Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 1.5 - Work From Home Developer Update

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I reckon he always was, just not as himself.

He's been playing KSP for years, so my guess is he's been on the forums for quite a while before he started working on KSP2.

So we can re-start the witch hunt for Nate's real account?

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, pandaman said:

I reckon he always was, just not as himself.

He's been playing KSP for years, so my guess is he's been on the forums for quite a while before he started working on KSP2.

We could have had discussions with him in the past and didn't know it.

[micha]

9 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@ShadowZone made this nice breakdown of what we saw in this video:

Am I the only one that can:t stand the modern fad of single-coloured flat icons and UIs?  It really makes it far more difficult to find stuff.  Had a big argument with the VisualStudio devs about this too (luckily I wasn't the only one and Microsoft eventually backed down)

[JadeOfMaar]

@micha So you're the reason the Win10 app icons suddenly swung like that just recently/mid-revamp? I noticed. I'm neutral about that issue but I do rather some tone and subtle extra hues in icons.

[micha]

10 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@micha So you're the reason the Win10 app icons suddenly swung like that just recently/mid-revamp? I noticed. I'm neutral about that issue but I do rather some tone and subtle extra hues in icons.

Lol, no idea about the rest of Win10.  I have to use it for work.  Linux and letting users customise everything to suit them for me (also why I switched away from Gnome when Gnome3 came out, way too locked down and regimented, completely broke my workflows).

[James M]

7 hours ago, betaking said:

Landing gear

Omg yes. Landing legs in ksp1 is an absolute disaster. Procedural legs would be amazing. 

[pandaman]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

So we can re-start the witch hunt for Nate's real account?

Oooh jeez, I hope not.

The beauty of his 'assumed' anonymity is that he can interact and engage fully without getting bombarded.  And give personal opinions without it being taken as 'official'.

I am curious (naturally), and do have a couple of 'suspects' in mind, but I have no intention of sharing them, just in case...  (And also I so can't be proved wrong )

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

23 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The launch pad looks like it's going to have the vehicle built inside with an editor, then the vehicle gets raised up to the top to launch, or it comes out of the side and uses the ramp. 2 in 1 VAB/SPH maybe?

Bingo!

Very nice! Will the editor be a part of the flight scenario like in Balsa and pre-0.7.3 KSP 1?

8 hours ago, micha said:

18 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@ShadowZone made this nice breakdown of what we saw in this video:

Am I the only one that can:t stand the modern fad of single-coloured flat icons and UIs?  It really makes it far more difficult to find stuff.  Had a big argument with the VisualStudio devs about this too (luckily I wasn't the only one and Microsoft eventually backed down)

In my opinion, the flat icons make the editor easier on the eyes. I really hope KSP 2 keeps the flat style because it makes the interface much easier to process and look at.

[nikokespprfan]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

15 hours ago, micha said:

On 6/25/2020 at 3:51 PM, RealKerbal3x said:

@ShadowZone made this nice breakdown of what we saw in this video:

Also, @The Aziz got mentioned, good job

Am I the only one that can:t stand the modern fad of single-coloured flat icons and UIs?  It really makes it far more difficult to find stuff.  Had a big argument with the VisualStudio devs about this too (luckily I wasn't the only one and Microsoft eventually backed down)

In my opinion, the flat icons make the editor easier on the eyes. I really hope KSP 2 keeps the flat style because it makes the interface much easier to process and look at.

I guess this is a matter of (grabbing) attention. you might want an individual button to pop so you need less effort to find it, but you might also want the whole ui to not distract from the rocket. Precisely how much a button pops is what could annoying when your screen is filled with it.

I guess it is a balancing act. You could use the same simple style with a more than one icon colour, say two or three, in the same kind of tint and tone (I dont understand colour jargon don't be mad at me). It gives you just a little more than just the shape of the icon, without overdoing it. You could make the more important icons more colourful as well, to grab that extra bit of attention.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by nikokespprfan

[magnemoe]

19 hours ago, Master39 said:

I hope there will be a system to store, refuel and repair a given craft.

I'd love to actually reuse my planes, sstos and shuttles.

With KAS you can easy refuel and even do some modification to crafts like adding simpler stuff. Added 2.5 ton of water tanks to my Laythe SSTO plane. 
I see no reason why you can not dock to an orbital shipyard and open your craft in the editor to rebuild it. On ground, think they talked about some ground resource transfer.
Now landing on these tiny launch pads looks hard, hope they add some larger, think runways but circular. 
Not that happy with the launch clamp mounting, I would prefer an dirt pile who was flat on the top, this is how we make flat land in real world except than in KSP we can just add dirt and not remove. 
This would also make it easy to make runways and landing sites. 
 

