KSP Loading... 1.8 Preview: Service Bays Revamp

[MechBFP]

38 minutes ago, Delay said:

@Nertea has said he wished Squad to not be compared with his mod. I hope he still holds it.

The mod was made not to be better than Squad (per se), but because he didn't agree with the artistic direction KSP was headed.

Exactly. People are allowed to like different things. 

[Angelo Kerman]

@SQUAD These look nice, though as one streamer suggested, it would be even better with a part variant that lacks either the top end, bottom end, or both ends so you could string several together to form larger bays. That would really make the parts stand out!

Edited October 3, 2019 by Angel-125

[ZooNamedGames]

Can you allow it to be toggleable between versions with a top/bottom and ones that are hollow for those of us that want a 2.5 cargo bay door rather than this?

[Jacke]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

It's worse than that. Imagine buying a couch that is considered "complete" even though there's no back rest.

But you bought it because it was $20 and there's a chance they'll put a back rest on some day.

...but that back rest is an extra $15.

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, neistridlar said:

[cut by me] The guys at Squad are making their living from this, so time is money. So they really need to consider how much time to put in vs. how much that time is going to pay in form of new sales. The ReStock guys already got their bills payed from their jobs, so they don't necessarily have that consideration. [cut by me]

Besides, we need to consider that ReStock is ARR. Once the ReStock guys decide they are done with it and move on, KSP users will be left high and dry. So Squad really needs to do something to keep (somewhat) up to ReStock users to minimize any impacts from that happening.

Disclaimer: this is not a criticizing, it's just facts being explained.

[klgraham1013]

I don't know.  If I were a boss type, I might be a tad bit confused if people I weren't paying were subjectively making better art for my game than the people I was paying to make art for my game. 

...that sentence was somehow difficult to write...

That said, Squad is doing a better job with these art updates than they were at the start.

Edited October 3, 2019 by klgraham1013

[Lisias]

30 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

 If I were a boss type, I might be a tad bit confused if people I weren't paying were subjectively making better art for my game than the people I was paying to make art for my game. 

It's the difference between someone doing whatever they want, when they want, and how they want to people doing what I need, when I need and how I need. Not to mention I'm owning the work myself, and not in need to pray to the other guys not to sell the thing to my competition.

30 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

...that sentence was somehow difficult to write...

It's counter-intuitive, but usually 'worst' tactical solutions renders way better strategical results on the long run. See the Sherman versus Tigers on the WW2.

On my line of work, I compromise to 'worst' solutions all the time. To tell you the true, I just did it - we are committed to redo in-house a solution because we lost confidence on the service provider, besides their solution being way more convenient and "better" on the short run. But that guy broke one interface suddenly, and we borked on the deployment due this. So we ruled them out.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Besides, we need to consider that ReStock is ARR. Once the ReStock guys decide they are done with it and move on, KSP users will be left high and dry. So Squad really needs to do something to keep (somewhat) up to ReStock users to minimize any impacts from that happening.

Note that this isn't exactly true because of ModuleManager. Models are fine, it's been a long, long time since anything changed that would require a fix in model. Since they are already released, it is, in practical terms, for ReStock authors to "recall" them. Alterations are not allowed, but modifying the configuration files via MM patch is, and that's usually all that's required to keep a part updated. Worst thing that can happen is a KSP update changing a part's shape or size in a noticeable way, which is unlikely to happen, either. If ReStock authors move on, the last released version will be there for everyone to use, and MM patches will handle any necessary updates. 

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Angel-125 said:

it would be even better with a part variant that lacks either the top end, bottom end, or both ends so you could string several together to form larger bays.

I do second this, but I am a bit wary of payload in such short bay sections ending up not being shielded from drag despite being entirely inside a closed multi-segment bay.

We've seen this in the existing cargo bays, where a payload with a part that crosses bay segments and more than half of its length in another bay segment ends up unshielded to drag, because only the bay segment the part CoM is in is checked for that part. With service bays being so short, this would become much more common an issue. Or was this resolved already?

[Lisias]

11 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

If ReStock authors move on, the last released version will be there for everyone to use, and MM patches will handle any necessary updates. 

Unless something happens to the GitHub and Spacedock.

PorkJet released his parts overhaul (kick start for this project, it appears) using a CC license.

ARR is not CC BY NC ND. On the latter, you can send a copy to a friend as long you don't change the distribution file. On the former, if anything happens to the download site, it's lost for good (at least legally).

Again, this is not a criticizing. Just the facts as they are.

[GrandProtectorDark]

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

 ReStock is ARR

Only the art assets are ARR.

The configs are under the MIT License and the plugins are under LGPL.

Saying (all of)Restock is ARR is therefore not exactly factually correct 

Edited October 3, 2019 by GrandProtectorDark

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Unless something happens to the GitHub

It is owned by M$, and a pretty darn big development platform. The chances of something happened to it are incredibly slim, to say the least, and ReStock would be among the least important casualties. There are people whose entire livelihood depends on stuff that's being done through GitHub.

Besides, if we're talking facts, then the facts are that someone is gonna to ignore legal stuff and reupload it anyway. If the authors truly move on, nobody is gonna care. The fact is, once you release something on the internet, it should be considered impossible to remove. 

[Capt. Hunt]

12 hours ago, T-Bouw said:

Posted 11 hours ago, Nestor said:

"This will be the case for this revamp."
 

So does this mean we have multiple obsolete parts being loaded into RAM for nothing? What a waste of RAM if that's the case. Resources aren't infinite.
Why keep the old parts around if a replacement arrives?
Don't get me wrong, I like the graphics updates you do, and this one also looks great, but I think optimizations should still take priority.

it's mainly so that the new update doesn't break people's saves.  They probably will remove it eventually, but not for a patch or two, so that players have time to filter out ships using the old parts.  You can always delete the old part yourself.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Capt. Hunt

[dok_377]

44 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:

it's mainly so that the new update doesn't break people's saves.  They probably will remove it eventually, but not for a patch or two, so that players have time to filter out ships using the old parts.  You can always delete the old part yourself.

Do not delete old parts if you playing career though. Some of the recovery and rescue contracts still spawn those old parts. I have seen the old mk1 capsule several times during rescue missions. 

[Superfluous J]

22 minutes ago, dok_377 said:

Do not delete old parts if you playing career though. Some of the recovery and rescue contracts still spawn those old parts. I have seen the old mk1 capsule several times during rescue missions. 

They won't spawn if you delete them though. The contract system picks from parts in the game.

[Ratwerke_Actual]

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

They won't spawn if you delete them though. The contract system picks from parts in the game.

Can confirm. It will even pick parts from mods if they are installed. 

One rescue I remember, wound up being a bi-plane cockpit in Munar orbit.

[dok_377]

5 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

They won't spawn if you delete them though. The contract system picks from parts in the game.

Oh, that's good to know. 

[Kerbart]

3 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I don't know.  If I were a boss type, I might be a tad bit confused if people I weren't paying were subjectively making better art for my game than the people I was paying to make art for my game. 

Why? The artwork doesn’t require special inside knowledge to make it look better, and the quality of the design is mainly the result of how much work and talent you can put in it. Now, if Squad put significantly more FTE’s into their parts than the ReStock team did it would be a different story. But we don’t know that, and with Squad having to pay for each hour of work done and ReStock not, I doubt that is the case.

[Manwith Noname]

On 10/2/2019 at 9:24 PM, Dragon01 said:

Not bad, but the black hole in the top is not a good idea. It looks odd and has no good reason to be there. If it's supposed to be hollow, then make a real hole. ReStock one is better, including not having that issue.

 

23 hours ago, Winduck said:

Agree. Why is there a black hole in the middle ? 

 

23 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I've never understood why Squad likes giant black dots so much.

It's not a hole. It's the Velcro® patch used to hold parts together.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Manwith Noname said:

It's not a hole. It's the Velcro® patch used to hold parts together.

I thought it was magnets.

[Fraktal]

11 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Over the years we have gotten more sophisticated tools, IDEs, prefab components and modules, better standard practices, a plethora of online resources, and we are drowning in processing and transmission capacity, memory and storage.. and yet product quality and reliability seem to keep going backwards instead of improving.

No amount of planning and forethought will ever fully compensate for every use-case ever, not to mention end-user idiocy. Doesn't matter how accurately the end result will reflect customer expectations, they will always ask for additions later on, whining that it doesn't work and blaming you for having done a terrible job, rather than remember and admit that nobody frakking said anything about that particular use-case when requirements were hammered out before development even began.

Developers aren't omniscient.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, Fraktal said:

No amount of planning and forethought will ever fully compensate for every use-case ever, not to mention end-user idiocy. Doesn't matter how accurately the end result will reflect customer expectations, they will always ask for additions later on, whining that it doesn't work and blaming you for having done a terrible job, rather than remember and admit that nobody frakking said anything about that particular use-case when requirements were hammered out before development even began.

Developers aren't omniscient.

We're not asking for omniscience.  We're asking for complete, functional products.  Like when you buy a car, or refrigerator, or anything else besides software.

Edited October 4, 2019 by klgraham1013

[qzgy]

17 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

It's worse than that. Imagine buying a couch that is considered "complete" even though there's no back rest.

But you bought it because it was $20 and there's a chance they'll put a back rest on some day.

Modding is therefore the equivalent of making and duck taping your own back rest onto that couch until they finally do attach it in 5 or 6 years.

[csiler2]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

We're not asking for omniscience.  We're asking for complete, functional products.  Like when you buy a car, or refrigerator, or anything else besides software.

Then use the power of the free market (your wallet) and don't buy a software product until its completion level and functionality meet your requirements. This isn't hard. Nobody forced you to buy KSP when you did. It's a completely optional product that you chose to spend money on.

For me, it was watching people landing on the moon before landing gear was ever put into the game. I don't know if it was Scott Manley, or someone else that made the video, but as soon as I saw it, I knew I was willing to spend money on KSP, even if development stopped after that because I'd be able to (crash)land on another world.

I see a lot of people in this thread bellyaching and whining about 'incomplete' software being made full releases. If you don't like it, don't buy it and certainly never look at being an early adopter. You knew full well what was going on when you hit the purchase button. It's not like Squad or anyone else hid the development status of KSP, and if you didn't know, then learn your lesson and do some research before you spend your money.

Beyond some bugs, the game was fully and easily playable and neither of the DLCs they've released are necessary to enjoy the core game. I, for one, am thankful that Squad decided to continue polishing and refining the game well past what they had marked as the end-point for development. It even looks like they're going to continue development BEYOND the release of the game's sequel, and yes, I know this is because the sequel is not being developed by Squad, so they won't see any money for it. 

I never have, and never will, spend my money on something until it's reached the point where I'm satisfied with the product even if the company were to up and shutdown the day after my purchase. @5thHorseman makes a good point, you can never tell what users will do to a program to find a bug you never thought to look for. It's the same with errata for board games and recalls for cars and appliances, but barring that WYSIWYG.

If you weren't satisfied or excited with the status of KSP when you bought it, then you shouldn't have bought it. Once KSP hit final release, Squad really owed us nothing except some bug fixes as the community came across glitches. A lot of you act as if forking over a few bucks means they owe you the moon in perpetuity, and honestly, they don't.

[T1mo98]

11 minutes ago, csiler2 said:

Then use the power of the free market (your wallet) and don't buy a software product until its completion level and functionality meet your requirements. This isn't hard. Nobody forced you to buy KSP when you did. It's a completely optional product that you chose to spend money on.

For me, it was watching people landing on the moon before landing gear was ever put into the game. I don't know if it was Scott Manley, or someone else that made the video, but as soon as I saw it, I knew I was willing to spend money on KSP, even if development stopped after that because I'd be able to (crash)land on another world.

I see a lot of people in this thread bellyaching and whining about 'incomplete' software being made full releases. If you don't like it, don't buy it and certainly never look at being an early adopter. You knew full well what was going on when you hit the purchase button. It's not like Squad or anyone else hid the development status of KSP, and if you didn't know, then learn your lesson and do some research before you spend your money.

Beyond some bugs, the game was fully and easily playable and neither of the DLCs they've released are necessary to enjoy the core game. I, for one, am thankful that Squad decided to continue polishing and refining the game well past what they had marked as the end-point for development. It even looks like they're going to continue development BEYOND the release of the game's sequel, and yes, I know this is because the sequel is not being developed by Squad, so they won't see any money for it. 

I never have, and never will, spend my money on something until it's reached the point where I'm satisfied with the product even if the company were to up and shutdown the day after my purchase. @5thHorseman makes a good point, you can never tell what users will do to a program to find a bug you never thought to look for. It's the same with errata for board games and recalls for cars and appliances, but barring that WYSIWYG.

If you weren't satisfied or excited with the status of KSP when you bought it, then you shouldn't have bought it. Once KSP hit final release, Squad really owed us nothing except some bug fixes as the community came across glitches. A lot of you act as if forking over a few bucks means they owe you the moon in perpetuity, and honestly, they don't.

Thank you!

 

Honestly, I'm getting really tired of the entitlement on this Forum.

Squad doesn't owe us anything. They've released a product, we bought and that's it. Anything that happens after that is nice to have, but in no way required of Squad to do so.
We should be thankful they're even still supporting the game despite it probably not making nearly as much revenue as it did years prior.

I for one love how they're still revamping old parts and adding in new parts completely free. They're committed to making this game better with each update, the least we can do is thank them for it.