselves in people's minds into promises that were never made.

Edited by RoverDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is a case of I wish they looked prettier because the game still looks alpha due to parts from early in production and I can imagine it had an impact on sales when you're using modded images on the store page.

Can't play without a plethora of visual mods but arguably that's where it should stay. Different strokes for different folks. At least the assets from B9, Porkjet, and Roverdude look terrific. 

And I hadn't noticed but when did 1.2.9 become 1.3? It was called that back in march when the pre-release was out. Was that just the pre-release title.

Edited by Spartwo

Share this post


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

What i'm concerned about is that the old parts done by Nova will be left in that state indefinitely, with only dlc holders getting art updates even to the older parts like the 'new' apollo cockpit

You shouldn't assume that is going to be the case. Despite what some are saying we are actually listening. We just don't impulsively react after one or two rant posts. We, as a company have to consider the options and try to pick the best alternative based on several factors and that takes some time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll throw this out there just because :) :

If there was a part that was black, and the diameter of the top of the mk1 pod (perhaps a battery/parachute module?) that was just a little tank in look, the mk1 would instantly be a pretty reasonable Mercury replica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

You're going to derail every single KSP Weekly, aren't you?

 

There's an ignore feature on the forums.  Works great.

Share this post


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

I'm with @passinglurker and @regex here.

I'm not sure where you're getting that the two of us are in consensus. I happen to think the newly released parts look pretty darn good and Roverdude is getting consistently better at texturing (although I wouldn't be at all sad if the LM toned down the agressiveness of the shading). I don't expect "realism" from vanilla KSP so I literally don't care whether there are bolts on a pressure tank. I also highly doubt this is going to replace FASA or some of the engine mods I use for my RO installs; nothing defined from the outset as "Kerbal" will ever match the complexity and beauty of a well-executed "realistic" engine model and no snap-together "LEGO" rocket parts will match the shapes I can achieve with procedural parts (I'm waiting to see if the R-7-alike tanks in the DLC are even remotely correct...)

How good does the parts look? How much effort went into it? Was it skillfully done? Is it tasteful?

Those are the questions I ask. As far as UI decisions go I may disagree but I'm not the one making the final decision. If anything I hope that a dissenting opinion gives something to think about in the future. And if they screw up and stick by it, well, there's always mods. Hell, I've been "fixing" the low-information environment for years now.

Quote

Now that the older members of the community were driven off by the "kerbal" approach, where it's all about explosions,

I think the older members of the community got burnt out in early access and are playing other games. It's one of the reasons I haven't played Factorio in more than a year, I want to enjoy the finished vision (and I assure you, I will put many hours into it).

I ditched your other quote (on my phone) but the fact that I have a gorgeous full-sized solar system, complete with with N-body gravity, Earth clouds and shaders, and a fully-researched set of "realistic" parts to build things to explore it with, is a testament to the quality of this game. It attracted that quality of people wanting to mod it, make it better.

Edited by regex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tater said:

I'll throw this out there just because :) :

If there was a part that was black, and the diameter of the top of the mk1 pod (perhaps a battery/parachute module?) that was just a little tank in look, the mk1 would instantly be a pretty reasonable Mercury replica.

Judging by what happened with the mk1-2 and the apollo pod it's more likely they'll add a whole new mercury pod. If they keep doing that I hope at least some time in the future they change the look of the mk1 and mk1-2 pods to be more modern and as more of an incentive to buy the expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spartwo said:

Judging by what happened with the mk1-2 and the apollo pod it's more likely they'll add a whole new mercury pod. If they keep doing that I hope at least some time in the future they change the look of the mk1 and mk1-2 pods to be more modern and as more of an incentive to buy the expansion.

This is an interesting idea that had not occurred to me.

So the idea would be that the DLC would be "old" looking parts (corrugated on the mk1, etc), and the stock mk1 might get a modern, white paint job, or perhaps a forward facing window (I think a mod made something like that)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tater said:

If there was a part that was black, and the diameter of the top of the mk1 pod (perhaps a battery/parachute module?)

