Jump to content

Show and Tell - The Kerbal Space Center

StarSlay3r

By StarSlay3r
in Show and Tell

 Share

Recommended Posts

shdwlrd

shdwlrd

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah I can see why they'd like to reference the original for continuity. It has a very DC administrative look. This is the current NASA headquarters, which isn't a bad bit of deconstructivst architecture, but nothing to write home about and doesn't allow you to wrap around a big cool statue.  I think the current designs have a lot of integrity and a nice balance between slightly cartoonish proportions and  simple/realistic detail.

That's the reason I've never liked it. I never made sense for an astronaut training center. If it was an administration building or housing for personnel at the KSC, I wouldn't care. It would fit the part. For the rest of what was shown, that's how it should look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLTay

TLTay

Posted
Posted (edited)

Please don't forget the ladders to get to the roof!

Is it too late to propose a rover testing area/track with paved hills/angles/undulations like the offroad car companies use to show off cars? This would be lots of fun for little work/poly count (hopefully) and it could be used in kart rover races. :D

 

On 5/28/2021 at 1:56 PM, Iron Kerman said:

Looking great!!! But where docks?

I think that's part of the terrain at the KSC location. This looks like it's not at the KSC location.  See Nate for answer below.

 

Edited by TLTay
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted

Am I alone in being underwhelmed?  

I really appreciate the update, and as a sort of placeholder set of buildings, it's cool to see ...but.

Sadly the graphics at this render look very 'early 2000's... without trees' and etc.

So - aside from cheering on the team and appreciating any progress updates... what is the 'woo'?

Not up to par with something like this (which is 'woot' worthy)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snkiz

snkiz

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Nate Simpson said:

This is an excellent note. Consider that hill deleted.

This is what impresses me about the whole team. That kind of constructive feedback in game development is not as common as most studios would like you to believe.  Never change Nate. 

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Sadly the graphics at this render look very 'early 2000's... without trees' and etc.

Demo plain not kerbain, just  a plain skybox. The post is solely about the buildings not the environment.

1 hour ago, Niterliok said:

are the runways bigger ? because I think the KSP1 runway is a liiiiiiiiiiiitlle bit too short. Maybe in the other space centers the runways will be bigger :) no pressure tho. :):):):)

The runway now is longer in scale then the runway the shuttle used. That is one of the longer runways in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, snkiz said:

Demo plain not kerbain, just  a plain skybox. The post is solely about the buildings not the environment.

I accept that - I get 'low res placeholder and first-pass' work from an internal testing sense. 

But when you are trying to build hype / keep the fan-base excited... maybe give it a pass or two with the goodies?  The other renders we've seen have showcased the promise of fantastic lighting and attention to detail.  The look of the rockets we've seen, the shadows on the Kerbals, the transparent ship windows, facial expressions, terrain and end-game buildings... all look pretty damn good. 

This was kind of like, 'oh heck it's Friday - we forgot to put something out on the forums... who's got something?'

 

Edit: (look, I know this may sound ungrateful - but if no one says anything other than 'yaaay, Timmy!'   ... is that really helping?)

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites
snkiz

snkiz

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I accept that - I get 'low res placeholder and first-pass' work from an internal testing sense. 

But when you are trying to build hype / keep the fan-base excited... maybe give it a pass or two with the goodies?  The other renders we've seen have showcased the promise of fantastic lighting and attention to detail.  The look of the rockets we've seen, the shadows on the Kerbals, the transparent ship windows, facial expressions, terrain and end-game buildings... all look pretty damn good. 

This was kind of like, 'oh heck it's Friday - we forgot to put something out on the forums... who's got something?'

It's like in television when you only have so much money for a season. Sometime you have the blockbuster big budget episodes. But to pay for those you need  to have the talkie episodes, mostly dialogue, using the same scene. Now replace money with time. The more elaborate the show and tell, the more production time it takes. Time that could used on dev time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minmus Taster

Minmus Taster

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Looks like a waste of RAM and processor cycles to me. Make the physics engine bulletproof and it could be wireframe for all I care. (Still holding out for Borderlands-style cel-shading though.)

Nothing is KSP is a waste of RAM:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...