Renegrade Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm sorry to see you disappointed about the new feature regex, but I'm not really sure all this sarcasm is needed (just my personal opinion). As for small, useful features I think you'll find one or two in the changelogs There were a number of promising features in the various announcements.. significantly better than the secret one in fact.Better navball, full thrust key (FINALLY!), being able to scale back the ridiculous science returns (now I can have a 70k science tree for a 75k science world!).All we need now is to remove science returns from all non-exploration contracts entirely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxman Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm trying to think of a "small but funny" feature that would be any better than this. Sometimes I wonder what feature they could have done to not make some people here NOT unhappy.The problem is that something that has been secret for so long just makes people overhype it by imagining all kinds of features with hype building for each day that goes. If this had been announced later without the long secrecy about it then I bet it would not be as underwhelming compared to all the guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KasperVld Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Better navball, full thrust key (FINALLY!), being able to scale back the ridiculous science returns (now I can have a 70k science tree for a 75k science world!).There should be a few more small (!) surprises, just some tweaks that will please a lot of people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevoidLight Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm not sure how it's even possible to be underwhelmed by a feature we were told up front was only a small feature that's nothing but a byproduct of their 0.26 plans. What exactly were you expecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxman Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 There should be a few more small (!) surprises, just some tweaks that will please a lot of people I hope that means the hidden tweakable features of .24 has been fixed and enabled by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm trying to think of a "small but funny" feature that would be any better than this. Sometimes I wonder what feature they could have done to not make some people here NOT unhappy.This comment makes me wonder how many development days were put into making models of destroyed buildings, particle effects unique to them, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleetAdmiralJ Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I don't know. destructible buildings was one of the most spectacular guesses that actually remotely fit the given parameters that I saw. I thought it was just going to be impact craters (with detestable buildings coming in .26). I'm glad I was wrong and that they're actually coming this time.This comment makes me wonder how many development days were put into making models of destroyed buildings, particle effects unique to them, etc....Perhaps quite a bit, but only partly because it's supposed to be laying the groundwork for a larger thing in 0.26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm sorry to see you disappointed about the new feature regex, but I'm not really sure all this sarcasm is needed (just my personal opinion).It stems from the continued reinforcement of the perception that Kerbals are idiots who deserve to blow up by provided even more gratifying means to do so. A minor annoyance? Nothing to worry about? Maybe, but I completely agree with bac9's paragraph on why portraying them as stupid is bad for the game and this feature is just going to lead to more of that sort of thing.Also, I'm kind of worried about how damage my Tiamat lifter will do to the pad with 17 RD-171s going off at the same time. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Wait, so it's actually destructible buildings? What the hell, who even asked for destructible buildings? How did that jump over a hundred other long-begged for updates and fixes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm not sure how it's even possible to be underwhelmed by a feature we were told up front was only a small feature that's nothing but a byproduct of their 0.26 plans. What exactly were you expecting?Read through some speculation on what that secret feature might be. Some ideas were trulry excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm not sure how it's even possible to be underwhelmed by a feature we were told up front was only a small feature that's nothing but a byproduct of their 0.26 plans. What exactly were you expecting?Maybe something with a bit more substance deserving of the hype. Anyway, It does open up some interesting possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 This is the last time I tell myself, "No, they've got a solid roadmap. I'm sure they're churning through the core elements and issues we've all been discussing." Next update it all, "What uselessly exciting bolt-on will it be this time. Not fixed aerodynamics, that's for sure." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whackjob Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Also, I'm kind of worried about how damage my Tiamat lifter will do to the pad with 17 RD-171s going off at the same time. >_>I don't know. The next time I launch something suitable large, it would kind of make sense for that launch to do some damage. Given my career in KSP, my Kerbin probably shouldn't even have an atmosphere at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe32320 Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I'm quite sure that it doesn't go any further than the destructable buildings.We'll see, but then you have to think why they wanted to put it in, having exploding buildings I agree isn't important, but why go through the effort? I've heard speculation of upgradable buildings that would certainly work within the base they have now, this is just a cool visual thing they can do now without coding all the mechanics behind that, as an example.Lol Whackjob, there isn't going to be a Kerbal alive within 50km of your launches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedCowboy Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I am so, so disappointed! I really think Squad took a wrong turn here. How juvenile. And to think I just wasted the last hour to discover this? And on another note, Maxmaps, (nothing personal) but your Spanish accent is really hard to follow, I had the volume pretty much cranked but, only understood about half of what you were saying, (it's when you talk fast). Here again, "nothing personal". I can only hope that with the release of .25, that this blunder will be overshadowed by some intelligent and educational game play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Perhaps quite a bit, but only partly because it's supposed to be laying the groundwork for a larger thing in 0.26Somehow I'm not convinced that 3D models of destroyed buildings, all of them, got anything to deal with 0.26. It smeless more like something made specifically for this one patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I mean, parachutes don't even work on dropped stages yet, but they jumped that BORING issue and gave us a way to destroy the meaningless buildings they're dropped on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRender Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Destructible buildings means that Danny2462 is going to be making even more hilarious videos, so who am I to complain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinfoilChef Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I can see it now. Somebody is testing a new rover design. They accidentally (as in really unintentional) bump into the VAB or hangar and the whole space center goes up.Yeah, that's gonna be funny the first few dozen times, then it's gonna get old and be turned off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 This is the last time I tell myself, "No, they've got a solid roadmap. I'm sure they're churning through the core elements and issues we've all been discussing." Next update it all, "What uselessly exciting bolt-on will it be this time. Not fixed aerodynamics, that's for sure."With this comment we can close the topic.*bows* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleetAdmiralJ Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Somehow I'm not convinced that 3D models of destroyed buildings, all of them, got anything to deal with 0.26. It smless more like something made specifically for this one patch.Well the current thought by some is upgradable buildings. Part of the code here is probably (at least in part) the ability to change the look of the building in the space center if that is really what is coming. Once one is past that, making a destroyed building model and adding the explosion animations they were adding into the game anyway seems rather trivial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragosnat Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I like it as it means one other thing besides being careful where my stuff drops. Potential building on other Planets and moons. =^.^=At least it feels like it to me. Since having indestructaable buildings would not be fun to have else where besides KSC and on needs to have a nice way to blow them up. =^.^= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KasperVld Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 I am so, so disappointed! I really think Squad took a wrong turn here. How juvenile. And to think I just wasted the last hour to discover this? And on another note, Maxmaps, (nothing personal) but your Spanish accent is really hard to follow, I had the volume pretty much cranked but, only understood about half of what you were saying, (it's when you talk fast). Here again, "nothing personal". I can only hope that with the release of .25, that this blunder will be overshadowed by some intelligent and educational game play.I'm not sure what a Mexican developer could do about this to be honest, and personally I can understand Max just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegrade Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 There should be a few more small (!) surprises, just some tweaks that will please a lot of people That happens a lot. For example, the fix to engine thrust vectoring in 0.24 was a VERY nice improvement (although they still don't work right if they're above the CoM--not an issue for me, but a lot of others like skycranes), but it wasn't even mentioned except in the release notes...Assuming the full thrust key makes it into live 0.25, (ooh it rhymes) that will probably make me a lot happier than the exploding buildings. And the difficulty scaling as I said above has my very hyped.Also I will state that the actual explosion EFFECTS look nice.If Maxmaps is out there reading this -- STRUTS man, STRUTS. Strut ALL the things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franklin Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Destructible buildings means that Danny2462 is going to be making even more hilarious videos, so who am I to complain?Would you consider yourself a member of the YouTubeâ„¢ community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts