Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. 33 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    Granted if i was doing the texture id probably keep some foily like normal map on the sides (just to keep a little bit of the older styling)

    maybe they should ask @CobaltWolf for the normal map he used ;) 
    It works very well in kerbal's hand painted style don't you think?

    33 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    but i much prefer the new geometry vs the old style, so good work on that part.

    hrm... I'd agree the old hecs looked like someone had just discovered the extrusion tool, but I'm not sure I'd agree that the new geometry is good either as it incorporates this toony protruding lip on the top and bottom. A design element almost everyone seems to want to be rid from kerbal as a whole if reaction to the fuel tank revamps have been anything to go by, and also engineering wise what purpose does it serve?

    33 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    Now the only thing i do want to see on the newer parts that is yet to be a thing outside of my own custom modding is a bit more wear and tear like porkjet style or even some of the parts before him.  Im not saying super clean is ugly, but it really feels more like KSP when the parts at least look like they have been in use for a bit of time (never was huge on the whole junk yard style of the original parts outside of pirate vessel designs, but i still feel the new super clean and shiny part style really doesnt fit the feel of KSP being more explosions then spaceX/NASA with their lack of scrapes/wear/damage/cartooniness).

    Now this I can get on board with :)


  2. 10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

    I have no problem with using it or not. My problem is that I have no idea why people say such and such a part aren't in that style. It's like I'm colorblind but it's to style. I'm styleblind. You point at two parts (or a red and green patch) and say they're in different styles (colors) and I just have to say okay well they look fine to me.

    If you're apathetic to how your game looks then you'd have no problem with us pushing for it to look better.

    10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

    To borrow a popular meme...


    You laugh but this is just a visible symptom of a much larger problem as this was produced in the same string of updates that gave us new stability issues and graphical glitches like the reentry bug. And before you say it this isn't a case of "oh they were just focusing thier resources elsewhere under the hood" We've seen time and time again throughout this games history that when squad fails they fail everywhere and they fail hard, and as a consequence everything now needs to be scrutinized. 

    If they can't produce professional work and if they can't stand haveing thier work checked then they shouldn't keep working on this game, because we've reached a low point where if that low trend were to plateau or continue we'd actually be better off if squad just stopped. As such I don't care if squad feels unappreciated if that actually had an effect it would still be a win for the community. This is the consequence for cutting corners for so long it comes back to bite you.

    9 hours ago, nestor said:

    It has both normal map and specular map. 

    Thanks! :) now can you make sure it shows in future part previews? good first impressions and all that.

  3. @5thHorseman I can like crisp and clean don't get me wrong beale's tantares pulls off that style extremely well but this...
    Is not crisp and clean this is just bad-CG.

    The emphasis on porkjets style is simply a matter of practicality since the largest single block of parts are already done by porkjet that makes doing everything else in his style is the least amount of work to achive the goal of a unified aesthetic the only way you could possibly go lower is if you either abandon the goal or cut quality drastically.

    As for the constant negativity squad gets... honestly between the launch debacle, the console debacle, the abandon ship debacle, the MH debacle etc the venture deserves our scrutiny and ire. outcry has proven the only way to budge squads set course in that past, and after this long I've come to terms with the possibility that KSP development could end, and the devs could move on so to me if they can't do this right give us a porkjet rocket revamp in everyway but name then they can just quit and move on to thier next game. We have a strong enough modding community to patch on without them. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen as they say.

  4. 29 minutes ago, KraterKreator said:

    Come on @klgraham1013. How about a "Thank you Squad for listening to your fans!". I promise it won't hurt.

    They were given thier due credit I promise it won't hurt if you settled for that.

    16 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

    In any case that's the opposite. What I'm saying is that people in this case would complain both ways. If they took the current tanks and swapped back in the old textures they'd get more complaints. So in neither case were they wrong to use the new textures. And in fact I tend to feel that way about pretty much every visual change they've made. In fact I can't think of a change that I'd consider bad enough to admonish them on the forum for.

    So I figured that - considering every piece they put up gets an endless stream of negative responses - that they might appreciate hearing that not everybody hates the results of their efforts.

    People complain both ways because neither way is a style that fits with porkjet's work. Its almost as if people want a unified aesthetic instead of two piles consisting of "porkjets space plane parts" and "everyone who wanted to be a household name like porkjet".

  5. 1 hour ago, Nertea said:

    Hey, normal maps use both memory and shader instructions. I think removing them should really draw less resources from the game.

    There's some parts that would greatly benefit from the effect though especially engine and command parts that people pay more attention too.

  6. 1 hour ago, Frozen_Heart said:

    Sorry if this personally offends you or something but I actually liked the 2.5m revamp. Rockets finally look like they aren't made of actual oil barrels.

    so now they look like a student's first photoshop project so much better/s

    No one liked the oil barrels for thier design I'll acknowledge that, but that doesn't mean we should accept something that could be made with just a box selecter and a fill tool as a substitute. If that were the case squad could have gotten away with replacing everything with untextured cylinders years ago. 

  7. 3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Currently the pixel density varies widely from part to part and by standardizing these assets we are not only improving the visuals but also optimizing the game’s performance

    I didn't have time to say this before but credit given where credit is due thank you for acknowledging this problem.

    Now all we need to due is get you to adopt pork-a-like elements (cause if you are gonna go through the effort to condense the layers of ksp's art style geology to two layers why not go for one layer?)

  8. 45 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

    It looks at though the HECS part either lacks a Bump Map or it is very weak. This kind of skews our perception of the visual representation of this part. Could anyone from SQUAD, please, either confirm or deny whether the above screen preview showing the part has a normal map applied to the object or not?

    Given that we can see the effects of the old hecs's specular/normal map but no such effect coming from the new hecs model all in the same frame I think it's safe to say that the new parts don't have specular/normal maps until it's been confirmed and proven otherwise

    Optimization is nice but it shouldn't come at the expense of standards, and you can very much meet standards while still being optimal. a specular map costs next to nothing and it's just plain lazy not to include one (looking at you stock service bays) 

    @Darth Badie can you ask one of the artists for a water marked copy of the new hecs texture sheet to share with the community so we can see just how optimal it's uv layout and file size is? Oh and the normal map too just so we know it exists that would also be very appreciated :)

  9. 7 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    Well, all i can do is hope they improve the quality of future work, its very doubtful we will get porkalike parts made from now on, but they could try and make something similar in the quality dept.

    Porkjet was good but he wasn't unequalable or insurpassable, and we technically already have porkalike's for 1.25m parts on the books. They can do it, we should accept nothing less, and if they somehow can't then they give up on dev entirely move on to he next kerbal game. Then we don't have to worry about modded parts getting out-dated anymore. It's basically win win to hold them to standards.

  10. @panzer1b Squad won't change if we just hugbox them all the time they'll just block everyone else out as long as there are vapant fanboys frothing with praise. Also its not exactly fair showing it with a bunch of post processing mods, but I digress.

    The 2.5m parts have UV mapping issues(its basically miming the 3.75m placeholders and all thier flaws) this skews with texel density in a way that can only be fixed with a mesh edit to make a new UVmap to even out the texel density and use the space more efficently. What you've done is a band aid at best and will look blurry and pixelated next to actually good parts like porkjet's spaceplane work. we can do better starting the fuel tank over from scratch. honestly there is no point in settling for half measures. (I should know I once tried to fix those 3.75m tanks with just a texture change)

  11. 8 minutes ago, klesh said:

    I've never tried one of his mods.  I saw that 3.75m preview several months ago with a "don't ask when it'll be done" caveat, so I have been waiting patiently for it.  Tipping him for some mod I don't use in the hopes he someday releases that isn't my cup of tea.

    I believe he said when he showed them off on reddit that its for his near future launch vehicles mod which presently covers diameters 5m and up you could probably replace MH's saturn tanks with that if you need to find something already released to support. ;) 

  12. 3 minutes ago, klesh said:

    I offered to buy those 3.75m parts for myself. I would adore KSP looking like that. 

    he has a donation button on the bottom for his mod threads you know ;)


    6 minutes ago, klesh said:

    Modders can be tough though.  I really do see value in parts coming from Squad that are "guaranteed" to work with all future versions of the game.  A modded part that looks great today may be abandoned or forgotten a year from now. 

    I don't think the "official content" edge means as much as it once did we've seen squad push out "offcial" content with a lot less stability, quality, and polish and take forever to fix it if ever/at all. IMO people's DLC money would probably have a better return spent on thier favorite mod authors instead.

