Making History preview - critique and discussion

[Vanamonde]

So many people are so angry about what the parts look like. I just fly them places. 

[regex]

6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

So many people are so angry about what the parts look like. I just fly them places. 

Hey, good for you. Some of us like to fly nice-looking things to different places. Maybe since you don't care what your parts look like just let those of us who care have our discussion in peace. It's not like you're going to be affected one way or the other.

 

[EDIT by @Snark:  Right after regex's post here, @Stone Blue made the post below.  Owing to some technical difficulties, it got accidentally merged into regex's post in a way that is unclear how to fix at this time.  I'm making this comment here to make it clear what's going on.  Everything in the quote box below was said by Stone Blue in response to this post by regex.  This clumsy ham-handed hackery is my attempt to "fix" it as well as I can within the limits of forum software that is, shall we say, perhaps not optimally flexible.  We apologize for the inconvenience.]

Quote

5 hours ago, regex said:

Hey, good for you. Some of us like to fly nice-looking things to different places. Maybe since you don't care what your parts look like just let those of us who care have our discussion in peace. It's not like you're going to be affected one way or the other.

Heh... again, succinct and concise... Better than the way I was trying to convey this point...
Again, if Squad implemented texture switching, the old parts could stay, and any new stuff would be available as an option, to those of us who DO want a more matching overall look... And that would essentially remove the need for people who dont care one way or the other, or who like the current look, to engage in the discussion...

Not that those people arent entitled to their opinions or stating them, but obviously, if this were done, we wouldnt need all these "old look is fine...just deal with it" comments, as those people would no longer really be affected.

 

 

[Spartwo]

The older parts are also significantly less effective in their use of resources. You can see it in Porkjet's work, a recent post on the KSP reddit regarding RTGs, and in many of the part re-skin mods. If revamps resulted in massive performance drops I'd understand but the old parts not only look worse but perform worse in most cases.

This also applied to the Space Center before B9 redid it. B9's critiques of the art in KSP have been very well put and he's entirely right, I don't know if any of us could put it better than he.

And even to an extent the issue snuck back in when the Admin building was added by another dev.  Actually, here's B9 criticising the Admin Building's design. I went looking.

I love this game but on a level of aesthetics and art style it never seemed to leave alpha in many key areas.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Spartwo

[passinglurker]

23 minutes ago, regex said:

Hey, good for you. Some of us like to fly nice-looking things to different places. Maybe since you don't care what your parts look like just let those of us who care have our discussion in peace. It's not like you're going to be affected one way or the other.

this ^^^ 
this so much...

I find a true fan of the old stock styles to be a very rare thing (if there were we'd have modders making more oil drums) most are either apathetic to graphics in general and see the time spent as a waste, they have an almost irrational fear of performance impairment (even though at its prettiest kerbals graphics calculations are still a drop in the bucket compared to its physics calculations when you clip like a top ksp streamer), or they are just eager to defend squad from any criticism as if it was a golden goose on suicide watch.

In the end better graphics won't hurt them (in fact with more efficient UV mapping it might even help them) and most users who want better graphics are content with a gradual piecemeal roll out constrained by budget and schedule realities if squad would only commit to the long term goal.

[passinglurker]

6 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

So many people are so angry about what the parts look like. I just fly them places. 

I'm sorry but no one is angry. Concerned or passionate maybe, but not angry.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, regex said:

No, they don't.

Thank you.

[dboi88]

5 hours ago, Spartwo said:

This also applied to the Space Center before B9 redid it. And even to an extent the issue snuck back in when the Strategy building was added by a different dev.

You know what, i've always looked at the Strategy Building and thought something was up, now i know why, it looks like one of those temporary classrooms at the bottom of the school yard.

[cxg2827]

1 hour ago, Spartwo said:

The older parts are also significantly less effective in their use of resources.

Great example right here for the Hitchhiker

[Spartwo]

 

3 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

Great example right here for the Hitchhiker

Now let's compare that to a newer part of similar function and scale, the mk2 crew cabin. It's a bit dark because the actual texture is mostly transparent.

Note how any textures that could be duplicated have been.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Spartwo

[Wjolcz]

6 hours ago, dboi88 said:

You know what, i've always looked at the Strategy Building and thought something was up, now i know why, it looks like one of those temporary classrooms at the bottom of the school yard.

Even the parking lot spots are oddly spaced IIRC.

