Javster Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 What I would like is some kind of deformable parts: if you hit a Jumbo fuel tank hard, instead of it exploding, it gets dented and might leak fuel. Failing that, a texture showing a slightly damaged part if you hit it close to its impact tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warsoul Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) What I would like is some kind of deformable parts: if you hit a Jumbo fuel tank hard, instead of it exploding, it gets dented and might leak fuel. Failing that, a texture showing a slightly damaged part if you hit it close to its impact tolerance.This technologie can be used on parts too ! An entire new physics engine based on Havok Physics Engine !''The ‘VeeEngine’ features a unique and flexible VEHICLE/MUD/WATER interaction model that is very fast. The mud interaction model is achieved by a solution that relies on vertex-texture-fetch technology. A low-resolution heightmap is substituted by a high-resolution heightmap; this is then procedurally deformed by any physical body that penetrates it.The engine is written in C++ and utilizes ‘DirectX 9 technologies’ & 'Havok Physics Engine'. The structure of the game comprises of XML and LUA scripts that allows developers to create content with ease. It also allows ‘modding’ communities to make their own modifications.''Do you imagine rovering on Mun like that ? Landing in sand and get stuck. Navigate on or in water. Exploring Kerbin. Digging to reach more new experiments. How damage can done now to your parts. Crushing, melting, grinding or bending. There are so many improvements that technologie can bring to KSP. Like real spacestations explosions and collisions. NASA Gives Up On Stuck Mars Rover SpiritNatalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer | May 24, 2011 05:34pm EThttp://www.space.com/11773-nasa-mars-rover-spirit-mission-ends.htmlCuriosity, don't get stuck! NASA rover set for dangerous trekNASA officials hope Curiosity won't suffer same sandy fate as robotic predecessor Spirithttp://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246068/Curiosity_don_t_get_stuck_NASA_rover_set_for_dangerous_trekMars Rover to Roam No More -- It's OfficialStuck NASA rover will still do science, though, if it survives winter on Mars.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100126-mars-rover-spirit-nasa-stuck/So now the wheels and landing gears are really valuables. Edited June 17, 2014 by Warsoul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBob Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 It would be cool to have but it just isn't going to happen. Plus rovers are already practically worthless so making them even riskier and more annoying just isn't a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilfr3d Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 As KaBob said above, roving is already risky, with a high potential of the wheels just breaking and the rover tipping (or the kraken visiting you). I have played spin tires before, and the technology is great, but I just wouldn't like to see this in KSP. In fact, I would probably play KSP less if it was implemented. Procedural part destruction, yeah. As Javster said, if your part gets hit, it would dent. I would imagine there would be two impact tolerances, one when the tank starts to leak its fuel or gas, and one where the part then turns into a muddle of metal - the equal to a part exploding now. This would definitely make it more realistic generally flying, and it would require some more care and planning with space stations (and docking) and bases.Warsoul, I've seen you round several times with your horrible English and your attempts to make KSP a completely different game to what it is, mimicking starcraft, etc. The interests of development are chosen by the devs and the devs only. We may say we want something, but the devs may not necessarily implement it. If too many thing are implemented to make KSP seem like a mimic of another game (eg. starcraft), KSP may even be done for infringement of copyright. So if you want a game that has things from starcraft... well, go and play starcraft. Simple. If you want the technology in spin tires, go and play spin tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warsoul Posted June 18, 2014 Author Share Posted June 18, 2014 Warsoul, I've seen you round several times with your horrible English and your attempts to make KSP a completely different game to what it is, mimicking starcraft, etc. The interests of development are chosen by the devs and the devs only. We may say we want something, but the devs may not necessarily implement it. If too many thing are implemented to make KSP seem like a mimic of another game (eg. starcraft), KSP may even be done for infringement of copyright. So if you want a game that has things from starcraft... well, go and play starcraft. Simple. If you want the technology in spin tires, go and play spin tires.Do you ever play Starcraft 2 ? They are no suggestion i made they land near 2 000 miles away from an Starcraft 2's concept. I dont know what you have against me. Somes