passinglurker
-
Posts
2,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by passinglurker
-
-
@XLjedi first old parts are inconsistent, unoptimized, and should be purged with fire so we will have no more of that "no reason" heresy from you/s
But really the community has been in circles over and over about the merits of revamping read old thread if you want those reasons but either way you are coming very late to the party change is here you just have to accept it.
Also on the technical side the way squad implemented mesh/texture switch what you propose with variants is impossible all variants must share either a common texture or common mesh. There is no merit to the old parts meshes or textures so they can't be used and therefore revamps have to replace them they can't simply be variants it's simply not possible with the current code.
P.s. If you insist on sharing your files as a "community service" then you should have no qualms maintaining and updating them as the game changes like modders do.
-
@XLjedi this has been a frequent and popular request ever since squad hired porkjet to replace and expand the space plane catalog. You really are out of the loop I'd you didn't see this coming and thought no one asked for it. Also assuming redoing a part breaks an old craft somehow you can just use infinite fuel and the cheat menu's orbit teleporter to reposition replacements for any craft you believe the game unfairly decommissioned.
@JPLRepo is the hero of the hour people
-
@DragonsForce and eat all that ram? The whole reason they are being revamped is they are inefficient inconsistent and sub optional. Nope they gotta go and you gotta deal. Craft don't even really "break" from parts having slightly different designs or dimensions. Things might clip differently or float but it's not exactly a nightmare and if you are one of the few where the end result of a change is unacceptable there is the cheat menu for that. There is no reason to get bent out of shape over an adapter losing it's funky lip.
-
@DragonsForce a phase out is certainly an option but either way you can't expect to shackle the current dev team to the past teams [snip] mistakes if ksp is to see it's full potential in the end the lip must go.
-
@DragonsForce ksp's publishing was premature but that doesn't change what needs to be done. I'm afraid you're just gonna have to deal with it fortunately there is the cheat menu for easily replacing any craft they break.
-
By the kraken that's legitimately adorable
-
2 hours ago, StylusHead said:
It has a new mesh now and we made sure the end caps are 2.5 m on top and 3.75 on bottom, the grid is gone and there are new diffuse, spec, normals as well as new variants, just the image didn't make it to the post, but trust me it has changed a lot.
Thank you! Also I like the fix on the lander can it looks much sturdier now (didn't say that earlier cause I didn't want to muddy up the adapter issue)
1 hour ago, Tyko said:(No disrespect to passinglurker, I agree with you, but couldn't pass up the joke)
hey man feel free I accept being the butt of a few jokes as the small price I pay for not being oppressively positive and anxious about everything I say.
-
1 hour ago, Deddly said:
You can tell that just from a screenshot? I would never have noticed that myself without actually seeing the point of connection between two parts.
First by the simple fact that they are reusing the old mesh and this flaw existed in the old mesh.
Second I measured the pixels across in this picture they came out the same.
Third if I am so terribly wrong wouldn't squad acknowledge the issue and take the opportunity to prove otherwise?
Forth we've had these conversations before don't act like the earlier previews didn't happen rehashing old lines.
-
1 hour ago, GrandProtectorDark said:
No need to yell.
Maybe they actually slightly adjusted it. Don't think it would be such an obvious change when viewing the part alone.
There is very much a need to yell I've been bringing this up ever since they botched the mk1-3 pod by recycling the mk1-2's mesh(top node isn't 1.25m) yet they keep recycling these old flawed meshes with reckless abandon and all for parts so simple they could be remodeled in 15 minutes (how can you be allergic to modeling a cone)
And no it's not "simply adjusted" if it was they would have acknowledged the problem and proved that they fixed it with a screen cap. The original preview showed a side by side with the old part the measurements are exactly the same. It's the same mesh. It's not 2.5m. Stop recycling meshes.
-
9 hours ago, SQUAD said:
this adapter will now seamlessly blend between these two tank series and its variants.
Not if you recycle the old mesh it won't it's not 2.5m up top!
-
5 hours ago, Enceos said:
@passinglurker Problem with the current mesh switcher module is that it can either switch textures or meshes, it can't do both.
There's a dirty workaround though
These parts both use the tiniest sliver of texture mirrored and repeated to infinity around the circumference. If necessary fitting these texture slivers into the unused spaces on a better master texture sheet is not an insurmountable task.
Though honestly I'd rather they just break old craft I don't see why the over all gameplay and aesthetic unity should suffer to accommodate old replica and kraken-tek builds. Their fun comes from building does it not? So they can always build again and use the cheat menu to rapidly relocate the replacement to wherever the original resided if a change to the cosmetic render'd mesh somehow causes a problem (note they can change the render'd mesh and keep the underlying collision mesh identical to the old part there is really nothing here to fret about keeping the old render'd meshes is just cheap and lazy).
-
RE: Bolts
Kerbal is stylized and simplified compared to real life dropping/reducing small technical details like engine wiring or bolt spam and keeping/exaggerating key visual features like turbo pumps, door handles, windows etc...
I stand by what I say that that over using bolts/rivets as a visual element is just a cheap way to fill space via copy/pasting cause someone can't smudge, nik, scratch, or highlight... -
@Enceos you answered your own excuse. If mesh changes are a problem they could leverage the mesh switch system or hide the old parts and phase them out more slowly. We can still (and should) expect squad to consider each part's usage case and design the part to fit those uses using switchable variants if necessary. In the case of these adapters it doesn't look like they actually considered how the parts would be used they just checked a few boxes about how porky it looks before dropping a preview and moving on. This is not a good trend to see.
-
If you're gonna hide that you skimped on the gimbaling hardware why not stuff the turbo in the boat tail with the combustion chamber like in porkjet's concept?
heavily abuse the AO effect in the inside I'm sure it'll be fine and that no one will accuse you of giving the MH dlc more modeling love than the core game...
Anyway It feels weird having them disconnected like that for no reason (only time its done IRL is if you are driving multiple independently gambling combustion chambers from a single pump russian style), and the "supported" 0.625m version looks spindly and fragile.
Finally after seeing this dull flat texture next to the overly loud and busy textures you guys are making for the adapters it feels like there is some miscommunication in art direction going on here... -
Ok it's not a total and utter slap in the face like the ADPT-2-3 so I'll try to avoid the bold red text this time...
FL-A10
Hey gang remember when everyone was happy squad dropped the silly barrel lips from the ends of the fuel tanks? Well...
...This oversight illustrates yet again why you shouldn't recycle meshes form geometrically simple parts like this. First its a grossly missed opportunity to reevaluate what the part is for and how to make it useful(should it be taller? should it be shorter? should it have fuel?), and second it usually carries over flaws the previous iteration had such as the bottom lip people were happy when you made the 1.25m parts flush why would you keep this?.
Moving on to the texture it's nice that you guys have the loud details porkjet used down pat but now you're overdoing it and leaning on them like a crutch. Yes you flipped the needle around the other way and now the details are too loud (I'm not saying the detail is excessive haveing detail is good but you can't have all the detail stand out at once or it looks busy I'm afraid that when I zoom out on that part its gonna look shades darker than the ones around it thanks to all the tiny panels you've tiled it with) and the whole thing just looks heavily mirrored creating visible patterns that compound the loudness problem. It's almost like you went full Skwod-mode and tried to go back to doing the minimum that would satisfy the most people for the least work instead of simply doing your best within the established standards. People notice when you do this @SQUAD and they lose faith in you don't be a Skwod Squad.
I will say the texture design on the orange version is better but again give it an original mesh and don't mirror every other UV-polygon like this.
EDIT: This may be hypocritical for me to say, but you know what would probably make a better Q&D 0.625m-1.25m adapter? this...
Simply lop it off at the 0.625m mark and while you're at it turn the bit you lopped off into an extra mk-0 nose cone for those times the curvy one won't do.
FL-A5
So remember what I said above about mesh recycling being a "missed opportunity to reevaluate what the part is for and how to make it useful"? This part is the epitome of this. Consider how this part is normally used what comes to mind? If vacuum vehicles like space stations, landers, rovers, bases, grandtour motherships came to mind then I'm sure you'd see the problem with giving this part launch vehicle paint jobs (if vacuum vehicles didn't come to mind then wow you are really disconnected from this community or really big into kraken-tek...) You should take this part back until you settle on what you are going to do with the station parts and lander cans and then come up with a design that goes with those parts because that is where it will be used the most I guarantee it.
Also...
Even if you keep the station parts white this dark spokes over white paint look in particular is gonna stand out sorely from miles away so if you're not gonna make this and the station parts grey like the mk2 lander can then double please scrap this part and try again. -
9 hours ago, Deddly said:
Hey, I like the rivets.
