KSP Weekly: Space Junk

[Poodmund]

After lasts weeks positive showing with the OKTO probe core this is rather an unfortunate back step in the quality and standard of the work with regards to the QBE, looking much akin to the HECS probe core that we were shown a few weeks back.

When I compare the QBE to the other two probe cores, it seems to me as though the QBE was done alongside the HECS part in terms of the outcome of the application of techniques used to create the part.I'll break it down a little further.

Panel/Surface Detailing

I'm not sure what these areas on the texture of the QBE probe core are supposed to represent. On the left, is it supposed to be a screen, a compartment door, some additional paneling...? On the right, is it a hinged door because I do not see any kind of hinge structure to suggest how the doors could open? I'm visually confused as to what these parts on the part are supposed to be which leaves me in the lurch as to what you, as an artist, are trying to communicate to me in your design. The same holds true for the panel areas on the HECS part, again I have no idea what these areas are supposed to suggest.With specific regard to the left hand image, this area on the old QBE part was (semi) okay in that it was so low resolution that your imagination has to try and come up with what the texture was trying to represent but as these textures are of a much higher resolution density (px/m) you have to also increase the amount of detail and textural greeble in the work as to avoid having large swathes of empty, flat colour as has occurred here.

I've seen a couple of people in live chats refer to the left hand image panel looking like a makeup mirror area on a car sun visor but to me it kind of looks like the front of a microwave... except for the fact that when I Googled a microwave to find a good likeness, I found that microwaves actually have quite a lot in interesting visual detail going on. Maybe you could take some design cues from something like this:

As we all know, Kerbals do like their snacks.

Lighting/Edge Highlighting/Shadowing

Secondly, with specific reference to the paneling areas I do not know what is going on with the highlighting/shadowing on these parts, in particular the underside panel on the QBE is very visually confusing. When looking at the preview image of this part (top left in the 1st image I posted) you can see that the light is coming in from the right hand side of the scene. When comparing this light direction to the highlighting and shadowing on the bottom panels here, I cannot determine whether the panels are supposed to be raised from the base surface with beveled edges or as a sunken, embossed area on the base surface. The very strong, highly contrasted edge highlight and adjoining shadow line around the panel on the diffuse map is where the confusion occurs here as you are baking in extremely strong lighting to the diffuse texture with disregard as to where the lighting may be coming from. I have tried to mock up two quick examples using Photoshop, a cube and two normal maps, one showing the a raised panel and one showing a sunken panel with the lighting coming from a similar direction. I have shown the normal map used next to the render and also used a very quick diffuse map colour picking values from the preview image:

Raised Panel

Normal:Diffuse: 

Sunken Panel

Normal:Diffuse: 

 

You can obviously tell here the depth of the material surfaces because of the occlusion of the lighting in the areas of shadow and the the areas of high diffuse reflection. If you want to keep your geometry on these areas very low i.e. flat surface, I don't know why you don't just model the geometry into the surface, render out a Normal Map, bake some soft Ambient Occlusion into the diffuse texture and then remove the geometry from the model. That way your textures should be correctly lit at all times. When comparing the base of the QBE to these two renders, I don't know which situation is more appropriate, it honestly could be either one, as the highlighting and shadowing on the base of the QBE... just... doesn't make physical sense with respect to lighting.

Mesh Geometry vs Psuedo-geometry via Texture Baking

Finally, as a culmination of the previous two points, I am unsure as to why the mentality to include more geometry detail in the model has taken a step back from the OKTO model that we were showing last week. The louver grills that we were shown previously really added a lot to the model without being excessive, however, the QBE model shown has all of the attempted grebble'ing baked into the diffuse texture which causes it to look uninteresting and flat. The nice surface wear and detailing that was featured on the sides of the OKTO core have also been lost with the top and bottom faces of the QBE texture featuring no visual wear or detailing that I can see.

I hate to say it but it seems like there has been quite a significant regression back to the level of the HECS probe core part in comparison to the much better OKTO part that we saw last week.

TL;DR: Detailing on parts is confusing, not sure what is trying to be conveyed. Strong edge highlighting baked into diffuse maps screws with lighting in a big way. Bland, flat panels with basic geometry baked into textures is very crude and looks rather bobby-basic.

With regards to the structural panels refer to Nertea's post which shares my sentiments.