 

On 6/25/2020 at 5:19 PM, Master39 said:

I think it's intentional, probably it originally had only the "ore" placeholder requirement and they decided to add another, intentionally ridicolous, resource to tell us that there will be multiple resources and the placeholder nature of the written numbers.

Uranium has an high melting point, its however too heavy to be used in aerospace, but its use in both armor and projectiles. 
I thing they want an multiple resources needed to make parts, perhaps different facilities for more advanced stuff. So you colony can make structural stuff and tanks but not more advanced stuff. 
In short an self replicating starship would be hard. 

[DunaManiac]

10 hours ago, pandaman said:

Oooh jeez, I hope not.

The beauty of his 'assumed' anonymity is that he can interact and engage fully without getting bombarded.  And give personal opinions without it being taken as 'official'.

I am curious (naturally), and do have a couple of 'suspects' in mind, but I have no intention of sharing them, just in case...  (And also I so can't be proved wrong )

Hmmm, now I am suspicious... 

Edited June 26, 2020 by DunaManiac

[boolybooly]

Oooh! welding sparks in the VAB on adding a capsule at 4:29.

Nice touch, I like it.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 6/24/2020 at 12:54 PM, The Aziz said:

Ok, so my quick addition of what I think there is

 

Any thoughts?

About the main core stage editing, side attatchment editing, ???, and  ???

I believe these are the new placement, translation, rotation, and root per sub-assembly icons

On 6/25/2020 at 12:01 PM, Brikoleur said:

It'd also be cool if we could design our own engines, SimpleRockets style, by combining injectors, combustion chambers, fuel types, and nozzles.

If this became a thing (I wish it would) I would totally be on board with more variance in stock fuels

[mcwaffles2003]

On 6/24/2020 at 10:07 PM, Vinhero100 said:

I would suspect the spherical tanks to hold fuel of some type, maybe even metallic hydrogen because they said you would have to make that off-world. Besides, they are right next to the suspected launch pad.

Im guessing ore and other materials for building new structures

On 6/24/2020 at 12:54 PM, The Aziz said:

Ok, so my quick addition of what I think there is

 

Any thoughts?

hopefully we can get a center of torque for RCS stock

[Pthigrivi]

On 6/25/2020 at 6:51 PM, Master39 said:

So we can re-start the witch hunt for Nate's real account?

Full disclosure I’ve been Barack Obama the whole time. 

[nikokespprfan]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

hopefully we can get a center of torque for RCS stock

I want to endorse this very obnoxiously. Good idea, devs please consider.

 

Edit: although it would be a bit more complex than just the rcs thrusters. I believe we have seen a colony ship that required boosters just to separate it from the orbital dock. If we are going to be using entire "normalsized" fueltank-rocket engine combos for rcs on big craft, the game needs a way of knowing what is for RCS versus what is for DeltaVee.

Edited June 27, 2020 by nikokespprfan

[Yakuzi]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Full disclosure I’ve been Barack Obama the whole time. 

Nice to see you on the forums mr President

[Pthigrivi]

8 minutes ago, Yakuzi said:

Nice to see you on the forums mr President

*Dap

[Rodentman87]

On 6/24/2020 at 11:54 AM, The Aziz said:

Ok, so my quick addition of what I think there is

 

Any thoughts?

I think the tools you have labeled "Main, core stage editing?", "side..", etc. are snap to attach, finer translation, changing the attachment order(i.e. changing what part is the parent part to another part), and then something with sub assemblies.The one you have labeled engineer report was something in the first, game iirc, but I can't for the life of me remember what it does. I think the one just above the "Main, core stage editing?" might be something to do with rotation of parts given that it's in the same grouping as the rotational symmetry tool. Also, I think the one you labeled "Pre-flight checklist" is probably a mission view thing like in KSP 1.

Edited June 27, 2020 by Rodentman87
Adding extra guess on symbol meaning

[SOXBLOX]

Well, N8, all I can say is gr8, m8, I can't w8!

[micha]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:40 PM, Bej Kerman said:

In my opinion, the flat icons make the editor easier on the eyes. I really hope KSP 2 keeps the flat style because it makes the interface much easier to process and look at.

An editor is not supposed to be "easy on the eyes". It's not promotional material or something to hang up on the wall. It's a tool to be used and as the ergonomics of it are far more important than the overall  look. Don't get me wrong, the design is critical, but the focus is totally different than a customer-facing commercial web portal where the aim is to get the customer to focus on the product, not the usability of the site.

Syntax highlighting editors for the same reason. I want to be able to identify the bits I'm currently interested in quickly. I'd be interested to hear from any programmer who prefers a monochrome code editor these days.

