Anyone up for barn raising?

[Majorjim!]

Yes, I asked bac9 some questions about shaders for use in my own project.

How exactly would someone actually gain experience in doing these things without trying? That's exactly how you acquire experience.

I do hope that the critiques are listened to in this case, lessons can be learned here for whoever made it.

Firstly I was under the impression you worked for Squad and where directly responsible for the shown work on the tier 1 KSC.

If I am incorrect in assuming this I apologize unreservedly.

My point was that if Squad want/need to finish the game's modelling work on their own it is a little late to start learning how don't you think?

If they cannot complete this work competently now then what they should do is pay someone to do it.

That really does make sense financially, as poor work quality will hurt in the long term, and it would free up their time to work on other things.

I can't see what's supposed to be so terrible about the buildings as-is.

Dude really? The shown work is so far below what we have already that its a little bit shocking. Look at the current KSC. Not the aesthetic or design, the quality of the models and textures.

These are way below what we have become to expect for KSP.

I/We love Squad and KSP. Its probably my favorite game of all time. That's why we feel so passionately about it. KSP deserves more.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Majorjim

[NovaSilisko]

Firstly I was under the impression you worked for Squad and where directly responsible for the shown work on the tier 1 KSC.

You're... a teeny tiny bit behind the times. I haven't been with them since early-mid 2013.

[Majorjim!]

You're... a tiny bit behind the times. I haven't been with them since early-mid 2013.

In that case I sincerely apologize.

MJ

[WhatGravitas]

Huh, not a fan, to be honest. I like the concept... but I dearly hope this is a WIP. The current KSC has amazing models and Porkjet's additions also impressed with great models and very well-made textures. This WIP(?) Models are all wonky and the textures are atrocious.

[bigbadben]

I like the concept because it's funny, and Squad has a great sense of humor.

Texture touch-up can be done, but the underlying idea's are awesome!

[Boomerang]

What's sad is that supposedly a great deal of time was put into those designs...

As most other people, it's not the style I'm annoyed with (though I'm indifferent about the Hick Rockets Inc. look). It's how damn sloppy it is. You know all those devnotes where half the entries seem to be something like 'X is working on new KSC models; Y is working on new models'? They've put all this effort into something that looks like the product of someone who's just barely learning to texture/model. That's what's bothersome.

[Starwhip]

Did anyone else hear that the SQUAD staff found all the versions of KSP on their hard drives? I could have sworn that Maxmaps said that in the Squadcast.

[Superfluous J]

IIRC, the Admin Building teaser was also a WIP screenshot. And how many changes (especially easy ones suggested by B9) were made to it before release?

We don't know because the game hasn't been released yet.

[cantab]

Yes, they said that.

The free released versions the community almost all has, but .1 through .4 might be of some interest. I mentioned in the twitch chat that it would be cool to have a .1-esque minigame in KSP as an easter egg, maybe done as a pc the kerbals can walk up to and start playing.

[AbortButton]

Building rockets in a barn is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from Kerbals. Well done devs.

[dryer_lint]

I agree that they might have went a little too far with this design. I mean, a rickety shack for the Astronaut Complex works... but not a bunch of trailers (this is basically the tourism center of the KSC, right). An old office building for Mission Control works... but not a maintenance shack with sandbags. A garage for the VAB works... but not a tiny barn.

[KerbMav]

I think a group of trailers works well for a preliminary installation. The KSP is not started by the government, but by a bunch of friends, privately funded, krowdsourced so to speak.

If you can just gather a few trailers currently not in use to set up office space nearby, you do not start building shacks.

As they set up their launchpad in the country site, there probably was not anything else than that barn.

The launch control being a bunker with sandbags as added protection is not that farfetched either.

And I honestly vote for adding First Flight by KSK to the official canon, as it is not that different from what is being added to the game, and the background lore for the Kerbals is very creative.

[BudgetHedgehog]

We don't know because the game hasn't been released yet.

I meant the release of the admin building. I can only dream that these changes will be made before release of the game..

[CTCParadox]

I love KSP but I can't get behind this, the art style is a drastic departure from both the current KSC and the parts we use to actually build the rockets. If we only started with unmanned rockets it would be slightly more believable but since by default we start with manned capsules it seems ridiculous.

I also worry about the memory usage in the game, I don't know if Squad's art team will do their best to minimise the memory impact of all the additional building tiers. You might find people quite put out if this upgrade forces them to delete mods to accommodate it.

Rather than multiple tiers perhaps it would be better to have 1 tier/style of buildings but have buildings which you can purchase to expand your space centre. (Additional tracking dishes, launch pads, heavier vehicle transporters/crawlers, R&D labs, runway lengths etc). This way one style and set of assets can be polished and reused, while still providing the expansion possibilities.

[Superfluous J]

I meant the release of the admin building. I can only dream that these changes will be made before release of the game..