That would be where the parachutes go on a Mercury capsule, along with the pitch and yaw jets :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tater said:

This is an interesting idea that had not occurred to me.

So the idea would be that the DLC would be "old" looking parts (corrugated on the mk1, etc), and the stock mk1 might get a modern, white paint job, or perhaps a forward facing window (I think a mod made something like that)? 

Hadn't fully considered that myself either. That'd be pretty terrific. Modern stock and past and future expansions.

Edited by Spartwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I really love the aesthetic of these parts honestly and I'll definitely be buying the expansion when it comes out. I just hope in the future some of the other stock parts can be updated to be consistent and at this level of quality. An artistic revamp is way overdue IMO.

Share this post


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

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 :wink:  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.

@RoverDude, this is probably the most you've ever said on this topic, and it's really and truly appreciated. I can relate with you, and understand where you're coming from when our and other developers take the time to discuss things, and let us know what's going on. "Sorry, NDA" does SQUAD absolutely no PR favors, and kills any interest in KSP development. Because of this game's deep modding potential, I'll argue it's as fun to mod and develop for, as it is to play. It's nice to know what people are thinking, and where people are coming from. 

If there is an art style and direction being pursued, can you explain why it's not being applied retroactively to older parts, and instead only being implemented on new parts that are going to be released only for players that purchase DLC? 

An element of what I believe makes a game "feature complete" is a cohesive art style that has consistent quality, and KSP still doesn't have that.

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

So when I say the UV map of an old part is inefficient (hard to walk without tripping over one), or that the endcaps are the wrong size (mk1 pod, mk16 parachute, etc), or that the colliders are some weird wonky size/shape (RT-10, inline docking port, etc...), or that the part description is misleading (lander cans), or that the stat balance is arbitrary and nonsensical (mk1-2 pod) and all the other technical problems old placeholding programmer art have I'm really just saying "Its perfectly fine I just wish it were prettier?". 

I don't think so. The label of placeholder means so much more than just cosmetic production quality. 

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

By calling things 'Placeholder' you are inferring a hard commitment on the part of Squad that does not exist.   
This is not only incorrect, it is misinformation.  

I think the "placeholder" term arose when people were expecting a stock part art pass. After PorkJet redid every aero part in the game, it was somewhat expected that the rocket parts would be brought up to similar quality, and people therefore started to view the rocket parts as "placeholder", as they were to be redone soon. That hasn't happened, and instead, Squad is backtracking on it's earlier plans to do an art pass on the rocket parts for reasons they won't share at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheKosmonaut said:

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.  

With respect I disagree. Having nice looking stock parts is important too for those that either can't use mods, or don't wish to spend the time digging through the bucket 'o mods out there. You're probably right that mods will outpace stock but that's no reason not to have a decent default option.

Happily, the expansion pack parts are looking very nice. That F1 engine in particular - if that's a typical example, then I'd consider buying the expansion as a glorified parts pack, even if I'm not hugely excited about its other headline features.

 

Share this post


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

Now that the older members of the community were driven off by the "kerbal" approach, where it's all about explosions. *snip*

Is that older as in physically older or older as in 'been hanging around on these forums longer'?

If it's the latter - eventually people move on. Even if you're still playing and enjoying KSP, there's only so many times you can see the same old stuff coming around again and again on the forums before you get bored. I have a great deal of respect for the moderators and the oldtimers that are still helping folks out on the Gameplay Questions board - they have way more patience than I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Veeltch said:

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

I snort-laughed. You've been playing the game for at least four years and claim that you didn't get your money's worth. Thanks for injecting some humor into my day. :)

Share this post


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

If there is an art style and direction being pursued, can you explain why it's not being applied retroactively to older parts, [...]

I think Nestor (and RoverDude more indirectly) has answered this question: they are aware of the state of every part in KSP, they want to make it better.

4 hours ago, nestor said:
5 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

What i'm concerned about is that the old parts done by Nova will be left in that state indefinitely, [...]