EDIT: Almost forgot to say, the specular maps on the gold foil seem to look better than the silver foil implementation as they don't saturate/bleach out to full white when hitting the angle of maximum reflectivity between the light and camera. At this point, the surface becomes almost completely solid white and you lose all sense of shape, contours and bumpiness on the surface.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Poodmund

[Deddly]

Nice feedback, guys. That's some pretty detailed and helpful constructive criticism there. 

[steve_v]

19 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Other bugs that have been fixed... These are only a few examples, and work continues each week.

How about an example that includes restoring joystick support on GNU/Linux and fixing the landing gear? Unless you think that blurry textures nobody has noticed are more important?

Still waiting for that regression-free release...

Edited September 22, 2018 by steve_v

[Delay]

17 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Still waiting for that regression-free release...

Stupid question, but why don't you simply go back to a version where joysticks were supported?
Or how about you don't continuously ask for it? One request is enough, no need to spam it. You're worse than Mydoom in that regard.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Delay said:

why don't you simply go back to a version where joysticks were supported?

There are mods and mod updates that I want to use which only support 1.4.x.

 

1 hour ago, Delay said:

Or how about you don't continuously ask for it?

Why should I take any notice of you?
I have asked nicely, I have provided information for the bugtracker, and nothing whatsoever has happened. I now intend to spam and heckle until Squad puts some big-boy pants on and fixes their screwups.

[Delay]

9 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Why should I take any notice of you?

So you say that you don't care? You don't care about how others assess your actions and you don't care about them vocalizing it?
Unless I accidentally misinterpreted your statement in the worst possible way. And I'm pretty sure I didn't.
I'm sorry, I really am, but this has got to be the dumbest response anyone has ever given to anything I said.

It's annoying. You sound like a broken record. Always asking the same thing, and nothing else.

Additionally:
"I really like the new model!"
"It's like the old QBE, but better!"
"You can still do better, and here's why and how:..."
"Love what you did to this!"
"Hey SQUAD could you please fix your landing gears and joysticks?"

I mean; yeah, I agree that they should be fixed, especially the landing gears (don't really care about joystick support to be honest), but there are better and more effective ways to make your problem apparent, and those don't have the risk of being annoying.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Delay

[steve_v]

Just now, Delay said:

So you say that you don't care?

I stopped caring what other people think of me a long time ago. Particularly on random internet forums.

1 minute ago, Delay said:

It's annoying.

Feel free to be annoyed, I won't hold you back. I'd prefer yo do it without quoting me though, as barring any interesting news I'm through here until the next dev note.

[panzer1b]

20 hours ago, SQUAD said:

The team is working tirelessly on Update 1.5 and at this stage, progress is quite evident. For instance, the revamped part catalog continues to grow and this week was the turn of another classic: the Probodobodyne QBE Command Module. As you can see in the image below, the art team worked on completely new texture maps using diffuse, normal and specular maps for this part. The geometry was also reworked, and as with the other command modules we’ve shown, we added a new shader to give the QBE a metallic look that shines and interacts with light. Check this gif to see the new QBE Command Module in motion to see what we’re talking about.

Click here to see the high-res image

Not too bad, but the 1st thing that stands out is much inferior edges compared to the octos.  Look at where the foil and the metal (or whatever thet grey frame material is upposed to be) come together, there is no defined edge there which really kills immersion.  You guys did amazing with that regard on the octos, sorta sad to see some regression on the next probe core.  Yes its still ages better then the current model and ill take it as it is with that regard, but its really not quite as amazing as last week's work was, so please take a little bit more time before releasing these new textures and touch them up specifically the edges between dissimilar materials!

Another minor nitpick is the door on the top and bottom, it seems like its mostly done via normal map, but if its a door there should be some clear seams between the door and the face itself, not just a bulged out panel which looks like the entire side is made out of stamped sheetmetal (if it is not a door and is a stamped sheetmetal side, then it makes nop sense for the apparent edge down the middle to be there).  Aside from edges, minor things like hinges and or a latch mechanism would go a long way to making that look more believeable.

