Secret feature is completely underwhelming.

[mike9606]

I believe we've said this before, but the way we're developing stuff now we're looking at putting all of the planned game's features in the game while we're still in alpha stage, to then begin on adding only really small things while we focus on finishing everything that has been left hanging. This is our take at Early Access games, which is a very new model of production so we don't really have any generalized standard to look into. We're deeply thankful to everyone who is willing to follow us in this adventure.

I personally like the destructible buildings, and that takes me to this question. Will we be able to destroy the buildings in sandbox mode?

[cantab]

Probably everyone has had at least one rocket collapse on the pad, though .23.5 made it less common. That would now trash the pad.

Also stuff like buzzing the VAB or the tower or flying under the bridges is somewhat popular. Raising the stakes will only make it all the more satisfying to pull off a close pass - and all the more disastrous when you hit.

And of course there's always royally screwing up a landing.

In short, there are ways to accidentally blow up KSC.

[Naten]

This fits very little of the criteria of what Maxmaps said, too. Squad, can we be freed and replaced by new lab rats plox?

Also, yeah... destructible buildings. woohoo... the hype train's boiler has run cold...

[Camacha]

the new building still looks terrible

The building seems okay, I just really, really do not like the look of that pond. Pool. Whatever.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

it's just disappointing that so much time...went into something I will likely never encounter instead of, say, another planet or something.

Here is my problem with the new planet argument: Sure, new planets are cool. I would like them. But they have the same problem as a lot of things in the game: You'll get one, it'll be new, you'll play with it, and after you visit it a couple times it'll be seen as just another planet. And then you want yet another planet and the cycle continues again.

As for aerodynamics, I understand the want to have more accurate aerodynamics. but putting FAR (or even NEAR) into the game could potentially make it much harder, especially for beginners, and they have long talked about the balance between making the game fun vs. making it realistic. My impression from their statements is they realize the aerodynamics aren't good, but it's not something that breaks the game, and so while they may look at it later, they're not going to spend a lot of time working on it in the immediate future.

Probably everyone has had at least one rocket collapse on the pad, though .23.5 made it less common. That would now trash the pad..

I think it's too early for us to say how easy/hard it will be to blow things up. He hit the VAB point blank with two medium sized SRBs and it didn't crash it.

On the flip side, there is an argument that if your ship blows up on the pad, then of course you should expect some damage there. When the N1 exploded, it obliterated the launch pad it was on.

Edited September 27, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[TimberWolffe]

It would appear I was mistaken, it was Alshain and other speaking with all the authority of the devs.

Curse you and your confidence, Alshain!

Either way, I wanna make a KSC that's so tall I can launch ships from 12km to make it easier to get through the atmosphere, infamous for being thicker than cold molasses.

[Sky_walker]

That may be the case, but it's somewhat concerning that Squad put all that time into creating all those assets, when they could have been working on "non-scope" aspects such as the absolutely broken aerodynamics model, or perhaps dealing with KSP's absolutely monstrous memory requirements.

Modellers cannot work on aerodynamics model simply because they are modellers, not programmers with a deep knowledge of physics.

People are not interchangable. Not in this way.

[Draft]

I believe we've said this before, but the way we're developing stuff now we're looking at putting all of the planned game's features in the game while we're still in alpha stage, to then begin on adding only really small things while we focus on finishing everything that has been left hanging. This is our take at Early Access games, which is a very new model of production so we don't really have any generalized standard to look into. We're deeply thankful to everyone who is willing to follow us in this adventure.

You're free to think that, but I believe it's the exact approach that one shouldn't take with early-access development. Building barely-functional frameworks and fleshing them out later is fine when you have a plan and nobody has to actually deal with said half-finished features in gameplay, but with early access you have players along with you at each stage of development. A half-functional framework can be appreciated as work for the future, but it also sticks out as a sore thumb of bad gameplay so long as it sits there. You also have to keep our faith that you actually have plans for these frameworks, and honestly? For all your PR training Squad seems really wishy-washy and undecided about the direction the game should head, on top of being inconsistent. If you want to develop early access in that manner, you have to take that into account.

[Franklin]

I believe we've said this before, but the way we're developing stuff now we're looking at putting all of the planned game's features in the game while we're still in alpha stage, to then begin on adding only really small things while we focus on finishing everything that has been left hanging. This is our take at Early Access games, which is a very new model of production so we don't really have any generalized standard to look into. We're deeply thankful to everyone who is willing to follow us in this adventure.

