Squad why cant we keep the old wing parts?

[White Owl]

A greater variety of part shapes is less conducive to imaginative building?

Okay.

[Jonnyp]

Superior how? Again, it's subjective.

I've just been trying to tell you this in the other thread.... Glad you took it on board

I would suggest everyone calms down, has a play around with the part for a few weeks (update has only just gone live!) then give some constructive feedback. 1 day does not a good testing period make

[EdFred]

Superior how? Again, it's subjective.

The fact that the new wing parts are not condusive to imaginative building as compared to the old parts is just that, a fact.

His opinion = subjective.

Your opinion = fact.

Makes perfect sense.

[O-Doc]

Wait so do you want them to remove these new parts? Cuse you just said the existence of these parts puts this game on the level of low end FPS shooters. (wut)

Why are you creating a strawman? We just would have like the new control surfaces in addition to the old ones. How is that hard to understand? They kept the old winglets...

[Hannu]

I have to say, that I prefer to save limited memory for modded parts before KSP works reliably in 64 bit or get more clever memory management. And I also prefer discarding old parts before KSP get some better way to select parts in VAB than huge number of parts in simple list. If enough people want to keep old parts, maybe collecting them into some kind of historic mod would be good tradeoff. At least as long as they use current aerodynamics model compatible to old parts.

[Majorjim!]

Let's imagine a game where there were hundreds of parts that were all loaded at the start of the game and persisted in the memory throughout the game's session. Let's also imagine that over a dozen of new parts are now added on top of the existing ones, arguably replacing currently existing ones in function. Now we have a situation where we're running at a significantly increased memory load, which could cause some people to have serious performance issues running the game. To solve such a situation, one would expect the logical decision to be to remove the parts that have pretty much exact replacements. That's just what we did and was pretty much the thought process behind it.

Now, you may not agree with that decision and that's all fair enough. But we should note the following factors that you have to contend with when considering your reaction to such a decision. You can:

• Observe that we expressed an intention to release a legacy parts pack in the FAQ and look forward to that possibility.
  
• Download 0.24.2 from the previous branch on Steam (and the Store iirc) and simply pull over the parts from there into 0.25.
  
• Use the fantastic parts from Porkjet and step outside your comfort zone with the designs you create.
  
• Create a Forum thread sharing how you've modified your existing designs to suit the new parts.
  
• Create a Poll to communicate the desire for a legacy parts pack or not.
  

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot that you can do about the issue you're currently facing and in proportion to many other issues in KSP it's quite solvable.

Note: No idea why your poll isn't creating, the Kommunity Guidance Bureau don't have the power to be disabling them on individual threads.

So a legacy parts pack would be some of the older stock parts back?

But you seem to be contradicting yourself there as you say having all those parts would create a memory issue..

And its not a case of having to 'step outside my comfort zone' when building it is a case of, I cannot build as detailed craft because the new parts are so large.

I know how to build anything in KSP, I just don't like having options taken away from me.

[White Owl]

Well, to be fair, the X-15 had very thin wings that were kinda like trapezoidal planks. But it's definitely the odd one out.

[andrew123]

I can't really comment on the development of alternate methods of loading content as that's far from my area of expertise. But regarding hitting any sort of ceiling, we haven't really but it's more that we should do everything we can to avoid such a ceiling.

Sometimes, you can't focus on catering to the lowest denominator of computer hardware if you want to deliver the best experience.

Squad isn't developing KSP as a console port (at least that we know of), which should give them more leeway in terms of performance and optimizations.

[magnemoe]

Yea, they also do look like a wings, not... planks.

Yes the old control surfaces however have an mission they work nice on the canards and tail fin.

[O-Doc]

I have to say, that I prefer to save limited memory for modded parts before KSP works reliably in 64 bit or get more clever memory management. And I also prefer discarding old parts before KSP get some better way to select parts in VAB than huge number of parts in simple list. If enough people want to keep old parts, maybe collecting them into some kind of historic mod would be good tradeoff. At least as long as they use current aerodynamics model compatible to old parts.

Then I'm not hearing any complaints about keeping the old winglets in given that they included replacements.

[thederper121]

God, I hate jacka31es.

Wow, calm down, no need for name-calling.

If Squad doesn't bring back those small control surfaces, I'll stop playing KSP, and convince my friends to do the same.

That's hilarious.

I like the new SP+ parts, they're much more refined and better-looking. I think they should stick with them.

... by convincing potential customers to avoid purchasing KSP in the first place. I swear, Squad destroyed one of the best aspects of KSP through their decision.

Like you'll ever make a dent in their sales. They did not destroy one of the best aspects of KSP. They made it better.

[Ted]

So a legacy parts pack would be some of the older stock parts back?

But you seem to be contradicting yourself there as you say having all those parts would create a memory issue..

And its not a case of having to 'step outside my comfort zone' when building it is a case of, I cannot build as detailed craft because the new parts are so large.

I know how to build anything in KSP, I just don't like having options taken away from me.

