Bej Kerman

To put it nicely, because next to nobody on this forum is fit to be giving development-oriented suggestions, and in addition the team is not deleting the last five years of progress to work on KSP 1's dated codebase for some "power to the users" gorm.

KSP 2 was literally made to avoid all the crap KSP 1 is plagued with by virtue of running off a horrible amateur codebase from 2011.

As far as I remember, K2's experience allowed him to predict the release of science a month after the appearance of early access. May I ask what experience you have in the gaming industry (besides mistaking doors for rendering artefacts, of course)?

If listen to you, it turns out that making games is now almost impossible and difficult. And KSP2 was born by the collective efforts of great professional developers, like Saturn-5. On Unity, Chinese developers somehow created Genshin Impact; on UE, indie developers create incredibly cinematic scenes that are difficult to distinguish from reality. What is done well in KSP2, better than in other games? Tutorials? K2 has experience and has eloquently explained their reasons for what they said. This is incoherent and in addition you mistook a clear piece of geometry in the KSC for a rendering artefact while looking for more reasons to slam KSP 2, which to me demonstrates the lengths you are willing to go to in order to void saying anything nice about it. I know who I am listening to.

Tip for future shots, you copied the URL of the thumbnail, not the actual screenshot I'd say these parts do a fine job of what they were made to do! Here I used a Truss (pretty much the same thing) to make an XL encasing for an RTG so the cross section remains XL through the drive section. I'd wager these parts weren't really meant for when you need solid metal bits in your builds.

I get the impression you want procedural editions of these same things I'm asking for. That sounds very tantalizing to me. I was actually considering asking for something along those lines initially, but then I backed off from that. Mainly because I get the impression that procedural is hard. The procedural wings and toobs are both bugged. Especially the toobs. Yeah, that's basically it. I mean, I was really only asking to be able to toggle a skin on/off for all the outer sides all together. But if it wouldn't be to difficult, the individual sides would be even nicer. That's something I decided to hold off on because I think just being able to skin the whole part would be good enough most of the time. I just figured applying these ideas to tubes and fairings would be better because instead of applying a quick and cheap solution to what I'd guess is at least 100 parts just to achieve one goal, tubes and fairings would become much more powerful tools which can achieve the same thing and more. It'd be a challenge but a worthwhile one if done right. I just don't believe in temporary solutions

Then maybe we could have square tubes - even better, a proper advanced editor for fairings so we can customise the cross section and make advanced shapes. Other than that, I'm not seeing much reason to add a fuselage tweakable to all those structural parts instead of just a few tubes and fairings - I think it'd be more benefit to just do that and let you stick parts on procedural bits, like you can already do that with wings.

Would "ability to attach objects to fairings and tubes" be better?

Tubes and fairings can be linked, no? You can't attach stuff to fairings, but you can attach stuff to fairing roots then offset them onto the fairing itself.

Banned for discussing moderation on the forums!

Oh, now I get you. Don't tubes and fairings do basically that?

I don't have a clue what you're on about. Maybe doodle something? Because I really have no idea how structural frames would give you any more control than fairings or tubes would - I just have trouble parsing specifically what "having more control over the look and shape of the craft" is supposed to mean. Are you just wanting fairings? Fairings give you control over their cross section in a way the frames don't.

Like an interstage fairing?

I know That's what I'm saying And is that just how the idea plays in your head? I am just saying, instead of focusing on how special you think it's going to make those places feel, why not also play in your head the thought of forgetting a required space suit and not realising until you've already landed, and how devastating that'd be for such a tiny thing to ruin possibly hours or days of nannying a slow-to-turn mothership. How does that near-to-negligible benefit of certain places feeling more special justify another weak link in the chain of decisions you make when designing a mission? The only way I would (begrudgingly) accept this is if it's automatic like the Mission Control upgrades of KSP 1. The flavour you describe, that other people might not agree on, might not necessarily even outweigh the detriments in the first place. All I'm saying is that the cons ultimately decide if the pros are worth anything and that the usual pattern of suggestions I see for any game is that people will go on at length on the novelty or flavour of their suggestions instead of how it might be a detriment to the game, instead of doing a proper assessment of the impacts of certain features. I merely want to be a reminder of that fact, I'm not saying this suggestion has 0 merit, I'm saying there are cons being ignored because people think ideally that it'd just be a nice bit of flavour when there's a lot more going on with the consequences of seemingly minor suggestions. I only go on at length so my exact thoughts are being articulated and I hope I succeeded in that.

I agree with you 100%, K^2. These people legitimately see the developers as assets. They are literally upset about the idea of them taking breaks from development. This just brings me to a boil to see forum users supporting unhealthy workplace practices OVER A GAME. It was a laugh before debating with these people but now it's actually disturbing to see their colours shine here. It's a game. You all should stop putting your hurt feelings above the health of the developers. Strong wording is the only thing that gets my point across.

If you are talking about the right edge of the door, the real VAB door is made of segments which retract vertically. I see unhappy players have resorted to complaining about the topology of the KSC. Like, parts of the topology that are literally there because they imitate the IRL KSC. I am this far from Kraken

Are you sure it'd add flavour, or is that just how the idea plays out in your head? Not an accusation, I promise, I just want to remind everyone that there's such thing as people who suggest things for games, get what they wish (whether they were listened to or found a mod) and seeing the idea in action, realise it is not at all what they thought it'd feel like.

I was mainly on about the person you were replying to.

Like 99% of assertions on this forum, they do not. If anyone claims they know the developers did X or Y, just dismiss it. It's worthless blah blah unless it's backed up with evidence.

KSP1 has many disadvantages. How did you play with it until 2023? I didn't. I nearly starved to death from a lack of exposure to orbital mechanics.

And you're the boss of the gaming industry or something? The developers are humans, deal with it Play that then What to play? KSP 1, if the inability to warp properly during burns doesn't drive you mad

Not once has it been explained how this is satisfying gameplay wise or why just grinding for the tech to build a rocket isn't enough. I'm not putting suggestions down, I'm explaining that just saying "what if we had to grind for X to explore Y after already grinding for Z to make it possible to tediously develop rocket W to get there?" does not make for a very convincing suggestion. I'm sure thought is solely being put into the novelty than the inherent pointlessness of adding arbitrary brick walls to a game that already has you spending days or weeks building and flying missions in addition to the time you spent getting the parts to mount a mission, or even just how these things impact gameplay when the player isn't directly interacting with them. Maybe just leave suits out of progression completely or stick to bonus upgrades as opposed to progression barriers?

Those traitors! I want my game 100% bug-free, I want my 2023 Early Access release to run on my 2015 craptop! how dare the devs have such thing as basic needs‽ (This is a joke. Any similarities to users in this forum is purely coincidental.) Perhaps T2 monopoly on the franchise and the lack of similar alternatives, except for KSP1 Play that then Complete with people who think they should own the developers as slaves because they payed money for something they knew would be suboptimal - truly is an internet moment

Pareidolia. Any vague shape can be recognised as anything

As the great SPH ATC once said: