Anybody else really excited about the new sub-assembly feature?

[mcwaffles2003]

When I build craft mid-game I often like to add mini lander probes to a main mothership and have them each land on the surface in different biomes to collect data without any intention of them ever moving once they land. I also like to set up comms arrays in a similar manner. Doing this always requires me to build multiple craft and merge them and in KSP 1 this is handled in a very sloppy manner. You can only attach the craft via their root parts for example which often leads me to frustration, especially when the part im selecting for some reason cant become a root.

So in short this is a feature I really can't wait to use. Also making main lifter stages and attaching payloads seems like it will be a whole different experience in general... I think sharing craft subassemblies will become a more meaningful activity and making challenges involving competitions for moving payloads or contracts (if any mechanism of contracts survives) will be more easy to implement.

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Not really; KSP's sub-assemblies are the least used of all of it's features for me. And if KSP2 allows you to have a VAB on a ship, then sub-assemblies become even less useful. At that point you can just use standard craft you have saved back, but this is all assuming that there's nothing in KSP2 that makes sub-assemblies more attractive. Because as it stands in KSP1, all they are is standard craft with more limits. There's no advantage in using them over just making a "Craft" that's essentially what a sub-assembly would be.

Then again i haven't used any of KSP's Sharing features, so I'm hardly indicative of what KSP players as a whole do.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Not really; KSP's sub-assemblies are the least used of all of it's features for me. And if KSP2 allows you to have a VAB on a ship, then sub-assemblies become even less useful. At that point you can just use standard craft you have saved back, but this is all assuming that there's nothing in KSP2 that makes sub-assemblies more attractive. Because as it stands in KSP1, all they are is standard craft with more limits. There's no advantage in using them over just making a "Craft" that's essentially what a sub-assembly would be.

Then again i haven't used any of KSP's Sharing features, so I'm hardly indicative of what KSP players as a whole do.

I think he's talking about working on multiple crafts at the same time one next to the other.

I can't wait to have the new VAB system in my hands, from designing complex liquid fueled boosters to having multiple payloads in a single mission that feature will be a game changer for me.

This focus on such features is what makes difficult for me to dismiss as marketing the statement that some of the Devs played the game for hundred of hours.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I think he's talking about working on multiple crafts at the same time one next to the other.

I can't wait to have the new VAB system in my hands, from designing complex liquid fueled boosters to having multiple payloads in a single mission that feature will be a game changer for me.

This focus on such features is what makes difficult for me to dismiss as marketing the statement that some of the Devs played the game for hundred of hours.

I personally didn't think that they had any real reason to lie about their time logged in KSP of all things to be honest, my gripes were mostly with their understanding of some of the more fine points of the things within it. Like they didn't understand that SRB's had gimbal until Scott Manley pointed it out to them during an interview....then again SQUAD apparently didn't either because they went back and updated several ones to have a gimbal range a time later.

And yeah; I'm pretty curious about the implications of this. Not from a usability standpoint, but from a structural/computer code POV. One of the reasons KSP craft at times felt so strict was they're stored as tree structures, which while limiting in some ways is one of the faster data structures out there. And it has another advantage as well, since the "Tree" contains all the information needed to lookup and "Rebuild" the craft in any other KSP install it makes sharing them easy and storage requirements for the files relatively light (Some forms of data compression rely heavily on trees).

If i remember from previous discussion, there's ways to keep the tree structure and allow multiple "Parents" for lack of a better word. But that comes at a cost of complexity, and if not designed carefully can easily negate the performance benefits from using the tree. It's undoubtedly a boon from a user standpoint, and something that i would use often now that you put it in context.

But i wouldn't mind Nate clarifying some of the more nitty-gritty back end stuff at some point.

[mcwaffles2003]

29 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Not really; KSP's sub-assemblies are the least used of all of it's features for me. And if KSP2 allows you to have a VAB on a ship, then sub-assemblies become even less useful. At that point you can just use standard craft you have saved back, but this is all assuming that there's nothing in KSP2 that makes sub-assemblies more attractive. Because as it stands in KSP1, all they are is standard craft with more limits. There's no advantage in using them over just making a "Craft" that's essentially what a sub-assembly would be.

