Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. 7 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

    This. It looks like it took five minutes to make. It's too uniform, too bland and sterile looking compared to the one we have now.

    Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who noticed. I find it unfortunate that normal maps a great tool for increasing fidelity is just being used to mask completely sterile swaths of texture.

  2. 12 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

    Why cant the stock one look this good...?

    It probably could all it needs is to be rendered with lighting in engine, and given a brushed up diffuse and specular map that reflects the ALL details in the normal map especially the ribbing. So far it looks like they did the usual "WIP" trick of just slacking the normal map on over a noisy diffuse. It gets the message across, but doesn't hold up under admiration so I hope this gets proper detailing for release.

    Also like @regex and holy @frizzank said red accents help.

  3. 2 hours ago, Deddly said:

    Sorry if I misrepresented you. I have only seen you post about the art quality. But of course, most of us appreciate quality in all areas of the game.

    I mention art quality because that is all there is to talk about. The code base is already stable, the game balance likely only getting changed in the midst of an art overhaul anyway. Art consistency is the most standout element in which ksp is lacking. Take that as a compliment to rest of the game if you want.

    So just to be clear on our terminology...

    Prioritizes graphics = the insatiable push for greater and greater fidelity, effects, and possibly frame rate.

    Prioritzes consistency = the desire for the rest to be as good as the best we already have. To draw a line and polish off everything up to that line in a clean and tidy package.

    So yes "most people" including me (to the extent that we have any right to sayi prefer to avoid presuming I speak for others) want quality in all aspects. For me that means we need to bring the elements lagging behind up to the same level of polish as everything else. This by no way means I want consistent art at the expense of the stable, feature rich, and modifiable code base we already have.

  4. 6 minutes ago, Deddly said:

    @passinglurker I guess it's a question of what they choose to prioritise. Different people have widely polarised views as to what they view as important. I get the impression that the graphics are very important to you and others, but for many people, an engine update is much more interesting. It's a simple matter of differing priorities.

    I never prioritized graphics I prioritized consistency without regression. 

    I'll concede though that it's too early to judge but given the pattern established so far I'm choosing to withhold my hype. I'll buy a ticket on the patience ferry for this one.

  5. 3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    The art team is currently busy working on the geometry and texture of a new liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engine, specially designed for large vessels and inspired on NASA’s J2 Engine

    So you are makeing the engine the stock rhino engine was based on? Can you just replace the rhino engine then?

    3 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Finally, the team started to work on upgrading the project to Unity 2017.1. This implementation will be included in the upcoming 1.4 Update of KSP

    Sigh yet another code base overhaul... It amazes me to no end how squad has the resources to completely rewrite the game every major update yet they can't spare resources for comprehensive art and career mode game play polish. 

    Edit: It's too soon to judge excuse my salt.

  6. 6 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

    I didn't dismiss them. I said they're covered by mods (something I understand you're a big fan of). I play stock because I like it. Mods are not stock and vice versa.

    Though I guess I was a bit dismissive of automated parachutes because, well, it sounds a bit superfluous. Apologies though, if you were offended.

    Not so much offended as just opposed to the notion that mods should be used as a crutch. Something as generally used and accepted as player information tools should be made stock in some form. Whereas something specialized like a star wars parts pack should not.

  7. 4 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

    [Emphasis in the above quote added by me] What you keep pointing out are your opinions, not standards.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but you would probably get a better reception of your opinions if you presented them in a more respectful manner, not a condescending, dismissive tone.  Giving someone the benefit of the doubt on a text-based forum, where the connotation can possibly be misconstrued in a manner other than intended, only goes so far.  If you want criticism to be taken constructively, than make it constructive.  When you berate others (in real-life or online), why would they listen to you?  They wouldn't, they'd ignore you.

    Simple I make my case and vote with my wallet. If I'm right people will see as I do and do the same if I am wrong then that is just how the cookie crumbles. Once you start charging real money after a string of disastrous bugged releases and constant delays of core artistic and game-play polish that drain the cistern of good will dry then courtesy simply goes out the window until trust is re-earned. If they want my money without building any good will then I am under no obligation to mince words about what it takes to get my money.

    I did try to be courteous and careful about what I said in the past though it didn't do a lick of good I still got directly dismissed for "cheap shots" that no one but bob saw so here we are.

    8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

    We should all have thick skins, but we should also treat others with more dignity and respect.  Adhering to the "Treat others the way you want to be treated" rule goes a long way towards achieving solutions versus generating dissension. [Personal anecdote: If I observed anybody in my department at work speaking that way to others on a regular basis, that person's continued employment would be in question.]  I'm not saying this to stomp on your toes or start an argument, I'm just trying to offer a possible explanation of why @Vanamonde replied the way he did.