You shouldn't assume that is going to be the case. Despite what some are saying we are actually listening. We just don't impulsively react after one or two rant posts. We, as a company have to consider the options and try to pick the best alternative based on several factors and that takes some time. 

 

If Nova could be made interested in working on KSP stuff again, I think it would be cool if he was given a chance to revise and update some of his early parts that haven't been touched yet. Nova is also responsible for some of the neat labels on parts and funny part descriptions... I'd love to see this off-the-cuff piece of "historical information" added to the description of the "GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector":

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2015 at 6:31 PM, NovaSilisko said:

*The Gravioli particle (and, by extension, gravitation, previously known as "that force wot pulls you down") is named after the famed physicist Gravioli Kerman whose groundbreaking experiments and studies into the nature of gravity were strongly offset by his often jarring beliefs, such as his rather outspoken opinion that the early experiments into rocket flight should be shut down as "there's nothing really up there anyway and you all should shut up and stop trying", which eventually lead to his death three years later after an angry mob tore down his self-constructed Leaning Tower of Gravioli without realizing he was inside it.

(Don't like my post if you agree, go back and like his some more :) ) 

( just don't reply on a 2 year old thread, it irritates the moderators :wink:

Share this post


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

With respect I disagree. Having nice looking stock parts is important too for those that either can't use mods, or don't wish to spend the time digging through the bucket 'o mods out there. You're probably right that mods will outpace stock but that's no reason not to have a decent default option.

 

I see where you're coming from, but this was more specifically directed towards the naysayers here that I *know* are extensive mod users anyway. I can see why it's more important to stock users and the like but those stock only users tend to be more forgiving in general that mod-users. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheKosmonaut said:

I see where you're coming from, but this was more specifically directed towards the naysayers here that I *know* are extensive mod users anyway. I can see why it's more important to stock users and the like but those stock only users tend to be more forgiving in general that mod-users. 

I'm a mod user because I hate the look of the stock parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2017 at 9:32 PM, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

the sequel to this game that has been rumored and whispered about

What? Where can I read these rumors and whispers?

Share this post


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

What? Where can I read these rumors and whispers?

I think this is just wishful thinking in some anti-overhaul circles. They'd rather see the game redone in unreal or something than squad polish what we've got.

[snip]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Iamsodarncool said:

What? Where can I read these rumors and whispers?

In the KSP discussions on Steam (I know, I know; not the most reliable place for information). Read the KSP Making History thread. As the discussion goes on (though "discussion" may be a strong word; I think it was mostly one guy complaining that he wasn't going to receive the expansion for free; his rants are pretty comical), Sal_Vager (this is just before he left; literally, like a couple of days before) pretty much confirms that there will be a KSP2. It's just a one-line post, but it's stated in a way (in the context of the discussion) that I think can only be interpreted as a confirmation.

Or perhaps I'm just being overly optimistic. I don't think so, though. It's honestly why I think Squad is trying to walk such a fine line with this expansion. They could conceivably add a lot more to the game if they wanted. But I think those things are slated for the sequel. All those things that a lot of us would love to see; more planets and moons, more parts, but most of all more things to do. More to do on planets you visit. More to do on bases and spacestations. More to do on ships themselves. If all these things were in an expansion, why bother with a sequel? This is the quandary that the devs find themselves in (as I see it, anyway). They have to put enough in this expansion to make it worth buying, but without using any of the ideas they have for KSP2. That's a tough balancing act. But who knows? Maybe I'm just nuts.

Honestly, though, if they don't make a sequel, I'd say the Squad people are nuts. If it had elements of the things I just mentioned, I think half the people who own KSP now would buy the sequel on day one for full price. And for me to buy a game at full price would be an extremely rare thing. I usually go the cheap route and wait for a sale. Not this time. I'd shell out 60 bucks for a KSP2 and be happy to have it.

Just realized this probably isn't the place for a KSP2 rant. Apologies to all. (Maybe I really am nuts)

P.S. Please pardon my problem with parenthesis. (Say that five times fast) :confused:

Edited by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.