Jump to content

KSP Loading... Our New Dev Diary!

Recommended Posts

I agree with @Tonka Crash here. I bought kerbal SPACE program. I personally feel that to dedicate a full DLC to pure atmospheric aviation will significantly detract from and be harmful if not be disastrous to kerbal SPACE program. While some DO enjoy making planes, it is not the core of the games given intent. My opinion only.

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

I signed up fot Kebal SPACE Program.

2 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I bought kerbal SPACE program.

Indeed.  NASA is most certainly not considering PLANES for Mars and or other planetary exploration.

I mean.  When have wings EVER been a part of the space program.

Edited by klgraham1013
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome Rafael!

The general impression of the crisp new part treatment is heading the right way.  There may be some reservations - but a big thanks to @SQUAD for sharing previews of what is being worked on, and listening to the feedback (whatever the font size :D:mad::/:confused::))!  Seeing the parts in context is very helpful to understand the artists' thinking.

On 11/22/2018 at 7:03 AM, Sirad said:

How about revamping and adding some structural Girder Parts for Starbases ?

It would be great to have some more (and more interesting) girder parts.  The new structural panels are far more versatile (and lighter) than the old square plates - similarly the present girders to me seem way too heavy and rather limited.

And finally - from a PC player - great to hear a glimmer of good news for the console players.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding an "atmospheric aviation" DLC, and whether or not it would be a worthwhile DLC...

First off, to say it's not applicable to a space program is short-sighted, especially considering that Eve and Laythe are conducive to airfoil-based flight, and even Duna if designed properly.  I would say Jool, but I have no experience on how suicidal such an endeavor would be.  Further, the very fact that jet engines work in Laythe's atmosphere means there are two planetary bodies at which such propulsion methods work.

Second, there are a few key technologies that I think would be beneficial to exploring atmospheric bodies, and could be added into Kerbal Space Program.  Things like liquid fuel- or electric-powered props and/or rotors for flying around Eve, dedicated VTOL engines for making pinpoint landings easier (like the many islands of Laythe), or high-lift/low mass airfoils for efficient flight in Duna's atmosphere.  Not to mention there really is no middle ground between the flat, lifting-body profile of the Mk2 spaceplane parts and the enormous Mk3 shuttle body fuselages.

Having said all that, my subjective opinion is that other technologies would be of greater significance to be added by DLC first.  Such as dedicated hinges, winches or actuator arms for making ramps or small cranes for offloading cargo from landers and other types of craft; or robotic arms.  Or more refined modules and parts for constructing surface outposts and bases.

Yes, I know we already have a ramp part like the Mk3 tail ramp, and a lot of this is already possible using all sorts of stock solutions and MacGyvered mechanisms.  But a lot of these solutions are highly influenced by the Kraken, physics irregularities, and high part counts.

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

@5thHorseman I think you might be right on the info vs schedule aspect. Still wonder why not just stick with calling it "Devnotes" though as that to my untrained eye is what these still are. Just my 2¢.

"Devnotes" implies technical notes from developers. "Dev Diary" sounds like a fun whimsical look on life from a developer.

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

Everyone here hereby agree to suggest aircraft parts revamp?

Since you ask it that way: No, most certainly not agree. If by revamp you mean wholesale changes to textures and meshes that will end up making the set look very different from what they do now, like what they're doing for the rocket parts, please please no. The rocket parts needed a revamp, badly. The aircraft parts do not; they have a very finished defined look and consistency, let's not mess that up now.

Tiny corrections here and there to individual parts, add window glows where still missing, adding some notably missing parts to the set, adding some more sizes of landing gear and wings, adding propellers... sure, all that. But stick very very close to the current texturing please and leave the look and feel as it is, thank you very much.


Link to post
Share on other sites

@klgraham1013 Yes they are a thing, but, are they the CORE of the vessels used? No. Shuttle was by and far away the most and only (buryan <i think i spelled it wrong> the russian knock off shuttle does not count as it flew once unmanned) winged space exploration vessel. Do wings have a place yes. Are wing based craft worth an entire dev cycle for a DLC? In my opinion absolutely not. Not now at least. Again my opinion as far as KSP goes. 


@5thHorseman You may be right. Whimsy is what KSP is best at :D 

Edited by AlamoVampire
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I agree with @Tonka Crash here. I bought kerbal SPACE program. I personally feel that to dedicate a full DLC to pure atmospheric aviation will significantly detract from and be harmful if not be disastrous to kerbal SPACE program. While some DO enjoy making planes, it is not the core of the games given intent. My opinion only.

