Anyone up for barn raising?

[StrandedonEarth]

I think it's appropriate for all those kerbals that have or will "bought the farm"

[Commissioner Tadpole]

Hm, if Squad absolutely refuses to give up on Redneck Space Program like they did with the Admin Building, I guess the very least that they could do is to add in an option to start with other tier buildings.

But why should I ever upgrade administration or the astronaut complex?

More strategies and perhaps the astronaut complex has a limit on the astrnoaut capacity(because hey, a trailer cannot host 50 Kerbals). And to avoid looking at the freaking ugly models Squad made, OMG they're so ugly I can't believe they did this srsly

[rdwulfe]

rdwulfe, Im super with you. Like I know people are passionate about this game, which is good! But people seem to get really weirdly protective about small changes here. Just relax and wait to see how the upgrade system works, thats whats important.

Im by no means uncritical, but I love this style, the ramshackle especially, its hilarious and beautiful.

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.

[Socke]

The way I see it there are two big problems with the low tier space center the way it looks in these pictures, which should be adressed individually.

The first one are the really really bad textures and models.

I really don't wanna write much about this, since plenty of people who have more knowledge about these topics have already done this.

It's just really low quality work. When Bac9 remade the spacecenter he made a huge blogpost in Which he explained very detailed how he has done it and what was bad about the old spacecenter and all of that was ignored here (and with the admin building)...why? Does Squad just not care?

Anyway, I said I don't want to write too much about that problem, since It's the obvious one.

Problem two is the style of buildings.

Now, many people are apparently liking it, and theres nothing wrong with that, after all it is partly a matter of taste. But it's also a matter of realism and consistency.

Many people have said and shown examples of early rocket lanch facilities in the real world which didn't look too different.

But the rocket parts vanilla KSP offers start around the time of the mercury program, where rockets weren't launched next to sheds and barns anymore.

It just doesn't make sense to launch a 50s-60s tech rocket from a barn, and the VAB and several rocket parts are very clear indicators that KSP is heavily inspired by the american space program.

Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with a space center like this (with better textures and models) if we would have the fitting rocket parts (no, not made from wood and cardboard), but that's sadly not the case and probably never will.

KSP the way it is now and the way it will be in the future if something like this low tier space center will be implemented has a huge problem with consistency. Some more examples for that would be that the SPP parts are way higher quality than the Mk 1 spaceplane parts and because of that dont mix well. Just like most 1.25m parts don't blend well with 2.5m parts, or 2.5m with 3.75.

There are immense differences in both style and quality throughout all assets in KSP.

Socke

Edited November 9, 2014 by Socke

[sal_vager]

You're assuming the farm wasn't already there Socke

[lindemherz]

Since it hasn't been mentioned here before, I will cross-post this <b>very constructive</b> criticism from this r/kerbalspaceprogram thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2lpao5/my_thoughts_on_the_kerbal_space_program/ . It happens to approximate quite well to my own feelings about this preview.

TL,DR

Basically, Squad needs to redo most of the proposed "Early Days" Kerbal Space Center. Why?

• Kerbals are intelligent and good engineers with little regard for safety. They know how to build a space launch complex, they just don't have the budget for a full-fledged NASA-style one.
  
• Visual styles are inconsistent, leading it to not look like a space launch complex at all. I wouldn't know what building does what from looking at it, or even that it was a space launch complex.
  

TL,DR ends

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point I am not too confident about Kerbal Space Program’s future artistic style. Artistic style tells the audience exactly what to expect from a game. An arcade game should have arcade-style graphics, implying simple, minimalistic forms which are recognizable but not true to life. A more realistic simulation-type game should have graphics based on real-life images.

Most importantly, artistic style defines a game. It's crucial and not something that can be dropped in favor of gameplay.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerbal Space Program sits right in the middle of these two main genres. For example, the Kerbals in KSP are clearly cartoonish, not based on reality but instead in the game for lovable characters (unless, of course, you are Danny). Meanwhile, the equipment of the Kerbals is state-of-the-art. As Bac9 (the designer of the current iteration of KSC) described the equipment of the Kerbals:

Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers.