#Savetherivets
#Thegreeblesarepossiblyslightlyoverdonethough
lol not denying a rivet can be nice I just find symmetrical rows of them everywhere to be a bit lazy in a "copy/pasted design" sort of way. I suppose I should be thankful for that though as it means they probably didn't waste to many hours reskinning a part that they will have to scrap and do over from scratch because they based it off a bad mesh.
-
@SQUAD...
What were you told about recycling meshes!?
Seriously did you learn nothing from the mk1-3 pod? The top isn't even 2.5m when are you going to check this stuff before rushing into remapping? Never mind that this part is literally just a cone you can remodel from scratch in 15 minutes seriously I thought we were past these lazy shenanigans. No wait let me guess this is the same guy who made the mk1-3 pod isn't it? please fire them they're clearly phoning this in, and not striving to improve, or meet even basic standards.
P.S. I find the new texture ugly as sin its too loud and busy and suffers from rivet fetishization the artist you had texture the tricoupler seems to understand subtlety maybe ask them to fix it /rant -
@Snark fair points the two potential solutions I have for that is either...
A. Drop the part's "roverness" and give the butterstick more Lander friendly windows. While it won't be idealy flush you could still radially attach enough to the sides that it doesn't look structurally precarious in a stack all it needs is a better landing view I imagine there are more people who care about their view from a Lander than from a rover so that should have the design priority.
B. On the tunacan configuration make the service bays like in MH with no doors just a hollow space who's exterior can be rendered invisible for access.
-
@Snark wouldn't that be a use case for butterstick mode?
-
48 minutes ago, Tyko said:
This window frames aren’t only a problem for air pressure. It’s also a structural issue. If a rover built with that butter stick body hits a bump the front body will try to flex and the all-glass thin-frame front just doesn’t look like it could handle the stresses of bouncing along a lunar surface without twisting and popping the windows out. Same thing, to a lesser extent, for landers and hard landings
oof yeah I didn't think of that normally I assume the interior pressure vessel is just more rounded than the external structure but that window really does just fill the whole space doesn't it...
-
25 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:
Tho I would not mind to see the window frames get beefed up a little, Perhaps Kerbals have discovered "transparent aluminum?"
There is precedent I wouldn't mind a big retro monolithic viewing bubble if the mk1 cockpit can get away with a bubble canopy in space. but the thin sharp supports are still a no go for me its too dissimilar to the other styles of windows in game. Gotta think how this looks when someone uses the butterstick as a bridge for a grand tour ship.
-
2 hours ago, Vanamonde said:
As for a negative reaction in this thread being put forth as proof of a systemic problem in part design, it's only fair to point out that everything Squad previews in these threads receives a negative reaction.
Excuse me?
If you want negativity and arguments I suggest you start a thread for it in the lounge or something. This isn't 1.3 dev there is no place for squad vs. community talk like this here...
p.s. Rounded corners are consistent with how other worthwile parts handle windows regardless of any real life examples you toss about and consistency is part of good design.
-
29 minutes ago, RoverDude said:
vision when used as a rover is very solid.
ironic considering how delicate and flimsy the viewing windows look from the outside! -ZING! (sarcasm)
but in seriousness looking at existing parts like the m2 inline cockpit it doesn't look like it would be to intrusive to the players internal visibility to add some slightly beefier support and corner beveling to look consistent with the games other big windows.
-
Sorry the dual use is clever and all but that forward window just looks too flimsy to me. The panes are too big while ending in sharp corners and the supports are thin meanwhile the whole face is slightly curved and all together... it... just... doesn't look like it should work...
like look at the cupola or the cockpit windscreens it just doesn't look consistent with how other parts handle large multi pane windows that are supposed to operate in vacuum. I hope this will be revised to look more space worthy before release if there is one thing I never complained about @RoverDude 's work its his modeling skills.
KSP Loading... Preview: The Δv per Stage Display
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
Posted · Edited by passinglurker
lol he thinks its only one thread. start with the devnotes from around the 0.24 era and keep reading till the present day. Also any thread about porkjet's unused overhaul. No I won't link this for you do your own googling.
lol that explains a lot. Irrelevant only speaking up about it now is simply too late, and given that you have only been here less than a year you clearly don't have a good read of the community to say "nobody asked for this".
LOL AHAHAHA! Is he for real!? XD The Mission making scene is dead on arrival no one wanted it as implemented and no one is using outside a handful of whiteknights that want to justify thier $15 it is simply not an reasonable case not to revamp the parts.