Anyway, not my decision, just my opinion.

[SOXBLOX]

Have you seen the SpaceX pressure suits? Stark black and white. Everything has been trending towards a minimalistic, few-colors-as-possible approach since the 70's. (Well, mostly.) I can't believe we ever thought avocado green was a good idea...

The point is, it has little to do with utility and more to do with "fashion" in the sense of color schemes. Personally, though, I find this UI style very aesthetically pleasing. The flatness seems to suit these muted colors better.

14 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Full disclosure I’ve been Barack Obama the whole time. 

Yih. And I'm Vladimir Putin.

Edited June 28, 2020 by SOXBLOX

[Kerbart]

52 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

The point is, it has little to do with utility and more to do with "fashion" in the sense of color schemes. Personally, though, I find this UI style very aesthetically pleasing. The flatness seems to suit these muted colors better.

Maybe, but it's interesting to see that Microsoft announced they "went too far" and is bringing back colored icons for its apps in windows (calculator, video editor, settings,, etc). The wind that's been blowing through Design for the last fifty years has indeed been one of simplicity, but I don't think it's "fashion" that leads to ever simpler designs, but rather pushing the envelope of what's possible. Consider the humble button in a GUI interface. Early on they had to be three dimensional to entice users to "push" them, something everyone used to text-driven menu systems had to be taught. But a 3D effect is expensive in terms of screen real estate, so as soon as that could be dropped we went to flat buttons, buttons without a visible outline, etc, etc.

It's not a mere fixation on simpler for the sake of simpler; the more you leave out, the more is available for what is left. In one the more recent updates, Microsoft Office went through a round of simplification of its toolbar ("ribbon") icons. Subtle enough that most users can't even figure out the difference - only that it is different - but leaving more room for accents and highlighting on an icon what is important. Apple didn't drop "glossy" icons out of fashion considerations; flat icons need less pixels to show the same image, and allow you to fit more on a screen - or make the existing ones easier to read. But why were they glossy in the first place? To look like "real" buttons, because users had to overcome their unfamiliarity with touch screens. Now we don't know any better and the effect is no longer needed. The same goes for limited use of colors. It's not just fashion; it also means that when you do use color, it really stands out. A red traffic light (or green) will stand out less in a sea of color than in a mostly black/white environment.

There's an interesting balance between providing hints in your design for what is needed, and what the end user already knows (consider red=warm, blue=cold on faucets). That balance shifts all the time, and sometimes not as fast or in a way that's anticipated, which why not every design change sticks.

It's "fashion" in the sense that there are trends visible over time, and everyone follows the same trend. But it's not "fashion" in that it's leading the way in interface design, but rather the other way around; big players adapt interface improvements over time, and those changes then become fashionable.

[kerbiloid]

Colorless flat button glyphs have several technological advantages:

1) Easy to scale, vectorize, or autogenerate (say, from graphical fonts, or vector graphics, or by code).

2) Look more or less same on displays of various quality and pollution.

3) Easy to duplicate on a monochrome mini-display with several menus of, say, fridge or washing machine, or on plastic buttons.

4) Save efforts on the "accessibility" requirements:
no special version(s) for specific types of color blindness,
no special pale version for (idk, presumably, light autism);
recognizable by special soft/hardware for "visible→tactile" (full blindness);

***

Actually, most of that (at least, all "accessibilty" options) should be provided by the operating system by automatic color correction.
But while it isn't, a developer chooses a lesser evil.

***

Can't use the MS Office ribbonface at all. Even for free, even from torrents.
So, never used MSO since 2003, only Open/Libre Office.

Edited June 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Bej Kerman]

8 hours ago, micha said:

On 6/26/2020 at 9:40 AM, Bej Kerman said:

In my opinion, the flat icons make the editor easier on the eyes. I really hope KSP 2 keeps the flat style because it makes the interface much easier to process and look at.

An editor is not supposed to be "easy on the eyes". It's not promotional material or something to hang up on the wall. It's a tool to be used and as the ergonomics of it are far more important than the overall  look. Don't get me wrong, the design is critical, but the focus is totally different than a customer-facing commercial web portal where the aim is to get the customer to focus on the product, not the usability of the site.

Syntax highlighting editors for the same reason. I want to be able to identify the bits I'm currently interested in quickly. I'd be interested to hear from any programmer who prefers a monochrome code editor these days.

Anyway, not my decision, just my opinion.

When I'm spending several hours trying to get a rocket to not flip or designing an interstellar ship, I care a lot about the editor being easy on the eyes. Besides, the flat icons don't make it "harder to identify the bits I'm currently interested in". If anything, they make it easier than 500 gradients.