Jump to content

passinglurker

Members
  • Posts

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by passinglurker

  1. 6 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    On the artistic side of the development, the art team worked on the vernier engine to go with our RD-107 analogue. One of the challenges with this part was balancing something that would be recognizable as part of an R7 rocket, but also keep the ‘lego’ feel our players are used to.  To achieve this, we decided to split the verniers out as a separate part, so players could choose to either use them in a configuration reminiscent of the R7, or in other interesting and creative ways. The flip side is that you lose some of the unique asymmetric aspects of an R7 booster (including the handy notch that fits the verniers on the central stack of the rocket).  This is a theme you’re going to see quite a bit of as the parts for Making History progress.  While we want parts to be recognizable, our direction is one where we aim for taking heavy inspiration from vs. building precise replicas of historic craft and parts, with the primary goal being to provide new parts that are flexible, balanced, and fun to use for both historic as well as player generated missions.

    The vernier itself is a liquid fuel engine with a single axis gimbal with a 45 degree range (22.5 degrees each direction), making it an excellent form of control authority (we include a total of twelve of these on our Vostok 1), as well as an interesting engine in its own right that I expect our players will find many creative uses for.

    Here’s a pic of its current state, along with a pic of how it would be used on our Vostok craft file, and examples of the gimbal range.  There’s still some work to do on it, but we suspect most people will appreciate seeing the current progress.

    I'd just like to say this is a very good write up. Technical details, insight into the part design process, and the justifications for decisions everything a reader could want. :) So with your goal stated could we get some insight into how you are gonna address ballance? I'm assuming this is nontrivial given the differences in "realistic" and "kerbal" scales.

    Regex already addressed the chunky bell so so aside from the usual I don't really have anything to say about the verner in the WIP shot until it's shown in engine with usual AO details, and specular and normal maps.

  2. 2 minutes ago, weissel said:

    And I want quality gameplay.  The non-barn progression is cobbled together and never will be "good", no matter what you do with the rest.

    As a lot of "High Res" packs and patches for older games have shown, graphics can be updated pretty easily.  Gameplay, however ... not so much.

    Read the rest of my post first I agree that the game play is cobbled but the barn or the absence thereof has nothing to do with that. Also I wouldn't trivialize the production of a whole games worth of consistent quality 3d art.

    4 minutes ago, weissel said:

    "previewed" is the important word here.  You can object to the quality of the barn space centre --- that can be improved.

    The barn as the unity asset flip we saw could not be improved the only option was to start over and squad opted not to in the name of rushing a console port.

    6 minutes ago, weissel said:

    Or you can object to the idea of having any barn whatsoever in the game.  I thought the barn fit well into the haphazard way Kerbals build rockets with no thought of safety, and a lot of "ad hoc".  Apparently others thought the idea that rocketry started very much improvised was not worthy of the glorious KSP.

    First It had been previously established by one of squads former lead artists and generally accepted by the community that kerbals are not Orks. Second the "ad hoc' design wasn't chosen because the devs at the time thought it was a good fit, but instead to mask the rushed shoddy workmanship. Say what you want about goofy tropes vs. serious tropes but using one or the other to justify bad art/ballance/code is not OK. Being made well comes first what it's styled to look like comes second/third/later...

    11 minutes ago, weissel said:

    I can hear people howling at a palette swapped lvl 1 VAB.  People like you, I'd think.

    Only people I see howling about that issue in particular after seeing the barn would be the LOLKERBALZFLYTRASH crowd.
     
    That being said I'm getting sick of being characterized as unreasonable. I give squad thier due when they make the right decisions such as implementing mesh and texture switching, rebalancing the monoprop tanks, making parts that look good, etc... I may be pessimistic, but I do not actively fish for new reasons to "complain" like you all want to believe I do in order to try to discredit me.

    25 minutes ago, weissel said:

    I mourn the disappearance of BTSM.  It was ... great, hard, focussed.

    Something we can agree on. It may have been seemingly linear for better or worse in the earliest parts of its progression but compared to stock it was an excellent experience that encouraged experimentation and learning to break out into the larger game, and showed the meticulous care and attention to detail @FlowerChild puts into his game ballance mods. Its this sort of passion and attention to detail that I want to see in stock KSP in general not just in its art.