I dont mean to be super negative, but i honestly feel that you guys could do much better on this part.  Take another look at the lack of seams between foil and metal, and maybee give those doors on the sides a little makeover and itll be a great part.  On the aspect of positive thoughts, i do like the general layout of the part, the panel on one of the sides breaks up the monotomy and gives it something interesting on the side to look at, and you did a very good job giving the new part a similar visual style to the old while adding nice foil texture and details to it that the original lacked.

[Enceos]

Naaah, too much nitpicking. I don't care, this QBE is awesome!

[passinglurker]

22 hours ago, SQUAD said:

The team is working tirelessly on Update 1.5 and at this stage, progress is quite evident. For instance, the revamped part catalog continues to grow and this week was the turn of another classic: the Probodobodyne QBE Command Module. As you can see in the image below, the art team worked on completely new texture maps using diffuse, normal and specular maps for this part. The geometry was also reworked, and as with the other command modules we’ve shown, we added a new shader to give the QBE a metallic look that shines and interacts with light. Check this gif to see the new QBE Command Module in motion to see what we’re talking about.

So before I get into artistic feedback I'm a little confused here @nestor in previous weeks it was said that the revamp was first focusing on early game parts but at the same time we've been getting a lot of probe related parts does this mean probes are being moved to earlier in the tech tree? It is certainly a common request I just hope it would be properly planned out, balanced, and play tested if it were the case.

Anyway on to the part itself I'll echo all of what @Poodmund said, and add that in my own words that the part looks less "grounded" engineering wise, like elements came out of some molded early 2000's car interior rather than the strong researched showing we got last week with the OCTO. I would encourage you not to let up on your design research since that can make or break a part and could sink even a perfectly textured one in an extreme case if something looks too out of place. Also you're doing that top and bottom lip thing again I'm wary if that is allowed to pass next thing we know we'll be back to soup can style fuel tanks... finally similar to what @panzer1b said with how the foil panels are inset it feels like there should be more of an ambient occlusion effect or octo-style foil panel edge to suggest the foil panels end at or tuck under the structural supports. It feels too CGI if the material transition is abrupt like this.

Don't get me wrong it's overall much improved over your earlier HECS previews but the hiccups with design and attention to detail on the foil panels makes it feel like an overall small step back from the progress you made with the OCTO, and the ultimate goal here is consistency. Still since you are able to recently produce the OCTO part I have full confidence that improving QBE further isn't beyond your art teams skills.
 

22 hours ago, SQUAD said:

The art team also revisited the SP-R, S and T Structural Panels. For starters, the team created a brand new texture variant for these panels, but all of them got their diffuse, normal, and specular texture maps redone. Both the silver and golden panels include the new shaders that makes them interact with light as a bright metallic part would, while the striped panels now have some cool indentations at their edges, as well as some cool erosion effects. Check these gifs to see the new silver SP-S and gold SP-R Structural Panel variants in motion.

This came from MH, is still exclusive to MH, and doesn't seem like the sort of part that should be exclusive to MH given its general purpose. Not gonna lie but I don't particularly care for these, but... Credit given where credit is due it looks like you got some good practice is on painting conventional panel details and I hope to see this translate into other panelized parts so good job. (the foil meanwhile looks maybe a little too realistic this is what makes foil in kerbal hard and why I often plug cobaltwolf's foil'd parts as examples)

Edited September 22, 2018 by passinglurker

[Redneck]

the new parts look alot more even gooder and junk n stuff and things and you know, stuff and whatnot n things even

EDIT: Ok, now i got to get serious. Man...Squad, just hire Poodmund. Get them right the first time and lets end this debate. The guy obviously knows what hes talking about. Give him a shot. You have absolutely nothing to loose by doing it. @Poodmund good with you? And get @passinglurkerin there to. Lets get this done and done right the first time and be done with it. You are loosing alot more by having to go back to the drawing board each week when these weeklys are posted! (i know the idea makes to much sense so it prolly won't happen)

Edited September 22, 2018 by Redneck

[linuxgurugamer]

5 hours ago, steve_v said:

have asked nicely, I have provided information for the bugtracker, and nothing whatsoever has happened. I now intend to spam and heckle until Squad puts some big-boy pants on and fixes their screwups

Since you use mods, why don’t you use the mod which does fix the controller, ABFW?

[passinglurker]

51 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Since you use mods, why don’t you use the mod which does fix the controller, ABFW?

