So, what was the secret feature leading to?

[Twreed87]

We were told the secret feature (revealed to be destructible buildings) was the first step of a major feature of 0.26. So, what do you guys think this could be? I have a few guesses:

Upgrading buildings - They've laid the groundwork for giving buildings multiple models. We have the regular model, and the destroyed model. Next, there would be various levels of each building as it's upgraded (VAB gets bigger, etc.)

Kerbal Towns and Cities - I think we've all wanted the rest of Kerbin to actually have signs of civilization. I mean, do they all live underground or something? We could be getting actual towns and cities next, and with that, something to avoid when landing. Instead of just plopping your ship down anywhere, you now have to avoid crashing into cities.

Progressive damage on parts - perhaps the groundwork that was laid was the idea that parts have a damage threshhold. They can take a certain amount of light, repeated beating, before they need repairing.

My guess is on number 1, but I think i'd hope for number 2 the most. Any other ideas? What are you hoping?

[dryer_lint]

Most of us have agreed on Upgrading Buildings, I think.

[DundraL]

I disagree...

I think that this "toughness" stat will eventually be applied to all parts in ksp, allowing for parts to be damaged before simply disappearing in an explosion. Giving a part different states based on how much of its toughness remains can allow for many possibilities:

Imagine trying to pump all your fuel out of a damaged burning fuel tank before it explodes to minimize the damage done to the rest of your craft. (or dropping that stage entirely)

Or getting out to try and doing repairs after a failed docking attempt.

Maybe they will add effects to this damaged state... damaged engines providing reduced isp and thrust in a different direction till repaired etc... damaged fuel tanks bleeding fuel... landing gear not deploying... solar cells reduced power... or just pain ole not being able to control those parts anymore...there are endless possibilities with this.

Or maybe they will add more depth to the actual destruction of parts... is it better for a fueltank to instantly disapear in an explosion, scattering everything that was attached to it? Or to have it explode and leave a burnt out structure behind, with the other surviving parts still attached? EDIT: I doubt this last one though, unless unity can allow for an object to change its model on the fly, it would probably require rebuilding of the craft on the fly.

Edited September 27, 2014 by DundraL

[magico13]

I personally am hoping for deformable terrain, but I don't think destructible buildings is a direct precursor to that, so unfortunately that probably isn't it I want my crashed Mun lander to make a crater darn it! Upgrading/repairing buildings makes sense from a functionality point of view and from a playability point of view. And that would likely be a large art project like they've been saying.

[John FX]

Obviously it`s leading to a career mode that starts with a single kerbal (maybe called jeb) in a small wooden shed firing Seperatrons into the air and you have to build an entire space program from that.

If you can destroy a building and then repair a building then you can upgrade a building or make one appear.

EDIT : Part of this would be a weight limit for the launchpad so it does not matter how much cash you have, you can only launch a craft that weighs so much until you upgrade your launchpad. Maybe that will be something to spend Rep on.

[Javster]

Wow, I'd love to have several big cities where I can land a spaceplane or something. Also, if you land in a city you should get extra rep, but only if you cause no damage.

[worir4]

I think it's leading to MOAR EXPLOSIONS. This is the only way...

[Franklin]

I personally am hoping for deformable terrain, but I don't think destructible buildings is a direct precursor to that, so unfortunately that probably isn't it I want my crashed Mun lander to make a crater darn it! Upgrading/repairing buildings makes sense from a functionality point of view and from a playability point of view. And that would likely be a large art project like they've been saying.

While I'd love actual craters, because right now everything vaporizes which is silly, buildings flicking over to a destroyed model isn't a step towards deformable terrain. It's far more code-heavy than what they did.

Also, terraforming has been on the not-gonna-happen list for a while, http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features#Not_planned_or_shelved

[CaptRobau]

Terraforming and impact craters are not the same thing, although one could use the latter to aid the former. That being said, I also don't think the deformable terrain is on the list. It's just a tough thing to do and as such few games have it. The current engine setup is far too static for such a dynamic feature. It'd require quite a big rewrite.

My money is on upgradeable buildings/broken parts. Expanding/improving KSP would add another goal in career and breakable parts would add interesting repair gameplay.

[MKI]

Up-gradable buildings offer the most out of the game.

Since if anything the new feature is a "downgrade", that is extremely flashy.

As said above the game could start off with Jeb in his garage shooting fireworks into the sky. But it doesn't even have to stop there.

You can easily add more space centers to be upgraded, and thus used. Creating what many people want which is a multiple space center Kerbin. Theres already is a rundown Island Runway that needs fixing up.

Out of everything this is the most direct assumption as to what the new feature leads to. Destructible terrain is totally different and IMO not very necessary for this game at all. Partial destructible parts COULD happen, which would be a cool addition, but i feel the fact you would need to create damaged modules for EVERY PART, stock and possibly mod this could be an extremely time consuming feature. Compared to upgrading and adding new models for like 7 buildings, you need to add models for 200+ parts.

[John FX]

Partial destructible parts COULD happen, which would be a cool addition, but i feel the fact you would need to create damaged modules for EVERY PART, stock and possibly mod this could be an extremely time consuming feature. Compared to upgrading and adding new models for like 7 buildings, you need to add models for 200+ parts.

Unless it`s procedural damage, then you just write one procedure (probably more) for all the parts. then you get gradual damage instead of damaged/not damaged

[mattinoz]

I'd think a procedural damage model would work pretty well out of the box. Most parts are cans and are going to act like cans under the forces they'd be subject to in KSP.

If mods can scale an object already why couldn't some code reshape based on how a can would deform based on stress.

It could make some basic assumptions about all parts to start but open up those assumptions to tweaking.

I wonder if part wear could lead to truly reusable craft. Reuse would be cheaper than recover/rebuild but would incur wear cost and risk plus you need to park craft on base and have the funds tied up.

[pizzaoverhead]

The code changed has nothing to do with part values or the PQS terrain, so no part damage or terrain deformation.

From the demonstration, it appears that the new code can do two things:

• Create or remove building models arbitrarily
  
• Modify the building-based features available

This points towards construction and upgrade mechanics. That could mean starting a game without a space plane hangar, upgrading the tracking station to add more dishes and increase range, or building a VAB on Duna.