    37 minutes ago, weissel said:

    But with no barn or any other visual, it is kinda hard for a modder to add another level, which makes it harder for modders to actually make an attempt for a balanced progression there.

    Part of the problem is that the issues with the career mode are so multifaceted that simply using @sarbian's custom barn kit mod to smooth out the tiering would hardly put a dent in the balance issues. Only complete overhauls like BTSM, RO, CWP etc go far enough to make a difference.

    The other part of the problem is that squad (despite haveing ample opportunity while stopping to rewrite the code base 3 flipping times) never opened up the facility art assets to modding.

    44 minutes ago, weissel said:

    It's a nice lil' tank (treat very very stoically, get involved at your own risk), but ultimately you want procedural tanks.

    Eeeeh... If children of a dead earth and procedural mods is any indication I'd say procedural tanks can't be visually appealing at least not at the standards PJ brought us too. @Shadowmage's SSTU mesh switching has more potential I feel. Anyway last I checked procedural tanks from squad was never at stake or even on the table. At least not publicly.

  3. 18 minutes ago, John FX said:

    I will stop you there, yes it did.

    For those reading along it did not. They made thier own separate conscious decision to omit the tier 0 from the balance instead of just use pallet swapped tier 1 buildings as non-eye-gouging placeholders, and even with 4 tiers career mode would still be a steaming pile of disjointed half baked gameplay ideas anyway, but ultimately how the tiers are balanced and how the tiers appear are separate issues. Don't let users like this combine them in order to discredit the value of mass public feedback.

    Also "complaining" saved the round8 from being recycled as a xenon tank you're welcome stock-purist spacecraft-exchange users.

  4. 53 minutes ago, John FX said:

    The barn. The barn was something which IMHO was better included than excluded because I value gameplay over getting a texture perfect.

    Well he won't hear me but for anyone else reading along the barn had more wrong with it than just the texture

    15 minutes ago, weissel said:

    And I am so happy there is no "barn" --- NOT.

    The jump between 30 parts (very limiting) and 255 parts (not a limit for most vessels) is quite extreme.  But then I value gameplay a lot over glitzy graphics --- if I wanted glitzy graphics I'd be playing AAA games.  And the barn could have been improved ...

    You're confusing a desire for quality consistent work with a desire for next gen hyper graphics I only want the former.

    Anyway this is not a fault brought on by the exclusion of the barn. This is squad's unwillingness to give career mode a balance and polish pass and it's a problem that can't be narrowed down to a single flaw like 3 tiers vs. 4. All of carrer mode is this disjointed hodgepodge of ideas they never bothered to iron out. No one's bothered to fix the tiering issue because the old devs put it off to be fixed with everything else "later" and the new devs decided there is nothing wrong with the core game and moved on to localization and DLC.

    But here's some easy not-crap-barn solutions if you need 4 tiers... 


    Option A: use the same building set for more than one tier (for example tier 1 buildings cover both tiers 1 and 0) its better to reuse a minimally decent asset than it is to use the barn as it was previewed.
    Option B: the same as A only give tier 0 a pallet swap so its easier to tell apart at a glance.
    Option C: stop being cheap and make a decent looking barn.


    You can do almost anything with the right code. In the end the number of tiers and the appearance of the tiers are separate issues, and there is no reason squad can't implement a 4th tier right now without the barn.

  5. 10 minutes ago, Pi_ said:

     

     

     

    I know it's just a technicality, I know Squad still exists as a company, I know it doesn't matter either way.  The users above are just cited as examples, no malice intended.

    Are the devs in fact still employed by Squad?  I'm just curious if most of us don't even associate TT with KSP.

    While TT now owns kerbal (allowing them to make franchises and stuff) Squad is still independent.

  6. 15 hours ago, qzgy said:

    I hate most of the decouplers, with the exceptions being the 0.625m and 3.75m ones, which, while ok, are a bit on the thick side.

    The making history 5m decoupler actually got praise from me it shows the sort of love and attention to detail that I wanted from this DLC all along now if only we could get some verification that this love is being extended to the fuel tanks as well. Hopefully they can keep pace with the texture work in @Nertea's recent creations

  7. 6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

    People complain if they don't show work in progress.