Kerbals have one fundamental difference of attitude from us on Earth: they believe action is more important than reflection. Kerbals act upon what they have to develop rapidly, whereas risk-adverse humans reflect on what happened each flight very deeply.

Because Kerbals do know how to engineer, their constraint when building a space center would not be lack of knowledge on how to build such a center, but instead lack of funding.

When building something with low funding, often cost-saving measures include reuse of older parts rather than building from scratch. This would not result in the use of old barns. Most likely, it would use repurposed steel plating and other sturdy but cheap materials. The exteriors wouldn’t look pretty, but it would still look sturdy and competently built.

Bac9 explains some general principles used in building the current KSC:

• Next, you need to create guidelines for yourself to govern the sizes, offsets and types of windows and doors. What greatly helped there was the strict grid and seams established by tile textures.
  
• From those guidelines, you can go off to create a set of ready-to-use windows, doors, grates, gates, ladders and combined objects that you can quickly place around the building without wasting time on remodeling each time.
  
• And finally, you need a system of versatile props so you won't have to drag yourself into modeling meaningless greeble whenever you need high-frequency detail. For me it was a set of HVAC objects.
  

A final principle I’d add before moving on to some images is that any significant building should be obvious to its purpose. If someone hands me a new smartphone without telling me what it is, I should be able to figure it out. If I can’t, it’s not doing its job at being a smartphone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s analyze one image of the proposed ‘early days’ KSC:

The building is made of wood. Kerbals would be fairly competent even in the early days. Some standard material, like corrugated metal, would be low-cost and decently sturdy. That way the color theme wouldn’t keep changing drastically, but start from a rough metal look and gradually upgrading into smooth whites and grays with splashes of color.

This uses so many different textures that seem to be all-new. The texture itself is slightly blurry, which isn’t a good sign. The wood, again, needs to go: it doesn’t fit with anything else. A version of this simply using steel with a few support beams would look more polished and fit in better with the future versions of the Kerbal Space Center.

The building looks low-detail, despite the many textures. The competing style of the textures looks like it was built by 10 different and terrible architects. It’s architecturally confusing and doesn’t signal what it is in any way, shape, or form. Every seemingly significant component should signal what it is. This one doesn’t. Perhaps it’s the R&D center, but because of the rust on the developments around it I’m inclined to think it isn’t.

There are so. many. tanks. There aren’t that many tanks in the KSC we are used to. The tanks in this image have two different textures. For low-cost components, the obvious choice would not be green tanks, it would be simple storage silos like these.

That being said, I'd love for there to be more tanks in the current KSC. There's currently not very many at all. Maybe some like this.

Sandbags? Rocks? These seems like insignificant textures that are here for no reason. I don’t see the purpose for them being thereâ€â€they look messy, and I Kerbals can clear that stuff out of a launch facility pretty easily. By the way, what is this place? It could be R&D as well, I’m not really sure.

Putting it all together, I don’t actually know what most of this does. Way off to the side, I see the observatory, that one’s pretty obvious, and right in the center, there’s the VAB. Everything else is either insignificant or unclear, and I’m guessing I’m missing at least one component in the frame. The artistic style is confusing, using multiple textures for each material used and one-off textures for rocks, sandbags, and other inconsequential details.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, some positives: I love having the tanks. There’s an excessive number of them, but the idea of using tanks is an excellent idea and should be used in the current 0.25 KSC as well. The paths, which seem to be borrowed from the island runway, are perfect for the style.

This architectural style’s biggest downfall is that that the purpose of the area is unclear. In fact, if I saw that, I would not know it was a launch site at all. It would look like an observatory station of some sort, with a large HQ in the middle. Instead of looking like a promising space program with a lack of funding but a Kerbal spirit, it simply looks like a half-hearted attempt at a space program.

What could be done differently? Instead of making it look unprofessional, make it look impoverished, a space program without a budgetâ€â€but with a dream and the Kerbals to try it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can we do this? Well, firstly a revamp in materials. Not to make it look better, but to look more sturdy. Essentially, ugly but functional.

What materials are readily available, cheap, and sturdy? Wood is readily available, cheap, and not exactly sturdy. Not to mention the fact that rockets do involve fire. Not just the engines (obviously the engines involve fire) but the welding and other technologies often require intense heat. Wood is just not a good material to build metal components in.

But there’s one used in practically every large building nowadays. That’s right, concrete! Concrete is an excellent material in terms of compression (squeezing) strength, though it cracks easily with tensile (streching) strength. Concrete foundations and even concrete buildings are very common. They aren’t pretty, but they do work.

Both steel and metal, unpainted, look fairly awful. It’s also the cheapest way to go about using it: just give it a corrosion-resistant spray and be done with it. Any materials the Kerbals are using would most likely be unpainted, besides a few parts needed for labeling.

Windows look good, and they let natural light in. For such large windows, Kerbals wouldn’t use blue glass, but instead a tinted white glass to let natural light in without being blinding at certain angles.

Finally, and most importantly, prefabricated materials would be important to use. Numerous structures could be reused at low cost. Let’s look at some of these by going back to the photos.

------------

The wood texture could be something like steel plating. The texture could utilize half a bolt around the edges so that when two tiles mesh they look like they are bolted together. Because Kerbals seem to be pretty decent engineers, the bolts would be in straight lines. The roof material could be corrugated steel, which has a nice industrial but cheap look to it.

Hanger doors could use another texture similar to these giant hanger doors, and the black would contrast nicely with the steel and maintain some uniformity as upgrades take place.

Steel plating textures from the VAB could be reused to form the upper dome of this, while concrete could form the rim. The telescope could be slightly less cartoonishâ€â€it doesn’t look serious in this form.

Entirely alternatively, what about using bac9’s concept for utilizing a communications tower as a tracking station? It would be cheap but look functional for space-faring rockets.

Also, please replace the awful fake decking material wood. It reminds me of a McMansion or something. Perhaps a concrete or dirt path would suffice for this.

I don’t know what it is. Make it look like what it is, and use the materials appropriately.

As always, the wood should be replaced. The tanks are numerous and green, for no apparent reason. Storage silos used on farms would be the obvious low-cost solution. They would have a metal texture as well. Perhaps some tanks could have writing on them to indicate their purpose, or a blue band around them to indicate a certain material inside.

I don’t know what it is. But using new textures for so many one-off elements is a bad idea in general for framerate. Honestly, if those are just there to look like debris, remember what bac9 had pointed out:

And finally, you need a system of versatile props so you won't have to drag yourself into modeling meaningless greeble whenever you need high-frequency detail. For me it was a set of HVAC objects.

Ultimately, the issue with this complex is simply that firstly, it doesn’t look like a space launch complex, and secondly, that the artistic style doesn’t convey what kerbals are actually bad at: finances. Instead, it conveys that they can’t engineer well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t mean to imply that this complex is entirely worthless: some elements like the tanks were quite a good idea, and the main idea of upgradable buildings is great. But the execution of the upgradable buildings needs a revamp. There’s plenty of artistic ways to make something look low-budget while still maintaining visual appeal. And the experience of building a full complex without Bac9’s assistance means that it will get easier the second time. Squad, perhaps it would be a good idea to reach out to Bac9. He is busy, of course, but I’m sure he has plenty of tips for modeling that he could help you with.

But truly, I hope that this complex can be revamped so each building has a clear purpose, and that the path of Kerbal Space Center can clearly be mapped out.

Thanks for listening for so long.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNITY BOX

From Bac9:

Another thing I have to point out is strange reluctance to work on art techniques. The thing I hate the most about my island runway is the way I did the grass to sand transitions - with two separate materials split with an ugly sharp border, and the very same thing is everywhere here. I compensated it a bit on the runway edges with a third transition texture (by the way, why the hell isn't it used when it can be done with a simple loop offset operation on every sand edge?), but it still wasn't that good looking.

Just a little bit of research and half an hour of work on a vertex-color driven shader can allow you to forget about those ugly transitions forever. Here I recorded few examples of those shaders in use:

• KSP-like grass
  
• Rubble
  
• Example of underlying vertex colors driving the result
  

Essentially, every vertex stores a color value that is then used in the shader to set the clamping point of a height map. The result of that operation is then used as a mask for the top texture. It's an extremely widespread technique in the industry, used in hundreds of games, allowing you to reduce polycount and drawcalls and so on. There are some nuances and raising costs if you want to use that to blend, say, three or four textures, but two texture case is dead simple.

