No procedural wings = no buy. Simple.

[Brofessional]

9 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

I cant get the point why devs cant add this in case when mod makers can.

It's not a technical limitation, it's a gameplay design choice.

Having a bunch of pieces to make wings out of adds to the "Lego" factor of the game. There is a strong argument that to many it's more compelling to combine a plethora of pieces to build a cool design than to just plop down the one [Procedural Wing] part and drag the sliders around to make the perfect shape. You can also get more interesting failures when the entire wing is not one single physics object. On the other hand procedural wings allow full freedom for creativity and reduce part count dramatically. It's just a decision the developers have to make.

There's no way to satisfy both types of players as including both procedural and non-procedural in the stock game doesn't make a lot of sense. If they do decide that procedural wing players are in the minority there is always the mod community to fill that that demand though. The possibility of adding procedural wings in a future update always remains as well, it's not like KSP1 had all of it's current features right out of the gate.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Brofessional

[Guest]

On 8/9/2020 at 10:59 AM, catloaf said:

but it looks like all the small parts are equivalent to stock a few update ago.

We haven't seen anything new on top of what we've already seen with the first trailers, and most of the last updates were not about parts and features but about the design surrounding the game (5 dev diaries, only one on the new engine parts and then visual effects, design choices, engineering challenges and tutorial animation design).

Why that? Think about it, they prepared some marketing material for the reveal, then thought about using it for a couple of months after that a lot happened: negotiations, new job, new studio, starting to work again but then COVID1 and work from home. With all of that in the last year I'm surprised that they found the time to write those other dev diaries at all.

Up until now we've been shown the material thought for the launch, the new features, the game being the same (that's why the old parts with old design were so prominent in the material) and a lot of bases and stations, since that's what mostly missing from KSP1.

I love planes, is spend most of my time in KSP designing planes, but a lot of them it's not what I wanted to see in the reveal of KSP2, more than half of KSP1 are already plane parts, that's not the part of the game that needs most attentions from the devs.

 

On 8/9/2020 at 10:59 AM, catloaf said:

delays that are starting to make this look like the super duper graphics pack.

On this I will only say that I would spend 60$ to have all the feature shown even with KSP1 level of graphics.

[snip]

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Vanamonde

[catloaf]

33 minutes ago, Master39 said:

 

On this I will only say that I would spend 60$ to have all the feature shown even with KSP1 level of graphics.

 

I wasn't referencing ksp, this was something that was supposed to come to Minecraft, but was delayed many times. 3 years after it was supposed to come out it was cancelled.

[catloaf]

39 minutes ago, Master39 said:

 

The fact that we're so upset about a small detail in the flavour text of some engine is testament of how deep we have to search to find something to complain about.

Honestly that being the biggest problem when my favorite game has been bought by a big bad publisher to make a sequel with a different studio it's not something I can complain about.

The fact that pink magic rockets under a technobabble name are in is a little concerning. But the combination of T2's behavior, delays, and other smaller things such as considering taking abilities away in sandbox mode and not improving the Kerbol system beyond visual changes (which I really like) are what almost ruin it. I want to love this game and think that I will. But I have concerns because I really want it to be worth the wait. I also hope they use the delay to add some new content. 

[Bej Kerman]

19 minutes ago, catloaf said:

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

The fact that we're so upset about a small detail in the flavour text of some engine is testament of how deep we have to search to find something to complain about.

Honestly that being the biggest problem when my favorite game has been bought by a big bad publisher to make a sequel with a different studio it's not something I can complain about.

The fact that pink magic rockets under a technobabble name are in is a little concerning.

And making fuel from soil in KSP 1 isn't?

[Lewie]

1 hour ago, catloaf said:

The fact that pink magic rockets under a technobabble name are in is a little concerning. But the combination of T2's behavior, delays, and other smaller things such as considering taking abilities away in sandbox mode and not improving the Kerbol system beyond visual changes (which I really like) are what almost ruin it. I want to love this game and think that I will. But I have concerns because I really want it to be worth the wait. I also hope they use the delay to add some new content. 

