Squad should STOP ALL development and do this now

[Mrcarrot]

On 3/7/2019 at 4:06 PM, seyss said:

No excuses... still no clouds. Make a DLC!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem with that is the same one which has arisen from Making History: a DLC, in order to generate a substantial income, needs to do something original and well-made that mods can't do or haven't done. Clouds... have been done. You can't expect to make money off of something that's already free, now, can you?

[swjr-swis]

32 minutes ago, Mrcarrot said:

a DLC, in order to generate a substantial income, needs to do something original and well-made that mods can't do or haven't done.

We need to let (EA, Paradox, Dovetail Games, any other game company/publisher making most of their income off DLC) know about this, they all obviously missed the memo...

[Gargamel]

Folks,

Some posts have been removed from the thread.   You are free to agree or disagree with the OP's suggestion, but please do so in a non derogatory manner.  Thanks. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

6 hours ago, Mrcarrot said:

The problem with that is the same one which has arisen from Making History: a DLC, in order to generate a substantial income, needs to do something original and well-made that mods can't do or haven't done. Clouds... have been done. You can't expect to make money off of something that's already free, now, can you?

How about a Graphics DLC that has three parts. Planets, lighting, and clouds. We can buy which ones we want. For example I would buy all for 3 dollars each but someone else might only want clouds. Maby my PC can only tolerate clouds and not new lighting. This was we get what we need.  

[sturmhauke]

I think clouds are nice too look at and all that, but I don't use them for two reasons. First, the performance hit is too much on my computer. Second, and this is underappreciated I think, but there's a lack of instrumentation to deal with poor visibility. I have to see where the KSC or other landing area is visually, or perhaps set a flag or waypoint in advance. The stock game doesn't have anything in the way of landing guidance systems, ground radar, etc. Yeah there are mods for that, but that's yet another performance hit.

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, sturmhauke said:

ground radar

Squad just announced this a couple days ago. 

 

[Lisias]

56 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Squad just announced this a couple days ago. 

 

For aircraft landings, you don't want to get the distance between your cockpit and the ground exactly below you. That piece of ground is not a threat to you anymore (unless you are in free fall). You are worried about the distance you are from the ground ahead of you, as there is the rock that can kill you. It's useful on the final approach, but by then you know there're not obstacles ahead as no one use to put airstrips behind a hill.

The ASL altimeter will be useful for suicide burn landings.  

I found some didactic material on Radar Tilting here. Look for "paint the ground". GPWS is the thingy that yells TERRAIN on the movies.

 

 

[Starman4308]

12 hours ago, Mrcarrot said:

The problem with that is the same one which has arisen from Making History: a DLC, in order to generate a substantial income, needs to do something original and well-made that mods can't do or haven't done. Clouds... have been done. You can't expect to make money off of something that's already free, now, can you?

Yes, which is why Making History skipped on making LR-87 analogues, and how Squad never bothered to add alternate launch sites, or...

Yeah, I'm not buying that explanation. It doesn't help that, in this case, the primary mod option (Scatterer) can be quite buggy.

While there are a number of things mods already do, there's clearly incentive to re-do them in stock.

[seyss]

WOW! To see lots of you "defending little poor Squad" is depressing.

KSP is owned by Take-two, which revenue was 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS in 2018.

I'm sure KSP is developed by talented people who can make great progress on visuals (including clouds), that this game NEEDS BAD! It'll look as a whole new game. It's a matter of PRIORITY.

Having already visited all planets and discovered all artifacts, new visuals and new planets would be the new start to this game that a lot of us old players need!!

 

[Lisias]

53 minutes ago, seyss said:

WOW! To see lots of you "defending little poor Squad" is depressing.

At least me, I'm not "defending" Squad. I'm defending my class. I'm a software developer, exactly like them - and the fact I develop a different kind of Software doesn't changes the fact that we have similar issues.

They bork? Yeah. Problem is: me too. Sometimes, because I didn't give enough thinking on the problem. Sometimes, because I had to rush something into production or I would fail a deadline that would cause more damages that the stunt I did. Sometimes because someone else borked, but I was on the frontline and so, I had to handle the fallout.

 

57 minutes ago, seyss said:

KSP is owned by Take-two, which revenue was 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS in 2018.

Exactly. KSP is owned by TTI, not by Squad. TTI is a business. Squad work for that business, and then, are accountable for the results they provide to such business. The exact same way I am to my boss and his customers.

On the bottom line: the client borks, I handle the fallout. My boss borks, I handle the fallout. I bork, I handle the fallout. Someone promotes bad press about my work, I handle the fallout. But only 3 of them pay my bills.

 

1 hour ago, seyss said:

I'm sure KSP is developed by talented people who can make great progress on visuals (including clouds), that this game NEEDS BAD! It'll look as a whole new game. It's a matter of PRIORITY.

And it happens that neither you or me are part of the decision making party.  

Right now, I'm having to cope with a new module on the project I'm executing that, frankly, doesn't makes me too happy. It will be messy. We will have to waste resources on shielding that we don't need to do now. We will be exposed to attacks that are plain impossible by now. It will be a hell of pain, but some big player wants that way and we need their money.

So...

I'm implementing that Kraken Poo.

The best I could do is to explain the stakeholders about the incurring costs of the thing, and to convince them to keep alive the current solution so we can still apply it on the retail and keep our costs low for the other clients - let the big guy absorb all the costs his demanding us to take, and if by any means he goes away, we don't need to spread such costs on the remaining clients - we just pull the plug of the damned thing.

Welcome to Real Life (tm).  I don't expect life is easier for these guys.

[sturmhauke]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

At least me, I'm not "defending" Squad. I'm defending my class. I'm a software developer, exactly like them - and the fact I develop a different kind of Software doesn't changes the fact that we have similar issues.

I agree with your post, and also have another angle on it. KSP is an old game now, and it was always niche. Take Two isn't going to pour money in without expecting a return. They're going to be selective about what they allocate in the budget. My best guess is that adding clouds would be a significant amount of work, without really drawing in a significant number of new players. And the idea that "mod makers do it for free so it can't be that hard" is frankly naive. Developing a mod takes time and effort, regardless of whether they charge money for it. And even if Squad pulls another Roverdude and incorporates an existing mod into the stock game, there's integration and maintenance work that has to be done.

[klgraham1013]

6 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

mod makers do it for free so it can't be that hard

I, for one, never said "it can't be that hard."  I said modders did it for free in their spare time.  That means it is doable in a reasonable time frame.  Squad has had 5+ years.  That's what I'm saying.

[Lisias]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:28 AM, klgraham1013 said:

I, for one, never said "it can't be that hard."  I said modders did it for free in their spare time.  That means it is doable in a reasonable time frame.  Squad has had 5+ years.  That's what I'm saying.

I'm working on a nasty bug since October/2018 on TweakScale. The problem is essentially "solved", but I need time for testing the coupling with remaining Add'Ons (guess what? it's borking on some of them), I need time to implement the new solution to correctly cope with that coupling, and I need time to think on how I will implement that new solution in a way that it will not bork too heavily when something on KSP changes again (I'm not complaining on the changes, I just saying it will be another change sooner or later, and I don't want to do this again).

I can say that I spent about 8 hours/week since then (some weeks I spent more time, some others I just didn't touched the thing).

And this for a single bug, that it's easily solvable if I would be the only guy in town authoring Add'Ons for KSP.  

Things escalate exponentially, not linearly. Each new "feature" I add to TweakScale explodes on a lot of potential side effects on everything else. And this is not due any "bad architectural decisions" on KSP (yeah, there're some very bad ideas there, but they are not the problem [they're just nuisances]), it's due the fact this Kraken damned thing mangles with something that everybody and the kitchen's sink needs : mass.  

A bad decision about how to handle a mass here, and I can induce someone to a bad decision, that then makes something blow up into space in the less desirable and pleasant way possible.

TweakScale also mangles the thrust. And area (or volume). So it influence resources consumption (or generators). What do you think it will happen if by some mishap of mine, a fellow Add'On author is induced to generate ZERO electricity on a situation where it was defined by design it will always generate electricity? The first code that would try to determine how much time of electricity it has will get or a Division By Zero, or a INF on the result.

Now try to imagine what would happen if I do a mishap on the Area, and allow something goes negative.

And so on.

Now extrapolate all of this on the whole KSP. Now try to figure out every Kraken blessed Add'On in existence borking due a change you did, and now you have to face all that public backslash. And then hurrying up to patch that hole no matter what so you stop the backslash, and once the backslash ended, you need to handle the fallout. And once the fallout ended, you need to properly fix that thing you did in a hurry, or another backslash will happen soon.  

I said once, and I say again. KSP is not a "project" like Assassin's Creed or Battlefield. It's a "program", like Windows or the Space Shuttle. Every new interaction has a huge legacy to cope, or you loose your userbase (as the new guys on Microsoft just discovered with Windows 10  ).

Microsoft had 25 years to deliver a stable, "final" release of Windows since Chicago (that Windows 95 thingy). They are still on it.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Lisias
tasting my own medicine :)

[DAL59]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:15 PM, seyss said:

divert all resources in implementing PLANET CLOUDS ASAP!

Why?  I agree that stock clouds would be great, but why divert "all resources" to a minor feature?  Adding 2-d clouds, such as in space engine, would not take that much.  If you mean KSP should have volumetric, realistic clouds, then they shouldn't, because it doesn't fit with art style and would be computer intensive.

 

On 3/6/2019 at 8:15 PM, seyss said:

Been playing this game since 2012, and I'm sure many ppl will follow me.

Squald should stop ALL development and divert all resources in implementing PLANET CLOUDS ASAP!

It is an absolute shame this game has no clouds! We've been asking for this for years. The game looks MUCH MUCH MUCH BETTER with clouds.

All the current mods are crappy and slow. Many visual bugs that just kills the experience.

Thanks.

PS the misspelling of Squald makes this unintentionally hilarious.

[Starman4308]

On 3/11/2019 at 5:33 PM, seyss said:

WOW! To see lots of you "defending little poor Squad" is depressing.

KSP is owned by Take-two, which revenue was 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS in 2018.

I'm sure KSP is developed by talented people who can make great progress on visuals (including clouds), that this game NEEDS BAD! It'll look as a whole new game. It's a matter of PRIORITY.

Having already visited all planets and discovered all artifacts, new visuals and new planets would be the new start to this game that a lot of us old players need!!

 

And the fraction of that $1.8 billion they are willing to give to KSP is tiny.

What you want isn't Take Two's priority. Its priority, first and foremost, is probably something like Grand Theft Auto. Several dozen places down the list is "easy to implememt features likely to bring customers to this niche space game we bought on the cheap." 

Presumably, clouds are a few notches down from there.

[seyss]

That doesn't mean Squad can't plead more!

They should say KSP has a very loyal fan base, and that their visual demands make sense at this point.

The visuals on this game evolved very little since it first launched. Frankly they suck without mods, that's why pretty much all Youtubers use visual mods. I know there's a cartoonish element to the game, but still, the environmental visuals are terrible. Clouds would fix 80% of the problem.

Some of my friends that saw me playing this game asked me if it's a child's game.... SAD!

It's time we change our mindset and stop feeling like inferior players with an underdeveloped indie game. We deserve more!!

PS: IRRC KSP has the HIGHEST SCORE on Steam, even higher than GTA5.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, seyss said:

Some of my friends that saw me playing this game asked me if it's a child's game.... SAD!

Now you pulled a good argument from your hat. "Look, you *need* to add some clouds and novelties to the game, as the present Look&Fell are making you look as a kid's toy".

I'm not exactly dissatisfied with the current Look&Feel - it allows the game to run on my MacPotato, and since it's currently the only gaming machine I have, I'm counting my blessings. But yet, I already bought the game, and Squad needs to convince new players to buy it in order to keep their revenue flowing. So, as long such GPU intensive thingies can be disabled so I can keep playing for some more time on my MacPotato, yeah, I can agree with you now.

 

2 hours ago, seyss said:

PS: IRRC KSP has the HIGHEST SCORE on Steam, even higher than GTA5.

And yet, KSP "looks like a child's game".  

I can see your point now, but look both sides of the coin: a the same time they need new gamers buying the thing, they can't make their current user base angry - or they will face a backslash, and the fallout could cost them more than any new incoming they would get on the stunt.