Another idea:

OP, have you heard of Peenemünde? The old style buildings remind me of it. here's a picture for the lazy, like me

Another:

I think the farmy idea could work well, it just needs a bit more dev time. And fewer outright junky looking things (the whole telescope/tracking station setup is...err...).

At the moment the issues I personally have have all been mentioned (inexpliably low detail meshes, mismatched looking texture work, jarringly mismatched colours) so I'd just like to offer a great example of how the centrepice buildings could be designed: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/7/7b/Barnblitz.PNG

Team Fortress 2. I know it might be too 'Science!' still for some people, but it's a masterclass in quality art direction. The buildings look dilapidated yet functional, have a great, consistent colour scheme and share lots of little greebly props to liven up empty spaces and tie them together thematically. Oh and a load of them are actual rocket launch sites too.

And for what it's worth, what I'd have done is have a neat looking grain elevator retrofitted as the VAB. Bonus is that grain elevators suggest loading things such as trains, so that'd give you a reasonable excuse to have a little railway for transport to the launch pad (and a reusable detail for elsewhere in the KSC). Chuck in some silos & tubes around that grain ele-VAB & the whole concept could come out looking great I think. Just needs more detail/design work.

[Socke]

You're assuming the farm wasn't already there Socke

Have you even read my post?

By the time any space program would have advanced to mercury level tech they sure as hell wouldn't use a barn to launch anymore.

[sal_vager]

Yes I read it, you're also assuming Kerbals are Humans

[razark]

Many people have said and shown examples of early rocket lanch facilities in the real world which didn't look too different.

But the rocket parts vanilla KSP offers start around the time of the mercury program, where rockets weren't launched next to sheds and barns anymore.

It just doesn't make sense to launch a 50s-60s tech rocket from a barn, and the VAB and several rocket parts are very clear indicators that KSP is heavily inspired by the american space program.

Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with a space center like this (with better textures and models) if we would have the fitting rocket parts, but that's sadly not the case and probably never will.

This captures my feelings on it. The facilities shown, with the barn and trailers, would be much more appropriate if we started the tech tree with small experimental sounding rockets and the beginnings of jet aircraft technology, and had to work our way up to controlled or piloted spaceflights. The whole junk-yard idea was something I had hoped the game was moving away from.

You're assuming the farm wasn't already there Socke

NASA's Johnson Space Center was built on top of farmland, by the way. You can find pictures of the site with cows, windmills, feeding troughs, and such. The first thing that NASA did was not set up an office in a cow shed. They rented office space in various places, removed the farm, and built actual buildings.

[Socke]

Yes I read it, you're also assuming Kerbals are Humans

I am not. I am just stating, that ksp is heavily inspired by american rocketry and that this space center clashes way too much with that.

[sal_vager]

It's hard not to be inspired by the American space program when you think about it

I do agree that the textures and models need work though.

[mike9606]

So I read the quote from appable above, and will answer some questions. Mainly, the rocks and sandbags. I believe the building with them is mission control, and I think it makes sense the kerbals would use whatever they could find to protect it.

[The Czosnex]

-snip-

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.

The models and textures need a serious revamp, but I doubt they will, just like with the flaws pointed out by bac9 on Administration Building.

All the buildings remind me of the pre-bac9 ones.

(At least I hope there will be a mod to replace the models)

Edited November 9, 2014 by The Czosnex

[Majorjim!]

Just out of interest, who made these models?

Does Squad have a full-time modeller? If not, why not.

Why isn't bac9 making these new buildings. His work is perfect for KSP.

Why isn't squad throwing money at him? They surely have enough cash now to employ people who actually know what they are doing?!

I'm just very surprised at the decision to show such poor quality work..

MJ

[SkyRender]

It's really not that hard to figure out what each building is. They're all in exactly the same spots as the final-tier Space Center.

The VAB. Bit of an easy one.

R&D.

Administration Facility.

Astronaut Training Complex.

Observatory. (Also easy.)

