Devnote Tuesday: Going through Max-Bug

[JedTech]

14 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I personally think there is a way to keep the "Lego" building feel while also allowing for proceduralness. How hard would it REALLY be to drag a tank end up and down, perhaps snapping to different sizes even?

I agree. If there were a Lego game where you built things with Lego's, I would expect that you would have procedural Lego pieces to help you build with the size, shape, and color that you desire.

[monstah]

5 hours ago, marce said:

For me there are two aspects to procedural parts (which I love and use wherever possible):

1. Ability to make a vessel look "right" (e.g. streamlined). This is somewhat possible with stock only parts, but if you consider FAR voxels you want to be as close as possible. Pretty sure we won't get that.
2. Reducing the number of parts. Even with U5 we need this imho. Either by adding real procedural parts or providing a stock welding option. There is no reason for having to calculate 25 parts if they are meant to act as a single piece anyway. Maybe something the devs can look into for 1.3 or beyond.

Agreed. I'd love so much to have at the very least procedural fuel tanks.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I am still looking for a program to be able to graphically move parts in the Science Tree to one's own specifications; like the old v.23 treeloader program; this is the one thing that is basically preventing me from playing as I wish the game to be more realistic in it's progression.

I was also looking for an extra building stage; didnt see that...I havnt looked at any mods yet and my progress is at a snail's pace due to issues at home...just wanted to chime in ...

Cmdr Zeta

[monstah]

10 minutes ago, Cdr_Zeta said:

I am still looking for a program to be able to graphically move parts in the Science Tree to one's own specifications; like the old v.23 treeloader program;

You know, that's the sort of thing I expected to have been released some versions ago. There was a devnot that even implied that, or at least seemed to do so to me.

[DrMarlboro]

1 hour ago, Cdr_Zeta said:

Hello,

I am still looking for a program to be able to graphically move parts in the Science Tree to one's own specifications; like the old v.23 treeloader program; this is the one thing that is basically preventing me from playing as I wish the game to be more realistic in it's progression.

I was also looking for an extra building stage; didnt see that...I havnt looked at any mods yet and my progress is at a snail's pace due to issues at home...just wanted to chime in ...

Cmdr Zeta

I too share your interest in realism, and This mod does a really nice realism tech tree. However, I also share your frustration with not being able to modify the tech tree without the use of a mod or config editing. You would really think this would be included in the game by now. 

[zolotiyeruki]

I *love* the idea of the engines fitting with their tanks, and with the fairings going with them.  And I agree with the sentiments about the procedural tanks.  In terms of gameplay, the different sizes of tanks (within a given diameter) only seem to serve to restrict the size of your craft (via part limit count) until you upgrade the VAB and/or unlock bigger parts.  This could in part be preserved by placing a limit on the length of the tank, depending on your progression through the tech tree. I.e. if you're only at tech level 2, your 1.25m fuel tanks can't be bigger than 1 ton, if you get to level 3, you can do 2 tons, etc.  And being able to replace oxidizer with liquid fuel in some of my space plane (or regular plane) tanks would be quite helpful. I'm totally ok with having it snap to various sizes--I'm not *that* particular about having extra fuel on board.

[mattinoz]

35 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

I *love* the idea of the engines fitting with their tanks, and with the fairings going with them.  And I agree with the sentiments about the procedural tanks.  In terms of gameplay, the different sizes of tanks (within a given diameter) only seem to serve to restrict the size of your craft (via part limit count) until you upgrade the VAB and/or unlock bigger parts.  This could in part be preserved by placing a limit on the length of the tank, depending on your progression through the tech tree. I.e. if you're only at tech level 2, your 1.25m fuel tanks can't be bigger than 1 ton, if you get to level 3, you can do 2 tons, etc.  And being able to replace oxidizer with liquid fuel in some of my space plane (or regular plane) tanks would be quite helpful. I'm totally ok with having it snap to various sizes--I'm not *that* particular about having extra fuel on board.

To me it would be better to limit the VAB craft to dry mass of the craft. That would then be useful for rule of thumb dV calc's and just make a lot more sense in terms of a limiting factor.

[softweir]

5 hours ago, JedTech said:

I agree. If there were a Lego game where you built things with Lego's, I would expect that you would have procedural Lego pieces to help you build with the size, shape, and color that you desire.

There are several LEGO games, and they all stick rigidly to allowing stock-only bricks - though I think they allow a little flexibility with colour.

[r_rolo1]

2 minutes ago, softweir said:

There are several LEGO games, and they all stick rigidly to allowing stock-only bricks - though I think they allow a little flexibility with colour.

Well, TBH, most LEGO games don't have to deal with the various filings of the parts ( because LEGO parts have no filing, duh ), so that might not be the best example of them all, even if it comes out of the devs mouths ...

[KerbMav]

Seeing how many specialized parts LEGO is producing nowadays I have to charge them with lack of and undermining imagination and creativity!

[landeTLS]

I say ney to stock procedural tankbutts. For me think it would ruin the estethics and feel of the game as well as balance almost as much as part clipping and floating landing gear does. Building contraptions in ksp is lots of fun because there are some limits and conciderations as to what you can and cannot build. As opposed to minecraft/space engineers.

Atleast visually constraining 2.5m engines to 2.5m parts helps. But if you would allow mixing and matching all those parts you are basically rendering part tiers moot. Going down (ex: 1.25m engine on 2.5m tank)is fine. But i think that is better handled via the current solution (part adapters). They could go for a good middle ground. Replace the current adapters with a procedural part adapter that you can put fuel into.