But that's the thing. They haven't released the admin building. They showed you what they have now, which was enough to get it in the game and not look horrific. It'd be like someone showing you a sketch of their painting and you complaining that it's black and white and not even in paint.

Honestly I wish they'd just put featureless cubes for each of the buildings until they were fully done with them. Ironically less people would complain about those.

[Padishar]

Honestly I wish they'd just put featureless cubes for each of the buildings until they were fully done with them. Ironically less people would complain about those.

I think you are seriously underestimating the desire of some people to complain about anything they can. I, personally, think there would be way more people complaining along the lines of "why couldn't you at least put a placeholder texture on it for now?" or even more of the old "show us work-in-progress" type stuff...

While I agree that certain aspects of the buildings shown in this sneak preview appear to be substantially less impressive than the amount of time that has apparently been spent on them would imply, this is only 1 level of the 5 (or is it 6?) different levels of KSC. Also, this is still a pre-"scope complete" update (supposedly the last one) so pretty much everything that isn't core game mechanics is still open for major changes (and even some core game mechanics will still be modified).

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, the trouble is that a lot of the criticism being levelled is not constructive. "The models and textures look terrible" (or worse) may be true but it is *not* constructive.

I'm sure that there are people at Squad who do listen to well presented feedback, though I do have agree that it sometimes looks like they don't (e.g. with bac9's highly specific and detailed feedback on the admin building). Hopefully this is just waiting for a final polish during beta but it is a shame that a lot of the same mistakes appear to have been repeated in this update...

[TMS]

Honestly I wish they'd just put featureless cubes for each of the buildings until they were fully done with them. Ironically less people would complain about those.

I was thinking the same thing.

It would, at the very least, clarify and reassure people that these were placeholders.

Of course, it would also achieve the same end if someone on Staff specified that these are placeholder assets when posting the screenies.

Edited November 10, 2014 by TMS

[Laie]

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, the trouble is that a lot of the criticism being levelled is not constructive. "The models and textures look terrible" (or worse) may be true but it is *not* constructive.

That wallpaper where bac9 outlined what he thinks is wrong was very constructive. He placed pointers and described the problems well and to the point.

I couldn't do that. I'm lacking the knowledge and even the basic terminology to bring my point across. I couldn't even tell you what my point really was. Layman that I am, I only sensed that this was wrong. Should I have kept that to myself? If all complaints ever were coming from a small handfull of well-versed designers, Squad might conclude that this isn't a problem after all.

[Pi_]

When I saw the pics, it reminded me of the Robert Goddard era... which is not a bad thing in my book.

[Padishar]

That wallpaper where bac9 outlined what he thinks is wrong was very constructive. He placed pointers and described the problems well and to the point.

I couldn't do that. I'm lacking the knowledge and even the basic terminology to bring my point across. I couldn't even tell you what my point really was. Layman that I am, I only sensed that this was wrong. Should I have kept that to myself? If all complaints ever were coming from a small handfull of well-versed designers, Squad might conclude that this isn't a problem after all.

Constructive criticism doesn't require detailed technical descriptions of exactly what is wrong and how to fix it, it just requires at least some specifics of what the problems are, presented in a respectful manner, rather than a virtually pointless "me too" type report or some vague rant that borders on (or crosses entirely into) insulting territory (I'm not pointing fingers at any specific person here, just making a point)...

I agree with certain other posters that the modellers at Squad are not the most talented or experienced (and the higher level game design, project management and even, to some extent, the coding is the same) and that it would probably make good business sense for them to hire "better" ones. They have shown, on a number of occasions, that they do both listen to and act upon feedback though there is also a large list of things that they have seemingly ignored for a long time. However, I also know that Squad is not a democracy, they have their own ideas of where they want the game to go and they are free to develop their game in whatever way they like.

[KerrMü]

And you think to doubt the talents of the whole team is a nice and polite way to express constructive criticism?

[Padishar]

And you think to doubt the talents of the whole team is a nice and polite way to express constructive criticism?

This wasn't actually criticism at all, let alone non-constructive criticism. I did not "doubt the talents of the whole team", I expressed my agreement with other posters that the talent and experience of the people working for Squad are not at the same level as the most talented and most experienced people that exist in their respective fields. This has been stated before by many people including Squad employees themselves.

I don't think he meant to doubt the talents of the whole team, he just said they could do 20x times better.

No, I didn't say that either. See above. (Or was that sarcasm? It can be difficult to tell.)

[razark]

When I saw the pics, it reminded me of the Robert Goddard era... which is not a bad thing in my book.

Which would be fine if we were starting with Goddard level technology. The barn/trailers don't fit in with a group that is at the level of launching crewed Mercury class spacecraft.

[pizzaoverhead]

Recommended viewing for this conversation:

[TMS]

^ precisely.