Anyone up for barn raising?

[Javster]

The new KSC was amazing, great texturing and models, this seems like a downgrade not only in tech but in texturing as well as design.

[Rithsom]

Personally I'm fine with everything EXCEPT, the 1 sided faces on the roofs (holes in the roofs) and the observatory...

I noticed that there are some holes around the current KSC which should also be fixed:

I don't ever remember seeing those before, they must be new in 0.25.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Rthsom

[KSK]

I agree with that in 100%

KSP is a (mostly) realistic space simulator, NASA didn't start with a farm. An old, rusty, decommissioned military factility would make more sense for a Space Centre as a start.

It doesn't really fit with the game though. Stock KSP has never been overtly militaristic, so setting the early KSC in an old missile silo or whatever, would jar badly with that. Also, just because serious human spaceflight efforts started with repurposed military technology, there's no reason why kerbal spaceflight should have developed the same way. Incidentally, I think this is what some people mean when they point out that this is Kerbal Space Program. Not so much that kerbal technology or kerbal buildings are radically different from their human counterparts, but that socially and culturally, kerbals don't need to be at all human.

Edited November 9, 2014 by KSK
Clarity.

[Vanamonde]

(Speaking as a fellow player rather than as a moderator...)

For months, people have been demanding that Squad share more info about upcoming aspects of the game, and show more work in progress. Now, you're seeing work in progress, so what's with all the angry complaints about the graphics quality? It's work-in-progress. It's what you've been asking for. This is the "transparency" you've been wanting, so how about lightening up on the negativity?

Also, I think the buildings are cute. What would be the point in a progression of facilities if the only thing that changed was the size? Furthermore, the NASA that we're familiar with is not the whole of a space program. It's only the culmination of decades of people building rickety rockets in their garages, and that sort of thing. And even NASA itself is no stranger to temporary, inelegant structures like trailers.

That's where the Gemini crews used to put on their suits right before launch.

[razark]

And even NASA itself is no stranger to temporary, inelegant structures like trailers.

...

That's where the Gemini crews used to put on their suits right before launch.

A trailer used to suit up, yes. An entire astronaut complex made of trailers? No.

[sal_vager]

NASA used trailers for more than just suiting up

[jfx]

(Speaking as a fellow player rather than as a moderator...)

For months, people have been demanding that Squad share more info about upcoming aspects of the game, and show more work in progress. Now, you're seeing work in progress, so what's with all the angry complaints about the graphics quality? It's work-in-progress. It's what you've been asking for. This is the "transparency" you've been wanting, so how about lightening up on the negativity?

Verbatim from the last dev notes:

"We’re almost done with the building production, but we’re making some slight modifications to make them look better."

This does in no way look like months worth of modelling and texturing work, and certainly not something you want to show of from your big shiny new feature. If this is what was chosen for the "press release" I don't want to know how the rest looks. Detailed criticism: see reddit thread.

[TMS]

It's work-in-progress.

How sure are you about that?

On a scale of certainty where 1 represents the low likelihood of Bac9's work being overhauled, and 10 represents the absolute dev-confirmed certainty that these are placeholder models... where are you?

I'm looking at those models and cannot imagine that they'll ever be revised at this stage in development.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

Thank you, Pthigrivi. I just really don't understand all the negativity I've seen in recent months. I suppose it's a symptom of the fanbase growing larger, but it definitely seems like there's a lot more hostility lately. Every change made by Squad, someone freaks out that its not 'their' vision. If someone has such an amazing vision they are so sure of, they really should be making their own game.

...I do admit, my previous posts on the subject have been unnecessarily hostile.

[sal_vager]

You know, a lot of groups set up trailers when they first start at a new site, such as film crews and yes, NASA, purpose built buildings come later, why do you think there's more than one tier

Edited November 9, 2014 by sal_vager
Spelling :)

[BudgetHedgehog]

what's with all the angry complaints about the graphics quality? It's work-in-progress. It's what you've been asking for.

IIRC, the Admin Building teaser was also a WIP screenshot. And how many changes (especially easy ones suggested by B9) were made to it before release?