Do you have a mod for him? I think you of all people would know not to disrespect and blow off someone who actually takes the effort to properly use a bug tracker.

I'm an idiot I didn't realize AFBW was a mod name.

Edited September 22, 2018 by passinglurker

[linuxgurugamer]

To clarify, ABFW is Advanced Fly By Wire, is a mod which allows use of any joystick

[Laie]

20 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

I'd just like a slight debuff to the Wolfhound's Isp. It's realistic, sure, but

I wonder where that claim (it being realistic) comes from. I've heard that a few times in the last few days... The Wolfhound is supposed to be the service module engine, isn't it? The real-life counterpart had ~310s.

Broadly speaking, the non-Wolfhound engines have ISPs similar to, sometimes slightly superior than, real-life values for "storable" propellants. Whereas the Wolfhound is in the Hydrolox range. If any engine is entitled to that kind of ISP, it'd be the Skiff (and, arguably, the Rhino too).

I'm not sure if that would be a satisfying solution, though: any single engine with an exceptional ISP is bound to cause balance troubles -- look no further than the Nerva. But that one at least has some noticable downsides, while the Wolfhound is a vastly superior Poodle without drawbacks.

[JP_Magoo]

Man, all i want is some smaller parts for satellites. Like a cube sat core, and some smaller RCS, engines, reaction wheels, solar panels. I think this would improve the game overall. I'm always wishing I had smaller parts while building my craft. But the new models/textures look SICK.

[passinglurker]

22 minutes ago, JP_Magoo said:

Man, all i want is some smaller parts for satellites. Like a cube sat core, and some smaller RCS, engines, reaction wheels, solar panels. I think this would improve the game overall. I'm always wishing I had smaller parts while building my craft. But the new models/textures look SICK.

A lot of this stuff is already in the game or is unneeded due to the scale you are proposing.

Cube sat core = QBE
Smaller RCS = Nothing. Smaller probes don't usually carry docking ports, and integrated reaction wheels are more than ample for attitude control. (though granted what we have now is a bit oversized for some of the smaller dockables people build)
Engines = Ant, Spider, Standard RCS in engine mode. Doesn't get much smaller than those.
Reaction wheels = Nothing again. As I said integrated reaction wheels are more than ample for attitude control for smaller probes.
Solar panels = The basic fixed solar panel.

just how much smaller do you want to build? I imagine getting the camera in the editor to cooperate would be a challenge if you went much smaller than we have now.

Edited September 23, 2018 by passinglurker

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Laie said:

while the Wolfhound is a vastly superior Poodle without drawbacks.

Does the RW money involved in getting that engine count as a drawback?

[Enceos]

@JP_Magoo Even devs play KSP with TweakScale.

But they mainly play on PC.

 

@passinglurker Small RCS is useful for achieving precise geostationary and resonant orbits which don't drift over time, it's hard to achieve the precision with just engines.

[AVaughan]

3 minutes ago, Enceos said:

Small RCS is useful for achieving precise geostationary and resonant orbits which don't drift over time, it's hard to achieve the precision with just engines.

Once you reach approximately the correct orbit you can just thrust limit the engine down to 1%.  No RCS needed.

[steve_v]

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Since you use mods, why don’t you use the mod which does fix the controller, ABFW?

Because this needs to be fixed in the core game, by those who introduced it.
Because irony in having a custom controller in the launch video while breaking controller support.
Because I am utterly tired of every single major release shipping with BS regressions and game-engine bugs.
Because, as much as I would otherwise like to, I will not buy the DLC if Squad keeps up the broken releases.

While we're on questions and AFBW, if nlight and yourself are capable of implementing proper input support, why isnt't Squad?

Edited September 23, 2018 by steve_v

[Enceos]

2 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

Once you reach approximately the correct orbit you can just thrust limit the engine down to 1%.  No RCS needed.

Except I use scaled down RCS with 1% thrust limit

[Vanamonde]

Some personal remarks have been removed from this thread. Please stop attacking each other over differing opinions about the game. 

[Redneck]

damm kids! Get off my lawn!

[basic.syntax]

17 hours ago, Poodmund said:

I don't know why you don't just model the geometry into the surface, render out a Normal Map, bake some soft Ambient Occlusion into the diffuse texture and then remove the geometry from the model.

This is one of few things we can know about their style guide: hand-painted AO.