 

[EDIT by @Snark:  Right after Veeltch's post here, @dboi88 made the post below.  Owing to some technical difficulties, it got accidentally merged into Veeltch's post in a way that is unclear how to fix at this time.  I'm making this comment here to make it clear what's going on.  Everything in the quote box below was said by dboi88 in response to this post by Veeltch.  This clumsy ham-handed hackery is my attempt to "fix" it as well as I can within the limits of forum software that is, shall we say, perhaps not optimally flexible.  We apologize for the inconvenience.  If you're the author of the quote below, please let us know.]

Quote

4 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Even the parking lot spots are oddly spaced IIRC.

And there's too much tarmac out front, so it literally looks like it was just tacked on the end.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Snark
Snark's clumsy attempt to fix some accidental post-merging

[Snark]

Hi folks,

Some tidying up has been done in this thread.  There was some moderator activity earlier, which was very soon thereafter "un-done" upon further consideration.  During that (brief) interval, some users made various public, angry posts about the moderation.  Some of those posts leaped to some incorrect, unwarranted conclusions that @Vanamonde had something to do with it, due to his post above.  To be clear, he had nothing to do with it, and nothing that has happened in this thread since he made that post has had anything to do with him.

The various angry posts complaining about moderation have been removed, because, first, they're in violation of forum rule 3.3 about public discussion of moderator action, and, second, it's entirely a moot point anyway since the thing they were complaining about was already fixed.

On a completely unrelated note, there were also some unfortunate technical difficulties in thread merging, with the result that a couple of innocent bystanders' posts got merged into other posts.  Unfortunately I know of no way to actually fix that at this point, so I've made some edits above to try to make it clear what happened.  That has no relation to the earlier kerfuffle and is just an unfortunate demonstration of the maxim "when it rains, it pours."

Given some of the strong feelings and dramatic reactions that people had, here, I'd like to take a moment to put this all into perspective.

• Please follow the forum rules.  There are good reasons why moderator action is not for public discussion.  There's nothing wrong with contesting moderator decisions-- we're human, too, everyone can make mistakes, and we're reasonable people.  If you think we've screwed up or made a bad decision, that's fine-- bring it up with us, please!  (See rule 3.4, which encourages this.)  But... do it privately, please.  If you think you can't work something out with the particular moderator you're disagreeing with, just go up the chain of command; it's publicly posted.
• Please don't try to work around the moderators.  If a post of yours gets hidden, or edited, don't just make another post like that, or re-edit it to put the content back.  This is really not okay, and is a great way to get your posting privileges curtailed.  Again, if you disagree:  talk to us.  Privately.

Finally, on a personal note, if I may.  I wasn't directly involved in anything going on earlier here today, so I have no skin in this game, directly.  However, these people are my friends, and being a mod myself, I'm in a position to understand what all of our moderators go through, and I'd like to ask you to take a moment to reflect, if you don't mind:

I can understand that it's frustrating to be on the receiving end of moderator action that you feel you didn't deserve.  Especially if it seems like someone screwed up.  That must be galling-- to be at the mercy of someone else, who has power when you don't.  All of us on the moderator team get that-- before we were moderators, we were regular users, just like you.  So I can understand if this kind of situation can provoke angry feelings.

However... please do stop and take a moment to think before lashing out.  Moderators are people, too.  We make mistakes. We also have real lives, and sometimes we have bad days.  Haven't you?  And we're not here because we're on some sort of "power trip" (we go to a lot of trouble to weed out potential moderator candidates who might be looking for that).  We're here because we want to help people.  We're volunteers.  We don't get anything for being mods.  We spend a lot of hours working to help keep the forum a nice place for users like you, and those efforts are a significant part of what keeps the KSP forums as pleasant as they are-- and most of that work, you never see, because it's out of the public view.  I'm not at liberty to tell you all the firestorms we've had to deal with so that you don't have to, but please take my word that they're there.

So, when you think of the moderators... please think of them as you might think of a mod author:  someone who puts in a lot of hard work, for free, to try to make the experience better for you and for everyone else in the forums.  Doesn't mean we're saints, just... when we do make a mistake, maybe take a moment to reflect before unloading on one of us?

Unlocking the thread now.  Thank you for your patience, and your understanding.

