Secret feature is completely underwhelming.

[TimberWolffe]

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

Okay now this one I know for sure Maxmaps said they were trying to fix slightly in 0.25, but there's not much they can do without Unity 5's updated engine stuff

[B787_300]

Nutt, the memory problem is not all that bad and there are ways around it... plus it is my understanding that part of it is Unity's fault too.

not posting as a moderator

[Guest]

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

So, you plan on blowing buildings up as part of your career? Regularly? Challenging, I guess...

[Sky_walker]

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.

last time I checked ppl specifically said that they don't want FAR when talking about improved aerodynamics.

KSP doesn't have tools required to build proper planes, so it's mostly guesswork.

but if you want to know something interesting - I never build succesful airplane in stock forcefields-based aerodynamic model, while I did "guess it" in FAR. It's simply more intuitive.

And that's where I'll end it. I refuse turning this topic into yet another discoussion about realism. All of these arguments were alredy presented, many of them debunked numerous times, there's more than enough material on the forum to read about it. Let's keep the discoussion on topic. Which means: NOT ABOUT AERODYNAMICS.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Boomerang]

I really feel like Squad's marketing roots have shown through with this.

There wasn't any need for the hype with a super-special-secret-awesome feature in the first place. Announce it or allow us to find it on our own. Preferably the latter.

This isn't a bad feature, but in the greater scheme of things, once everyone's had their 45 minutes of crashing things into KSC, it's not going to be a relevant feature for many people outside of video makers. I'm reluctantly willing to buy into the idea that it's putting a framework into the game for something more significant later on, but fine, put it into the game. Don't waste everyone's time drumming up minor features. Unless we're aiming to draw in the demographic who's going play the game for blowing up buildings, which I hope wouldn't be much of the case.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

but if you want to know something interesting - I never build succesful airplane in stock forcefields-based aerodynamic model, while I did "guess it" in FAR. It's simply more intuitive.

Maybe it's just a difference in style. I was the opposite. Building planes in stock isn't that hard (now SSTOs is another matter) but I for the life of me couldn't get anything to fly in FAR without ripping apart *shrugs*

[hoojiwana]

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.

Maybe the community might trust you more about this method of production if you proved you were ever going to follow up on all these half-done features. Right now there is zero reason to believe anything you say regarding development, especially following all the cut features and haphazard development plan you seem to be following. I think that may be a matter for another thread though, as this one is about the rather poor marketing and lead up of this feature, or that this feature doesn't seem to fit well within the development of the rest of the game.

[Camacha]

So, you plan on blowing buildings up as part of your career? Regularly? Challenging, I guess...

I plan on not blowing up buildings as part of my space program. As I tend to fly a lot around KSC - I love to fiddle with control logic - the stakes are suddenly a lot higher.

You might not agree or like it, but for a group of people this is a relevant change. If you just blast off and never look back the gains are different, but that is what makes KSP great - everyone plays differently. There are plenty of other features I barely ever get to see or use, but that does not make them bad features.

[Camacha]

but if you want to know something interesting - I never build succesful airplane in stock forcefields-based aerodynamic model, while I did "guess it" in FAR. It's simply more intuitive

Same here. I felt the stock model was frustratingly ridiculous up to the point that I could not flt aircraft with it, but with FAR it suddenly makes a fair amount of sense. If things go awry it generally tends to be on you, instead of on the model.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

You might not agree or like it, but for a group of people this is a relevant change. If you just blast off and never look back the gains are different, but that is what makes KSP great - everyone plays differently.

I just take off and never look back and it's still a relevant change given how some of my launches can go

[samstarman5]

Hey, let's keep it on topic here. Yes, the aerodynamics are wonky, but it isn't the issue of the thread. Feel free to start a new thread about your issues or pleasures with KSP's aerodynamics.

I am not sure I am too thrilled myself about destructible environments. They have actually been hinted at for quite some time, at least since the Mun was introduced. I knew that eventually there would also be a monetary feature, and the two combined can easily spell doom to any career-mode game.

But since Squad is making it clear it is but the foundation to something bigger, I am rather eager to see what they do got in mind for the endgame of this feature.

In the meantime, I guess I am going to have to learn to love destroying the KSC, so it will definitely be sandbox time when .25 comes. As Slim Pickens said....'Yeeeeehawww'

[Camacha]

I just take off and never look back and it's still a relevant change given how some of my launches can go

I agree with you on that one. Just look at test footage of V2 development to see how it can influence a process.

[Voculus]

Can't wait to "land" my first asteroid on the KSC!

[NathanKell]

FleetAdmiralJ:

I'm sure this feature took *absolutely no programming at all*. Right? Just art?

Okay now this one I know for sure Maxmaps said they were trying to fix slightly in 0.25, but there's not much they can do without Unity 5's updated engine stuff

That's why a mod like Load On Demand is totally impossible, right? ....oh wait.

Nope, There is nothing about Unity that requires all assets to be loaded at all times; it's only because, despite various comments to the contrary, KSP is not actually designed to be mod-friendly (heck, the original plugin loader was done by injection!).

Voculus: You may be unpleasantly surprised; in the souposphere, it won't be falling very fast.

[Whackjob]

Folks, folks, folks! Lemmie chime in a minute here.