About that. We don't need the entire history of aviation in ksp. 

But however. Nasa isn't completely uninvolved in aviation based technology. 

Especially considering eve/laythe/duna. 

A small set of electric or monopropellant props which don't require oxygen would be a huge quality of life improvement. The nasa insight spacecraft also carries a small heli-drone. So aviation has it's fair share in a SPACE program. 


Btw, I get your point that you don't want Aircraft Plus just plain added to ksp. 

Edited by GrandProtectorDark
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think trying to come up with a new game mode, like Making History's mission creator and its heavily scripted scenarios, is the most likely direction for a future expansion: every active mod and part maker has been putting out their take on air and space parts. Lately (as in "years") they've improved performance on and under water, that is one direction I'd like to see, as a possible focus IF it included new gameplay with some kind of aquatic exploration / research.  EVE has very special oceans which should require some new high temp/pressure parts to explore.

Flora? Fauna? Not much of that going on any of the worlds right now.  And then there's the Kerbal Great Underground Empire, tho I don't think they'd appreciate our (theoretical future expansion) excavation and boring machines tearing the place up. ;)  (I don't know if players altering terrain would be possible with the current game engine.)


You CAN see down, if you put your head right on the lower window glass. 



Edited by basic.syntax
Link to post
Share on other sites

For mk2 lander can, the old "round" version looked better with narrow window. Also, there is no down view in the new. So i suggest 3 variants: "Classic" (narrow window) "Modern" (wide window) "Rover" (butter stick)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 4:47 PM, SQUAD said:


tumblr_inline_pikc4hic8o1rr2wit_540.jpg tumblr_inline_pikc63IOQ21rr2wit_540.jpgtumblr_inline_pikc4umaqR1rr2wit_540.jpgtumblr_inline_pikc4uctqj1rr2wit_540.jpgtumblr_inline_pikc5gYYQ81rr2wit_540.jpg

Im gonna be honest and say that im not a fan of the choice to reuse old geometry!  The whole point of a visual revamping is to redo the worst looking parts in game and bring them up to modern standards, not copy and paste old parts with a new skin ontop of them.


Probably the biggest issue that i see is the ADTP2-3 which needs to have its upper 2.5m side resized (at the bare minimum ofc, but if possible id prefer a 100% new model) as it it not able to seamlessly fit with 2.5m parts (same issue with 1-3 pod which was revamped a while ago and still has terrible geometry that doesnt fit with the game).  Texture is ok imo on the new one, but i would love to see the normals toned down a hair as they are completely overboard (just like the normals on the 2.5m fuel tanks and 5m tanks, only tanks that have good normals imo are the new 1.2m black/white texture, perfect amount where its a crisp normal that adds to the look and doesnt stand out crazy much either).

As of this point, these are the parts that have broken geometry so that they cannot seamlessly fit with another part of the same diameter:

*MK1-3 Command Pod

*LFB KR-1x2 "Twin-Boar"


*Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port (1.2m)

*Fairings (all sizes, slightly too large for each size, possibly intentional, they do fit ok with no weird gaps, but base is not the same as a fuel tank in diameter).

*Service Bay (both sizes)

*Heat Shield (shroud specifically, HSs themselves are fine and look fine if you use the 2nd node with a decoupler)

Mobile Processing Lab (size is fine, but the end caps have a taper that drops the OD below 2.5m)


Next biggest issue, one that i mentioned b4, is the fact that the FL-A10 has that atrocious looking square edge near the bottom from the age of the pre-revamped FLT series of tanks.  The old FL-A10 model fit well with those old FLT tanks, but now that the tanks have been fixed, we really need to get rid of that stupid square bump and replace that with either something rounded (akin to the bump features on the new revamped SRBs), or do away with it entirely and turn the part into a more basic cone (which would be a bit boring, but you can always put some detailing on it via texture to break up monotone part geometry if you cant make something that isnt a basic cone shape).


This is the sort of idea i have for the part, use a smoothed round edge but still have something there to make it look unique compared to a very very basic cone from 1 diameter to the other.


next are the 2 starbase end caps, which i just am not a real fan of in terms of reused models.  The 2.5m one has way too many bumps on it (cut that down to at least 1/2 of the original), and the bumps on both are very low poly and dont look good when you zoom in.  They worked ok with the old trashy textures since the bumps helped break up the monotony of the otherwise low res and bleh texture, but with a good one you dont need as many and the bumps would be redone into something like wires or rods rather then triangular bumps that dont make any sense.


Anyways, thats my 2c regarding the new parts, ill take all of them over the older parts, but its just really sad to see so many shorcuts being made with regards to 3D models.  If you need more time to make them right, they by all means just release them when you are truly ready for it and not try to push deadlines.  Quality, NOT quantity is imo the better solution, and reusing lousy 3D models is NOT quality...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

Probably the biggest issue that i see is the ADTP2-3 which needs to have its upper 2.5m side resized (at the bare minimum ofc, but if possible id prefer a 100% new model) as it it not able to seamlessly fit with 2.5m parts (same issue with 1-3 pod which was revamped a while ago and still has terrible geometry that doesnt fit with the game)

Scroll up in the comments. The devs confirmed that the mesh has changed for the 2.5 to 3.75 adapter, but the updated image didn't make it into the Devblog
(The post in question)

On 11/22/2018 at 7:00 PM, StylusHead said:

It has a new mesh now and we made sure the end caps are 2.5 m on top and 3.75 on bottom, the grid is gone and there are new diffuse, spec, normals as well as new variants, just the image didn't make it to the post, but trust me it has changed a lot.

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



And finally - from a PC player - great to hear a glimmer of good news for the console players.


Yes, indeed. I, as someone who just denied to put away his tinfoil head for a long, long time about the ongoing development of the Game, i must admit:

There is something going on!

Well, besides that, everything can be modded in, its quite good to see that old assets get an art pass and the Game is refreshed to leave the junkyard state (whoever wants the old parts, i bet there will be a mod for the old assets)

I Love all those new things added, i love the new crew can added, that will perfectly fit for rovers.

Now, if we flip over our rovers, until they explode, we can say: Damn they looked SLEEEEEEK until they went Boom.

Edited by Sirad
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for aircraft expansions?

NASA was founded from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Since its inception and even before, it pursued experimental aircraft alongside the military, including weird lifting bodies, the x-15, the hl-20... they're landing a helicopter on mars, creating solar electric aircraft... it was NASA research that concluded that adding winglets to airliners would substantially increase their efficiency. 

You can't just say "NASA hasn't done it, there's no room for kerbal to do it" without being grossly short-sighted and omitting a great number of the things NASA has worked on, past the shuttle. That first A? Aeronautics, buckos.


This is largely just being brought up to refute a lot of the points people were making in bad faith about the merit of one. I have no strong feelings about getting one, one way or the other. Propellers, fuel or electric or otherwise, would be NICE, but between mods and stock bearings, they're vaguely doable without an expansion. 


Edited by Lupi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Running a space agency and conducting rocket missions doesn't only involve rockets.  We have convenient short cuts in the game to allow us to build, launch and recover a rocket without (necessarily) having to build the support vehicles to move the rockets, fuel, crew and science around.  But there is always the option to do some of that if you want to - either for fun, or for improved returns in currency in career mode.

Besides this, on atmospheric bodies (not just Kerbin) there's nothing wrong with using aerofoil devices to get your science experiments from one biome to another or to return the samples to your lander - again for increased science returns and lower cost (even if that's only down to reduced payload mass).

Hence, IMO: K-SPACE-P should have no qualms about including plenty of aero parts.  If a player wants to propel Kerbals with them or not is their call. :)



Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote would definitely be to follow up with expanding into the future of spaceflight over planes. So few players ever go beyond the mun! To start we could use a suite of flight planning aids like an alarm clock, delta-v readouts, a less fiddly maneuver node widget, transfer window aids, etc. so players had better tools to mount interplanetary missions. Next I'd love to see the surfaces of the planets fleshed out with features and detail, perhaps integrated more smoothly into the science system so we felt like we were discovering something out there. Finally I would love to see a few more near future engines--some NERVA options and maybe a couple of VASIMRs, and if I'm being really greedy stock life-support. USI-LS is really close with some UI cleanup and balance tweeks, to my mind. LS that starts simple and includes a toggle could bring so much to the game without overwhelming new players. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked a lot the new Mk2Lander Can. I hope its "surface up" works just like the KSP 1.5´s version of the Rover square probe (to control it like a rover).
EDIT: I mean, I hope it has the same changes added on RoveMate on the 1.5 release:

* Rotated the RoveMate ninety degrees to make it match with its Navball orientation; also added  4 new attachment nodes to the sides.
Edited by Cataclism
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this new format for Dev-notes! Very simple and organised, very professional.

I like the new part revamps. I would like to see a grey option for the slim adapters and a heavier tilt for the lower windows on the landercans though. Other than that, they're looking pretty good!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

  • Create New...