[Spacetraindriver]

This thread is quickly becoming a discussion about aesthetics (mostly parts) rather than the "expansion pack" itself. Now I'm no moderator but doesn't this count as off topic? If you really don't like the way parts look then just use mods! I personally don't consider that "Stock" breaking. It doesn't affect (vehicle) performance or physics or adds anything to gameplay. Its quickly becoming this thread.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Spacetraindriver

[passinglurker]

6 minutes ago, Spacetraindriver said:

This thread is quickly becoming a discussion about aesthetics (mostly parts) rather than the "expansion pack" itself. Now I'm no moderator but doesn't this count as off topic? If you really don't like the way parts look then just use mods! I personally don't consider that "Stock" breaking. It doesn't affect (vehicle) performance or physics or adds anything to gameplay. Its quickly becoming this thread.

 

The topic of general aesthetics if fundamental to why we care about the making history parts in the first place so I feel it's on topic that we help others understand where we are coming from. Suddenly cutting off and dumping into the revamp thread would make the conversation difficult to follow and parse. And besides the revamp thread is like this thread a discussion of a particular set of parts (porkje'ts overhaul) not simply a discussion of general game aesthetics.

[AlamoVampire]

On 4/1/2017 at 5:54 PM, Frozen_Heart said:

Imo roverdude's parts are very good and match up with the cancelled porkjet overhaul almost perfectly. I consider these parts as consistent with the current art direction.

 

Just sad that the 1.25m and 2.5m parts got abandoned and still look like placeholders from a different KSP era. The part upgrade system would have been nice too.

where was it said porkjets overhaul was cancelled? Last I saw, sadly cant find the link, was from a dev after a rather large discussion that said, the devs had the overhaul on the back burner for a future date. back burner is not a promise of doing it, but, neither is it a sworn cancellation...

[Spacetraindriver]

2 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

The topic of general aesthetics if fundamental to why we care about the making history parts in the first place so I feel it's on topic that we help others understand where we are coming from. Suddenly cutting off and dumping into the revamp thread would make the conversation difficult to follow and parse. And besides the revamp thread is like this thread a discussion of a particular set of parts (porkje'ts overhaul) not simply a discussion of general game aesthetics.

I see, I guess I jumped to conclusions too quickly, sorry! I guess since I'm attached to this game so much I felt I had to 'spring to action'.  Though still, while as ascetics are important, theres more than that in the expansion! 

[passinglurker]

14 minutes ago, Spacetraindriver said:

I guess since I'm attached to this game so much I felt I had to 'spring to action'.  

lol trust me I know the feeling

14 minutes ago, Spacetraindriver said:

Though still, while as ascetics are important, theres more than that in the expansion! 

Yes but this being paid content muddies things up a bit. The term "vote with your wallet" comes to mind and there is concern that a purchase of the dlc despite haveing sweet main features could be seen by squads marketing as a vote for the aesthetic status quo.

Another perspective is that it doesn't sit right with some users that squad's charging for art assets that don't match as smoothly aesthetically as the sort of parts a lot of modders are starting to put out for free. Naturally when money is involved people don't simply want what looks "fine" they want the A grade. There can be some wiggle room for creative freedom and "not being able to please everyone" (like how porkjet's mk1 cockpit didn't please everyone despite its brilliant design), but at the end of the day they want something that at least tries to rival volunteer content if they are gonna have to shell out money for the privilege to download.

Edited April 12, 2017 by passinglurker

[CobaltWolf]

57 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

where was it said porkjets overhaul was cancelled? Last I saw, sadly cant find the link, was from a dev after a rather large discussion that said, the devs had the overhaul on the back burner for a future date. back burner is not a promise of doing it, but, neither is it a sworn cancellation...

I have it on fairly good authority that it's not happening anymore, which in a way makes this thread moot point... not going to expand further.

[tater]

I'm fine with parts looking different in a "realistic" way---meaning different manufacturers, design bureaus, etc---what I don't like to see is schizophrenic looking parts, where some look like science fiction, and others look like they came from a scrapyard. Either is fine, I suppose, just pick one basic "feel," and stick with it.

Edited April 12, 2017 by tater

[AlamoVampire]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I have it on fairly good authority that it's not happening anymore, which in a way makes this thread moot point... not going to expand further.

as they say: Citation, or some other form of proof required. If this were a court and you and I were opposing counsel, I would: "Objection. Hearsay." A judge would then say: Objection sustained. Counselor, what proof of this authority do you have? Simply saying you have it on "good authority" isnt sufficient proof." SO, expansion is duly requested, because, to be blunt and fair: Unless you have a developer stating that they are completely tossing out work that was teased to us, its hearsay and conjecture. So, again, please cite your source.

[CobaltWolf]

7 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

as they say: Citation, or some other form of proof required. If this were a court and you and I were opposing counsel, I would: "Objection. Hearsay." A judge would then say: Objection sustained. Counselor, what proof of this authority do you have? Simply saying you have it on "good authority" isnt sufficient proof." SO, expansion is duly requested, because, to be blunt and fair: Unless you have a developer stating that they are completely tossing out work that was teased to us, its hearsay and conjecture. So, again, please cite your source.

I can't, sorry. If that's not enough for you, you're well within your rights to be skeptical (and you should be! )

In any case, I feel that makes the original topic of this thread somewhat pointless, because honestly, the new Making History parts we've seen DO fit fairly well with the existing stock rocket parts. However, I still think we need a full stock rocket part revamp, because, well, we deserve to have the game look better and consistent.

10 hours ago, Spacetraindriver said:

This thread is quickly becoming a discussion about aesthetics (mostly parts) rather than the "expansion pack" itself. Now I'm no moderator but doesn't this count as off topic? If you really don't like the way parts look then just use mods! I personally don't consider that "Stock" breaking. It doesn't affect (vehicle) performance or physics or adds anything to gameplay. Its quickly becoming this thread.

This really isn't about breaking stock balance. Heck, myself, @passinglurker, and a number of other modders who support a part revamp (Porkjet's or otherwise) would rather people DIDN'T try and stick with stock parts. But the stock artstyle informs what ALL our mods have to look like, since we all strive to make our parts match aesthetically. A mod seeking to correct these issues would be pointless, unless all other modders sought to follow that art style instead.

[klgraham1013]

10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I have it on fairly good authority that it's not happening anymore, which in a way makes this thread moot point... not going to expand further.

This is what I assumed.

8 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

as they say: Citation, or some other form of proof required. If this were a court and you and I were opposing counsel, I would: "Objection. Hearsay." A judge would then say: Objection sustained. Counselor, what proof of this authority do you have? Simply saying you have it on "good authority" isnt sufficient proof." SO, expansion is duly requested, because, to be blunt and fair: Unless you have a developer stating that they are completely tossing out work that was teased to us, its hearsay and conjecture. So, again, please cite your source.

Companies love unnecessary secrets.

Edited April 12, 2017 by klgraham1013

[AlamoVampire]

@CobaltWolf No citation, no proof. Sorry, burden of proofs in your court, and vague claims of good authority just are not enough. Nor are claims that you cant provide said proof. 

Seeing as I see no reason for such opacity, I now ask @UomoCapra if you kind sir could shine the light of clarity to this question:

Will we see at some point the beauty pass porkjet did or some other unifying art pass to bring a sense of a more unified style to the base game? Or are all plans that were previously stated to be coming in this area scrapped officially? No exact dates for implementation are requested, but more of a: yes its coming "at some point" or no, we terminated that project. 

I ask because the current skins are becoming more and more out of place style wise with the more NASA like feel of the ARM parts and the new xpac coming, and ive seen hints in the wind that people would love, myself included, a more cohesive look. Any official word, no matter the direction it points would be appreciated.

Edited April 12, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@CobaltWolf No citation, no proof. Sorry, burden of proofs in your court, and vague claims of good authority just are not enough. Nor are claims that you cant provide said proof. 

Seeing as I see no reason for such opacity, I now ask @UomoCapra if you kind sir could shine the light of clarity to this question:

Will we see at some point the beauty pass porkjet did or some other unifying art pass to bring a sense of a more unified style to the base game? Or are all plans that were previously stated to be coming in this area scrapped officially? No exact dates for implementation are requested, but more of a: yes its coming "at some point" or no, we terminated that project. 

I ask because the current skins are becoming more and more out of place style wise with the more NASA like feel of the ARM parts and the new xpac coming, and ive seen hints in the wind that people would love, myself included, a more cohesive look. Any official word, no matter the direction it points would be appreciated.

As I said, you're right to be skeptical.

[tater]

Squad is reading this thread: If Porkjet's rocket update is still a thing, chime in, if not, we can operate under the assumption it is not. 

In short, I disbelieve the claim that there is a PJ rocket update coming (a positive claim) until it is demonstrated to be true. That would be the default assmption at this point, since there has been no statement forthcoming.

Edited April 12, 2017 by tater

[regex]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

As I said, you're right to be skeptical.

So why did you bring it up in the first place?

You're either egging on Squad to look into NDA violations or you're trolling.