KSP Loading... Preview: Breaking Ground - SEQ-3 Cargo Storage Unit

[Xurkitree]

15 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I just noticed the science parts and storage box and in a new closet tab.  Couldn't you have just placed the science parts in the science tab and the box in the payload tab?  As much as I love RoverDude's stuff, he also has a tendency to create unnecessary tabs.  You're going to drive the UI nerd in me a little crazy.

Tbf these experiments are very different from the standard experiments and it wraps up the DLC parts in a single category .. but i agree.

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I just noticed the science parts and storage box and in a new closet tab.  Couldn't you have just placed the science parts in the science tab and the box in the payload tab?  As much as I love RoverDude's stuff, he also has a tendency to create unnecessary tabs.  You're going to drive the UI nerd in me a little crazy.

I feel what they're doing is precisely what the tabs are for. Far better this than what we used to have where about 80 percent of parts (and 100% of new parts) were just thrown into Utility.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I feel what they're doing is precisely what the tabs are for. Far better this than what we used to have where about 80 percent of parts (and 100% of new parts) were just thrown into Utility.

It's fine.  I'll just MM them where they belong.

2 hours ago, Xurkitree said:

Tbf these experiments are very different from the standard experiments and it wraps up the DLC parts in a single category .. but i agree.

They're still science parts, and I'd argue DLC should integrate seamlessly into the game and not require a separate section.

[bigdad84]

Would be cool to have a foldable rover fit in one! Taking up the whole unit obviously. Similar to the Apollo rovers! I'm sure a mod will come for it.

[Rejected Spawn]

Are we already certain only this particular DLC will be using that inventory related tab? That aside, sure I'd have been okay with putting the science parts in the science tab but we also have the solar panel and that would not at all belong in the science parts tab, neither would any comm equipment and so on, I'd much rather go pick everything up in a tab only meant for inventory things rather than jump around various tabs with a mishmash of completely incompatible and almost entirely unrelated parts.

+1 Very super strongly FOR this separate tab, it's the best option by a huge margin.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Rejected Spawn said:

+1 Very super strongly FOR this separate tab, it's the best option by a huge margin.

Huge margin is highly debatable, but I respect all of the above opinions.  I would never organize things this way, but that's how I do things in my day to day life.  Plumbing in plumbing, electrical in electrical, etc.

[klgraham1013]

Honestly, I feel like the advanced filter is the better solution to this "problem."  Science in science, solar panels in electrical, etc.  Squad could add an advanced filter with tabs for Stock, DLC1, DLC2, other, etc.  That's just my two cents.  I don't have much more to say on the subject.

[Superfluous J]

19 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Plumbing in plumbing, electrical in electrical, etc.

portable in portable...

Actually I don't see why they can't be in both tabs.

Edited May 18, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[Rejected Spawn]

Well huge margin in my eyes, maybe not as burningly intense for everyone else. I can willingly agree that it would make sense from a logical standpoint to split it up based on the specifics of each component like you say but from a gameplay standpoint it would be a royal pain to scatter these things all over the place, now I'm gonna make an assumption that a LOT of players are going to add a container and then the contents of that container pretty much immediately following the addition of the container itself, and otherwise these things would do nothing more than clutter up their part list. Unlike everything else in the VAB and SPH these are immediately bound to each other by this relationship and like already stated the parts are otherwise incompatible with pretty much everything except possible storage slots in some pods if that's a thing which I don't know. When taking that into account, yes, I believe the already presented system wins by a huge margin.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, Rejected Spawn said:

Unlike everything else in the VAB and SPH these are immediately bound to each other by this relationship

Except tanks and engines.  Tanks and nose cones.  Pods and parachutes.  Many things in the game are immediately bound to each other.  Tanks and decouplers.   There are so many.  Yet they also have their own categories.  I don't care extremely much, but, if we go by that logic, then the current sorting system could be seen as broken as well.

Really, I'm just a big fan of consistency, and having a new category which goes by a different set of sorting rules than the other categories creates a level of inconsistency I just personal don't care for.

[Rejected Spawn]

I could probably have worded it significantly better than... that. The "immediate relationship" I meant was specifically that most players immediately place one of the items after the other, that I really don't see happening anywhere else since there's no need to decide the optimal engine immediately after selecting a fuel tank, you can stick any object you want on a decoupler and so on, there isn't a single "duo" in the entire parts catalog that happens so consistently you could claim these two parts belong together like that. There is however very likely no reason to wait before filling the storages with these deployables and (going out on a limb with a reasonable guess) I think most players don't build super mega multi purpose giant crafts (unlike me) but more "this ship needs to go There and do That One Thing" which means they'll often end up designing the entire ship around getting these deployables somewhere and have already decided what to deploy - so there's no delay before they chuck them in the containers they added from the same tab which makes it a massive inconvenience to have to jump around between other tabs to look for one or two items from each. Of course I don't have sufficient data to prove that this is how things will turn out, it just seems very likely based on standard human behaviour - which of course means there'll always be a smaller number of those who do things totally different and you could very well be one of them.

