KSP Making History

[Pawelk198604]

So any feedback about expansion is under production or canceled? 

[0111narwhalz]

Just now, Pawelk198604 said:

So any feedback about expansion is under production or canceled? 

I should hope they haven't canceled it. There's some material in the Kerbal Weekly.

[Pawelk198604]

2 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I should hope they haven't canceled it. There's some material in the Kerbal Weekly.

What was there?
Is this expansion / update in general going to happen because I searched some material through google, and most of the material is from march it was almost half a year ago

[0111narwhalz]

1 minute ago, Pawelk198604 said:

What was there?
Is this expansion / update in general going to happen because I searched some material through google, and most of the material is from march it was almost half a year ago

From last week's:

On 6/30/2017 at 1:00 PM, SQUAD said:

This week there’s also been a whole lot of work on the Making History Expansion. Apart from continuing work on various aspects of the expansion’s design and architecture, there was a ton of code reviews as the devs continue to flesh out the code for the Expansion. We’ve also been working on making the display of the mission nodes in the Mission Builder more customizable for the user. On a more technical note we worked on getting things ready to merge an architecture component called Compound Parameters, which is just another way for saying the ability to logically lay out and combine parameters for nodes. This lays the ground work to assist with building complex controls in the Mission Builder. Likewise, we’ve been working on how Biomes will be visualized in the Builder and it’s looking very promising. Work was also done on being able to add vessels into the missions in various starting situations and also the ability to have multiple vessels with their own orbit or starting positions and locations. These situations can be mixed with no restrictions and the Mission Creator will be able to create missions with dozens of vessels at will if they so desire!

To wrap up the Making History section, we also have advancements in the artistic side of the expansion’s development. The artists have been texturing an Apollo 11 inspired IVA and progressing with new gizmos for the Mission Builder, which need to have proxy vessels as part of the gizmos that indicate vessel orientation. Not to mention wrapping up one of our Russian-inspired engines. For this model, we will be adding in stock mesh switching support (including appropriate things like drag cubes, mass, and colliders specific to the swapped mesh).  Here’s a pic of the ‘naked’ and 1.25m mesh options for this engine.

That's a part and some vague descriptions of the Mission Builder.

[StrandedonEarth]

3 minutes ago, Pawelk198604 said:

What was there?
Is this expansion / update in general going to happen because I searched some material through google, and most of the material is from march it was almost half a year ago

Yup, they're still working on it. If you read the KSP Weekly (released every Friday) they go over all the things Squad is working on.

Hmm, ninja'd by a Narwhal...

[felcas]

1 hour ago, Karma Kerman said:

Thats why there's Bug fix updates

Yes, but there are companies that take advantage of DLCs to release bug fixes on them, forcing people to buy that excrements while it should be free.

[Pawelk198604]

43 minutes ago, felcas said:

Yes, but there are companies that take advantage of DLCs to release bug fixes on them, forcing people to buy that excrements while it should be free.

I do not have to buy it, and I have and I do not care about it, because SQUAD is just to OWE IT to me ;) i  because I bought KSP unless 2012 when all potential extensions were guaranteed for each customer    

 

What do you think about my new video i did not play KSP for long time 

 

[Kerbinchaser]

On 6/27/2017 at 3:14 AM, Kerbal101 said:

- add background AI player, who can also accept contracts (EastBear)

Whoa Whoa Whoa. WHAT?

Edited July 7, 2017 by Lo Var Lachland

[Superfluous J]

50 minutes ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Whoa Whoa Whoa. WHAT?

You seem to have mistaken a set of feature requests as a list of additions to the game.

[Kerbinchaser]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

You seem to have mistaken a set of feature requests as a list of additions to the game.

No, I know that this is an Add-on

[0111narwhalz]

4 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

No, I know that this is an Add-on

Not even an add-on, to my knowledge. Just requests.

[Kerbinchaser]

10 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Not even an add-on, to my knowledge. Just requests.

Yes, true. But still, it sounds nice.