Perhaps on a few parts(like the vector engine.which is the only shuttle specialized part in the game atm.Tho i would still perhaps prefer different sized vectors) it may be a good idea. But certainly not on every tiered engine.

I for one hope they come to their senses and do not impliment this in the game.

Id much rather they go the other way by limiting part offsetting and rotating to the surface of the attached part (no clipping or floating). that would make me a very happy guy

Edited January 7, 2016 by landeTLS

[StrandedonEarth]

On 1/5/2016 at 3:45 PM, SQUAD said:

One feature we’re looking into with special interest is giving some engines the ability to switch their attachment between multiple sizes automatically

Don't panic about getting too ridiculous with mixing engines and tanks, they said "some." Finally there won't be that ugly wobbly gap when you stick a smaller motor in a bigger stack. I doubt they'll let us neatly shoehorn a Mainsail onto a 1.5m stack, although the small bell of the Poodle would probably look okay.

[landeTLS]

19 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Don't panic about getting too ridiculous with mixing engines and tanks, they said "some." Finally there won't be that ugly wobbly gap when you stick a smaller motor in a bigger stack. I doubt they'll let us neatly shoehorn a Mainsail onto a 1.5m stack, although the small bell of the Poodle would probably look okay.

I trust squad to some extent. They have made an excellent game after all. But never say never. They have made some strange immersion breaking decisions in the past that are still in the game. For example like the said unconstrained rotation and offset tools, plus ofcourse science from ksc biomes and eva science using biomes etc.(the lack of an indicator of which biome you are above further compunding the issue)With both the last ones requiring/rewarding the breaking of immersion by grinding.

Edited January 7, 2016 by landeTLS

[Superfluous J]

13 minutes ago, landeTLS said:

I trust squad to some extent. They have made an excellent game after all. But never say never. They have made some strange immersion breaking decisions in the past that are still in the game. For example like the said unconstrained rotation and offset tools

Weird. I find unconstrained clipping and rotating to ADD immersion, not remove it. Nothing breaks immersion for me like landing gear floating in the air a half a foot from what it's supposedly connected to. Allowing me to "clip" it back into place is a much welcome change.

If you just don't clip your own stuff past what you personally find acceptable, then immersion remains.

Edited January 7, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[landeTLS]

33 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Weird. I find unconstrained clipping and rotating to ADD immersion, not remove it. Nothing breaks immersion for me like landing gear floating in the air a half a foot from what it's supposedly connected to. Allowing me to "clip" it back into place is a much welcome change.

If you just don't clip your own stuff past what you personally find acceptable, then immersion remains.

As i said before floating parts are the worst. But what you are talking about here is the fixing of a problem with an asset ( too simple collider ). With an in game tool rather than just fixing the problem with the asset itself.

Which is not good game design practice. But i think they will get to properly fixing it eventually.

And by clipping i mean pushing/rotating one part into another part intersecting their meshes. It is also not good practice requiring the user to maintain immersion by limiting their own actions ingame.

While some people hate the offset / rotate tools to the core i say they are a good idea, that is just not properly implimented. If squad would impliment some "simple" directional raycasting checks to constrain which axis and amount of rotation or what direction/amount of offset you can apply based on the parent/surrounding parts colliders. Then it would be a nice tool for changing around small things.

Edited January 7, 2016 by landeTLS

[Superfluous J]

49 minutes ago, landeTLS said:

While some people hate the offset / rotate tools to the core i say they are a good idea, that is just not properly implimented. If squad would impliment some "simple" directional raycasting checks to constrain which axis and amount of rotation or what direction/amount of offset you can apply based on the parent/surrounding parts colliders. Then it would be a nice tool for changing around small things.

Just so long as I can turn on (or you have to turn off) "Actually useful rotation and translation" mode

Clipping checks in previous versions were way too restrictive. I'd rather have the freedom we have now (and I actually use the mod that removes the few restrictions that are in the game now) and enforce my own rules, than the inanity we had before.

[adjudantloic]

Thank you for this wonderful games that I hope will continue to evolved!

[FleshJeb]

@curtquarquesso I think a partnership with SpaceX would result in the game crashing more frequently...

[Sanic]

MOAR parts and multithreaded physics = win

[landeTLS]

SpaceX partnership... tho unconfirmed perhaps it would result in a few extra parts but more importantly maybe we would finally get some added gameplay around recovering stages.

Seeing as any stage recovery is basically unfeasable in the current game. I am not sure how such a feature could be implimented in a good and fun way tho. There are mods that accomplish this in various ways but none seem completly at home in stock.

But if anyone can do it its squad.

Edited January 8, 2016 by landeTLS

[DuoDex]

Tankbutts are going? Oh, my.  

[Just Jim]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 7:16 PM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

See this:

And this:

That way, you can use one engine for 1.25m and 2.5m rockets.

OMG!!!!    

[John FX]

15 hours ago, DuoDex said:

Tankbutts are going? Oh, my.  

 

Indeed.The possibilities of ends.

[SessoSaidSo]

So 1.1 this side of 2016?

[NoMrBond]

3 hours ago, SessoSaidSo said:

So 1.1 this side of 2016?

It's already in QA, so something would have to go remarkably, if not spectacularly wrong for 1.1 to not go through QA->Experimentals->Release within a couple of months

Sure it's big and everything will be getting checked this time through, so probably sometime in February?