Jump to content

KSP Loading... Our New Dev Diary!


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, releansol said:

I'm just waiting for better looking heatshild fairings. Everything else is cosmetics :cool: 

Oh god those monstrosities... I literally never enable the shroud because of how bad it looks. That ugly thick fairing with the checkerboard pattern... ugh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the effort being spent on the art revamp for parts. I don't always agree with the choices, but that's not hard to change on my end if it really bothers me.

I would rather see functionality like bearings and pivots added to stock and avoid parts packs well covered by mods. If they added the ability to swap resources through the variant system or advanced tweakables that would be awesome. I've got 3 different mods to do the same thing and all of them have issues, mainly with each other. 

More effort should be spent on engine variants like they've done with the Spark. Eventually I'd like to see variants for all engines. Terrier and Poodle really need revamps and while I don't expect them to use Porkjet's designs there is a need for engines like his LV-303 and LV-T15 to fill in some size gaps. A variant of some of the small engines with a small quantity of fuel in the part would also be good for small satellites.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2018 at 11:24 PM, FahmiRBLXian said:

Everyone here hereby agree to suggest aircraft parts revamp? I'm one of them. Notably, at least, the J-90 Goliath spinnermark variations. Remember my post?

@UomoCapra, just asking your thoughts. Do you agree for adding aircraft parts revamp as a part of 1.6?

No. I don’t agree. The aircraft parts got an art pass already and look decent and consistent while many rocket parts haven’t been touched. 

Once all the rocket parts have had an art pass then I’d be interested in seeing plane parts getting attention 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Psycho_zs said:

Here's an idea, adapters that do not have fuel: make them hollow like structural fuselage or structural tubes, also with internal nodes.

Aside from internal nodes, they are already like this. People want internal fuel tanks to take advantage of the volume inside of the adapters, particularly the larger ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SchwinnTropius said:

Aside from internal nodes, they are already like this. People want internal fuel tanks to take advantage of the volume inside of the adapters, particularly the larger ones.

Adapters are not hollow inside like structural tubes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 10:41 AM, TyrannoFan said:

Oh god those monstrosities... I literally never enable the shroud because of how bad it looks. That ugly thick fairing with the checkerboard pattern... ugh...

But without it looks like an ugly burger :blush: in both ways - it looks bad and I hope squad will fix this soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not "like structural tube" but they are hollow inside. You just can't see because they're closed on all ends.

Nothing stopping you from clipping stuff inside them.

By that definition all parts in KSP are 'hollow', as long as they're all attached to the same craft - KSP physics allows 'matter' to occupy the same space, even when it looks solid; we call it clipping.

But most parts still have invisible colliders that make physics treat them as 'solid' when detached, in that they don't allow anything to move through it or inside it without causing problems. In contrast the structural tubes are 'actually' hollow in the KSP/Unity physics sense since they have hollow colliders and allow things to move through or inside. They just don't shield anything, like the bays (yay for consistency).

 

I think @T1mo98 is asking for adapter variants with hollow visuals/colliders so stuff can be or move inside. Not too far-fetched an idea for the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 Adapter in particular, since you can literally see through it from top to bottom and see the inside - but this visual is misleading since the collider is 'solid', the endcaps might as well be closed (yay for visual cues).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not "like structural tube" but they are hollow inside. You just can't see because they're closed on all ends.

Nothing stopping you from clipping stuff inside them.

As sjwr-swis said. I want them to actually be hollow, not just clippable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2018 at 2:24 AM, FahmiRBLXian said:

Everyone here hereby agree to suggest aircraft parts revamp? I'm one of them. Notably, at least, the J-90 Goliath spinnermark variations. Remember my post?

No. They already look nice and consistent and IMO are some of the best looking parts in the game. I would not like to see them touched.

Also I dont see the benefit of adding the spinner mark. From what I remember of the J-90, there really isn't much room or need for a spinner mark.  Adding a black mark to the pale fan blades/compressor blades would look out of place and ugly if you ask me.

Revamped parts themselves are looking ok-ish. The 2.5 m butter stick lander can is something I quite like to see and it definitely looks better than before with the thicker windows. I dont quite like the amount of detail and flashiness though present in the adapters shown. For what tis worth, I quite liked seeing them kinda plain and bland as they didn't stand out. And for the thin plates mainly, I wouldn't mind seeing a bare metal version. I would mostly use those as vacuum endcaps for stuff, not really for fuel tanks.

Also, thank you squad for taking community feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, qzgy said:

No. They already look nice and consistent and IMO are some of the best looking parts in the game. I would not like to see them touched.

Agreed. The aircraft parts are already nice, it's just the rocket parts that needed some consistency and retouching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Foxster said:

You know what has needed a makeover (and crash diet) since forever? The red-headed step-child of parts...

QEQpvAL.png

 

5+ years on and I don't think I've ever used this part. I mostly blame my disuse of it on the fact that I'm not terribly creative, but it doesn't help that it's very ugly (and if I'm not completely mistaken was broken in some way for a while).

I can't say I'll have any more use for it revamped than I do now (I honestly forget it even exists most of the time), but it'd be nice to know it got done up as well for consistency's sake.

Edited by Mako
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mako said:

if I'm not completely mistaken was broken in some way for a while

I don't recall it being broken but wouldn't be surprised. Its biggest problem (other than being ugly) is that in every single way imaginable it's worse than a cubic octagonal strut.

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I don't recall it being broken but wouldn't be surprised. Its biggest problem (other than being ugly) is that in every single way imaginable it's worse than a cubic octagonal strut.

And it is way too heavy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 5:10 PM, Tyko said:

Once all the rocket parts have had an art pass then I’d be interested in seeing plane parts getting attention 

[Insert "leave Britney alone" meme]

They don't need to touch any of the Porkjet MK1, MK2 and MK3 stuff. This include the Goliath.

Leave them alone....leave them alone!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GrandProtectorDark said:

IT is gonna be bothersome for those wit ckan support.
The majority of mods from 1.4 worked in 1.5 just fine.
It's only a matter of Updating thread titles.

True enough; I wanna make a mod for KSP, but I just don't know where and how to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 5:59 AM, swjr-swis said:

By that definition all parts in KSP are 'hollow', as long as they're all attached to the same craft - KSP physics allows 'matter' to occupy the same space, even when it looks solid; we call it clipping.

Really?  Try that with ore tanks.

Last time I checked, clipping ore causes explosions(the tanks can be clipped, but put ore in both tanks and boom!)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Last time I checked, clipping ore causes explosions(the tanks can be clipped, but put ore in both tanks and boom!)

I never noticed unexpected explosions with filled ore tanks. I use them with some regularity, they make good compact ballast to balance out craft, and in such situations they're always filled and heavily clipped. Even just using them as ore tanks I tend to clip them into each other just because it makes for a smoother more aesthetic visual.

Can you load this ore pod subassembly into a shuttle bay and tell me if it explodes for you? It doesn't explode for me unless I outright drop it, despite very heavy clipping of the center tanks and other parts. If it does for you... the problem may not be the tanks themselves. Mods perhaps?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...