What makes a mod become stock?

[AlamoVampire]

Ok, first, let me say, I have 0 clue if this has even been brought up, so, if it HAS, any wandering moderator who spots this, feel free to merge this.

 

With that said, I have been wondering, and finally decided to ask.  Why does one mod become stock and another not? Take for example, the work of Porkjet. Some of his stuff is now stock, which is nice, fewer mods for me to worry about, but some other mods, say, Procedural Fairings by edog <or so it says on kerbalstuff.com> is not, and we have a "procedural fairing" that, lets be fair here, isnt all that intuitive and creates some nasty confetti when used. Now, this is just my 2 cents here, I think Proc Fairings by edog should have been made stock instead of what happened, but, again, thats me. But, still, it begs the asking, why are some mods being made stock, yet others seem to get ignored? I know, it is what it is, but, its still a valid question I think. Just my random wonderings at nearly 1am lol.

[swjr-swis]

There is a secret and very convoluted Illuminati ritual involved that no one outside the Inner Circle can know about. All we have been able to gather from clues in ancient texts found scattered across the system is that it can only be performed at the equinox of a not very well understood alignment of KSC2, the Magic Boulder, and what we suspect must be a rogue brown dwarf orbiting Kerbol well past Eloo's orbit that is yet to be unequivocally caught on any instrument.

That is to say: we really have no clue. But we like to speculate.

[Superfluous J]

There are a lot of factors, but in the end it all comes down to if Squad decides so. Sometimes they want to not incorporate it into stock. Sometimes they can't get an agreement from the modder (or such an agreement cannot be gotten in the case of community mods). I'm sure in some cases a modder has either refused or put demands that Squad did not want to agree with, or possibly even just simply Squad didn't want to deal with the modder for whatever reason.

I would guess though in 99% of the cases, a mod does something that Squad either doesn't want in stock at all, or they have some plan to implement it in their own way.

[AlamoVampire]

@5thHorseman the worst implementation of a squad version of a wonderful mod has got to be the fairings. the mod is beautiful, works well, is very intuitive, yet, what was made by squad isnt. but, thats my 2cents

[Superfluous J]

10 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@5thHorseman the worst implementation of a squad version of a wonderful mod has got to be the fairings. the mod is beautiful, works well, is very intuitive, yet, what was made by squad isnt. but, thats my 2cents

That's fair, though I actually like having direct control over the fairings. Are they perfect? No. Are they enough that I don't feel any need at all to install ProceduralFairings? You bet. More than, even.

Tomato, tomato* though. Everybody likes different things. I still have Enhanced Navball and SelectRoot installed.

*That works better out loud than written.

[stibbons]

Nothing does. Mods don't become stock. Squad has a roadmap, sometimes that map coincides with modded features. Sometimes Squad sees enough talent in mods that they bring in the mod authors and get them to work on stock features. That's how Porkjet ended up bringing a lot to the stock aeroplane parts. It's also how Roverdude ended up working on the stock resource and radio transmission systems.

[AlamoVampire]

@5thHorseman ya, hard to hear the words being spoken when they are text lol. but, i know what you mean. i hate the "stock" fairings as to me, they are clunky.

@stibbons that is mods becoming stock. the stuff made by porkjet that are now stock, were once mods. im sure the same with roverdude. 

[stibbons]

No they're not. You're talking about modders being hired to create stock systems.

[nikokespprfan]

@stibbons wasn't spaceplane plus a mod that ended up becoming stock? It might technically (a.k.a. in the definition you are giving) not have been the case (I dont know, it might), but sure everyone said it was.

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by nikokespprfan

[stibbons]

10 minutes ago, nikokespprfan said:

It might technically not have been the case (I dont know, it might)

Sooo... you're arguing a point that you don't actually know about. OK.

[klgraham1013]

6 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@5thHorseman the worst implementation of a squad version of a wonderful mod has got to be the fairings. the mod is beautiful, works well, is very intuitive, yet, what was made by squad isnt. but, thats my 2cents

I hate confetti.

Edited December 20, 2015 by klgraham1013

[cantab]

It's a business decision by Squad that we aren't going to be privy to. That said it's just two considerations really.

Do Squad want that mod in stock? Sometimes they don't. For example ferram denied ever being approached, which means that Squad for whatever reason didn't want FAR in stock and wanted instead to pursue their own ideas of aerodynamics.

Does the modder want it in stock, and are they able to do so? If a mod has multiple copyright holders then typically the agreement of every single one needs to be secured to allow their work to be distributed as part of KSP under KSP's license terms; one refusenik or even one uncontactable person can stop the whole thing.

And although a stockified mod will usually have some adjustments, I think the difference between "mod becomes stock", "modder works on stock features for Squad", and "Squad copy mod" is usually pretty clear. Examples:

Spaceplane Plus is a mod that became stock, recognisably as such even considering there were tweaks.

Karbonite did not become stock, Roverdude instead made a new ISRU system. (Though I believe the underlying Regolith framework was incorporated into the stock code).

Porkjet and Roverdude are both continuing to work on new stock features for Squad.

Squad are copying AntennaRange and RemoteTech for KSP 1.1, but neither developer of those mods is involved.

[Pthigrivi]

I mean really what is at issue here is that some folks prefer proc fairings to stock fairings, right? 

I too happen to really like being able to define the shape. I would however love them to clamshell but this is a pretty minor aesthetic issue. 

Edited December 20, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[AlamoVampire]

@Pthigrivi it may not just be an aesthetic issue. im not a programmer but, i have this sneaking suspicion that each individual bit that will eventually come off when staged may count as a part. beyond that, the squad version of procedural fairings is:

1. not intuitive

2. not reproducible each and every time you need to remove the fairing to adjust payload

3. ugly as sin.

4. not remotely realistic.

4a. yes, i know this is a game about shooting little green dudes and green dudets into space, but, given the fact we have parts based on real current tech, or up coming tech, there is something to be said for real looking fairings.

4b. i know, its my own opinion on 4, 4a and 4b, so theres that. but, why the need to turn to confetti?

[r4pt0r]

On 12/20/2015 at 1:32 AM, stibbons said:

Squad has a roadmap

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[klgraham1013]

18 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean really what is at issue here is that some folks prefer proc fairings to stock fairings, right? 

I too happen to really like being able to define the shape. I would however love them to clamshell but this is a pretty minor aesthetic issue. 

I don't know.  Any space nut knows what a fairing sep looks like.  To then buy a game that is hailed as one of the most realistic space flight sims, and then have fairings explode into potato chips... It might seem small, but could leave a big impression.

When you heard fairings were coming to stock, did you ever imagine they would separate like that?  Did anyone ever imagine they would separate like that?  No.  It was a shock.  Some people accepted it, some people didn't.  That it was a surprise says all there is to say.

[adsii1970]

5 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I don't know.  Any space nut knows what a fairing sep looks like.  To then buy a game that is hailed as one of the most realistic space flight sims, and then have fairings explode into potato chips... It might seem small, but could leave a big impression.

Not meaning to rain on anyone's parade, but just because it is "hailed as one of he most realistic spaceflight sims" does not mean that Squad nor any modder has to make it 100% realistic. I've come to accept the fact it is a cartoonish game with cartoonish characters. It is meant to be played for enjoyment, which it definitely provides. It is not meant to be a realistic simulator which could be ridiculously hard and boring...

[klgraham1013]

4 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Not meaning to rain on anyone's parade, but just because it is "hailed as one of he most realistic spaceflight sims" does not mean that Squad nor any modder has to make it 100% realistic. I've come to accept the fact it is a cartoonish game with cartoonish characters. It is meant to be played for enjoyment, which it definitely provides. It is not meant to be a realistic simulator which could be ridiculously hard and boring...

Perception is reality, my friend.  Anyone I've talked to who only has a vague knowledge of KSP knows it as "the game where you try to get a rocket to the moon, but it's really, really hard."

As far as the cartoonish nature.  Kerbals are the only thing consistently cartoonish in KSP.  The art style is all over the place, from batman batteries and oil drums, to SR-71-inspired plane parts, and sleek modern rockets tanks.

[Pthigrivi]

No Klgraham 'm not crazy about it either, and do hope they change it. I actually also agree it be nice if they were easier to replicate. I kind of wish the splines were a bit smoother as well. Still, the ability to define their shape tightly is enough for me not to want to switch to mod fairings. Just a preference and I don't begrudge anyone else theirs. 

Edited December 21, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Perception is reality, my friend.  Anyone I've talked to who only has a vague knowledge of KSP knows it as "the game where you try to get a rocket to the moon, but it's really, really hard."

As far as the cartoonish nature.  Kerbals are the only thing consistently cartoonish in KSP.  The art style is all over the place, from batman batteries and oil drums, to SR-71-inspired plane parts, and sleek modern rockets tanks.

And I've seen cardboard box spaceship parts, rocket parts that create a hamburger, and the like... Then there are the stock cartoonish parts, such as the batteries - I love having what looks like a set of AAs or even a 9v strapped to the side of a rover (in fact, I wish there were more parts such as these)! There are always those who will claim that a game is "really, really hard" no matter what kind of game it is but just because a game is hard does not mean it's realistic. Every player has a different learning curve to the extent using "really, really hard" becomes more subjective than absolute. None of us would remotely say that Space Invaders was realistic but we all know people who say the game is "really, really hard..."

Let's face it... if KSP was 100% realistic with real world physics and equipment, there'd be a few less players. There are games I enjoy dearly, but because the gaming studio tried to create a realistic and accurate simulator, they never developed a large enough following to truly take root in the gaming community. Silent Hunter III, Microsoft Space Simulator, and Microsoft Train Simulator are just a few that really attempted to stay true to the original concept but never really made it. There has to be a balance within the game - something that appeals to a broad base of gamers, as KSP does now.

[Whirligig Girl]

On 12/20/2015 at 2:28 AM, 5thHorseman said:

Tomayto, tomahto* though.

ftfy

[Randazzo]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 2:28 AM, stibbons said:

No they're not. You're talking about modders being hired to create stock systems.

In the cases of RoverDude, Porkjet, NathanKell, Arsonide, and possibly others I'm leaving out, this is the case. Whatever may have happened with the Mk2 parts was long ago, and there was probably a high demand for them. What it comes down to is Squad retains creative direction for KSP, and they decide what to put in the stock game.

Regardless of the situation, I think it's pretty cool that Squad recruits consultants from the modding community to do this sort of work.

 

Edit: Did I get suckered into applying reason to a thread that mainly exists to complain about fairings?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Randazzo

[pandaman]

Well, as far as fairings go, I'm on the 'I'd prefer clamshell, but what we have works, so I'm not too bothered' side of the fence.  But it's a bit off the original topic.

[Pthigrivi]

59 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Did I get suckered into applying reason to a thread that mainly exists to complain about fairings?

It happens, bro. 

[Tourist]

1 hour ago, Randazzo said:

Edit: Did I get suckered into applying reason to a thread that mainly exists to complain about fairings?

I'm afraid so. Its a typical, I don't agree with Squad's decision post. Which has as long a history as the "I think (insert my favorite mod) should be stock", post.

And I guess there is nothing wrong with that, this is a forum where (cough) KAC and docking alignment indicator should be stock (cough) people get to say how they feel the game should develop. I don't like stealth complaints though. Asking, how does Squad decide what becomes stock, rather than what was really asked, which was, why did Squad not choose Procedural fairings.