I’ve said this before....but what’s the big deal with the pink magic rockets? I mean, they are going to be in the game. No amount of complaining and whining is going to change that. And ksp2....is a game. A GAME. Does it really have to cause all this fighting? And as to not changing the kerbol system beyond visual enhancements...why would that ‘almost ruin the game? Ksp is a sandbox type of game, sequels for these games are always tricky. That’s why the focus is on interstellar travel. 

The problem here is that no matter what, no one will be 100% satisfied. Which seeing as not getting your way in this world causes petty arguments, leads to the impression that many folk have the maturity and temperament of a five year old.

[mattinoz]

4 hours ago, Brofessional said:

It's not a technical limitation, it's a gameplay design choice.

Having a bunch of pieces to make wings out of adds to the "Lego" factor of the game. There is a strong argument that to many it's more compelling to combine a plethora of pieces to build a cool design than to just plop down the one [Procedural Wing] part and drag the sliders around to make the perfect shape. You can also get more interesting failures when the entire wing is not one single physics object. On the other hand procedural wings allow full freedom for creativity and reduce part count dramatically. It's just a decision the developers have to make.

There's no way to satisfy both types of players as including both procedural and non-procedural in the stock game doesn't make a lot of sense. If they do decide that procedural wing players are in the minority there is always the mod community to fill that that demand though. The possibility of adding procedural wings in a future update always remains as well, it's not like KSP1 had all of it's current features right out of the gate.

An argument could be made that procedural wings and tanks are more Lego-like it just depends which generation of Lego you are talking about?

Kids these days get lots a custom molded pieces, in my day would have had to hunt the collection for all the 1/4 circle pieces we could find to build anything rocket like. Old school Lego is procedural.

[catloaf]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

And making fuel from soil in KSP 1 isn't?

At least that's a simplification of something that can be done, not outdated/bad science. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, catloaf said:

T2's behavior

The report of which is 50% second hand information passed through disgruntled ex-employees and journalist hunting for a big story for his new job and 50% filling the numerous holes with pure speculation based on "Big bad publishers must be bad".

 

2 hours ago, catloaf said:

delays

Normal in any announced game ever, a bad game is bad forever a delayed one can still be good.

The "Bad publisher being bad" here would have been T2 not granting more time and forcing S.T to publish a mess of an unfinished game.

 

2 hours ago, catloaf said:

considering taking abilities away in sandbox mode

Nope, they're not taking anything away, they're thinking on how to integrate the new functionalities in the sandbox mode, everything launched from Kerbin costs nothing and require no science points to unlock cannot be easily applied when launching from Kerbin is the starting point and money and science aren't the only conditions to unlock new tech and/or building crafts.

 

2 hours ago, catloaf said:

and not improving the Kerbol system beyond visual changes

Nope, visual changes is what we're getting with the current KSP1 updates, redesigning the whole system with an unseen level of detail and variability in terrain cannot be reduced to "visual changes only".

 

2 hours ago, catloaf said:

I also hope they use the delay to add some new content. 

What we've been shown now is the new features (but without giving details on how they work) to clarify this is not a mere graphical enhancement and the old parts to ensure us that, yes, this is still the Kerbal we know and then revealed a ton of QOL features like integrated DV maps and planner, background acceleration, routine mission automation and so on.

I hope that they start showing how everything works and generally the rest of the things we still haven't seen.

 

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

On 8/8/2020 at 4:53 PM, Vegatoxi said:

Is says it's "From the creator of KSP"
And it has...  PROCEDURAL WINGS!!!

Which is still not implemet to KSP and i dont seen any signs of it in KSP 2

So here's the simple message to KSP 2 Devs: if you cant add such basic thing, your game not worht ot buy AT ALL!!!

Cheers.

1. HarvesteR left the team ages ago

2. Just don't buy the game then

[snip]

Edited August 10, 2020 by Vanamonde

[KerikBalm]

14 hours ago, catloaf said:

Yes fusing winds is a perfect compromise. And doesn't have the design shift that full procedural would have.