[purpleivan]

On 16/06/2017 at 3:47 AM, Just Jim said:

Hmmm, I'm not sure why you can't do it now.... or what they mean by "tools".

I've seen 2001 dozens of times, and it seems easy enough to Kerbalize.

Yup 2001 is totally kerbalable

 

[Spaceception]

On 3/17/2017 at 1:30 PM, Snark said:

I've been following this thread with interest, both as an avid KSP player and as a professional software developer.

Just to be up front about this, I'm delighted to hear this news, for a couple of reasons.

• I'm delighted to get new shiny toys to play with.  Yay!
• I'm delighted that they'll be charging or it.  Why?  Because it means they'll have cash flow to make more shiny toys.

Obviously this is a topic that's very important to the KSP community (as witnessed by the large volume of posts in this thread in such a short time).  Reading through the responses up to this point, I see a bunch of favorable posts (the "Yay!  Please take my money!" crowd), and also quite a few unfavorable posts (the "this is wrong" or "they should have done X instead" crowd).

I'll skip over the "favorable reaction" folks, since I happen to agree with them and don't think discussion's particularly needed here. 

However, I'd like to address at least some of the negative posts, because they seem to me to be missing the point.  In particular, there are a few specific rationales that many of the negative posts are citing, which seem shaky at best when I view them through the lens of my decades of experience doing this stuff for a living.

 

"Any paid expansion content is just bad on the face of it.  Nobody should do that ever."

Nobody has come right out and said the above quote in so many words, but there have been some posts whose wording pretty much implied this.  And given all the past vitriol I've seen expended in the forums about the very concept of "DLC" in general, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few more folks may be thinking this.

Folks, I've been doing this for a living, shipping commercial software for over twenty years, and I can tell you that the above sentiment is patently ridiculous.  Here's a secret:

Every software company is, first and foremost, a business.  And businesses need to make money for doing what they do, on an ongoing basis.  Forever.  As long as the business is still in business.

Period, full stop.

You can like that, or not like it, as you will; but that's How Things Work.  It's how it has always worked, and always will.  Money is the oxygen supply of a business.  Choke that off, and the body dies.

Tell me... which of the following would you rather have?

1. Squad continues to make shiny kerbal toys, and charges for them.
2. Squad decides the well has run dry and closes up shop.  No more kerbal stuff, ever.

I dunno about you, but I would far rather have #1 than #2.  Make no mistake, #2 is almost certainly inevitable, eventually; that's part of the software life cycle.  But speaking as an avid KSP fan, I'd sure like for #2 to be delayed as far into the future as possible.  It's hard for me to imagine why any KSP player would prefer #2 to #1.

You'll note that I didn't provide any option #3, "Squad continues to make shiny kerbal toys for everyone forever, for free."  Because that's not economically possible.  It costs a lot of money to run a development outfit.  Businesses are expensive to run.  They'd have to be idiots to keep doing something if it doesn't make any (or enough) money.

Continuing to pack additional features into the stock game, for free, makes business sense only if they could significantly boost additional sales of the game by doing so.  There's no way of knowing KSP's finances for sure, of course, without seeing their sales numbers over time, which Squad has never publicly released.  However, KSP has been out for a few years, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that well has run mostly dry by now.

Which would leave them with a choice between either closing up KSP shop and moving on to something else, or finding a way to provide additional content, for money, to their existing KSP players who feel like paying for it.

 

"I'm worried about <thing that isn't happening>"

Glad folks have raised questions and concerns where the initial announcement wasn't clear enough. 

The two main examples of such concerns that I see are,

• "I bought the game before April 2013 and was promised I wouldn't be charged for content!"
• "But I'll still get bug fixes for free in the stock game, yes?"

...fortunately, it sounds like both of those have been answered satisfactorily (yes, they'll keep their before-April-2013 promise; yes, the stock game will continue to update for free), so 'nuff said on that.

 

"This expansion is wrong / stupid because the stuff that's in there is already available via mods."

Some examples of this sentiment:

There are two answers to this sentiment.