For reference:

I don't mind work in progress. I love it, in fact. I like to make mashups and tease WIPs to certain people, but the idea of WIPs is that it's under development, things will change and be improved, new stuff added. It's not the final product. The reason for the negative comments and complaints is that with the last WIP that Squad showed us (admin building), nothing was changed between it and the final product. It's either not a WIP or you just say 'eh.. it'll do' and call it a day. The 'angry complaints' and feedback about the poor textures are to remind Squad that the textures are indeed a WIP and should be improved upon and to continue their work on it.

Squad, do yourselves a favour and listen to the community again. We are a little crazy, yes, but when we point out textures that are objectively bad (observatory path and wall textures), we kind of have a point. They are things we would like to be improved upon as this is, as said, a WIP.

Yes, I've been asking for transparency and for all the little WIPs they come up with, but when the WIPs turn into what's actually released (the admin building), I'm like 'I thought this was still being developed and improved?'. I'd say it's similar to the old resources thing - Squad promised us something, dropped it, community went nuts - but it's flipped. In this case, the thing they're promising (and have, in the case of the admin building, dropped) is objective improvements to WIPs. That's the whole point of them. They release a rough draft and say 'this is what we're working on' and the community says 'looks good, but the textures need improving'. This is the part where Squad say either 'I agree, these aren't the final product' or they say 'do they? Ok then, we'll take another look', not 'well yeah, it's a WIP... [3 months later].. here's the brand new KSC [with nothing changed]'.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Edited November 9, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Hasegawa]

My first impressions were positive. Sure, the buildings are agricultural, but it shows that they're working up from pretty much the beginning, before they have the funding and rep to have the fancy dedicated buildings. I like that.

Then I looked closer, and saw the issues. Poorly designed models. Ill chosen textures. The road that misses the gap in the sandbags. The same issues that the original space centre had, as Bac9 pointed out. And the ones with the admin building too.

And now that makes it hard for me to like the tier 1 space centre.

[John FX]

For someone that knows the final-tier center, it's workable.

For a new player that's never seen it before, it's a mystery.

I like that when I am a new player, it makes me want to explore the game. I like the feeling of a new vista waiting for me to discover it.

Myself I like the new buildings.

I would really like to suggest that when we get to a stage where we can upgrade the launchpad or VAB that something like Kerbal Construction Time is considered for inclusion in the game. I tried it recently and it really adds a lot of good stuff. It already has VAB upgrading which I think is done in a good way.

Glad to see an observatory.

[Guest]

I think that the new KSC evokes early years of aviation and rocketry. While it didn't have a barn, the aesthetic is similar to pre-WWII era Muroc airfield (now Edwards AFB). I think that Squad should go that way, make it less a farm and more an early airbase.

For months, people have been demanding that Squad share more info about upcoming aspects of the game, and show more work in progress. Now, you're seeing work in progress, so what's with all the angry complaints about the graphics quality? It's work-in-progress. It's what you've been asking for. This is the "transparency" you've been wanting, so how about lightening up on the negativity?

No one is complaining about the fact they shared it. I assure you, it'd be much worse if those were shown at the point it'd be too late to change much. People took issue with the art direction Squad is taking, the whole point of sharing the WIP images is to allow criticism at the early phase, when things can be changed more easily. I think that while the general idea is right, Squad needs to change a few things. Not only polishing (that goes without question), but also regarding the artistic direction they're taking. KSC should not look run down, and low-tech doesn't equal shoddy.

[Devo]

Really? jokes being deleted now Sal?

[sal_vager]

You have a strange sense of humour

[Devo]

You have a strange sense of humour

So does Vince Gilligan

[CCKinnison]

1. I like the idea of the new buildings/upgradeables. the implementation could use some work. Ugly riveting patching of an observatory exterior is possible (although appalling in the cutrrent look). a TANK put together that way... no. *A* patch on a tank is one thing. one made from patches is stupid. even for kerbals.

2. Kerbals did not follow the human approach to rocketry. I don't think SQUAD has addressed this canonically, but I always thought they progressed roughly the way humanity did through early aviation (say, end of WW I). The Robert Kerman launched the first test rockets... and something in the racial Kerbal mindset went NUTS for space. KSP starts with 1920s technology. No jets. No transistors, no printed circuits, no electronic computers. This interpretation of the first KSP base is appropriate for my headcanon. It's obviously not perfect, since even their first parts have better electronics than my thoughts allow for, and the first planes in KSP use jets... But Kerbals are FAR more driven to get into space than humanity is/was. This explains their risk tolerance, and putting mostly-unskilled shmoes like... oh... US, THE PLAYERS, in charge of their space program.

[Capt Snuggler]

This will take a long time to digest. these are my thoughts so far.

what I like:

the Trailors- they make great cheap temporary office and work spaces. I have seen these used on work sites many times. maybe include some shipping containers also. they are perfect for early early days when you don't know whats required or how the facility is going to expand.

what I don't like:

• the textures- they're overstretched and low-res. in some cases I don't know what they are meant to be.
  
• the odd shaped riveted panels- why? brick or corrugated iron would be a better choice.
  
• the VAB- its a barn? I guess. I think this should have been more inspired by a warehouse or workshop.
  
• no clear foundation. it seems like it just emerged up out of the ground.
  

how to improve it:

decide on clear template. lets think- what is it? or what was it before? where did it come from? why did the kerbals choose this place?

right now it looks like a farm/trailer park/junk yard/thing. it seems the kerbals don't have any military backing so an airbase wouldn't be appropriate. also no huge financial backing so its not likely to be purpose built.

for these reasons I think a better template would be a decommissioned mine site or quarry.

first of all, it would be a tip of the hat to October Sky and the rocket boys (watch it). they launched rockets in an old mine site. but also mine sites have things the kerbals would want in their first launch site.

• lots of clear space mostly covered in gravel, so less likely spread fire.
  
• large workshops. back in the day, mine sites had large fully equipped workshops for building and repairing heavy machinery. perfect for building rockets
  
• heavy equipment for earth moving. in the beginning they're going to be building most of this stuff them selves so they'll want the equipment and machinery.
  
• slag mounds to use for a launch site. just like the rocket boys used.
  
• large road network between buildings for moving large equipment.
  
• a few sheds for admin, lodging, storage, etc. open sheds and stuff.
  
• good distance from other habited areas. explaining the vast expanse of nothing-ness around KSC.
  

Launch pad = slag mounds and/or a vertical mine shaft with tower for early launch tower.

Runway = old torn up railway line.

VAB = large wear house/repair shop.

Admin building and support buildings = temporary offices and trailers.

support vehicles = cranes, dozers, excavators, water trucks etc

R&D facility = explosives store bunker. so things can go bang without damaging anything else.

and flood lights all over the site.

*edit*

also mine sites are usually a sprawling mess of industry and would help explain why things are so far apart in the beginning.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Majorjim!]

This will take a long time to digest. these are my thought so far.

what I like:

the Tailors- they make great cheap temporary office and work spaces. I have seen these used on work sites many times. maybe include some shipping containers also. they are perfect for early early days when you don't know whats required or how the facility is going to expand.

what I don't like:

• the textures- they're overstretched and low-res. in some cases I don't know what they are meant to be.
  
• the odd shaped riveted panels- why? brick or corrugated iron would be a better choice.
  
• the VAB- its a barn? I guess. I think this should have been more inspired by a warehouse or workshop.
  
• no clear foundation. it seems like it just emerged up out of the ground.
  

how to improve it:

decide on clear template. lets think- what is it? or what was it before? where did it come from? why did the kerbals choose this place?

right now it looks like a farm/trailer park/junk yard/thing. it seems the kerbals don't have any military backing so an airbase wouldn't be appropriate. also no huge financial backing so its not likely to be purpose built.

for these reasons I think a better template would be a decommissioned mine site or quarry.

first of all, it would be a tip of the hat to October Sky and the rocket boys (watch it). they launched rockets in an old mine site. but also mine sites have things the kerbals would want in they're first launch site.