Well, they are going to have some physics LOD, and I wouldn't be surprised if that results in some parts acting like they have been "welded"/fused.

So on this point, I will just wait and see, and not complain.

12 hours ago, Master39 said:

The fact that we're so upset about a small detail in the flavour text of some engine is testament of how deep we have to search to find something to complain about.

That's a big understatement/strawman, but I thought you didn't want to bring this topic up, you even have a quip in your sig

8 hours ago, catloaf said:

I'm ksp people think there learning scientific concepts because they are. I used to think Earth had and orbital velocity of ~2.2 km/s because that's the case for Kerbin.

Really? When I argue against pixie dust rockets, some people counter with the unrealistic toy scale of the system - which I discounted because I thought obviously people would realize that its toy scale and the implications of the scale - so it wouldn't be comparable to promoting other bad science.

I guess I was wrong.

I wonder if I should start a poll to see how common this misconception is

[jimmymcgoochie]

Flying a plane with normal wings in KSP: pull up too quickly, half of the wing bits fall off, but the remaining pieces are just enough to limp back to the ground and salvage a landing you can walk away from. Or at least, enough to keep it airborne while you bail the crew out. It also works better for building things that aren’t planes and for aerial combat, if that’s something you do with KSP (I still don’t really get it but it looks like it could be fun as a multiplayer thing).

Flying a plane with procedural wings in KSP: pull up too quickly, the entire wing snaps off, nosedive, boom. All or nothing is fine if you have ‘all’, but not when you have ‘nothing’!

 

If there was any kind of ‘procedural’ element to wings, I would prefer it to be like stock fairings- draw the outline of the shape then change the angles if you want. Or maybe that physics trick of counting groups of parts as one single part could be applied to wings, similar to the ‘merging’ idea others posted earlier, but that also runs the risk of losing a whole wing instead of a single part if you hit something or overstress it.

Trying to balance a game with a distinct set of parts is relatively easy; trying to balance a game made of free form parts that can be created in any shape and size you like is far more difficult. Getting a new player to design their own rocket by subtly tweaking the size and shape of each component is only going to confuse them; telling them ‘pod, parachute, rocket, launch’ is faster and more intuitive. Foisting a wilfully complex system onto everyone to appease a small but shouty minority won’t make KSP2 sell more copies or make the majority of players happy, so wait for the procedural mods or just don’t buy the game.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

That's a big understatement/strawman, but I thought you didn't want to bring this topic up, you even have a quip in your sig

I was replying to somebody else bringing it up. 

No, it's not an understatement, the fact that we're arguing about nitpicks in the background tech of some engine it's testament that we don't have any big flaw to complain about.

[The Aziz]

5 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

Getting a new player to design their own rocket by subtly tweaking the size and shape of each component is only going to confuse them; telling them ‘pod, parachute, rocket, launch’ is faster and more intuitive.

The reason I couldn't get into SimplePlanes/SimpleRockets.

[Vanamonde]

The subject of this thread is not metallic hydrogen engines. Those comments have been removed. 

Also, for the second time, do not try to tell other forum members what they should and shouldn't talk about. If the subject of a thread is not of interest to you, skip the thread. 

[mattinoz]

14 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

Getting a new player to design their own rocket by subtly tweaking the size and shape of each component is only going to confuse them; telling them ‘pod, parachute, rocket, launch’ is faster and more intuitive. Foisting a wilfully complex system onto everyone to appease a small but shouty minority won’t make KSP2 sell more copies or make the majority of players happy, so wait for the procedural mods or just don’t buy the game.

Other than redundancy why would any parts go away if new ones come in with more advanced options. So first build could still be the same but third or forth might then have a chance at a different teachable moment with the player by showing then how to adjust drag of tail fins to keep rocket pointing in the right direction. 

[ArtemisAZ]

Okay and?

[probe137]

On 8/9/2020 at 7:32 PM, Vegatoxi said:

Mods can be abandoned.

And you nedd to wait until it's update every patch.

You won't NEED to wait for a mod to update, as there will probably be a KSP2 version of KSP Recall, a mod that makes any mod you install compatible with the KSP version you are on, so you only have one mod to update unless one of the mods you've downloaded has new features/bugfixes in the latest update. 