Anyway that was just a final attempt at explaining my reasoning, hopefully no longer significantly up to interpretation. (I know, I probably need to work on that a bit.) Even without that entire factor though I'd still be completely for sorting "deployables" in their own place since - as stated - they are incompatible with everything except their containers. All other tabs go "on" my rocket, those things go "in" my rocket. And stick their containers with them because it makes enough sense putting that in the same category. 

[HansonKerman]

We literally (almost) have KIS and IR in stock now

[sh1pman]

11 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

We literally (almost) have KIS

More like 10% of KIS functionality that only works with a small handful of parts.

[HansonKerman]

Just now, sh1pman said:

More like 10% of KIS functionality that only works with a small handful of parts.

Good point

Hope it comes to fuel tanks etc.

[TimothyC]

A few questions about the experiments:

1.  When in storage, the the deployables (experiments, controls, power, ect) have mass that impacts the parent craft?
2. If so, do the items being placed have a consistent mass, or does it change from item to item?
3. Can kerbals be independently equipped in the VAB if they are to be seated in command chairs?
4. Will kerbals in command chairs in general have the mass of the deployable item added to the mass of the vehicle they are in?
5. Is the mass of the deplyable added to the Kerbal when they are walking around with it in their inventory (is this a way to make kerbals sink and not rise to the surface of the oceans)?

Edited May 19, 2019 by TimothyC

[TBenz]

14 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I just noticed the science parts and storage box and in a new closet tab.  Couldn't you have just placed the science parts in the science tab and the box in the payload tab?  As much as I love RoverDude's stuff, he also has a tendency to create unnecessary tabs.  You're going to drive the UI nerd in me a little crazy.

I've got an unnecessary amount of mods installed, and I have to say, it gets prettying annoying having to dig through the 100 some parts in my science tab (don't even ask what my fuel tank section looks like). I welcome more specific tab organization. And honestly, I need to sit myself down and write some custom patches to better organize all these mod parts sometime.

[Quoniam Kerman]

One question, is it a revamp of the old storage unit we could use to save experiment data for safe return?

And a kindofish KIS implementation is still a nice touch. Now what it lacks is a proper KAS implementation, but seeing that stock KSP  oversimpliies things very much for gameplay pruposes, I doubt it will come anytime soon.

[Tyko]

@SQUAD do we get some stack mounted options? Maybe some cargo bay variants designed for these parts? 

 

[klesh]

28 minutes ago, Tyko said:

do we get some tack mounted options? Maybe some cargo bay variants designed for these parts? 

right at the video start, bottom row, it looks to be a round, stack mounted cargo holder option.   Probably more storage for its larger size.  I will wager that it is 2.5m form factor.  

[JPLRepo]

18 hours ago, TimothyC said:

A few questions about the experiments:

1.  When in storage, the the deployables (experiments, controls, power, ect) have mass that impacts the parent craft?
2. If so, do the items being placed have a consistent mass, or does it change from item to item?
3. Can kerbals be independently equipped in the VAB if they are to be seated in command chairs?
4. Will kerbals in command chairs in general have the mass of the deployable item added to the mass of the vehicle they are in?
5. Is the mass of the deplyable added to the Kerbal when they are walking around with it in their inventory (is this a way to make kerbals sink and not rise to the surface of the oceans)?

I can safely answer the mass questions, the rest you will have to wait and see.

1. Yes.

2. They have different mass.

5. What they are carrying affects their mass.

[Superfluous J]

23 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

I can safely answer the mass questions, the rest you will have to wait and see.

1. Yes.

2. They have different mass.

5. What they are carrying affects their mass.

Can a Kerbal get in a ship while carrying something, and does the ship still not gain any mass when they do so? Or does it gain only the mass of the thing carried?

[JPLRepo]

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Can a Kerbal get in a ship while carrying something, and does the ship still not gain any mass when they do so? Or does it gain only the mass of the thing carried?

Yes they can. It will be placed inside any available cargo slot on the ship.

the Kerbal mass and what they are carrying mass is added to the ship. (Kerbal mass in ships was fixed a few releases ago)

[Superfluous J]

8 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

(Kerbal mass in ships was fixed a few releases ago)

*blink*

*blink blink*

It WAS!?

EDIT:

No I don't think it was. I just put a simple ship on the pad with a Kerbal in it and it was 2.28 tons. I exited the Kerbal, and it was still 2.28 tons.

Edited May 20, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[KerikBalm]

I thought it was fixed for command chairs though?

15 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

Yes they can. It will be placed inside any available cargo slot on the ship.

And what if there are no slots? do you get a dialogue box like the "dump experiments" box?

[Superfluous J]

41 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I thought it was fixed for command chairs though?

It always counted Kerbal mass in command chairs, at least back to pre-1.0. It's things a with crew spots that have fixed masses no matter the number of seats taken.