• lots of clear space mostly covered in gravel, so less likely spread fire.
  
• large workshops. back in the day, mine sites had large fully equipped workshops for building and repairing heavy machinery. perfect for building rockets
  
• heavy equipment for earth moving. in the beginning they're going to be building most of this stuff them selves so they'll want the equipment and machinery.
  
• slag mounds to use for a launch site. just like the rocket boys used.
  
• large road network between buildings for moving large buildings.
  
• a few extra buildings for admin, lodging, storage, etc.
  
• good distance from other rabbited areas. explaining the vast expanse of nothing-ness around KSC.
  

Launch pad = slag mounds and/or a vertical mine shaft with tower for early launch tower.

Runway = old torn up railway line.

VAB = large repair shop.

Admin building and support buildings = temporary offices and trailers.

support vehicles = cranes, dozers, excavators, water trucks etc

and flood lights all over the site.

*edit*

also mine sites are usually a sprawling mess of industry and would help explain why things are so far apart in the beginning.

Great post Snuggler, I largely agree with your ideas.

A mine makes perfect sense for a launch site. And yes its highly recommended that you watch October sky, great movie and a perfect example of

a makeshift launch site.

[Bill Phil]

I like the industrial look of it all, but some improvement is needed. That's a given. The barn, maybe it should be a long low structure where you build rockets like in the SPH. That way it can be small with a warehouse near it for part storage. The Russians had a HAB, with horizontal rocket transportation. And maybe railroad tracks leading from the HAB to the launch pad.

[NovaSilisko]

As far as I can see, Novaskillo is asking for help on reddit..

Yes, I asked bac9 some questions about shaders for use in my own project.

Trying when you have little skill or experience is noble yet foolish. Simply a waste of time.

How exactly would someone actually gain experience in doing these things without trying? That's exactly how you acquire experience.

I do hope that the critiques are listened to in this case, lessons can be learned here for whoever made it.

Edited November 9, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[Vanamonde]

Verbatim from the last dev notes:

"We’re almost done with the building production, but we’re making some slight modifications to make them look better."

Which is what you're asking for, right? Graphical improvements. So what's the problem?

How sure are you about that?

Quite sure. The surfaces of the worlds have been redone several times, whole sets of rocket and airplane parts have been retired and replaced with better ones, the science system has been tweaked twice, etc. This will be the 4th major revision to KSC itself. There's no reason to assume anything about the game is in its final form. And that includes the Admin building, which perhaps hasn't been revised yet.

And I have to say, I can't see what's supposed to be so terrible about the buildings as-is. They're cute and clunky, which is how the primitive KSC should look. What would be the point of having upgradable facilities if they started out already looking advanced and sophisticated?

[BudgetHedgehog]

What would be the point of having upgradable facilities if they started out already looking advanced and sophisticated?

I'm not asking for advanced and sophisticated, I'm asking for run-down and barebones, middle-of-nowhere stuff that looks good. As I said, I love the farm idea, I love that they bought a run-down place and are running a space program from it - what I don't like is that it's not a good looking run down place. Minecraft is basically huge pixels, it's not going to win GOTY for graphics for sure, but it does its style extremely well. There's a difference between style and execution of style. I don't think many people have a problem with the style, it's the way it's been executed.

As for your other points, I guess I just have to take your word for it. I hope that these shots are indeed a WIP and will be improved upon. Also, why couldn't this reveal be the stuff that they'd 'made look better'? Or was this the result of that? Devnotes on Tuesday, this reveal on Saturday.. Just sayin', is all. Much like I'm just sayin that it would a shame if these textures were in the final game.

[Laie]

Quite sure. The surfaces of the worlds have been redone several times, whole sets of rocket and airplane parts have been retired and replaced with better ones, the science system has been tweaked twice, etc. This will be the 4th major revision to KSC itself.

Version 0.9, squad proudly presents, great leap ahead, arts team was chained to their desks for months... clearly, this is supposed to be a placeholder.