Don't Fix Just Replace

[passinglurker]

So in the past couple weeks we've seen squad talk about fixing colliders to optimize the performance of old parts. This seems like a waste of time to me since they haven't told us what parts they are fixing but it's likely any part with a collider issue is an old placeholder from the alpha that wasn't made to modern part authoring standards for aesthetic and efficiency and the part as a whole should obviously just be replaced instead.

Anyone else agree with me? Would you rather the old parts be given a real facelift rather than have them duct tape patched to serve indefinitely?

It doesn't even need to be according to porkjets plans if they don't want to really almost anything would be an improvement if it brings the old parts in line with the work porkjet did and finally closes KSP's loop of layered graphical designers.

Also those old parts textures are MASSIVELY inefficient if they were redone rather than jerry rigged they could be remade with more efficient texture sheets freeing up memory for new parts and planets (remember despite KSP being 64bit they still have a limit of how much room they have to ship content due to the games low advertised system specs. Stock still needs to fit in less than 4 gigs of ram)

Edited November 14, 2016 by passinglurker

[paul23]

I "don't care" about the graphics. I'm often only flying very very very short periods in the non-map-view. (typically the last few meters when landing, or when I do an action not inside an actiongroup). So any "facelift" is something that is just resources wasted in my opinion.

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, paul23 said:

I "don't care" about the graphics. I'm often only flying very very very short periods in the non-map-view. (typically the last few meters when landing, or when I do an action not inside an actiongroup). So any "facelift" is something that is just resources wasted in my opinion.

So making new parts to replace old ones is a waste of resources but continuing to use ugly old ram heavy attests that get in the way of shipping new content due to the limited space they have on consoles and lowspec computers isn't?

[ZooNamedGames]

Squad did that with the old "crappy" wing parts before they replaced the old ones with PJ's new ones. It was cool at first, but they have enough part attachment issues. So no, fix, don't replace. Squad did replacing and not fixing. That only made the problem worse.

[pincushionman]

What makes you assume that "fix these colliders" doesn't include replacing them with one that works a lot better?

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, pincushionman said:

What makes you assume that "fix these colliders" doesn't include replacing them with one that works a lot better?

They are still trying to salvage the janky old visual mesh with its "kerbals fly dirty garbage" style and inefficient textures. If they aren't trying to keep the old visual meshes then they should actually communicate and say so they should talk like they are giving a face lift not just slapping on duct tape.

Either way visual meshes should be replaced as well during their collider fixes to bring more parts in line with porkjets work. A precious few things like landing legs and station parts they could probably get by with just re-unwraping to a more efficient pork-a-like texture sheet but stuff like command pods, rocket fuel tanks, and rocket engines need more extensive overhauls.

21 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Squad did that with the old "crappy" wing parts before they replaced the old ones with PJ's new ones. It was cool at first, but they have enough part attachment issues. So no, fix, don't replace. Squad did replacing and not fixing. That only made the problem worse.

this isn't valid they are messing with the collider meshes either way only one way will jank up your placement without improving the look of the part.

[ZooNamedGames]

16 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

They are still trying to salvage the janky old visual mesh with its "kerbals fly dirty garbage" style and inefficient textures. If they aren't trying to keep the old visual meshes then they should actually communicate and say so they should talk like they are giving a face lift not just slapping on duct tape.

Either way visual meshes should be replaced as well during their collider fixes to bring more parts in line with porkjets work. A precious few things like landing legs and station parts they could probably get by with just re-unwraping to a more efficient pork-a-like texture sheet but stuff like command pods, rocket fuel tanks, and rocket engines need more extensive overhauls.

this isn't valid they are messing with the collider meshes either way only one way will jank up your placement without improving the look of the part.

Well I don't need new parts again. Just fix the current ones.

[passinglurker]

6 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Well I don't need new parts again. Just fix the current ones.

so that we are on the same page could you tell me how do you define "fix" and what do you see as needing fixing? hopefully you find re-unwrapping to pork-alike textures and cleanly swapping out the visual meshes with something pork-alike that fits in the same collider mesh as an acceptable "fix"

Edited November 13, 2016 by passinglurker

[ZooNamedGames]

31 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

so that we are on the same page could you tell me how do you define "fix" and what do you see as needing fixing? hopefully you find re-unwrapping to pork-alike textures and cleanly swapping out the visual meshes with something pork-alike that fits in the same collider mesh as an acceptable "fix"

My issue is parts don't attach properly. Their natural placement has them clipping or 3 feet off to the side when using angle snap on swept wings.

[passinglurker]

10 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

My issue is parts don't attach properly. Their natural placement has them clipping or 3 feet off to the side when using angle snap on swept wings.

this issue seems separate from the topic of this thread it has nothing to do with how squad should be replacing its old assets with ones that unify the aesthetic instead of trying to fix them with barb and twine

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

this issue seems separate from the topic of this thread it has nothing to do with how squad should be replacing its old assets with ones that unify the aesthetic instead of trying to fix them with barb and twine

Doesn't mean it isn't an issue 

[passinglurker]

18 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Doesn't mean it isn't an issue 

then make your own thread for it

[ZooNamedGames]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

then make your own thread for it

I did. Then it died.

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I did. Then it died.

not my problem don't drag my thread down with yours

Edited November 13, 2016 by passinglurker

[ZooNamedGames]

12 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

not my problem don't drag my thread down with yours

Then don't demand I do something. 

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then don't demand I do something. 

then don't come into my thread and try to hijack it with your own issues to begin with.

[Red Iron Crown]

Quit sniping at each other, please.

[adsii1970]

Three cheers for what @Red Iron Crown said! Well put, your Majesty!

Seriously, both of you have valid points, but why not be creative and improve things rather than lighting fires...

There's a lot of small changes I'd love to see in KSP, but rather than complain, I'm learning how to mod! It's actually kind if cool... And even Squad pieces can be modified in purpose and texture...

Edited November 13, 2016 by adsii1970

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Three cheers for what @Red Iron Crown said! Well put, your Majesty!

Seriously, both of you have valid points, but why not be creative and improve things rather than lighting fires...

There's a lot of small changes I'd love to see in KSP, but rather than complain, I'm learning how to mod! It's actually kind if cool... And even Squad pieces can be modified in purpose and texture...

I do make mods but I'd rather expand on a solid game then have to compensate for squads neglect and laziness. modders shouldn't have to do squads job.

[pincushionman]

7 hours ago, passinglurker said:

…

I'm sorry, I misunderstood when I read the OP as "why are they ediding old crappy collider meshes when they could be making fresh ones that work instead", and was quite confused why anyone would assume that's what they're doing. But it's not what you're talking about. Now it makes sense.

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, pincushionman said:

I'm sorry, I misunderstood when I read the OP as "why are they ediding old crappy collider meshes when they could be making fresh ones that work instead", and was quite confused why anyone would assume that's what they're doing. But it's not what you're talking about. Now it makes sense.

noted I've edited the OP to hopefully be more clear