Can we talk about simplicity?

[FleshJeb]

11 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

If it's a habitation module, where are the bunks?

Where's the BATHROOM?

Personally, I just go in my suit.

[Wjolcz]

4 hours ago, monstah said:

Am I making @Veeltch's point here or am I arguing against it? I don't even know anymore  

Well, my point isn't really the "junkyard vs shiny looks" discussion. The message I tried to convey here is rather "keep things simple to save more dev time and work whenever there's a need for new parts, developers". A good example of simplicity and yet great artwork are the T3 buildings in KSP. @bac9 did an outstanding job making sure everything is simple and matches everything else (by keeping the looks more or less neutral). The stairs of tier 3 buildings are a great example of that. If anyone's wondering what I'm talking about he/she should take a closer look at tier 3 KSC and the tutorial thing he left (and which was never even looked at by the devs, it seems). It looks like @Porkjet tried to do just that too, but unfortunately didn't have enough time to finish the project. They both had clear visions of how this game should look like and I would really like to see it happen, but recalling the past I'm rather pessimistic. So yeah, just keep it as simple as possible, @SQUAD, to avoid the mistakes of the past (AKA "The Barn").

But it will all end up in a "junk vs shiny looks" discussion anyway.

On 28.12.2016 at 7:40 PM, tseitsei89 said:

Are you actually serious right now?

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/PPD-10_Hitchhiker_Storage_Container

1. It is missing a command module so actually HAVE TO have a seperate crew pod for launch. --> it is not designed to be used in launch --> it is a habitation module.

2.Part description says its purpose is to "store 4 kerbals in orbit" --> it is a habitation module

3. Wiki refers to it as habitation module. --> it probably is a habitation module

4. It is too draggy to be efficiently used in airplanes --> it was designed to be used in vacuum --> it is a habitation module.

5. As you yourseld said kerbals couldnt really sit there during launch without dying. --> They are not supposed to sit there during launch --> it is a habitation module.

For godness sake it is quite obvious ro see that it is a habitation module just by looking at it.

If you really think it was not meant to be a habitation module rather than launch pod, I'm done with this discussion.

P.S. It probably is a habitation module

So by that logic I guess the I-beams aren't meant to be used as landing gear at all? It doesn't say on the wiki they should be used that way. Oh, thank God there's someone who told me how to use all these parts properly! I'll PM you the next time I need a piece of advice when I'm confused about a particular part. Have some rep for being helpful. Man, I'll never use the HH for launching these poor kerbals again.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Veeltch

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

So by that logic I guess the I-beams aren't meant to be used as landing gear at all? It doesn't say on the wiki they should be used that way. Oh, thank God there's someone who told me how to use all these parts properly! I'll PM you the next time I need a piece of advice when I'm confused about a particular part. Have some rep for being helpful. Man, I'll never use the HH for launching these poor kerbals again.

I get the feeling you're missing the point here. The I-beam is literally an I-beam, not a landing gear. Sure, you can use it as a landing gear if you choose, but it isn't meant to be a landing gear. I mean, that's why we have actual landing gears. So, the HH isn't a vertical ascent pod, it's a habitation pod. Sure, you can use it as an ascent pod if you choose, but it isn't meant to be an ascent pod. That's why we have actual ascent pods.

But then complaining that the HH doesn't look or function like an ascent pod is basically like complaining that the I-beam doesn't stow or deploy. Of course it doesn't. That isn't what it is. If it did that it would be a different thing!

So, somewhere in here is an important point about form following function, not function following form. You can use the HH as a plane fuselage, a landing pylon, a submarine, or even a hotel suite on the Costa Del Kerbin if you want, but that won't mean it was ever intended to be used as such by anybody except you.

[GoSlash27]

I'm kind of fond of KSP having a "junkyard" aesthetic to it and I don't mind at all that Kerbals are presented as bumbling, hapless creatures who "accidentally" their way into space. That's a big part of the charm of KSP.

 But the junky look of the rockets simply doesn't work next to the professional futuristic look of the planes. These goofy bug-eyed beings simply should *not* be building both at the same time within a couple hundred meters of each other. They are either incompetent tinkerers *or* professional aerospace engineers. They don't get to be both.

 IMO it should be either one way or the other.

Just my $0.02
-Slashy

 

[KSK]

4 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I get the feeling you're missing the point here. The I-beam is literally an I-beam, not a landing gear. Sure, you can use it as a landing gear if you choose, but it isn't meant to be a landing gear. I mean, that's why we have actual landing gears. So, the HH isn't a vertical ascent pod, it's a habitation pod. Sure, you can use it as an ascent pod if you choose, but it isn't meant to be an ascent pod. That's why we have actual ascent pods.