said to me; just don't care about theses guys, they think they are ______. So let's them imagine they are what they think they are. Maybe it's an good advice i must follow. For the second time i said; French is my main language and all suggestions i made have resulted to an fully operational mod in space port from now by somes nice and cool moders. Not by me because i simply abadonning KsP modding to focus my time on my job making nice and cool boarding games. Why i'm gona waste 45$/h to mod Ksp when you got blamed for making a topic on somewhat can be cool to see in ksp ? Orbital construction and planetary construction are playable on 0.23.5 ! And we are happy to play with. I'm sorry for you if you'r not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warsoul Posted June 18, 2014 Author Share Posted June 18, 2014 It would be cool to have but it just isn't going to happen. Plus rovers are already practically worthless so making them even riskier and more annoying just isn't a good idea.Exact ! Rovers is supposed to be the goal of an Space Program ! And they suck for now ! They are almost boring because landscape are flat and solid with few obstacles and craters.So if we can add :-Winds-Storms-Electromagnetic storm-Earthquakes-Acid cloud-Destructible terrain-etcRovering can get his valuable role by collecting various samples of sediments in various situations. An well more complex sciences gathering system for surface samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumghai Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Do you ever play Starcraft 2 ? They are no suggestion i made they land near 2 000 miles away from an Starcraft 2's concept.Looking back at your numerous Warsoul Labs threads, there were proposals for orbital space stations that spawn vehicles (similar to the SC2 Factory / Starport), "dropper" dropships (SC2 Terran dropship) and armed bipedal walkers (SC/BW Goliath or SC2 Thor). It's very easy for many of us to read between the lines and know that you want to turn KSP into a SC2 clone. I dont know what you have against me. Somes said to me; just don't care about theses guys, they think they are ______. So let's them imagine they are what they think they are. Maybe it's an good advice i must follow. Ignoring criticism and hiding in the comfort of your friends will not help you in the long run. Just because they all agree with you, doesn't mean they are right.For the second time i said; French is my main language and all suggestions i made have resulted to an fully operational mod in space port from now by somes nice and cool moders.You signed up for the forums on 20 April 2013.The add-on you speak of, OrbitalConstruction, was first published by Zorkinian in April 2012, which predates you joining the KSP community. Later attempts at reviving / maintaining the add-on, such as OrbitalConstruction Redux by Interfect and Orbital Construction Re-Redux by attosecond, were merely continuations on the original, and were in no way influenced by your threads/posts. Don't claim credit when credit is not due.Not by me because i simply abadonning KsP modding to focus my time on my job making nice and cool boarding games.If you've abandoned KSP to make your "cool board games", then why are you still here on these forums? Why i'm gona waste 45$/h to mod Ksp when you got blamed for making a topic on somewhat can be cool to see in ksp ?Add-on authors make add-ons for fun, not for monetary compensation. If monetary compensation is how you view your "job" of making "cool board games", then that speaks volumes about your overall attitude towards KSP and its development. Orbital construction and planetary construction are playable on 0.23.5 ! And we are happy to play with. I'm sorry for you if you'r not.This is a non-sequitur with regards to the points you've raised previously.Exact ! Rovers is supposed to be the goal of an Space Program ! And they suck for now ! So according to you, building and operating rovers is the sole goal of any Space Program? Just clarifying.They are almost boring because landscape are flat and solid with few obstacles and craters.As many KSP users have demonstrated, landscapes are far from flat and "boring" - drive too fast, make a turn too quickly, brake too suddenly or come across uneven terrain, and there's plenty of vehicular destruction to make it "not boring".So if we can add :-Winds-Storms-Electromagnetic storm-Earthquakes-Acid cloud-Destructible terrain-etcIn the overall scheme of KSP development, they're pretty low-priority compared with 0.24's budgets, reputation and contacts system, improved aerodynamics models etc.Rovering can get his valuable role by collecting various samples of sediments in various situations. An well more complex sciences gathering system for surface samples.The current science model of performing "experiments" and collecting generic science points will suffice for now, when one considers the overall focus of KSP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilfr3d Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) fully operational mod in space portWhat mods? Spaceport is no longer alive. I can't see what your