Yes, at first glance, destructible buildings seems very underwhelming. Yes, you rarely hit em, except on purpose, and when you blow them up at least once, then you're done. No replay value. All correct.

But you're missing the big thing. The big big thing. You're looking at the candle with the short wick. Look at the cupcake underneath. There's infrastructure for modders now that can make use of this sort of thing. I'd be shocked if dozens and dozens of mods plus modders aren't already working this mechnism into their work.

I even suspect that this is the veneer being given to distract us from what is lying beneath. It's a sensible first step if you want to add the ability to put actual structures on other worlds. Colonies forthcoming? Munar gravel and silt emporiums? Dunar coffee co? Jool's jewels?

The devs just handed the modders a signed check with a bunch of fields not filled in. Sit back, have a coffee, and wait for interesting things to happen.

[hoojiwana]

The devs just handed the modders a signed check with a bunch of fields not filled in. Sit back, have a coffee, and wait for interesting things to happen.

That's assuming the feature is actually open to modders and not closed off behind the modding rules they changed last month.

[Camacha]

Yes, you rarely hit em, except on purpose

Don't taunt my flying skills

[TimberWolffe]

That's why a mod like Load On Demand is totally impossible, right? ....oh wait.

Nope, There is nothing about Unity that requires all assets to be loaded at all times; it's only because, despite various comments to the contrary, KSP is not actually designed to be mod-friendly (heck, the original plugin loader was done by injection!).

I'm going completely by educated guess here, but I bet the reason all modules, models, codes, and textures are loaded simultaneously in KSP is because 3D models take an insane amount of time to load, and imagine having to make a rocket or a plane while waiting for models to load. There's probably a way to do it that they have on backburner until it gets closer to full release, as model loading is really just an optimization issue which doesn't immediately need to be fixed

B9 parts could do with a few less polys on their models though

[Aragosnat]

But you're missing the big thing. The big big thing. You're looking at the candle with the short wick. Look at the cupcake underneath. There's infrastructure for modders now that can make use of this sort of thing. I'd be shocked if dozens and dozens of mods plus modders aren't already working this mechnism into their work.

I even suspect that this is the veneer being given to distract us from what is lying beneath. It's a sensible first step if you want to add the ability to put actual structures on other worlds. Colonies forthcoming? Munar gravel and silt emporiums? Dunar coffee co? Jool's jewels?

More or less what I mentioned on page 8. Buildings on other planets and moons. =^.^=

[Duke23]

Folks, folks, folks! Lemmie chime in a minute here.

Yes, at first glance, destructible buildings seems very underwhelming. Yes, you rarely hit em, except on purpose, and when you blow them up at least once, then you're done. No replay value. All correct.

But you're missing the big thing. The big big thing. You're looking at the candle with the short wick. Look at the cupcake underneath. There's infrastructure for modders now that can make use of this sort of thing. I'd be shocked if dozens and dozens of mods plus modders aren't already working this mechnism into their work.

I even suspect that this is the veneer being given to distract us from what is lying beneath. It's a sensible first step if you want to add the ability to put actual structures on other worlds. Colonies forthcoming? Munar gravel and silt emporiums? Dunar coffee co? Jool's jewels?

The devs just handed the modders a signed check with a bunch of fields not filled in. Sit back, have a coffee, and wait for interesting things to happen.

There's some positivity, this thread was really starting to bring me down. Good points, I'm also interested to see what modders can do with this. Also, I wonder if it's possible for you (yes, mostly specifically you) to build something that breaks the launchpad with the physics drop... lol

I feel like personally the destructible buildings will only affect me when I start trying to build large planes again, which I'm not at all good at. Or maybe playing with asteroids. Better save up some funds before I go strapping wings to a bunch of orange tanks again.

[tetryds]

What I like the most about this feature is that I will be avoiding it at all costs, or I am broke.

[Guest]

That's assuming the feature is actually open to modders and not closed off behind the modding rules they changed last month.

Or that it's actually usuable in a sane manner, unlike the asteroid feature which took what I can only describe as a horrible hack to make work outside of SQUAD's narrow imagination.

[Sky_walker]

I'm going completely by educated guess here, but I bet the reason all modules, models, codes, and textures are loaded simultaneously in KSP is because 3D models take an insane amount of time to load, and imagine having to make a rocket or a plane while waiting for models to load. There's probably a way to do it that they have on backburner until it gets closer to full release, as model loading is really just an optimization issue which doesn't immediately need to be fixed

B9 parts could do with a few less polys on their models though

there is no pre-loaded part in KSP that takes more than mere miliseconds to load. If what you suggest would be truth - initial loading of the game would take minutes.

[Camacha]

Or that it's actually usuable in a sane manner, unlike the asteroid feature which took what I can only describe as a horrible hack to make work outside of SQUAD's narrow imagination.

You grumpy spacehippie!

[Guest]

You grumpy spacehippie!

What's funny is I didn't think the OP was negative at all. I really just wanted to call out the dumb hype surrounding what was a really minor feature sucking up valuable dev time while remaining slightly optimistic towards the future. As so often happens in this hype-fueled atmosphere, I was instantly misunderstood and called "insane", and other such things.