Then again i haven't used any of KSP's Sharing features, so I'm hardly indicative of what KSP players as a whole do.

What @Master39 said. A hanger would be cool too but only if building craft took time, but that's not the subject here

12 minutes ago, Master39 said:

This focus on such features is what makes difficult for me to dismiss as marketing the statement that some of the Devs played the game for hundred of hours.

Especially since, IDK about you and everyone else, the VAB is where the plurality if not the  majority of my time is spent in the game so I can see the devs spending a lot of time working on this.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

What @Master39 said. A hanger would be cool too but only if building craft took time, but that's not the subject here

Especially since, IDK about you and everyone else, the VAB is where the plurality if not the  majority of my time is spent in the game so I can see the devs spending a lot of time working on this.

Yeah i got hung up on the word "Subassembly" and forgot entirely about the fact they mentioned muliple editing recently xD

[mcwaffles2003]

5 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I peIf i remember from previous discussion, there's ways to keep the tree structure and allow multiple "Parents" for lack of a better word. But that comes at a cost of complexity, and if not designed carefully can easily negate the performance benefits from using the tree. It's undoubtedly a boon from a user standpoint, and something that i would use often now that you put it in context.

Funny thing is you can have multiple parent parts in ksp 1 in a way. Take a 1.25m tank and attach a quad adapter to it, put 4 engines on the quad in symmetry mode then in symmetry add decouplers to them. Finally, out of symmetry mode match up another quad adapter to the decouplers and all the decouplers will attach. This is the only instance of multiple parent parts I have found though.

Edited September 28, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Funny thing is you can have multiple parent parts in ksp 1 in a way. Take a 1.25m tank and attach a quad adapter to it, put 4 engines on the quad in symmetry mode then in symmetry add decouplers to them. Finally, out of symmetry mode match up another quad adapter to the decouplers and all the decouplers will attach. This is the only instance of multiple parent parts I have found though.

Pretty sure there's also a workaround involving docking ports, so it's by no means insurmountable. Just more makes me curious how they've handled in on the back end.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Pretty sure there's also a workaround involving docking ports, so it's by no means insurmountable. Just more makes me curious how they've handled in on the back end.

Either way, Im with you in hoping there is some part tree structure reform. On a different note though... I hope we see some extended gameplay of the VAB sometime soon instead of the very short teasers we've gotten. I would be nice to see the direction they're heading even if it isn't polished yet and what new features are included so far.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Either way, Im with you in hoping there is some part tree structure reform. On a different note though... I hope we see some extended gameplay of the VAB sometime soon instead of the very short teasers we've gotten. I would be nice to see the direction they're heading even if it isn't polished yet and what new features are included so far.

As long as it doesn't come at the cost of performance; which would be my biggest worry. But KSP2 has been performance-minded since day one it seems, so i'm not too worried.

And meh; i'd rather get another development blog entry. But that's just me.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I personally didn't think that they had any real reason to lie about their time logged in KSP of all things to be honest

I also think that they have no reason to lie, but the areas of KSP1 they choose to enhance and expand for the sequel make me hard to even theorise that they have lied, it really feels like the game is being developed by the average forum user.

 

21 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I'm pretty curious about the implications of this. Not from a usability standpoint, but from a structural/computer code POV.

Honestly I don't think that the performance enhancement of a direct tree structure are all that relevant now, almost a decade after KSP's original release, especially since we don't have amateurs working on that but experienced developers.

 

6 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 I hope we see some extended gameplay of the VAB sometime soon instead of the very short teasers we've gotten. I would be nice to see the direction they're heading even if it isn't polished yet and what new features are included so far.

I can't wait see the whole building part, VAB, BAE and the possible other application of having already implemented what basically is a system to turn any flight scene in a VAB scene with resources and inventory constrains (the BAE does that for bases and station, wouldn't it be easy enough to use the same system on crafts with Engineers on EVA?)

Edited September 28, 2020 by Master39

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

And meh; i'd rather get another development blog entry. But that's just me.

Those are nice and all but I would like to see the state of the game and its progress. We got an 8 min long pre-alpha gameplay trailer just after announcement and haven't seen another since. Would be really nice to see what progress has actually been made in the last 13 months finally. Perhaps watching the cyberpunk 2077 updates has spoiled me with their new gameplay reveal every month or so but I think a 10 min gameplay trailer after 13 months isn't asking too much. Also, we havent really seen anything besides a 5 second clip of the VAB and showing us a more lengthy and involved exploration of the VAB wouldn't spoil anything since we will have out hands on it from the beginning.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

Those are nice and all but I would like to see the state of the game and its progress. We got an 8 min long pre-alpha gameplay trailer just after announcement and haven't seen another since. Would be really nice to see what progress has actually been made in the last 13 months finally. Perhaps watching the cyberpunk 2077 updates has spoiled me with their new gameplay reveal every month or so but I think a 10 min gameplay trailer after 13 months isn't asking too much. Also, we havent really seen anything besides a 5 second clip of the VAB and showing us a more lengthy and involved exploration of the VAB wouldn't spoil anything since we will have out hands on it from the beginning.

Well CDProjectRED has been spoling me ever since how wonderfully CFX scaled on TW3, but i honestly haven't been paying too much attention to CP2077 after they announced the 2nd delay personally.

But as for KSP2's development; i personally don't think we're liable to see much until at least CES in January. You don't delay a game that was slated for release in a few months by nearly half a year so you can spend it making promotional materials. Would it be nice to have more information? Sure, but I'm not too broken up either way at this point.

[mcwaffles2003]

11 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Well CDProjectRED has been spoling me ever since how wonderfully CFX scaled on TW3, but i honestly haven't been paying too much attention to CP2077 after they announced the 2nd delay personally.

But as for KSP2's development; i personally don't think we're liable to see much until at least CES in January. You don't delay a game that was slated for release in a few months by nearly half a year so you can spend it making promotional materials. Would it be nice to have more information? Sure, but I'm not too broken up either way at this point.

It got delayed by a year and a half. But I really wonder how much of that is due to development problems. As I understand it, the announcements reception was far beyond what was expected and outer worlds did better than expected as well, giving private division more resources than expected.  I wonder if both of these factors came together giving star theory bargaining room to push out release as far as possible, both to make a better game and expanding the audience to generate more sales and to get more money out of the project for star theory by extending dev time (a la Northrup Grumman and JWST sigh). Maybe they played their hand a little too hard and private division wasn't having it after a point hence the whole new studio debacle. Also, the forum lighting up with suggestions/comments/criticisms probably gave the devs more ideas to work with and I bet they've actually taken some of these suggestions to heart and have tried implementing them...

33 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I also think that they have no reason to lie, but the areas of KSP1 they choose to enhance and expand for the sequel make me hard to even theorise that they have lied, it really feels like the game is being developed by the average forum user.

Or they just hit a HUGE snag that set them way far back. Though if you announce only 6 months from release and end up delaying to 2 years from the announcement... that's one hell of a snag, isn't it? I'm not a game dev though and I don't know the climate of a dev studio or what's all that typical in game development, but to me, a layman, it seems like this would be an unusual circumstance.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

40 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It got delayed by a year and a half. But I really wonder how much of that is due to development problems. As I understand it, the announcements reception was far beyond what was expected and outer worlds did better than expected as well, giving private division more resources than expected.  I wonder if both of these factors came together giving star theory bargaining room to push out release as far as possible, both to make a better game and expanding the audience to generate more sales and to get more money out of the project for star theory by extending dev time (a la Northrup Grumman and JWST sigh). Maybe they played their hand a little too hard and private division wasn't having it after a point hence the whole new studio debacle. Also, the forum lighting up with suggestions/comments/criticisms probably gave the devs more ideas to work with and I bet they've actually taken some of these suggestions to heart and have tried implementing them...

Or they just hit a HUGE snag that set them way far back. Though if you announce only 6 months from release and end up delaying to 2 years from the announcement... that's one hell of a snag, isn't it? I'm not a game dev though and I don't know the climate of a dev studio or what's all that typical in game development, but to me, a layman, it seems like this would be an unusual circumstance.

All indications point toward issues in the beginning of development, a studio change mid-way, and then the final snag with the contract negotiations falling flat. So i heavily doubt any of the delay was to expand the scope of the game or implement "Suggestions", and personally it doesn't resemble anything good looking back at other development cycles. And mind you; star.theory did try to bargain. And when they did; 2K laughed them out of the room and pulled out of their arrangement while also sending offers to the existing staff to join the new "Intercept games". So no, i don't think they were in any form of bargaining position.

The simplest explanation to me is that KSP2 wasn't ever that close to release, and further business/office politics dealings and machinations combined with whatever technical issues they had made them slip well behind. And 2K used their position to force them back on the rails rather than let the work done and money spent go to waste. It's a pretty classic story in game development, and most often ends up without anything ever seeing the light of day.

That's all just my opinion, combined with speculation and the little info we know. But everything we've seen doesn't make me think KSP2 is in any state we'd want at this moment; even if they had a playable build there's likely scores of issues we're not seeing(Hell it might be downright unplayable not hooked up to a debugger/IDE). Staff are having to be brought up to speed, on top of all the reorganization.

The good news is that there does seem to be progress being made, and whatever happened behind closed doors has KSP2 on track to at least a somewhat stable release at first.

[shdwlrd]

I can't wait to be able to build ships side by side. Since I've been building modular ships, it would make it so much easier to line everything up and make sure everything docks properly. 

Also it would make loading the newest rovers into cargo crafts so much easier.

[mcwaffles2003]

23 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I can't wait to be able to build ships side by side. Since I've been building modular ships, it would make it so much easier to line everything up and make sure everything docks properly. 

Also it would make loading the newest rovers into cargo crafts so much easier.

Definitely, switching between small craft and the large craft you will be attaching them to currently is a bit of a nuisance and merging the craft  even more so. Very much in need of a QoL update/fix.

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Definitely, switching between small craft and the large craft you will be attaching them to currently is a bit of a nuisance and merging the craft  even more so. Very much in need of a QoL update/fix.

Yep, either allow surface attachment or any open stack node to add the merged craft or subassembly would make the process so much easier use. 

[mcwaffles2003]

A small QoL feature I'm hoping for...

the ability to scroll between your saved rockets. It would be nice if you could load them scrolling instead of a name and a tiny picture. 

I'm also hoping that the use of subassemblies will allow us to categorize and sort our builds to make browsing among them more useful. Perhaps make a booster category that has a small detail readout of Kg to low kerbin orbit, or a science module category detailing the experiments present, etc...

[kerbiloid]

My excitement is scheduled on the fall of 2021.

[mcwaffles2003]

8 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

My excitement is scheduled on the fall of 2021.

none until then?

Edited October 26, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[mattinoz]

Yes - a CAD programme user were symbols (sub-assemblies) are the life blood of the system I'm very much looking forward to improvements

 

[shdwlrd]

Don't forget about building subassemblies side by side too. 

[K^2]

It makes perfect sense why you can only attach by the root. the craft in KSP are built as a tree, which is useful for just about every bit of logic that involves craft, including fuel routing. However, re-rooting a tree is a fairly straight forward procedure, and we even have that for the main vehicle in assembly. So all we need is an automatic quick re-root for sub-assemblies when we're attaching them and that should solve most problems.

Also, I agree that more parts should qualify for root. It makes sense that you can't use struts and fuel lines for root parts, as well as some robotic parts, like hinges, but there are also some very strange exceptions. I have no idea why you can't root from external command seat, for example.

[James Kerman]

Overlapping topics have been merged.