talking about.nice and cool boarding games.What's a boarding game? Why i'm gona waste 45$/h to mod KspIf you're not willing to lose that money for the development and ideas for KSP than why did you bring this topic up?got blamed for making a topic on somewhat can be cool to see in ksp?It could be cool, yes, but it very unnecessary in KSP.Orbital construction and planetary construction are playable on 0.23.5 ! And we are happy to play with.Yes, orbital construction and planetary construction are available and playable, but they are mods. We? Not everyone likes those mods. I don't mind it, and this isn't thread isn't about orbital construction and planetary construction. It's about what you brought up on the main post - terrain deformation.French is my main languageIf French is your main language, then why are you posting in the English section?I also find it amusing, that you haven't replied to anything I said ABOVE what you quoted on. Is that because I'm right? Are you just trying to evade talking about that, because you agree with those points?Rovers is supposed to be the goal of an Space Program !They are almost boring because landscape are flat and solid with few obstacles and craters.No. Rovers are not the goal of KSP. Are... are you thinking properly? Cause I don't think you are. The ground is not flat. The ground has tons of bumps, hills and the rest of it.So if we can add : -Winds -Storms -Electromagnetic storm -Earthquakes -Acid cloud -Destructible terrain -etc Rovering can get his valuable role by collecting various samples of sediments in various situations. An well more complex sciences gathering system for surface samples.For this, the science system would first have to be improved, than the roving system would have to be done. New parts would have to be made for drills to collect the samples. Than all the rest of the other things you suggested would have to be implemented. That wouldn't only affect rovers. it would affect rockets, planes and nearly all things in KSP. You would have to wait for good weather to launch crafts, making the game (possibly) less playable. Edited June 19, 2014 by ToTheMun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaporo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) First of all, I think that destructible terrain would be an interesting feature, but not the way that the OP wants. (takes away from the main focus of the game, I think. Not to mention huge RAM-CPU usage and enormous savefiles that would occur because of this) I would be more interested in impact craters. They wouldn't take up too much space in the saves, as they could be defined by a simple set of shape and size parameters. However, what the OP is suggesting is downright absurd in a game like KSP. KSP is about exploration and overcoming engineering challenges, not slinging mud and making big ruts in the ground with your tires. And, yes, I suppose that you could argue that making a rover that can drive through thick mud is an engineering challenge in and of itself, but still, my point stands.Secondly, Warsoul: you do know that there is Google Translate for times when you're not certain if your English is correct, right? The translations between French and English are usually pretty good, I think.Thirdly, I am only posting in this thread because it is yet again at the top of the forum. It's been well established that almost nobody likes this idea. If you are posting with nothing more than another "NO," or criticism of the OP, please don't post. If you don't agree with an idea and it has already been discussed for a reasonable amount of time, you shouldn't bump the thread. Gah! I sound like a moderator! Edited June 19, 2014 by Vaporo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumghai Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 It's been well established that almost nobody likes this idea. If you are posting with nothing more than another "NO," or criticism of the OP, please don't post. If you don't agree with an idea and it has already been discussed for a reasonable amount of time, you shouldn't bump the thread. Gah! I sound like a moderator!I personally take issue with this last point.To my knowledge, people who post criticism of the OP's ideas and motives do so not because of lulz or trolling as the OP would claim, but because they wish to remind the OP that his idea as-is and the way he has presented it is not workable. Using a blanket statement of "we get it, stop repeating yourself" would limit the messages that the OP receives to merely those that reinforce his viewpoint.People are free to comment and discuss until the OP either withdraws his idea, or reduces its scope to a more feasible level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specialist290 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I believe it's safe to say that this thread has served its purpose. There doesn't seem to be very much hope of salvaging this thread and turning it into a productive discussion, given how quickly that situation escalated.Thread closed. Have a nice day Edited June 19, 2014 by Specialist290 Typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts