Jump to content

What's the secret feature?


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

Once I finish off my .24.2 save (around the time when .26 comes out if I'm honest) I'm going to blow up the launchpad to force myself to plane to space.

katateochi once did a career mode where he did exactly that. Highly recommend reading it, it's an excellent adventure. I keep meaning to do something similar myself. Just simply never enter the VAB.. FAR will make it harder, but hooray for stock cargo bays!

Edited by ObsessedWithKSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90612-0-25-Discussion-thread?p=1428235&viewfull=1#post1428235

He was right after all! I don't know why people have been so very negative about this feature. We've been waiting for this since... like... 0.15? It even got on the planned features page on the wiki. And since aerodynamics has been on it since even longer, since squad has always been very stubborn when the community begged for anything (more parts so we can get past Duna without mods, aerodynamics, interstellar travel, etc). Like they should.

It seems like every time when they finish a update, they check the forum if someone suggested it, and announce the feature like "the feature many people asked for! See how much we listen to you awesome fellas?"

This time it's actually certain that people asked for this feature (back in 2012), and consequentially they add the feature. And people react ungratefully. First time squad actually does something the community asks for, people don't like it. Now I know why there isn't a new aerodynamic model yet. They will never like the new aerodynamic model if it would come.

So let's not ask for female kerbals with big uns ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things people who are unhappy about this "secret feature" might consider:

- what it really is, more so than blowing up buildings, is showing off that stock methods now exist for placing/replacing 3D objects from within the game engine. That will open up options for stock bases and/or for new mod-based bases using that stock mechanism. It also opens up the option for career mode of having a much smaller KSC until you purchase additional buildings/unlock additional tech, etc. Existing mods that place buildings can start using the stock method now.

- the same stock method of replacing an asset with a different asset can be easily used by mods to add deformable terrain (place "crater" asset in-game based on impact detection.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why people have been so very negative about this feature. We've been waiting for this since... like... 0.15? It even got on the planned features page on the wiki.

Yep. I'm assuming that people are looking for something to complain about.

Pretty sure the hexagonal system that came with 0.22 was stated to be the basis of a 'modular KSC'. I assume this latest feature is a precursor to some sort of spaceport development, a la space tycoon.

Don't get me wrong... there's a tonne of other things I'd much prefer to be prioritised, but I'm glad of two things: one, that they've followed through on a feature... and two, that they refered to it as a 'small'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing that everyone will do in 0.25, blow up KSC.

Im turning it off (after trying it of course XD)

To be honest all these new features and parts and stuff will make my ram usage even more tight.. I might have to remove some mods.. (well the SP+ parts are going anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, my apologies in advance for being a bit of a downer here about the exploding buildings, but there's a question I feel needs to be asked:

Why?

What does it actually bring to gameplay? Maybe I'm missing something, but it really seems to just be a gimmick that probably took a huge development effort to make happen.

So anyone know why Squad did this? It's cool and all, but it seems like the kind of thing you do a few times for kicks and then largely forget about. I'm just not seeing how that justifies the effort it probably took.

Me thinks, maybe as the 0.26 feature, the KSC will be upgradeable. It fits the Tycoon/RPG style of game. Say, you start with the VAB, the admin building and the science thing. So you need to use funds to build the tracking station so you can do more than one flight at once, you need to pay to open the astronaut complex once you need more astronauts than Bill/Bob/Jeb. You want spaceplanes? You have to build both the SPH and the runway. Maybe the buildings themselves would need to be upgraded: want you use the SLS parts? You need to upgrade the VAB to something bigger. Want to track spacecraft beyond Kerbin's orbit? Upgrade the tracking center. Once kerbal stats become meaningful, upgrade the astronaut complex for better astronauts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im turning it off (after trying it of course XD)

To be honest all these new features and parts and stuff will make my ram usage even more tight.. I might have to remove some mods.. (well the SP+ parts are going anyway)

My thoughts exactly, it's hard to get excited about a feature that I'll never see and will almost certainly make things run even worse than they already do. :(

What we need is Squad to do some optimization, I've never known another game that comes anywhere near the resource usage of KSP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see where all this negativity is from... if you hate what they are doing to ksp, then dont upgrade.

as for the "where this is leading to" part Ill just expand on what I wrote earlier in another thread...

I think that this "toughness" stat will eventually be applied to all parts in ksp, allowing for parts to be damaged before simply disappearing in an explosion. Giving a part different states based on how much of its toughness remains can allow for many possibilities:

Imagine trying to pump all your fuel out of a damaged burning fuel tank before it explodes to minimize the damage done to the rest of your craft. (or dropping that stage entirely)

Or getting out to try and doing repairs after a failed docking attempt.

Maybe they will add effects to this damaged state... damaged engines providing reduced isp and thrust in a different direction till repaired etc... damaged fuel tanks bleeding fuel... landing gear not deploying... solar cells reduced power... or just pain ole not being able to control those parts anymore...there are endless possibilities with this.

Or maybe they will add more depth to the actual destruction of parts... is it better for a fueltank to instantly disapear in an explosion, scattering everything that was attached to it? Or to have it explode and leave a burnt out structure behind, with the other surviving parts still attached?

tbh, were it not for the sp+ parts coming so soon, might even be more exited to think about whats is coming in .26 than .25 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLOT TWIST: Danny doesn't blow up the KSC, and uses the new strategies to create a fleet of useful spaceplanes that boost his reputation.

[/nope]

HAHAHHA ye right. Im fully expecting him to pummel every building into oblivion with nothing but falling kerbals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not negative about where this is leading too im just saying its using a lot of RAM for a very small feature. They really need to fix the RAM issues before getting memory heavy stuff into the game. (yes I know its mainly unity fault just saying..)

Maybe I've just been hiding under the wrong rock, but I'm pretty sure most of the Dev comments for the last few weeks have included a Dev talking about how he's working on the internals of the game's texture storage to reduce its memory footprint. Also, since when does KSP have a memory problem? Every memory use problem I have ever seen reported ever results from mods. Squad doesn't write the mods, so how is that their problem? Its the modding community's problem, which is why the modding community has provided great tools for fixing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The secret feature isn't earth shattering, but it's a nice touch of realism. One reason the US beat Russia to the moon was catastrophic launch failure with the latter. I've already started tilting my rockets slightly after clearing the launchpad. I'll also start paying attention the orientation of my test decouplers (no sense in blowing up a building for a chicken-scratch contract).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if you hate what they are doing to ksp, then dont upgrade. ...

I have to jump in and raise my objection to that aditude. I went down that road with a certain train simulator and it simply not viable or respectful to the players.

That said, I didn't and so far still don't want to deal with money in this game. No problem, I jsu use science sandbox and I can play just like I always did.

It seems that if you don't want sploding buildings you will be able to set the building to be invincible, so its all good. But that needs to be the model followed, let the player opt out, not let the player get left out when a new feature like this is added.

I'm hoping that 50% throttle setting becomes another thing you can toggle on/off too in the next version under the difficulty settings that have been mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lurked and looked at the various threads regarding destructible assets (DA). I personally find it helpful to keep in my mind that KSP is Kerbal space "Program" and that a space program includes a wide array of elements to manage. ILR Having to repair and prep launching facilities is a substantial element requiring planning and resources. Having the underlying architecture in the game code to support this is frankly essential. Whether a player chooses to use it or not is a decision based solely on their individual play style.

For example, kindly consider my past and future play possibilities: When the 23.5 ARM release appeared, I like most others dove in and danced with a few asteroids. However, I now primarily ignore them. Not because I dislike asteroids in the game, but that I have other interests and have decided to not leverage asteroids in my mission designs. NOW... IF it is the case that an asteroid might hit KSC and wipe out parts of my facility, then I would probably (and very quickly) warm up a "claw" or two and have then parked nearby Kerbin just in case.

I also tend to think that Squad has an evolving vision of the game (as with nearly all complex undertakings) and having the new DA functionality available to devs and modders opens up a wider set of options for future expansion. Every small step (if taken carefully) will support a more complete game environment in the end at the 1.0 reveal.

Anyways... that's my two pence, YMMV.

Edited by Wallygator
Schpelling
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...