KSP Loading... 1.8 Preview: Service Bays Revamp

[T-Bouw]

I have a feeling I incited this shipping-software-(un)finished-business when I almost jumped to conclusions, all while I only wanted to know the reasoning for keeping the old part. That was never my intention. I very much appreciate the hard work Squad puts in the game.

Now I know that keeping the old part(s) is to prevent braking saves and deprecating it when most people have made the switch
And that is a lofty goal in my book.

[Fraktal]

6 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.

That's not the problem. It's an entirely reasonable expectation.

The problem is when the threshold where customers consider it "complete" is being moved all the time. For example, you're contracted to develop software to download and import orders in a webshop system into the customer's offline system and half a year later, the customer suddenly asks for the same software to also automatically submit orders for shipping, generate and download the shipping label and package number and email-notify the destination, even though the webshop has no API for such functionality so you now have to chew your way through the HTML code of the webshop's admin UI page to figure out how to emulate manual submission with raw HTTP requests. Not to mention that they also want receipt confirmations for the notification emails and automatic re-send if the target doesn't read it, even though email service providers are not guaranteed to comply with that functionality so what they're asking is theoretically possible but actually impossible.

Nothing of that sort was ever talked about in the initial feature request when the development contract was signed, but the customer suddenly thought it'd be nice to have and won't take no for an answer because they are fully aware that unlike a car or refrigerator, software can be upgraded and expanded at any time if they want. So they want it upgraded and expanded, far beyond the originally agreed upon requirements.

[Lisias]

17 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

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

I decided to move further discussions on the matter to a proper thread.

TL;DR: ARR doesn't grants the same rights as does CC BY NC ND. 

On the long run KSP's license grants me more rights and does it explicitly, so they are more dependable.

Again, not a criticizing, just facts as they are.

[Jognt]

Nice! Especially the ‘old’ 2.5m bay felt out of place/ugly for me so a revamp that is sleeker is welcome!

I would like it if there was at least a bit of color/greeble on it though as it looks a bit too sterile. Don’t worry about complaints, people will complain regardless, might as well make it something you’re proud of. 

With regards to functionality, how about a few bulkheads inside the 2.5m version so we can surfaceattach stuff in there?

ps. If this texture already IS something you’re proud of and my comment comes across as insulting: I’m a person. People will always complain.  

[Angelo Kerman]

20 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

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?

Well, if Squad could make the part work like a fairing, in that you can expand it and still get the shielding, then maybe that is an approach. Wishful thinking at this point but it would still be nice to have service bays that you can stretch.

[Ogberi]

I like the bi-fold doors. I use these on rovers sometimes, but find that the doors tend to toss things around when they interact with the ground. The new doors look like they extend less from the vessel, so maybe no ground interactions?  Though I would really love the ability to disable a pair of doors in the paw, so only the topmost doors open when triggered on my rovers.

My only comment on the 'give me a complete, bug free product' is this:

TANSSAAFL.  

[Terwin]

13 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.

As a software developer, that would be nice, but it would also require that managers not demand that things get done faster and cheaper, forcing the use of existing tools that were not made for purpose, but can be leveraged to get certain things done that are needed.

https://xkcd.com/2021/

https://xkcd.com/2030/

https://xkcd.com/844/

 

A physical representation of a modern piece of software would make Rube Goldberg's head explode.

[panzer1b]

Not a huge fan of the reused endcap (which is probably my only complain about 90% of the new revamps), but otherwise good job.  Doors open less obtrusively, and its much more streamlined (i did like the old door handles, but i hated the fact that the doors were stepped and not flush with the part's outside diameter), so 100% improvement there.  I do wish it wasnt pure white though, so hopefully there will be a part variant without that as i actually like the darker options if present (will likely look awkward when put on all grey/orange rocket).

 

Otherwise, complaints aside, its 100% superior to what we have now so ill take it...

[Ol’ Musky Boi]

On 10/2/2019 at 9:05 PM, sh1pman said:

Nice. I wish we had a variant without top and bottom surfaces (like Mk3 bays) so that they can be stacked seamlessly to form one long bay...