    These spats with Vanamonde are weary. I've repeated solutions ad-nauseum and made reference to works that exist inside the core game to backup my arguments about what constitutes good quality within the confines of kerbal's hand-painted art style. I am not so opposed that I hate everything that is different from standards I've pointed out in the past provided those differences are not a regression, and are applied retroactively to all previous content. I just want quality and by extension consistency, and if I am opposed then its because I am concerned that something will make achieving these ends more difficult (for example if one were to release a large set of new parts that are made to regressed or even inconsistent artistic standards adding to the workload of everything that must be fixed if/when the "rocket revamp" comes). At this point after so long Vanamonde should be fully aware of my views yet he still persists in his miss-characterization of me  as some sort of unreasonable hate-troll out of some defensive reflex I can't fathom.

  8. 1 hour ago, Vanamonde said:

    At this point, you should expect it, since you hate everything Squad shows. 

    Untrue I liked thier 5m decoupler I like it when they show attention to detail, and good quality. This service bay is obviously not those things. I don't so much care about cylinder vs. cone as the only way to do gemini to scale is to implement a at least a few 1.5m parts and there are various reason squad may want to avoid that but what ever they make I expect it to be made well and I expect thier mods not to vilify people with standards.

  9. 19 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Additionally, the artists FINISHED with our Gemini-like Service Module. Here’s a sneak peek.

    *emphasis mine

    @Badie can you confirm that they mean finished finished or was this a typo/slip of the tongue? Cause if it is "finished" this seriously looks cheap and lazy if not sloppy. I sincerely hope this isn't actually reflective of what we can expect from "finished" work.

  10. 19 hours ago, Tyko said:

    I watched a video of an astronaut getting into a mercury capsule and almost bumping his helmet on overhead switches...not that unusual. As to reaching the controls, I saw a video of a crew in a Soyuz capsule in which the commander was using a long stick to reach from where he was sitting to press buttons on the console in front of him, but out of his reach.

    I agree that ergonomics should be considered, but with the caveat that in reality bad ergonomics happened too.

    Mercury and Soyuz make sense because they are cramped mass over comfort sort of spacecraft. the Mk1-3 as others have pointed out is not starved for space at all so it doesn't have the same awkward cluttered charm. Adding clutter might fix that if it were just its own original spacecraft but it would seem to me that band-aid fixes would just push the pod further and further from being the "apollo equivalent". With parts that are supposed to kerbalize real world spacecraft some degree of attention to detail is important naturally it can't be a 1:1 photo-realistic clone as that wouldn't fit with kerbal's art style or anatomy but it seems pretty clear between this and the previously mentioned issues with texture and its length after adding the nose cone and docking port that the mk1-3 has flown well off the mark by this point.

  11. Ok... Not gonna lie I'm still not a fan of "mk1-3" with how the proportions are turning out. How do you get in and out without messing up the control panel? Hell how do they reach the control panel with those little arms? Previous iva's like the spaceplanes had a lot of thought put in them about accessibility, mobility, and ergonomics even if it was just for show what happened? Need I remind you we are paying for this content.

    It seems broken on a fundamental design level how about you just scrap it and start over with something more loyal to the apollo inspiration? Just repackage the mk1-3 as a free update to replace the mk1-2 it doesn't belong on making history it is the only part that doesn't resemble its historical counterpart.

  12. 5 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

    Granted most of the feedback was some what negative or "nitpickey" so I can certainly see where Angel started to feel unappreciated and decided it wasn't worth the constant headaches. Or maybe at the end of the day he just really liked his mod the way it was, and didn't want to change it to please others...that's fine too.

    Its not that he didn't want to change it for others Angel isn't hydrophobic to feedback and to suggest that is a terrible mis-characterization. The crux of the problem is Angel had already went above and beyond to let people tweak this mod to taste and they still nitpicked and lazily expected it to be tweaked for them. Whats the point of going through all that work if people will just ignore it? people [snip] shouldn't be explaining themselves they should be apologizing.

  13. 3 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

    I like, but I have a problem with BARIS because on one side, it's kinda fun having to react to the failures, but on the other side, it's not fun having my shuttle's RCS and OMS fail when trying to do STS-1 for @michal.don's shuttle challenge.

    :mad: This is an appreciation thread. :mad:

    Anyway Appreciation! Angel is an amazingly thoughtful modder who goes above and beyond to incorporate an unparalleled level of documentation and configurability to complex and crunchy addons such as this (and snacks life support, and pathfinder colonization, etc...) Also he likes and strives to achieve pork-a-like! What's not to appreciate!

  14. 2 hours ago, KSK said:

    Apologies if this has already been covered but are there any plans for a Service Module with three-fold symmetry for its internal partitions rather than four? (At least the one in the video looked like it had four-fold symmetry.) Or does the part geometry change depending on the VAB symmetry setting?

    I only ask because Apollo used three main chutes, so a three-fold symmetric Service Module would be nice for constructing replica Apollo craft.

    3 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

    Agreed, As would a 6-fold symmetric 2.5m service module (if it existed in-game)

    sounds like more mesh switch options :wink: really that feature is gonna be the best thing about this update


  15. 3 hours ago, RoverDude said:

    Usual caveats, WIP parts (we're aware of the sizing issue where the pod joins the little service module adapter), also still fiddling a bit with colliders :)

    Are you aware and acknowledging that the profile is too long? and are you gonna do something about it? Even with the "legoism" philosophy a replica needs to at least nail the profile.

    Old pic of the good Apollo kerbal replica for reference.
    Nertea's reaction on reddit since the devnotes get buried fast there

  16. 23 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

    More just common sense.  But some folks are making  very poor assumptions.

    Speaking of which I for one don't mind a lack of pictures the last couple of weeks and appreciate the bar for quality WIP shots being raised, and the appropriate amount of time being taken. No point seeing something that's too raw and will likely come out very different by the end no matter what is said.


  17. 41 minutes ago, Next_Star_Industries said:

    Here is why I have made this post: I was asked what scale I use to build weapons I said I use a 1:1 ratio. I was then rudely told how that wasn't right because it should be .625:1 and when I tried to explain like I have here it just got completely out of hand. So I decided to ask why people are scaling down their work.

    I'll make this simple for you.

    Modders make what they want to make and can't be convinced otherwise.

    In this case they wanted their mods to play well together and with stock so they did what other older modders were already doing like how railroad tracks got built to the width of wagons already in production back in the day. That's all there really is to it to follow or not is your choice users just harass people who venture from the norm because they want their mods to play well together for no extra work but you don't actually have to listen to them.

    So if you want 1:1 scale sidewinder missiles then just do it the opinions of users are ultimately irrelevant if they don't like it they can learn to rescale with mm scripts or something.

  18. 3 minutes ago, evileye.x said:

    But 0,625m nodes are too small to serve as crew tunnels anyway.

    CLS consider it unpassable.

    CLS is a mod.
    CLS based this off the part description
    Part descriptions were made during early access and are generally as bogus as the old parts looks
    And finally a kerbal actually does fit going head first (@Beale tested it for attention to detail reasons for his soyuz mod). Go walk a kerbal on top of a jr and look down from directly above you will see that they fit within the hatch circle.

  19. 7 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Our first Service Module is a conical 1.25m to 0.625m adapter for our Apollo analogue. This was originally going to be a dedicated stack-chute model, but we felt implementing more flexible service modules made more sense and would provide players better options. The shell can be jettisoned to allow chute deployment (jettisoning anything you happened to attach to the shell as well).  Here’s a pic, along with our new Apollo capsule and a Clamp-o-tron Jr. for comparison. This service module includes a lot of horizontal and vertical surfaces for attaching parts and we expect players will find a lot of creative uses for this and the other service modules we will be including in the expansion.

    So how do we use the parts we attach to the inside? do we have to jettison the cover? does it turn transparent when we hover over? It would be nice to have a part that is defined from all the parts radially attached to it instead of haveing to hunt for tiny parts with the camera. Great way to turn hollow structural parts like the mk1 fuselage into service modules too. Anyway good luck with your designing and defining of new gameplay elements development of new features is very welcome.

    Since this idea is still clearly embryonic I'll refrain from wasting time commenting on the service module's looks. Its disappointing to see absolutely no improvement from the apollo capsule though. And of course showing an ancient part like the clamp jr. along side again highlights how badly the old Not!Placeholders need a revamp.

    5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

    It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

    I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume :wink: 

    Gonna have to agree with everyone else about having a crew tunnel as a mesh switch option it'd show attention to detail especially if given a cutaway view to go with the apollo and lem IVA's, and people can alway use the offset gizmo if they some how want the tunnel and oodle of parts at the same time.

  20. Given the limits imposed by kerbal anatomy the general uselessness of IVA's, and all the other things I'm holding the art up to as paid content already I'm not gonna lose sleep over whether kerbals are using chairs or at least I would understand the technical barrier to this (great touch to add though if you can avoid the heads clipping through the roof). I do hope they bump up the texel density of the egress hatch though the fuzziness against the rest interior is a little jarring hopefully they find time to make a more detailed hatch prop for the final version as IVA's are good for nothing but being stared at, but I understand if they just need a stand in at this early phase.

  21. On 7/12/2017 at 5:18 PM, Shadow Wolf56 said:

    if you want PARTS, OR VISUALS then that is why squad added mods for mod developers.

    GET MODS!!!!!! (plz don't start flamewar)


    Mods are not for cleaning up a devs mess. Leaning on modding like a crutch is how you frustrate and lose mod makers they want to make their own things not finish your game for you.

  22. 1 hour ago, Physics Student said:

    Wow, great work on the Making History Expansion! Now I can't wait even more!

    the vernier engines have this aerodynamic cover, great for ataching them radially, but arent they usually attached to the bottom of tanks? I think it would be better to have them like regular engines, with a node but also surface-atachable (same attachment rules as an aerospike or vector). Not having that inline node always bothered me with the O-10 engine. If you need them radially, you can easily make a workaround with a tiny nosecone.

    Oh hey that's right mesh switching is gonna be a thing that means you could technically have radial and inline versions in the same catalog entry. Or an rd107 with or without the historical divets(not that I mind being divetless just saying it's a possibility). 

  • Create New...