[Redneck]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:53 PM, Vegatoxi said:

 

 

So here's the simple message to KSP 2 Devs: if you cant add such basic thing, your game not worht ot buy AT ALL!!!

 

Cheers.

i bet ya do!

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

Damn guys... i know you want your Procedural wings badly but you dont gotta bash the developers that hard. they got a lot of stuff on their hands and im sure there is a mod on KSP that allows procedural wings ok? If you wanna save your 40$ or 60$ then go ahead but try to at least not discourage the developers.

 

#PoorDevelopers #KSP_IS_STILL_AWESOME!!!

[Vegatoxi]

On 10/15/2020 at 10:52 PM, DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE said:

Damn guys... i know you want your Procedural wings badly but you dont gotta bash the developers that hard. they got a lot of stuff on their hands and im sure there is a mod on KSP that allows procedural wings ok? If you wanna save your 40$ or 60$ then go ahead but try to at least not discourage the developers.

 

#PoorDevelopers #KSP_IS_STILL_AWESOME!!!

 

I dont want mods. I want native support

I'm deal with mods in KSP and it's not good.

New patch = everything is broken and you need to wait up to 6 month for mod patch. It's terrible.

 

For 2021 game, when everything is procedural - it's unacceptiable to not have this feature. Especially for such type of game.

[mcwaffles2003]

11 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said:

 

I dont want mods. I want native support

I'm deal with mods in KSP and it's not good.

New patch = everything is broken and you need to wait up to 6 month for mod patch. It's terrible.

 

For 2021 game, when everything is procedural - it's unacceptiable to not have this feature. Especially for such type of game.

Is not about feasibility, it's a design choice and the devs just disagree. Procedural parts can't do everything that modular parts can like deform and break under stress. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[AlamoVampire]

@Vegatoxi ive said it before, buy it or not, it really is up to you. I am almost certain that the developers are not going to sweat it out. They have a vision in mind for what they want to do with KSP2 and if that does not include procedural parts, then, while that will be sad, it is their choice. Take my preference for the mod Procedural Fairings for KSP. It is in my opinion a superior fairing system than the <in MY OPINION> abysmal stock fairings. I was using Procedural Fairings long before we actually needed them in game because they looked cool. I am still baffled to this day that with what is in my opinion the gold standard for fairings out there the developers went with the system they did. I am not privy to why that choice was made. Now, that said, will I not buy KSP2 if my preferred fairing system is not included? No. I will still buy it. I am very very certain that at some point a mod will come along and provide the fairing system I prefer. I would also love to see realistic particle effects <plasma trails> for re-entry, but, again, if its not in stock <why they wouldnt at this point is beyond me, back in the day, while it was coded in and not turned on, it was a performance thing to not have it on, yet it was a sister effect to the smoke plumes so <<shrugs>> theres that> I will not be so turned off from KSP that I will not buy. 

This all a long winded way to say something that I think should be said: We simply do not have enough information on what will be included in the game feature wise, what will not be there, what is being considered, what is being rejected to make any kind of statements of: if X feature is not in game, then I will not buy. Patience is key here. We undoubtedly will learn more as time goes on, but, for now, sit back, enjoy KSP and what ever delicious tidbits they do share with us. 

001510172020

[DunaManiac]

13 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

procedural - it's unacceptiable

How is it unacceptable to not have procedural parts?

Edited October 17, 2020 by DunaManiac

[linuxgurugamer]

13 hours ago, Vegatoxi said:

 

I dont want mods. I want native support

I'm deal with mods in KSP and it's not good.

New patch = everything is broken and you need to wait up to 6 month for mod patch. It's terrible.

 

For 2021 game, when everything is procedural - it's unacceptiable to not have this feature. Especially for such type of game.

If they put in everything that anyone feels should be “stock”, then one of two things will happen :

1. Game will be years late and over budget
2. Game will have bugs galore

Or:

       3.  Game will be on-time and mostly bug-free

Pick one.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by linuxgurugamer