Jump to content

When Did KSP2 Get IVA's?

Buzz313th

By Buzz313th
in KSP2 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mutex said:

Correct, in 0.2 it'll be possible to position the camera inside the vessel for a kind-of-but-not-quite IVA

Incorrect, it's possible now.

People, read what the team posts, it doesn't happen often so you can do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Mutex said:

Correct, in 0.2 it'll be possible to position the camera inside the vessel for a kind-of-but-not-quite IVA

So they took the time and developed a way to move the external camera in to the model to make a "Half Baked" IVA?   Why not just take that same time to develop a proper 1st person view and a proper cockpit?  Seems to me a bad use of developer time...  

Edit..  Just saw Aziz's post...

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, The Aziz said:

They never said it's IVA so no, it isn't. A single pixel isn't functional in there.

But misleading to someone who knows nothing about KSP and is looking for a space game where you can fly from inside the cockpit.....?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

they even took measures to avoid confusion but yet again people don't read :huh:

Most people on twitter and other socials just look at images..   And most people who advertise on twitter know this.  A current marketing course will outline the interesting hooks of social media.  The disclaimer will not make it to most and never make it to the person who knows nothing of KSP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted

@Dakota I don't usually ping the importants for anything, but surely it's not important to make sure the right messages are being communicated when posting material? The team is just setting traps up to hurt themselves with later here. In-cockpit views don't need advertising until it's an actual feature. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

And we arrived in a marketing specialists meeting. Sure y'all know what's best, unlike those people who work in the field for years :')

Ah, right, because having to append a "sorry we didn't mean to advertise this unimplemented feature" tweet isn't a red flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

And we arrived in a marketing specialists meeting. Sure y'all know what's best, unlike those people who work in the field for years :')

Best is subjective.  But I have produced content for 30 years in the advertising industry and I’m well aware of how it works.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kdaviper

kdaviper

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Large marketing efforts usually indicate the producer knows the product sucks.  It's when the marketing is low key, then the producers know that word of mouth will sell the product.

What constitutes a large effort? A screenshot posted to a Twitter feed seems to be about the lowest effort one could into an advertisement.

I imagine 99 percent of Twitter users will never see this. The only reason you did is likely your interest in the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, kdaviper said:

What constitutes a large effort? A screenshot posted to a Twitter feed seems to be about the lowest effort one could into an advertisement.

I imagine 99 percent of Twitter users will never see this. The only reason you did is likely your interest in the subject. 

When you hire Halon Entertainment to make your EA release trailer, your writing a huge check...  Huge check = Big effort. 

When your socials and marketing team runs out of relevant content to show for your holiday release of "For Science" and starts relying on pushing the external camera in to the model of assets to make it look like an IVA,  and posts it on twitter twice..   Then there has been a conscious  conversation regarding and there has been an effort made.   When there is a disclaimer added after the post, then there has been effort in "Cleaning it up".

Their "Socials" dept is also choosing trending content on twitter that has nothing to do with gaming..  And tagging them with their "IVA" posts to hit a demographic that loves space, but would not know about KSP or the reputation of the KSP2 development.    Which is a fair marketing strategy, but that demographic will have no idea what "Clipping" or "IVA" is.  They just see the NASA post and then the KSP2 post of an astronaut POV and become a potential buyer of KSP2 thinking they will get to experience virtually what they see in the post.   It's poor form and should be called out. 

 

But back to our topic so this thread doesn't get "Locked For Review". 

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kdaviper

kdaviper

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

When you hire Halon Entertainment to make your EA release trailer, your writing a huge check...  Huge check = Big effort. 

When your socials and marketing team runs out of relevant content to show for your holiday release of "For Science" and starts relying on pushing the external camera in to the model of assets to make it look like an IVA,  and posts it on twitter twice..   Then there has been a conscious  conversation regarding and there has been an effort made.   When there is a disclaimer added after the post, then there has been effort in "Cleaning it up".

Their "Socials" dept is also choosing trending content on twitter that has nothing to do with gaming..  And tagging them with their "IVA" posts to hit a demographic that loves space, but would not know about KSP or the reputation of the KSP2 development.    Which is a fair marketing strategy, but that demographic will have no idea what "Clipping" or "IVA" is.  They just see the NASA post and then the KSP2 post of an astronaut POV and become a potential buyer of KSP2 thinking they will get to experience virtually what they see in the post.   It's poor form and should be called out. 

 

But back to our topic so this thread doesn't get "Locked For Review". 

Still, huge (or expensive) in comparison to what exactly?  And we are talking about the IVA post, not the initial EA release trailers IIRC.