  13. 11 minutes ago, Redneck said:

    I was referring to the reddit link. They were beating up on rover. And I dont like that and I dont think, after all he has done for the community, deserves that. And yes what you said is totally possible it may not be his work. So all the more reason those people should leave his name out of it

    Yeah no on second thought you're probably overthinking this I just parsed the thread I saw no rover bashing.

    specifically this -> "I'm not very fond of his texturing, he can get fairly detailed, but, at the risk of going very subjective, Porkjet had flair that I, personally, just don't feel in the new work." <- isn't rover bashing. the rest is just confusuion over when he started working at squad and if he's still there.

  14. 1 minute ago, Redneck said:

    jesus man i went to the link......I dont know what to say. I dont like the fact of them beating up on roverdudes work. He does the best he can. Ive seen him do awesome great stuff on his twitch streams. So there has to be another factor at play here. He is under all these damm DND agreements and legal crap so he cant defend himself if he wanted to. I dont know who is calling the shots over there or who determines whats going in the next update or the roadmaps but my opinion is that they are WAAAAAAYYYY out of touch with what the players want or the games development moving forward and have been for a long time. I have one question for that person. "what does KSP look like in the next year? Or 2 years?" I hope the answer is not "Umm, Well, we retextured old parts and fixed bugs that we didnt fix the last time we said we were going to fix bugs that the time before that we didnt fix" 

    Did you ever consider the possibility this isn't roverdudes work? Like the textures for the outside surface are super simple like box selector and fill tool simple anyone on the staff with intro-photoshop knowledge could do it and modeling cylinders ain't hard either. Even I would consider it an insult to RD to pin these tanks on him so it has to be someone less qualified.

  15. 6 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    Personal opinion. Not moderator statement. 

    For people who express so much hatred for the game and the people who make it, you guys sure do play it and talk about it a lot. When I dislike a game, I stop playing it. I don't just keep going back to its forum to insult the makers for years at a time. It's better for my mental and emotional health. 

    You are wrong. I insult thier poor work not the people who make it. I don't know why the work is poor after all maybe it's time constraints dictated from the top maybe it's inexperience resulting from lapses in judgement from the hiring manager maybe they just suck but I can't see that I can only see thier products and vocally judge thier product to be lacking by both subjective and objective metrics.

    EDIT: Also need I remind you they asked for feedback 

  16. On 8/3/2018 at 7:21 PM, Nertea said:

    Damnnit guys I'll do it almost pro bono. Two UCS Millenium Falcons. 

    @klesh and what if you did have a bunch of nice parts to match the 2016 set? What if squad gave in? what if modders came through? I mean by the looks of it nertea's already halfway there with the launch vehicle side of things. 

    We shouldn't have to settle for halfbaked goods

  17. 1 hour ago, panzer1b said:

    (as amazing as ven's revamp and many other modder's custom models are, they are not resource friendly at all)

    Ven's revamp started on the idea of how far you could push things and still fit in the same footprint as the squad-folder if you did it efficiently. As a result its has its own standards for texel density and polycounts from what is often refered to as "stock-alike"

    As for other modders I'm not sure who all you are refering too but one example I have is Cobalt's BDB which has over 400 high quality parts of all sizes from sounding rockets and probes to saturnV's and skylabs (the squad folder has like ~300-350 parts?) yet has half the footprint. Any modern post-porkjet mod at least is going to be crazy resource friendly compared to what we've seen squad put out.

    56 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    This is not entirely true, the MAIN reason for the increase in ram is the fact that the texture size increased by a huge amount. 

    You don't need 2k textures for 2.5m fuel tanks especially ones using practically flat colors like this. The texel density as a result is all out of whack and wasted on such a dull sterile design. Not only that but the texture is then duplicated for the pallet swap a feature they are also adding to the 1.25m tanks. this may not be a problem if done efficiently but squad has demonstrated that UV mapping is another corner they often cut...

    56 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    The model (.mu files) total size has gone from a previous 308kb to 214kb.  So the new models are actually superior in terms of space efficiency vs the old style models.

    Not even 100kb. Its better to leak geometry than it is pixels. vertices go farther. Also pop that model into blender you'll see that fuel pipe on the side is weirdly high poly compared to the rest of the mesh its just sloppy, and is a sure sign of bigger problems if they would be willing to ship mistakes like these.