Mission Control.

There's no runway or SPH by default, it would seem.

[Yellowburn10]

I like this early KSP. Even though some textures could use a little work, I quite like it. One question I have is would we be able to choose what version of the KSC we want to start with in the difficulty panel? That could be a nice addition.

[razark]

It's really not that hard to figure out what each building is. They're all in exactly the same spots as the final-tier Space Center.

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.

[Laie]

Yes I read it, you're also assuming Kerbals are Humans

Don't expect anyone to make allowances for aliens doing things differently, because the entire installation doesn't look alien, not at all.

[Pecan]

Time to congratulate Squad, I think, after 15 pages of this.

First reaction = "Wow, soooo different", not just concrete.

Second thoughts = "Pity it's so USA, hope KSP doesn't become 'The (American) Sims'", just because that's the target market.

Considered opinion = Well done Squad. When upgradable buildings was first mentioned I imagined we'd have size-variations of concrete blocks. It's cool that you're making whole new styles and I look forward to seeing the final results.

[Any hints yet of what the upgrades will do in-game?]

[The Space]

Nothing against barns but how is it possible that paid professionals come up with worse looking and less detailed buildings than most of the modders? I really hope those aren't the final textures and that isn't the final art style for these buildings.

[norup]

The new buildings are looking great!

I wonder if demolition is required before the buildings can be replaced with upgraded ones.

Could be fun if you could save money on an upgrade by helping with removing the old installation.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I really hope those aren't the final textures and that isn't the final art style for these buildings.

If nothing else, I hope that Squad make these models able to be replaced by modders (future Texture Replacer update maybe) and some sort of Load On Demand system so these textures don't hog memory.

I like the style, I really do. I like that the kerbals bought a farm and started a space program from it - maybe they didn't have the money to tear it down and rebuild proper buildings? - but these textures are really quite poor (jesus, that observatory path looks hideous). Keep the style, but make it look good. It's really not hard.

If no-one's seen it yet, this is B9's critique. I know Squad ignored his thoughts on the Admin Building, could they not do that again?

(clicky for big pic)

[Majorjim!]

If nothing else, I hope that Squad make these models able to be replaced by modders (future Texture Replacer update maybe) and some sort of Load On Demand system so these textures don't hog memory.

I like the style, I really do. I like that the kerbals bought a farm and started a space program from it - maybe they didn't have the money to tear it down and rebuild proper buildings? - but these textures are really quite poor (jesus, that observatory path looks hideous). Keep the style, but make it look good. It's really not hard.

If no-one's seen it yet, this is B9's critique. I know Squad ignored his thoughts on the Admin Building, could they not do that again?

http://i.imgur.com/onpH9fp.jpg

(clicky for big pic)

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

I thought we were beyond amateur hour.

If you can't do something the best thing to do in the short term is pay someone to do it for you.

It's FAR too late in the development of KSP to start learning how to do these things.

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

[cantab]

Overall, I love the concept. It's got a kind of "guys in a garage" feel about it.

Regarding it not being obvious what all the buildings are - well it won't be unfortunately. It's not obvious with the current space centre what's R&D, what's mission control, what's the astronaut complex, and so on. Indeed if anything the tier 1 Misson Control, with its crude surrounding defenses, is more evidently a place to watch launches from than the tier 5 anonymous building.

There are plenty of issues in the detail, and that does give me a more general concern: Have Squad overworked themselves on this? I know it's something Harvester really wanted to do, but we know it's been a lot of work. There's not just these ones but all the intermediate tiers too. (The need for said intermediate tiers, by the way, probably accounts for why tier 1 is so junkyardish in the first place.) All round it's been a rush job for those working on it, and that unfortunately shows. And the work involved in polishing it to make the buildings not look cruddy will be a huge opportunity cost, time and effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

Edited November 9, 2014 by cantab

[Nemrav]

I suspect that if people don't like this part of the update the goal for the community should be to push for it to be a separate update from the rest of 0.90... Maybe the thing to do is have 0.26 (crew xp, mk3 parts etc.) and then upgradable buildings in a separate update called 0.90 ... After all 0.9 is meant to signify shorter update intervals...

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