The simple, "market-based" answer is:  Well, if you're right and there's literally no reason for anyone to buy such a thing, then the problem fixes itself, right?  Nobody will buy the expansion and it'll be a big money-loser.  In which case I would assume that Squad would make the smart business decision and just turn the lights out on KSP-- no point in throwing more money down a hole, if people aren't willing to spend money on it.  On the other hand, if the KSP community is enthusiastically in favor, and lots of people rush out to hand over their hard-earned cash for the expansion, then by definition it's worth it, yes?

So, that's a simple, self-answering question.   We just wait and see what happens.    You think the expansion's useless, so you keep your money in your wallet.  Other people run out and buy.  And then we see how successful it turns out to be.  (Though based on the large number of enthusiastic please-take-my-money posts in this thread, it kinda sounds to me like there's at least a reasonable shot at success.)

The slightly longer answer is:  No.  It's not the same.  Mods can't provide the "same stuff", other than very superficially.

Lengthy professional-software-engineer rant about that in spoiler section below.

  Hide contents

First, may I point out how silly it is to make an argument that "Squad is bad to do <thing> because that can be done with a mod"?  Because, why can it be done with a mod?  Answer:  Because Squad bent over backwards to make KSP incredibly moddable.  That's why you have so many cool mods that can do practically everything.  Speaking as a professional software engineer, I can tell you that making something extensible like that is very non-trivial.  It takes a lot of work.  Kudos to Squad for doing that, especially since it's not a direct revenue-driver.

So, it seems kind of silly to me to take the fact that Squad has done us all a big favor by making the game so moddable, and then try to use that to criticize them for putting their own efforts into the game.

Second, when you get something from a mod, it's not the same thing as getting it from the stock game.  A mod is produced by (usually) a single individual, usually an amateur (however gifted and passionate), who is doing it basically for free, as a hobby.  Actual game content is produced by a dedicated team of professionals, who get paid to do this full-time, and who have to stand behind their product because there are paying customers.

There's a world of difference between those two situations.

• You don't get professional-level QA from a mod.  Mods can be buggy, either crashing the game outright or tanking the performance or not scaling or a variety of other problems.
  • For example, I loved it when they added CommNet to the stock game... even though RemoteTech already exists.  Why?  Because RemoteTech is buggy and crashes all the time.  I loved RemoteTech, but eventually had to stop playing it because of the technical issues.  Whereas CommNet runs smooth as silk for me.  Yes, I got CommNet for free, but that's an example of a feature I'd have paid money for, if need be.  Given a choice between "RemoteTech for free" versus "professional feature for a few dollars", I'd choose the latter without hesitation.
• You don't get any guarantee of ongoing support.  Mods go obsolete and die all the time.  I've lost track of how many "dead mod" threads keep cropping up in the Add-on Releases forum, often with some plaintive user wanting to know "is this still alive?  I need this!"

I've been playing KSP since 0.23.5, and have loved all the added stuff they've put in the stock game since then.  And practically everything was something that was doable as a mod before it was stock.  Contracts.  New aero.  Reentry heating.  Procedural fairings.  Revamped biomes.  New aerodynamics.  Communications networks.  And on, and on.

In short:  "You can do it in a mod" really isn't a reason for Squad not to do it, because practically everything is doable in a mod.  The only reason not to do it would be if the new content really isn't compelling, and the market will answer that question soon enough. 

 

 

"This expansion is wrong / stupid because the stock game should <something>"

Some examples of this sentiment:

...See, the problem with basically all such complaints is the use (explicit, or implied) of the word "should".

Folks, I've been doing this for a living for a couple of decades, and I can tell you that there's no such thing as "should".

Or, rather, there's only one "should".  And that's this:  "A product should provide enough value to the user to justify the amount of money they spent on it."

Lengthy rationale in another spoiler.

  Hide contents

Tell me, how much money did you spend on KSP?  And how many hours of entertainment have you gotten out of it?  Divide the former by the latter-- can anyone honestly tell me that KSP is actually a bad use of your money?  I dunno about you, but I spent US$27 on the stock game, and have gotten literally thousands of hours of entertainment out of it.  It's the best value-for-money of about any product (software or otherwise) that I've spent money on, ever.

I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't criticize.  If there's a thing you don't like about the stock game, great!  Shout it to the world.    However, it's important to remember that there's a crucial distinction between these two statements:

• "I would like it better if the game did X."
• "The game should X."

The former is absolutely valid, and an excellent way to express a sentiment.  The latter is simply nonsense.  There's no "should," here, other than the one I mention above.  For example, there are plenty of people who don't like KSP's career mode, and are (quite appropriately) vocal about that.  But there are plenty of other people who are fine with career and like what's been done with it.  What the game "should" do depends on the market reaction, overall, to what it does.

So, unless someone can show me where KSP hasn't delivered something they explicitly promised, or that they haven't delivered reasonable hours-per-dollar of entertainment, there's really no "should" or "incomplete" here.

 

"But it's just a money grab!"

Yes.  Of course.  Because Squad is a business.  And everything that every business does is a money grab.  Otherwise, it's not a business, it's a charity.

Businesses need to make money.  It's what they need to survive.  It is, in fact, the sole point of a business.  Nobody just hands money to them, so they have to go after it.  It's what businesses do.  They have to.  A business has to go after money the way that you have to go after oxygen.

Unless by "money grab" you only mean "bad for customers" or something, in which case that's an accusation I'd like to see some evidence for.  I spent US$27 on KSP, in exchange for literally thousands of hours of entertainment.  I'm hard-pressed to see anything unscrupulous about that.

Can someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease pin this somewhere, so everyone can read it easily?

[Noname115]

Any news on the expansion? I've been waiting for this for quite a while. If someone could point me to a devblog reporting on it, that would be appreciated.

[razark]

14 minutes ago, Noname115 said:

Any news on the expansion? I've been waiting for this for quite a while. If someone could point me to a devblog reporting on it, that would be appreciated.

Every Friday, they publish one of these.

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

[TheRagingIrishman]

6 hours ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

When it's ready.

[Just Jim]

6 hours ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

@SQUAD wont' say until just a day or two ahead... if that. This is because they usually don't know themselves. It depends mostly on how long they need for testing and eliminating bugs... and that's hard to predict.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Just Jim

[Wallygator]

7 hours ago, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

it should be ready in a few minutes - you'd better stay up all night and wait for it...  Keep us posted...

 

[MrWalrus123]

On 7/30/2017 at 4:17 AM, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

They don't want to announce the release date, they'll only say their progress, and then give an exact date a week before at most. They do this so they don't end up feeling pressured if they don't finish it in time. Most people (including me, and I'm sure you too) would rather have it late and polished than early and unfinished.

[Just Jim]

50 minutes ago, MrWalrus123 said:

Most people (including me, and I'm sure you too) would rather have it late and polished than early and unfinished.

Could not agree more!!! I ran into a really nasty bug about a year ago... I can't remember exactly which version update, and I had to wait quite a while until they got it nailed down. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming @SQUAD, not at all. I understand these things happen.

I'm just agreeing I would also prefer they took their time and got it as perfect and bug-free as possible before releasing.

[Ty Tan Tu]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:17 AM, Jeb-head-mug kerman said:

Hi, Has anyone got any idea when this DLC pack is coming out?

The best place to follow what is happening is at The Daily Kerbal

It looks like they have three different projects going on. The QA team is working to squash bugs in 1.3.1, and work on consoles. The programmers are working on the Mission Creator for Making History. The artists are working on modeling the Voskhod 1 IVA. 

In the meantime, here is a cool diagram of the Voskhod...

 

Today is also the 53 anniversary of the Ranger 7's famous picture of the Moon!

 

 

Did I mention I am kind of in to space flight history?

[Xemina]

come out already!

[Syczek]

So actually it will only some parts.mission editor,some historic missions and that's all??I hope pricing at least will be fair not like in latest diablo III dlc