    56 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    Yes this is a HUGE increase to texture size, but if you consider that the resolution went from a variety between 512x512 to 1024x1024, all the way up to 2048x2048, you can understand WHY the size increased that much.

    Done efficiently you could fit good 2.5m textures in a half to a quarter of that look at the techniques porkjet and modern modders use, and they make good use of that space for detailing. Something as simplistic as these flat color monstrosities  could be recreated in an even smaller footprint.

    56 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    So anyways, im not questioning your conclusion as to teh new parts taking more RAM, but it is NOT due to bad modeling/art, its purely because of the choice to use such massive texture resolutions (which i myself would not have used, not for normals) instead of smaller ones like older parts had.  Also, if you are super concerned about texture sizes, feel free to open them in photoshop/editor of choice, and lower the res, itll still look better then the oil drums we had b4...

    No it very much is due to bad modeling the UV map is part of the mesh and a sucky one like this helps drive the crazy inefficient use of texture space. Which is again wasted because they are just painting the diffuse map with flat simple colors and what detail you think you see such as foam or corigation is actually in the normal map(which is why the normal map resolution is so damn high).

    I'd go as far to say they are NOT better than the oildrums as out of place as they may have been somebody still actually had to use more than a box selector and a fill tool to make those...

  18. 3 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

    My point is that if I buy the game now, I am paying at least 40 bucks and get mediocre graphics. At least some effort should be made to make the game look as pretty as possible, without giving up on its heritage. Many modders in here have shown that this is possible, and "unfortunately", this is the standard the base game is measured by.

    Don't even need to look at mods. porkjet in stock showed you could do a lot with diffuse/specular/normal mapping, 200pxm, lowpoly meshes, etc... We want parts to be made to thier fullest potential within those standards because if they go the mile to get that right they might be going the mile to get the under the hood elements right aswell instead of shipping updates with config file typos of all things...

  19. 18 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

    I don't give a kraken's RUD about how "pretty" it is.

    That is all.

    no one's asking for the most modern of techniques or the highest fidelity, but we still have standards and squad has shown consistently that parts that don't meet those standards on the surface often don't meet standards under the hood either resulting in heavier system resource use, or even bugs. If they are willing to cut corners where we can see them then they are definitely already cutting corners where we can't see them. As a result its very important for the community to care and hold squad to the standards for professional work and quality we've come to expect from squad's predecessors.

  20. 1 minute ago, klgraham1013 said:

    Rules to live by for life in general.

    It's also why I was so annoyed by small, simple things like the missing IVA on the Mk1-3 pod and the mis-sized fairings.  So many obvious bugs that players noticed within minutes of booting up 1.4, yet were apparently missed by Squad's QA team.

    It would be a different story had squad establish a reputation of utilitarian low fidelity work on the outside but solid professional work under the hood, but after this long that has soundly been proven to not be the case.

  21. 4 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Let us know what you think about this.

    I think porkjet wore it better.

    Ok now being serious...
    Lets look at this objectively. Take the parts porkjet made not because of some subjective love for his style or anything like that but because they represent the single largest block of consistent quality in the part catalog. The model meshes are efficient clean and error free, the texel density doesn't vary wildly unless necessary for something like a UV island with lettering, the pallet is consistent for each formfactor, and texture space is brilliantly efficient. it's all very professional. 

    Now take the 2.5m parts you put out for the MH update @SQUAD you somehow managed to make parts that were objectively worse than thier hated predecessors by about every non-subjective metric. The mesh triangle count is off the scale by an order of magnitude, the texture file which before was merely layed out inefficiently instead got bigger, was still mapped just as inefficiently as always, and then the whole travesty was duplicated for a color variant, texel density was still a mess of course, and the mesh had errors that cast weird creases and shadows. Its like you gave the task to a diploma mill intern and told'em "just copy what the last guy did" you absolutely failed to make a professional quality part even by ksp's whimsical standards and yet you still pushed it out as official without recognizing your error or attempting to adequately correct it.

    Now you're telling me you are attempting this again and are showing parts done in the same subjectively dull sterile corner cutting style. What guarantee do I have that these won't be the same wreck the 2.5m parts were? The lesson from all this is if it looks amazing on the outside it might be good and professional on the inside but If it looks cheap on the outside then its 100% rotten through on the inside. That's what I learned following your development of 1.4/MH, and what I assume I'll see if you push that dull [snip] as a "quality update".

  • Create New...