The legacy parts pack, if developed and released (please do remember it's an option currently, nothing set in stone), would be an optional addition for players and thus would be up to them to install if they have the machine capable of the memory footprint.

I can appreciate that. However, I did find the thinner elevon to be pretty great for small vessels and drones.

Sometimes, you can't focus on catering to the lowest denominator of computer hardware if you want to deliver the best experience.

Oh I absolutely agree, but that doesn't mean we can't consider them when it comes to making decisions such as these.

[moogoob]

I would have liked for the old control surfaces to stick around (for variety and backwards compatibility), but honestly? It's just a game. Not worth my time getting worked up over. I'll quickly forget my ugly, barely-functional spaceplanes from before and be perfectly happy building new, barely-functional spaceplanes with the new parts.

[andrew123]

The legacy parts pack, if developed and released (please do remember it's an option currently, nothing set in stone), would be an optional addition for players and thus would be up to them to install if they have the machine capable of the memory footprint.

I can appreciate that. However, I did find the thinner elevon to be pretty great for small vessels and drones.

Well, I hope we can work through this. It's just that those parts are too large overall for my liking.

Wow, calm down, no need for name-calling.

That's hilarious.

I like the new SP+ parts, they're much more refined and better-looking. I think they should stick with them.

Like you'll ever make a dent in their sales. They did not destroy one of the best aspects of KSP. They made it better.

You're the very definition of short-sighted. I can't help but feel you're last statement is 100% subjective.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm newish to spaceplane building and mostly used SP+ before 0.25, so I don't really have a strong opinion about the old parts being removed or not.

Can someone describe why the old parts were so important? Or show an example craft that works with the old parts but not the new ones? It's not clear to me what niches they filled.

[Majorjim!]

His opinion = subjective.

Your opinion = fact.

Makes perfect sense.

Again, sigh.

He said they are 'better', a totally arbitrary term.

The fact that the new parts are worse for small builds is a fact!

I have tried. I have tried to replace the new parts in place of the old ones and they are larger and therefore

Not as good for small builds.

Do you see how that works?

Geez...

[thederper121]

You're the very definition of short-sighted. I can't help but feel you're last statement is 100% subjective.

*your

Hey, at least I don't act like a baby over a few parts removed and replaced with better versions.

I mean, seriously? Leaving the game over that? I'm sure you can be much more mature then that.

You are the very definition of immature.

[andrew123]

I'm newish to spaceplane building and mostly used SP+ before 0.25, so I don't really have a strong opinion about the old parts being removed or not.

Can someone describe why the old parts were so important? Or show an example craft that works with the old parts but not the new ones? It's not clear to me what niches they filled.

Smaller aircraft, and drones that could actually fit underneath their wings.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 8, 2014 by andrew123

[Ted]

Guys, please don't resort to personal attacks and all that. That's a good way to get a thread closed, just talk about the topic and not each other.

[Red Iron Crown]

Superior how? Again, it's subjective.

The fact that the new wing parts are not condusive to imaginative building as compared to the old parts is just that, a fact.

I asked in your thread too, but how are the old parts more conducive to imaginative building? Honest question, I never did enough with the old parts to have a good grasp of why the new ones are apparently more limiting.

[thederper121]

Guys, please don't resort to personal attacks and all that. That's a good way to get a thread closed, just talk about the topic and not each other.

I hope this thread is closed. It reminds me of the Steam forums.

[O-Doc]

You can:

• Observe that we expressed an intention to release a legacy parts pack in the FAQ and look forward to that possibility.
  
• Download 0.24.2 from the previous branch on Steam (and the Store iirc) and simply pull over the parts from there into 0.25.
  
• Use the fantastic parts from Porkjet and step outside your comfort zone with the designs you create.
  
• Create a Forum thread sharing how you've modified your existing designs to suit the new parts.
  
• Create a Poll to communicate the desire for a legacy parts pack or not.
  

You forgot the last option: Because you are no longer designing craft with stock parts, pull out all of Squad's parts and use a custom modded install. Don't bother sharing your creations.

My question is: given the performance issue surrounding two parts, why were the winglets retained given that SP+ parts fill those geometries?

[andrew123]

I hope this thread is closed. It reminds me of the Steam forums.

You want the thread closed because It 'reminds you' of another website? XD

*your

Hey, at least I don't act like a baby over a few parts removed and replaced with better versions.

I mean, seriously? Leaving the game over that? I'm sure you can be much more mature then that.

You are the very definition of immature.

Hey, if I don't find the game appealing anymore, I won't waste my time playing it.

If you have a problem with that, then say it.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'm sorry, this thread is hilarious.

[EdFred]

Again, sigh.

He said they are 'better', a totally arbitrary term.

The fact that the new parts are worse for small builds is a fact!

I have tried. I have tried to replace the new parts in place of the old ones and they are larger and therefore

Not as good for small builds.

Do you see how that works?

Geez...

Yes, I see that you are using subjective terms, and ignoring that they are in fact, subjective terms - and then extrapolating your subjective statements to be factual ones. I can't help it if you don't see it.