And I do, thanks. Mainly because of the abysmal lack of choice in stock ascent pods. If I want to get more than three kerbals at a time into orbit, I'm forced to use spaceplanes, to hunt through mod packs or to get creative. The Hitchhiker fits neatly under a Mk1-2 pod. With a heatshield glued to the bottom it can survive reentry. With sufficient parachutes it can survive landing. I don't much care what it's meant to be used for - it lets me do a crew change on my space station in two flights rather than five. That's good enough for me.

[Magzimum]

11 hours ago, KSK said:

[...] I strongly dislike its 'kerbals are dumb - lol' popular connotations.

Well, then how do you explain that my first ever Duna lander got to Duna with all hatches accidentally blocked? Or that my first space station had its docking port put on backwards? Kerbals aren't really dumb. But I am. And that goes for a lot of newbies. The junkyard descriptions and the funny Kerbals give me a chance to roleplay my way out of my own mistakes while I learn.

The fans of changes in this thread appear to be players with a lot of experience. You don't need to roleplay any dumb mistakes, because you probably don't make any such mistakes anymore. But I only got on board about 6 months ago, and I remember quite well how my first contraptions wobbled themselves off the launchpad. 

KSP is doing an excellent job in making rocket science accessible for many people. Making the game all serious will not improve that. 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Magzimum
typo

[KSK]

46 minutes ago, Magzimum said:

Well, then how do you explain that my first ever Duna lander got to Duna with all hatches accidentally blocked? Or that my first space station had its docking port put on backwards? Kerbals aren't really dumb. But I am. And that goes for a lot of newbies. The junkyard descriptions and the funny Kerbals give me a chance to roleplay my way out of my own mistakes while I learn.

The fans of changes in this thread appear to be players with a lot of experience. You don't need to roleplay any dumb mistakes, because you probably don't make any such mistakes anymore. But I only got on board about 6 months ago, and I remember quite well how my first contraptions wobbled themselves off the launchpad. 

KSP is doing an excellent job in making rocket science accessible for many people. Making the game all serious will not improve that. 

I'd explain that in the same way that I'd explain real life Mars landers crashing because of confusions over units, real life rockets failing to work because of components installed upside down, real life interplanetary probes with stuck lens caps and deeply regrettable real life accidents occuring because the consequences of pure oxygen atmospheres weren't properly appreciated ahead of time.

You can be as serious as you like and still make mistakes. And I'm willing to bet that many if not most of the experienced players on this forum still make 'unusual' design choices or forget their parachutes on occasion.

Besides, this isn't a binary choice between 'dumb' and 'serious'. It's perfectly possible to be somewhere on a very long spectrum between those two endpoints.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by KSK

[GoSlash27]

3 hours ago, Magzimum said:

The fans of changes in this thread appear to be players with a lot of experience. You don't need to roleplay any dumb mistakes, because you probably don't make any such mistakes anymore.

Magzimum,
 Trust me, *everybody* makes silly mistakes. Experience doesn't make us immune to them, it just makes the mistakes more absurd because we're supposed to know better...

Not disagreeing with your point,
-Slashy

[tseitsei89]

9 hours ago, Veeltch said:

So by that logic I guess the I-beams aren't meant to be used as landing gear at all? It doesn't say on the wiki they should be used that way. Oh, thank God there's someone who told me how to use all these parts properly! I'll PM you the next time I need a piece of advice when I'm confused about a particular part. Have some rep for being helpful. Man, I'll never use the HH for launching these poor kerbals again.

Yes you are absolutely correct here! I-beams are definitely NOT MEANT to be used as landing gears. However you obviously CAN use them as landing gears if you want. 

But if they dont work as expected / look stupid or out of place you shouldnt be complaining since they are NOT DESIGNED for that.

And feel free to PM me any time you want. I'm always willing to give people some advice if they want. But I would also suggest using the ksp wiki whenever you get confused. It has quite good pages for (almost) every part and it usually describes what parts are MEANT to be used for. Remember that you CAN however use them for other purposes as well but they wont necessarily aleays work/look like you want them to since they were NOT DESIGNED to be used like that...

[monstah]

4 hours ago, Magzimum said:

Well, then how do you explain that my first ever Duna lander got to Duna with all hatches accidentally blocked? Or that my first space station had its docking port put on backwards? Kerbals aren't really dumb. But I am.

No, you're not dumb either. You're just a single person building a spaceship in a few minutes, rather than an actual Space Program designing such things for months and years. That also shouldn't mean Kerbals are dumb. In fact, if you revert the flight, they never made any mistakes  

 

But I agree with the point that the HH should look like a HH, and if you want to use it as an ascension pod that's fine, too. But then it may look funny.

I also agree that things should be made more consistent, but not simpler. Like I said, I like the greebles. They have spacey (not sleek cutting edge spacey, but old spacey) feel.

[adsii1970]

5 hours ago, Magzimum said:

Well, then how do you explain that my first ever Duna lander got to Duna with all hatches accidentally blocked? Or that my first space station had its docking port put on backwards? Kerbals aren't really dumb. But I am. And that goes for a lot of newbies. The junkyard descriptions and the funny Kerbals give me a chance to roleplay my way out of my own mistakes while I learn.

[Edited by adsii1970 for relevant content for my comment]

To be quite honest with you, I've made a lot of mistakes since I first discovered this game in 2012; I will continue to make mistakes in the future. I still have the occasional blocked hatch, forgotten solar panels, and even on one mission, forgot to add parachutes to the capsule. (This led me to two years ago, developing a construction checklist where I remind myself of the requirements the craft MUST have to get the Kerbals back home).

Also, Kerbals are fun, so much more than the characters in Spore. I enjoy the unique personalities they exhibit, the different thrill levels, and the genuine attitudes you can see coming through on EVAs and related tasks. This lends its hand into the KSP roleplay world quite well and has inspired many of us to share those experiences with you through fan fic writing, such as @Kuzzter ( a real master at the graphic KSP comic) and @Just Jim (the Great One with the Thread of the Year). Don't worry about the mistakes too much - each one can become a learning experience in what not to do - and can be quite amusing.

My 6 year old daughter loves it when her ships crash - she loves to create these monstrosities that are 500+ pieces and see how many are left intact after she "lands." Miraculously, she's not killed any Kerbals yet...

5 hours ago, Magzimum said:

The fans of changes in this thread appear to be players with a lot of experience. You don't need to roleplay any dumb mistakes, because you probably don't make any such mistakes anymore. But I only got on board about 6 months ago, and I remember quite well how my first contraptions wobbled themselves off the launchpad. 

[Edited by adsii1970 for relevant content for my comment]

Who says? I love roleplay - and I take the safety of my Kerbals very seriously. In fact, I have even shared a few of my mistakes on other threads and even in my fan fiction. A few months ago, I was testing a new craft design that used movable jet engines to slow the craft and to vertically take off and land. A sneeze sent it crashing into the ground. I've sent a survey satellite to Duna to realize that once it got there, I didn't put solar panels on it (which is why there's no mention of the probe's arrival yet in Kerny's Journal). I still design aircraft that do not perform as well as I had planned... I still have wobbly rockets every once in a while, and when I got a new computer three weeks ago, I have had to teach myself all over again how to dock, land, and do EVAs (more powerful processor means the game runs faster). Most "players with a lot of experience" will tell you that the mistakes still happen. Don't worry, hang in there, and you'll still make them, just less of them...

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Magzimum,
 Trust me, *everybody* makes silly mistakes. Experience doesn't make us immune to them, it just makes the mistakes more absurd because we're supposed to know better...

[Edited by adsii1970 for relevant content for my comment]

It also means we have the potential to make even more grand mistakes. But all in all, it's still a game and the whole purpose is to have fun. My daughter even names her rockets - and we are now on "The Ultimate Kerbal Rocket of Silliness VIII". Don't let this game become...work...make sure you give yourself a reminder it is only a game that happens to entertain and teach us.

[Aegolius13]

I view the Hitchhiker as a vacuum part and use it accordingly.  But it does seem reasonable for the game to have more pronounced penalties (i.e., lack of reentry survivability) and rewards (lower weight, I guess? ) for vacuum parts vs. atmosphere-capable parts.  In particular, the Hitchhiker currently has a big problem compared to the Mk 2 passenger cabin, which has the same crew capacity, is more heat resistant (as it should be), and yet weighs .5 tons LESS.  

There's a similar, but less pronounced problem, with the Mk 1 command pod and Mk 1 lander, which is only a little lighter despite supposedly being much more flimsy.  Oddly, the much maligned Mk1-2 pod and lander seem closest to the right proportions relative to each other and the Hitchhiker.  But they're so heavy compared to everything else they're still unusable.  

So there seem like two sensible directions to go.  (1): more differentiation between light, flimsy vacuum parts and heavy, solid atmo-capable parts.  Or (2): minimize the differences so people can use what they want, but balance the weight difference accordingly.  

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Aegolius13

[Red Shirt]

On 12/29/2016 at 11:49 PM, GoSlash27 said:

But the junky look of the rockets simply doesn't work next to the professional futuristic look of the planes. These goofy bug-eyed beings simply should *not* be building both at the same time within a couple hundred meters of each other.

Obviously you have never seen any of my planes. They look pretty slapped together of random parts, though I do agree with your point. 

Seriously, and personally, the mishmash of parts has never bothered me. When I first started playing (around ,23), it was my understanding rockets were assembled from used parts found in Jeb's junkyard. I'm still cool with believing that. I was also cool with the idea of the barn (d'oh sorry shouldn't have mentioned it). Only speaking for me, I feel some of the charm of the stock game is in danger of being shoved aside in favor of shiny matching parts. Give me some dents and a little rust. I flew missions to the Moon in a couple mismatched cardboard boxes when I was a kid. I see KSP in sort of that light. 

I like the Hitchhiker as is.