They need to measure the consequences with prudence. This is probably one of that weird situations in which two opposite points of view can be simultaneously right (or simultaneously wrong!). Hard nut to crack, if you ask me.

[Adstri]

You can just install visuals yourself (it's painfully easy to install mods.) Not everyone is able to run clouds.

Plus I would prefer if they put more work into the planets themselves to make them look good without literal makeup clouds instead of just adding something that literally anyone could do just by dragging a few folders.

[GurrenLagannCWP]

Guys, lets just use EVE, AVP, or SVE, because they do exactly what this suggestion does: add clouds!

[GrandProtectorDark]

On 3/8/2019 at 3:29 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

make RSS/RO stock

I don't think many people would actually want absolute realism.

KSP is already rather "difficult" (orbital mechanics and DeltaV balancing and proper rocket design by themself aren't "simple"). Introducing Realistic engine behaviour, realistic aeroynamics, real fuels and maybe even life support, would make this a lot less accessible to new people and a lot less Interesting to the more casual set of players.

 

[Starman4308]

5 hours ago, seyss said:

That doesn't mean Squad can't plead more!

They should say KSP has a very loyal fan base, and that their visual demands make sense at this point.

Maybe for KSP 2.0. For now, it'd shut out players running on old machines.

5 hours ago, seyss said:

The visuals on this game evolved very little since it first launched. Frankly they suck without mods, that's why pretty much all Youtubers use visual mods. I know there's a cartoonish element to the game, but still, the environmental visuals are terrible. Clouds would fix 80% of the problem.

80% is very much your opinion. I'll also point out that it's hard to do well; most AAA video games occur on the ground level, and don't have you physically flying through clouds. There probably aren't many people out there who can do convincing volumetric clouds.

6 hours ago, seyss said:

Some of my friends that saw me playing this game asked me if it's a child's game.... SAD!

Unfortunate indeed... but KSP is going to be a hard sell regardless. KSP's cartoony aesthetic is grounded far deeper than just clouds.

6 hours ago, seyss said:

It's time we change our mindset and stop feeling like inferior players with an underdeveloped indie game. We deserve more!!

You deserve exactly what you paid for. No more, no less. Feeling entitled to something does not make you entitled to it.

6 hours ago, seyss said:

PS: IRRC KSP has the HIGHEST SCORE on Steam, even higher than GTA5.

Were that even remotely important, KSP would have sold far more than an estimated ~5 million copies. People rate KSP highly because either A, they want to show off their educated gamer credentials, or B, they're one of the handful of space nerd/gamers for which there is almost no other option. People almost never rate KSP low because almost nobody buys KSP unless they're already the sort to like it.

[ZooNamedGames]

4 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

I don't think many people would actually want absolute realism.

KSP is already rather "difficult" (orbital mechanics and DeltaV balancing and proper rocket design by themself aren't "simple"). Introducing Realistic engine behaviour, realistic aeroynamics, real fuels and maybe even life support, would make this a lot less accessible to new people and a lot less Interesting to the more casual set of players.

 

Make difficulty modes for planet sizes and or realism

Edited March 15, 2019 by ZooNamedGames

[BABLBAM]

There are clouds on Eve.

[Lisias]

16 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

 KSP's cartoony aesthetic is grounded far deeper than just clouds.

More than that. It's utterly needed. You don't want realistic living beings blowing up in the skies, neither being smashed and/or ripped by gruesome accidents. 

Crashes are unavoidable on KSP, so crashes must be fun.

Spoiler

NEVER EVER expose yourself to pictures from airplane accidents. I mean it.

No living person is aged enough to see that thing and be not traumatized. People used on the rescuing efforts are specially trained, and have psychological care before and after the missions.

And you don't.

So the environment needs to be somewhat cartoony in order to cope with the cartoonist characters - unless you plan to make a follow up to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" or "Cool World" (while I doubt the late would be a viable option for our kids.  ).

Edited March 15, 2019 by Lisias
one more argument.

[RealKerbal3x]

15 hours ago, BABLBAM said:

There are clouds on Eve.

No there aren’t. Some mods add them though.

Eve does have oceans, are you sure you’re not mixing them up?