So ANY effort constitutes HUGE effort?( In regards to the Twitter posts) 

And lastly, if the general population are unaware of the existence of IVAs and the views in the tweets are actually reproducible in game, AND they listed steps to reproduce them, how exactly is this deceptive to that population specifically? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 minutes ago, kdaviper said:

Still, huge (or expensive) in comparison to what exactly?  And we are talking about the IVA post, not the initial EA release trailers IIRC.

I am afraid to answer this as I realize further discussion on the topic of the release trailer may pull this conversation off topic and result in getting the topic placed "Under Review".  Maybe we can start another post on this topic...

18 minutes ago, kdaviper said:

So ANY effort constitutes HUGE effort?( In regards to the Twitter posts) 

Again, my bad for going off on a tangent in my previous post..  

18 minutes ago, kdaviper said:

And lastly, if the general population are unaware of the existence of IVAs and the views in the tweets are actually reproducible in game, AND they listed steps to reproduce them, how exactly is this deceptive to that population specifically? 

Let me explain with a following post I was working on before you posted your reply.

Standby......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzz313th

Buzz313th

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The video header clearly states.....

 

"Try this in the 0.2 update next month",.......    Inferring that what you see will be available to do as a player if you own KSP2 and apply the update next month. 

 

My questions as a potential buyer after seeing this is...

1.  Does this mean that I will be able to fly from inside the cockpit in this game?  It sure looks like it.

If I am satisfied with what I saw and I am just breezing through twitter posts then I will likely miss or ignore the cryptic disclaimer posted afterward...

If I read the marketing disclaimer, then I have more questions, assuming I am even motivated enough to try and answer these questions through google searches...

KSP Twitter account states the following disclaimer in a post following the original video post.

"p.s. clipping the capture camera into the cockpit creates a pretty convincing IVA (intra-vehicular activity....or first-Kerbal) view. actual IVA view for KSP2 is on our feature list though!"

1. What does all this mean to the uninformed? 

2. What is "Clipping"

3. What is the "Capture Camera"

4. What is an "IVA View"? "Intra Vehicle Activity"?  

5. "First Kerbal View"?

6. "actual IVA view for KSP2 is on our feature list though"?

Who that has not played KSP knows what any of these terms are?   Even if you have played KSP as a casual user, then you still might not know.

The entire disclaimer is cryptic.  Why so cryptic?  Why not just say the following to make it clearer to the public, if your true intent is to notify the public that this is not a feature that is included in the 0.2 update?

"p.s. We had to move the user adjustable camera inside the game asset model to achieve this cockpit view.  The game does not have any functional cockpits, nor any first person views yet, but we have plans to start development on this feature in the future!"

Because arguably, the marketing department is riding that fine line of truth to hopefully sell more copies of KSP2 to a demographic that they haven't already sold copies to. 

 

WL6W13w.png

Edited by Buzz313th
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scarecrow71

Scarecrow71

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

1.  Does this mean that I will be able to fly from inside the cockpit in this game?  It sure looks like it.

If you follow the steps that IG laid out, then yes, the camera will be from inside the cockpit and flying from inside it will be simulated.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

"p.s. clipping the capture camera into the cockpit creates a pretty convincing IVA (intra-vehicular activity....or first-Kerbal) view. actual IVA view for KSP2 is on our feature list though!"

1. What does all this mean? 

Move the camera to a view so that it appears from inside the cockpit

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

2. What is "Clipping"

People who play games know what the term means.  If they don't a simple Google search or forum/discord question gets the answer

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

3. What is the "Capture Camera"

Really?  Come on.  It's the currently active camera.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

4. What is an "IVA View"? "Intra Vehicle Activity"?  

Like 2 above, people who game know this.  If you don't, ask on the forums or discord and you'll get the answer in rather short order.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

5. "First Kerbal View"?

Again - really?  You know what first person view is, and you know the game is centered around sentient beings called Kerbals.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

6. "actual IVA view for KSP2 is on our feature list though"?

I fail to see why this statement is a problem.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Who that has not played KSP knows what any of these terms are?   Even if you have played KSP as a casual user, then you still might not know.

As stated above - if you game, you should know.  If you don't, then ask.

7 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

The entire disclaimer is cryptic.  Why so cryptic?  Why not just say....

"p.s. We had to move the user adjustable camera inside the game asset model to achieve this cockpit view.  The game does not have any functional cockpits, nor any first person views yet, but we have plans to start development on this feature in the future!"

It's only cryptic because you are making it so.  They stated pretty much what you said they should, but they used different wording than you'd prefer.  I don't know how else to put it.

Edited by Scarecrow71
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...