    I haven't. I've complained about the lack of a preview early on because I was worried squad would adopt yet another unique and fractured art style instead of finally conforming to standards, but I've never complained about the lack of an early fugly work in progress shot. Those are worthless.

    6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

    People complain about the work in progress that if they do show it.

    Well of course when they say "we finished up work on this!" and it looks half baked because it's actually only a WIP there will be feedback. This is natural and expected, and they only really have themselves to blame for the misunderstanding. Hopefully this is avoided in the future.

    6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

    People complain that it wasn't strenuously enough emphasized to be work in progress.

    I don't see why you're complaining about people complaining about this. It would have saved a lot of the drama you are complaining about if this had been clear from the start.

    6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

    And now you don't want to see work in progress if it's too preliminary?

    Why yes. They say that parts get taken in to be given the crisp high fidelity details I often ask for AFTER they have been previewed. I'd much rather see this phase as my purchasing decision hinges on if the parts are good enough that I don't need to crack open blender and krita too feel satisfied with how my game looks.

    6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

    This has gotten ridiculous.

    *sigh* Another week of this... You seem to be confused at no point did I ever ask for early WIP shots, and so its not hypocritical of me to ask now that they keep thier art to themselves until its in a state that they can be proud of much like the previews we received under [CENSORED].
     

    2 hours ago, John FX said:

    If I could make a suggestion?

    Obviously by posting you were wanting a critique of your post and feedback on it.

    If you could refrain from looking at, and by implication commenting on, works in progress, specifically regarding textures, then the people making it would be able to get on with their job. We also get to see WIP parts which the rest of us are quite interested in seeing.

    People who care too much about textures should only look at finished textures or be involved with making them, it seems there is no sensible middle ground possible IMHO

    Thank you for responding to this universal and unwritten request for feedback I've taken your suggestion underconsideration.

    Unfortunately we have received very few textures that have been considered finished or near finished (though the appropriate amount of praise for such events has been given), and since there has been no follow up or commentary on the artistic state of a WIP picture we have had to make do highlighting the common omissions to try to insure they are not overlooked. If we could receive confirmation that these common omissions are indeed not being overlooked then there would be no need to comment further on these omissions when observed in future pieces.

    If one feels that my regular commentary on this is indeed repetitive, trivial, or some how distracting to the artist the forum has a block function they can utilize to filter me out.

    2 hours ago, John FX said:

    Historically too much complaining has lead to a game less good than it otherwise would have been and so is counterproductive. As someone who cares about Squads game, which I play, I want it to be as good as possible and so, whilst a certain level of feedback is good, too much complaining leads to a degradation of game quality.

    Citation needed. In fact I'd counter and say "complaining" has saved us on occasion. "Complaining" stopped the barn for example.

    2 hours ago, John FX said:

    One example of when complaining becomes too much is when the complaining is at the level of subtle effects on rivets on a texture for a WIP part.

    Kerbal's aesthetic as established by the quality work of B9, and [CENSORED] is a culmination of subtle effects, but this falls apart if one of those effects overpowers the others through high contrast or overly repetitive symmetry such as the shirt button rows of rivets you bring up. Though at the time the WIP state of the part was not clear making this a prime example of avoidable drama had the WIP state been clear from the beginning.

    2 hours ago, John FX said:

    One way to recognise you may be complaining too much is if you ask to not be shown WIP parts because you know you would complain a lot if you were shown them.

    The WIP revaluation changes very little ultimately.I will still speak my mind and highlight what I see, in the possibly futile hope that improvements will be made. Feedback and critique will continue until I am either confident that it is unnecessary, or until it's explicitly outlawed, and no amount of rebranding this all as complaints and whining is going to change this.
     

  8. 5 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    So far we’ve shown you the ongoing designs of some of these, which for clarity, are still being worked on to make them extra crisp.

    If I may make a suggestion unless you are actively soliciting critique and feedback(i.e. the highlighting of flaws and other "negative" things that one would wish to see improved) perhaps you should hold off on the art previews until the artists have had enough time to show these parts the extra crispy love they deserve. As a user who cares about how thier game looks I'd rather see something closer to the final product and make my purchasing decision based on that.

    Also to clarify when I say closer to the finished product I mean like difference we saw between the mk3 spaceplane parts previews and mk3 spaceplane parts release.

    For people who don't care about how the game looks all they really need to be kept happy in the meantime is some written specs about size, niche, and historical equivalent

  9. 9 hours ago, RoverDude said:

    All parts shown are WIP (work in progress).  That is all.

    This has never been said by anyone official ever and really it would have prevented a lot of drama over the previous weeks if it was. Please make sure the PR team are more clear about this in the future since this is the case

    EDIT: Also when do we get to see the final version of previously shown parts since we were being shown WIP's the whole time?

  10. Just now, TheKosmonaut said:

    I have been there, too. These days, I rarely play the game anyway. I work about 50-60hrs/wk so getting time for anything other than my own family and getting a shower and ~6 hours of sleep in. That said, I tend to have a pretty specific set of mods to go through (RO/RSS) so it's a long process but it's one I have almost completely memorized so setting up a fresh install takes <40 minutes usually. 

    That may be true but you're not trying to find quality replacements for the majority of assets and then arrange them into an intuitive and balanced progression.

  11. 7 hours ago, TheKosmonaut said:

    Besides the fact that I think you linked to the same comment twice, I don't know why you're so affixed on textures, which are entirely replaceable. I, myself, hardly ever use stock parts anymore and I doubt you're a "purist" for stock parts, either.

    I've been over this before if the texture is bad chances are the rest is bad making it more trouble to bother fixing vs. outright replacement mesh and all. This piece in particular has grevious variances in texel density, and UV mirroring where there should have been space allotted for ambient occlusion. Couple that with RD-signature irritatingly high saturation colors, and low fidelity everything else, and It frankly becomes the fugliest official thing I've seen since the NASA update.

    7 hours ago, TheKosmonaut said:

    I've said it before, the parts are, IMHO, not the crux of this update. Rather, the whole mission planning mechanic seems to be the meat of it.

    Look this is simple for me if the parts are krap then I don't have time to learn and use the mission builder because I'll be to busy customizing mods and making my own mods to compensate for squads failings. If they had made these parts to meet or exceed the standards set by thier previous lead artist then I could relax a bit and use those new parts instead of haveing to install or make my own, but instead they insist on regressing in quality, and charging extra for it. I will not support this my money would be better spent donating to mod authors that care about the quality of thier work.

  12. 17 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Not to mention wrapping up one of our Russian-inspired engines. For this model, we will be adding in stock mesh switching support (including appropriate things like drag cubes, mass, and colliders specific to the swapped mesh)

    Good to hear this is the sort of development I like to see I might be buying this dlc after a-

    17 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Here’s a pic of the ‘naked’ and 1.25m mesh options for this engine

    -#$@&%!... never mind...

    Anyway rather than rant I'll just signal boost Nertea's and Beale's reactions from reddit...

    EDIT: more complaints coming from reddit, and qualified mod devs [1(yes pretty much the whole thread)][2][3][4][5] 

  13. 4 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    finalizing work around the way expansions are built and loaded. This uses the AssetBundle feature of Unity to package up the content we set as Expansion only.

    Ok big question here is what is being packaged in the asset bundles. These can't be unpacked and repacked willy nilly thats kinda the point but if stuff like the art and config files are packaged inside then that basically means no modding those assets. No rebalancing, no alternate textures, no meshes mapped to those texture sheets for ram free parts, and worst of all no cracking things open to see how they work to help teach yourself.

  14. 8 hours ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

    KSP PR has confirmed several times that the game will stay open for modding. Speculations like this do nothing but create neadless fear.

    Even if ksp escapes uncathed this sets a bad president for the "franchise" TT wants to establish. This behavior should be nipped in the bud now and a loud irrational negative stink is how krud gets done in the wider gaming world.

    Nows the time to panic everyone make noise its a two way street either squads with modding in this and will publicly state to that effect against TT or they are against it and will sell us out at the next opportunity.

  15. 5 minutes ago, Sirad said:

    I just didnt realized that i had to describe the complete remodeling process to get the 'passed qc' stamp from you on my short words of 'replacing textures' Sorry. For the future i'll change that.

     

    No need to get defensive just making sure the potential ramifications of what you were asking were understood. To keep the exact same old models but replace textures would basically get you something on par with the kerbal renaissance pack extra ram requirements and all.

  16. 3 minutes ago, Sirad said:

    Ah. this is cool. we dont need to replace the Model at all, we can replace the placeholder textures with a proper and good looking one.

    As long as the common user can do that, its fine!

    Sadly 3d art doesn't work like this if a texture is "don't-call-them-placeholders" quality then the model and most importantly the UV map(the bit that says which swath of texture goes on which facet of polygon in a model) will be about the same meaning flaws like inconsistent texel densities and inefficient layouts will still exist not to mention some parts are missing vital normal and specular maps which necessitate re-exporting the models through unity to enable the needed shaders. Basically with all the effort it would take to shoe horn a better quality texture into a "don't-call-them-placeholders" quality part in a way that is consistent with the peak quality parts in stock you'd be better off just modeling from scratch (to fit the existing collider so that there are no vessel loading issues of course).

  17. 8 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    unreasonable negativity I see in the replies to the dev notes

    Untrue just because you don't care about art doesn't mean people who do are "unreasonable"

    8 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    Which yes, does seem to come up every week, and is indeed getting old.

    Hey three weeks without an art complaint is a new record (thought to be fair one of those weeks had no art)

    8 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    And if you wish to assert your right to be critical, then you must support the right of others to disagree with your own disagreement with Squad.

    And you can voice your disagreement by stating your opinion not by attacking others. Attacks like this coming from a moderator reflect poorly on the rest of the mod team. Not in my eyes of course cause I've been around long enough to only see you as the problem, but in the eyes of a newer users that are unfamiliar with the who's who on the forums your approach can leave the impression that mods abuse thier power here.

  18. 12 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

    Forum: Why don't you make new parts? 

    Squad: We're making new parts. 

    Forum: Why don't you show us the new parts? 

    Squad: Here are the new parts. 

    Forum: Those suck. Make them better, make different ones and make more of them. 

    Squad: Sigh. 

    Forum: Why are you so secretive and don't tell us what you're working on? 

    We've had better regression is bad m'kay?

  19. 6 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    and, of course, new parts. Here’s our new 1.875 monopropellant tank.

    The wear on the edge ring is nice as always, and the AO is appreciably strong enough too which goes to show that it doesn't matter if you bake or brush as long as you give the same attention to detail.

    But don't you think you guys are over using the normal mapped corrugation layered over a plain flat diffuse trick? This can get a pass on thin lengths like decouplers but it becomes less appealing as you scale up the surface unless you paint some detailing on the diffuse layer underneath (see previous complaints about the saturn V and 1,875m tank's plainness).

    Also shouldn't the spheres be connected to something?

    Finally what historical rocket or vehicle would use this? Soyuz?
     

    6 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Two textures will be included - one with the traditional yellow markings used for other stack RCS tanks, and a plain white one that should blend better with historic rocket builds. So yes, we can confirm that stock texture switching will be a thing.

    So how does this texture switching work? Is it ye ole swapping whole texture files?(which can be ram inefficient without dynamic asset loading) or is it hip new switching between mesh objects that are UV mapped to different spots on the same sheet? (to save ram in the long run) or is it powerful enough to do either as the modder wishes? :)

    6 hours ago, SQUAD said:

    Also, we will be using the introduction of a new monoprop tank as an opportunity to perform a long overdue balance pass on our existing monoprop tanks.

    This is greatly appreciated balance can be just as important and intensive as art so thank you for the polish.

  20. On 6/6/2017 at 11:22 AM, razark said:

    Good point.

    So the devs work on the expansion, and the PR guys announce v1.4.  The next week, the devs work on the expansion, and since the PR guys have nothing to say about v1.4, announce v1.5.  After that, they can't say anything about 1.4 or 1.5, so they just go ahead and announce v1.6.  And so on.

     

    Or maybe the devs are neck deep in making the expansion, so they have nothing on the board for v1.4 that's worth the PR guys announcing it right now?  Or maybe no one knows what the future holds right now? 

    But yeah.  That's no reason not to announce v1.4... :rolleyes:

    You mean keep going until we have an open roadmap? Why what a brilliant idea!

×
×
  • Create New...