Sure, but you're not actually providing a roadmap to ground out faith in the project. You're giving the illusion of what we all think the game's going to become, but never actually confirming anything long-term.

As updates like 'exploding buildings' roll out, while real issues that have been requested by many, like proper aerodynamics, proper water, and some real math are long ignored, it starts to erode customer confidence in the final product, even if the current product is "good or very good".

So while we all like Squad and like the product, we need some commitment here beyond just breadcrumb info with updates that include things like exploding buildings that blindside people who desperately want even the smallest inkling that the update they seek, as alpha testers, reviewers and customers is on the horizon.

[r4pt0r]

while its great that this is a thing, and im glad they dont hurt cpu use too much by making the destruction animation the exact same thing as in 2005's "Destroy all humans", I believe Lord Hood said it best in Halo 2: "For what purpose, Master Chief?"

Why? I feel that a placeholder of just changing the buildings texture to look ruined would be better since you are still in alpha, while you work to make the game itself feature complete. unless you don't have anything left that is higher priority(better aero, c'mon), in which case this is why so many people clamor for a "roadmap" of sorts, officially detailing the planned features.

Rowsdower you said you might look into that a few weeks ago in a thread with regex, any word on that?

[TimberWolffe]

Modellers cannot work on aerodynamics model simply because they are modellers, not programmers with a deep knowledge of physics.

People are not interchangable. Not in this way.

I mean you say that but I happen to be a modeller with a deep knowledge of physics who is somewhat capable of programming. Seems I'm a wildcard, as usual

[EndOfTheEarth]

The important part is that this is just the frame work for a major feature of 0.26.

I guess they're adding destructible cities too?

[hoojiwana]

I think it's too early for us to say how easy/hard it will be to blow things up. He hit the VAB point blank with two medium sized SRBs and it didn't crash it.

They didn't have time to accelerate.

[regex]

Here is my problem with the new planet argument: Sure, new planets are cool. I would like them. But they have the same problem as a lot of things in the game: You'll get one, it'll be new, you'll play with it, and after you visit it a couple times it'll be seen as just another planet. And then you want yet another planet and the cycle continues again.

How is this any different than this feature? You blow up KSC once or twice and then ... what? As a developer myself I greatly appreciate groundwork being laid but this is gratuitousness on top of groundwork; it really wasn't needed.

As for aerodynamics, I understand the want to have more accurate aerodynamics. but putting FAR (or even NEAR) into the game could potentially make it much harder, especially for beginner

The only people realistic aerodynamics will affect is veterans of the game. Newbies will learn the game under whatever system they're given and a realistic aerodynamic model will provide them with a much better reference regarding what will actually fly.

realism =/= harder

[metalmouth7]

Probably everyone has had at least one rocket collapse on the pad, though .23.5 made it less common. That would now trash the pad.

At this point in time, I can only see this as being a negative thing. It's no fun to have to set back your own play experience because something went wrong with the game. Ensuring the physics engine was far more functional is arguably far more important than adding this feature. With the instabilities that come with building planes, this only compounds the issue. Games should not punish the player for the game being buggy.

Modellers cannot work on aerodynamics model simply because they are modellers, not programmers with a deep knowledge of physics.

People are not interchangable. Not in this way.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. However, perhaps working on suitable replacements to the rather poor models created by Hugo for the last release, a better looking design for the newly added building, additional science systems, or even some finished IVA models would have been a better use of time, currently.

Edited September 27, 2014 by metalmouth7

[Sky_walker]

Here is my problem with the new planet argument: Sure, new planets are cool. I would like them. But they have the same problem as a lot of things in the game: You'll get one, it'll be new, you'll play with it, and after you visit it a couple times it'll be seen as just another planet. And then you want yet another planet and the cycle continues again.

As for aerodynamics, I understand the want to have more accurate aerodynamics. but putting FAR (or even NEAR) into the game could potentially make it much harder, especially for beginners, and they have long talked about the balance between making the game fun vs. making it realistic. My impression from their statements is they realize the aerodynamics aren't good, but it's not something that breaks the game, and so while they may look at it later, they're not going to spend a lot of time working on it in the immediate future..

We had two 30+ pages topics spent on that and we don't need another.

No, improved areodynamics don't increase difficulty - current broken aerodynamics do. For longer explenation refer to the latest topic about the Realism.

I mean you say that but I happen to be a modeller with a deep knowledge of physics who is somewhat capable of programming. Seems I'm a wildcard, as usual

Good point.

i knew the guy who made a game called Starshatter. He made everything - from the game engine itself, through sound, physics, models down to the missions. Yea, he had ppl to help him, but none the less - guy did outstanding amount of work all by himself.

so... Sure, it does happen, but that's a minority and my generic rule is that you never should assume people working in one discipline can automatically work on another one in the same project.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Laie]

A half-functional framework can be appreciated as work for the future, but it also sticks out as a sore thumb of bad gameplay so long as it sits there. You also have to keep our faith that you actually have plans for these frameworks

Quoted for truth.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I mean you say that but I happen to be a modeller with a deep knowledge of physics who is somewhat capable of programming. Seems I'm a wildcard, as usual

do you want someone "somewhat capable" of programming mucking around in the presumably very complex game code and potentially messing up more things than they fix? I'd prefer the modelers model and the programmers program

[Franklin]

As for aerodynamics, I understand the want to have more accurate aerodynamics. but putting FAR (or even NEAR) into the game could potentially make it much harder, especially for beginners, and they have long talked about the balance between making the game fun vs. making it realistic.

The present aerodynamic model rewards those who toss soup-cans straight up, while .25 comes with a big punishment for doing that now. At least FAR or NEAR will further nudge players to not build pancake rockets and fire them directly above the station.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

We had two 30+ pages topics spent on that and we don't need another.

No, improved areodynamics don't increase difficulty - current broken aerodynamics do. For longer explenation refer to the latest topic about the Realism.

hopefully without threatening to do what you fear, I installed FAR once. It lasted a couple weeks. Why? Because it broke almost literally everything I threw at it. Planes broke apart on take off and rockets got torn to shreds. While stock aerodynamics certainly aren't accurate, they don't do THAT. Even presumably straight, narrow, and balanced rockets would careen out of control. If you want new players quitting from frustration, give them FAR. I can't imagine anything else that would do it faster.

Edit:

I mean, sure, it reduces the amount of delta-V you need to get to orbit. But that doesn't really help if everything you launch gets torn apart in the first place

/end edit

The present aerodynamic model rewards those who toss soup-cans straight up, while .25 comes with a big punishment for doing that now. At least FAR or NEAR will further nudge players to not build pancake rockets and fire them directly above the station.

We don't know that. Anyway, most rockets will get above 2.5km before you stage off any parts anyway. Not always, but most, so it's mostly going to be a non-factor. Assuming those parts hitting the launch pad will blow it up anyway (we don't know how much impact it can take yet).

Also your main argument against stock aerodynamics appear to be a dislike with "pancake rockets" rather than any sort of actual damage to gameplay.

Edited September 27, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[TimberWolffe]

do you want someone "somewhat capable" of programming mucking around in the presumably very complex game code and potentially messing up more things than they fix? I'd prefer the modelers model and the programmers program

Precisely the reason I stick to modelling and texturing...poorly

[LaydeeDem]

I'm most concerned that they are adding assets before fixing KSP's awful memory problem.

hopefully without threatening to do what you fear, I installed FAR once. It lasted a couple weeks. Why? Because it broke almost literally everything I threw at it. Planes broke apart on take off and rockets got torn to shreds. While stock aerodynamics certainly aren't accurate, they don't do THAT. Even presumably straight, narrow, and balanced rockets would careen out of control. If you want new players quitting from frustration, give them FAR. I can't imagine anything else that would do it faster.

All that tells me is that you're bad at building rockets.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Nutt007

[Dizzle]

I've never understood the idea of not integrating FAR so as not to scare off beginners. If anything it makes rockets easier, and planes are generally not where you'll start.

[SpacedCowboy]

I'm not sure what a Mexican developer could do about this to be honest, and personally I can understand Max just fine

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I couldn't care if KSP was being developed in any (country) The fact remains that the fan base or customers are basically located in English speaking countries. Therefore, I believe that "English" should be plain spoken. I never brought up nationality or race.I'm sorry but I could not understand a lot of what was being said. However, the main point of my response was to my not liking the new feature.

[Camacha]

How is this any different than this feature? You blow up KSC once or twice and then ... what? As a developer myself I greatly appreciate groundwork being laid but this is gratuitousness on top of groundwork; it really wasn't needed.

That is just your personal style. I tend to do a lot around the KSC, so this will mean a real change for me.