I second this, 1.25 m and 2.5 m cargo bays are greatly needed!

Edited October 5, 2019 by Ol’ Musky Boi

[Waxing_Kibbous]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:38 PM, Angel-125 said:

@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!

There was a mod back in ye olde 1.04 days or so that had some nice open ended cargo bays, they were longer but still open at the ends, so it can be done in theory. Even having an option for 2x and 3x variants for a bay would be nice, a la engine variants.

[Jestersage]

My only issue is that this basically forced me to wait for 1.8 before working on my crafts, in case more new parts/revision come about.

[Ol’ Musky Boi]

Can we get an ETA on 1.8 by any chance? Or is it a done-when-it's done kinda thing? 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Ol’ Musky Boi

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

but...but...but OMG PLZ DO SOMETHING USEFULL LIKE THE REACTION WHEELS I MEAN LIKE LOOK AT THE MK1 SIZE ONE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Vanamonde]

5 hours ago, Ol’ Musky Boi said:

Can we get an ETA on 1.8 by any chance? Or is it a done-when-it's done kinda thing? 

It's always a done-when-it's-done kind of thing, after all the grief they used to get when they did announce ETAs.  

[Jestersage]

On 10/6/2019 at 8:58 AM, burn boi said:

but...but...but OMG PLZ DO SOMETHING USEFULL LIKE THE REACTION WHEELS I MEAN LIKE LOOK AT THE MK1 SIZE ONE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Whats wrong with the mk1 size?

[shdwlrd]

6 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Whats wrong with the mk1 size?

Just guessing but maybe they look out of place compared to the rest of the parts?

[Wjolcz]

That's nice, but I wish it had sliding door instead. Also bottom/no bottom tweakable would be great.

[Starwaster]

On 10/3/2019 at 8:58 AM, swjr-swis said:

Corrected that for you, but yes I thoroughly dislike how it's become 'accepted' that software cannot ever be finished, feature-complete, properly documented, or reasonably bug-free on release. 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.

</rant><deep breath>

Part of that is end-user driven. Even on these forums, with regards to mods: Look around. If a mod isn't under constant development it is often incorrectly and inappropriately declared 'dead' by the users. It doesn't matter if it works with (and possibly even recompiled for) the current version of KSP, players are too anxious to come in and say 'this mod is dead; the modder has't posted anything in this thread in days; nothing new has been added; this mod is dead'

The expectation is that the  software itself must be under constant development; new features added, new parts added. Long standing issues get pushed into the background that way until someone pushes it back into the spotlight

[qwe9000]

I hope the revamped service bays aren't invincible like the old ones

[paul23]

Am I the only one having a hard time finding use for service bays?  They're hard to use (difficult to place items and keep craft center of gravity aligned), add terrible amounts of drag (temperature sensor on outside does magintudes less), and add weight.

 

All while sensors on the outside of a capsule work just as well, they can easily withstand reentry heat by just putting them on the upper side of the capsule.

[GrandProtectorDark]

2 hours ago, qwe9000 said:

I hope the revamped service bays aren't invincible like the old ones

I disagree.

[Lisias]

On 10/6/2019 at 12:47 PM, Ol’ Musky Boi said:

Can we get an ETA on 1.8 by any chance? Or is it a done-when-it's done kinda thing? 

Damn. They just pushed it 3 days!!!

 

[Starwaster]

On 10/9/2019 at 10:26 AM, Lisias said:

Damn. They just pushed it 3 days!!!

 

Not only that, but they have an agreement with GRRM to kill a Stark every time that happens......

[Nebbie]

Quite an improvement, I must say, both in form and function (those doorwings were not great, especially when trying to get access to a probe core I'd put in one for a station for checking biomes).

Pretty much just landing legs need to be redone now as far as the main exterior stuff on rockets to look right.

[MiffedStarfish]

Looks nice, smooth white is an improvement in my opinion. I do wish like others have said there was an option to extend them similar to the MH tubes or remove the endcaps though, and I’d really like it if there was an option to switch between having doors on both sides and doors on just one side.

Edited October 12, 2019 by MiffedStarfish