Parts clipping - is it immoral?

[Jim3535]

Clipping smaller tanks into larger ones in stock atmosphere? No, thanks.

I don't understand the objection with those conditions. In stock aerodynamics parts generate drag according to their mass, so clipping them does nothing to help the flight characteristics. Maybe you were thinking of FAR, or am I missing something?

[VR_Dev]

As Harvester has said, .90 will remove this arbitrary behaviour.

Did I miss something? Is the next update jumping to .90?

[Red Iron Crown]

Did I miss something? Is the next update jumping to .90?

Yes. It's to reflect the change from Alpha to Beta status.

[Frank_G]

Did I miss something? Is the next update jumping to .90?

Ähem... Sir? Yes it will be BETA than ever, if you haven´t heard the goode ole news.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don't understand the objection with those conditions. In stock aerodynamics parts generate drag according to their mass, so clipping them does nothing to help the flight characteristics. Maybe you were thinking of FAR, or am I missing something?

FAR doesn't detect clipped parts either - they still get drag applied. Clipping just makes things look a bit sleeker and nicer, IMO.

[Mareczex333]

Don't disable part clip!!

It will destroy my work!!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Some people use it for evil! (bad guys) - airhogging, hidden flaps, 20 fuel tanks in one point

But not everyone is a bad guy.

I want to continue making crafts ;(

Edited December 3, 2014 by Mareczex333

[VR_Dev]

Yes. It's to reflect the change from Alpha to Beta status.

Ähem... Sir? Yes it will be BETA than ever, if you haven´t heard the goode ole news.

Thanks I knew Beta was coming, I was just curious if that was the number were jumping too. I'm sure it will drop the day I get my last craft updated to .25

And in regards to part clipping. I love it, it opens up a whole new world of customization. I hate being limited by the boundaries of the attachment rules.

However I do consider it more like cheating to clip to boost performance. Especially hiding flaps inside a fuselage. There may be no such thing as cheating in single player, but if you claim your aircraft performs better than mine because you have flaps hidden everywhere, that's pretty lame.

Edit: Mareczex said it better first

Some people use it for evil! (bad guys) - airhogging, hidden flaps, 20 fuel tanks in one point

Edited December 3, 2014 by clown_baby

[BudgetHedgehog]

He's not removing part clipping, he's removing the code that detects it. This means it's easier to part clip, not harder. Your work will be able to be created without the debug menu now, is all

[Mareczex333]

He's not removing part clipping, he's removing the code that detects it. This means it's easier to part clip, not harder. Your work will be able to be created without the debug menu now, is all

Really?

Uff... I was wrong then

btw, i was never creating it with debug console cheat. I was using small bug to place parts

[Jouni]

No, you can't cheat in a truly single player game.

You're obviously using a non-standard definition of cheating.

Back in the 80s and early 90s, gamers talked about cheats all the time. Magazines published cheat codes and other cheating techniques. Editing save files and even game files was common. Systems generally didn't have memory protection, so editing memory contents while the game was running was another common technique. Some companies even sold hardware or software specifically designed to made cheating in games easier.

Why people were so interested in cheating? Back in the days the games were hard. Computers had very little memory, so games didn't have that much content. To make the games last longer, developers made them so hard that most people couldn't complete them without cheating. Many people cheated, because they wanted to see what was there after the point they got stuck at.

[DasValdez]

I typically don't clip parts... maybe it's superstition, but I have a *gut* feeling that clipping causes more kraken attacks, unintended motion, and exploding ships on physics load. The KSA Majesties' cupola torpedo was resolved by removing clipped cosmetic parts near the connection points...

Will removing the clipping detection, without modifying the simulation code, cause more frustrating issues during flight? I hope I can turn it back on as an added build precaution against wonky physics sim...

[Ikaneko]

I voted dinosaurs because...

Roar!!!

And the raptors: they'll eat me if I don't.

P.s My address is 123 Houston Street, Enfield , Lazytown, Pakistan.

[VR_Dev]

Roar!!!

Part clipping got that tail in the direction I want, I feel immoral now....

[Red Iron Crown]

If that is immoral we need a new morality code.

[JDCollie]

You're obviously using a non-standard definition of cheating.

Back in the 80s and early 90s, gamers talked about cheats all the time. Magazines published cheat codes and other cheating techniques. Editing save files and even game files was common. Systems generally didn't have memory protection, so editing memory contents while the game was running was another common technique. Some companies even sold hardware or software specifically designed to made cheating in games easier.

Why people were so interested in cheating? Back in the days the games were hard. Computers had very little memory, so games didn't have that much content. To make the games last longer, developers made them so hard that most people couldn't complete them without cheating. Many people cheated, because they wanted to see what was there after the point they got stuck at.

I disagree. I'm claiming that the standard definition of cheating intrinsically requires a competitive element. In an environment devoid of said competition, cheating is impossible. If anything, I'm devaluing the authority of game developers. (by claiming the actuality of my experience is more important than their vision of what my experience should be)

Or, to phrase it another way, cheating cannot exist in isolation. For cheating to occur, something must be being cheated. If I am playing a game for my own enjoyment, and my own enjoyment is best served by doing something not normally allowed by the game's design, what is being cheated? Certainly not my enjoyment. Even in the context of seeing the latter portions of difficult games from the 80s and 90s like you describe, if my purpose is to see the story, what is being cheated by me circumventing obstacles to that goal?

Of course, the equation changes the instant that my entertainment ceases to be an independent system. If I draw enjoyment from learning said story before other players then using unfair means to achieve that goal harms the enjoyment of other similarly competitive players and is totally cheating.

Edited December 4, 2014 by JDCollie

[Jouni]

Or, to phrase it another way, cheating cannot exist in isolation. For cheating to occur, something must be being cheated. If I am playing a game for my own enjoyment, and my own enjoyment is best served by doing something not normally allowed by the game's design, what is being cheated? Certainly not my enjoyment. Even in the context of seeing the latter portions of difficult games from the 80s and 90s like you describe, if my purpose is to see the story, what is being cheated by me circumventing obstacles to that goal?

Games are not just any form of entertainment. They're structured playing, where the rules distinguish them from other forms of playing. If you change the rules in a way the original developer didn't intend, you're cheating, if you still insist that you're playing the same game, or modding, if you say that you're playing a different game.

Single-player games are a meaningful term only if you assume that the player has some kind of obligation to follow the rules. If the player doesn't follow the rules, it's not a game, but unstructured playing. On the other hand, if we assume that the player has an obligation to follow the rules, then it's meaningful to talk about cheating in single-player games.

[JDCollie]

Games are not just any form of entertainment. They're structured playing, where the rules distinguish them from other forms of playing. If you change the rules in a way the original developer didn't intend, you're cheating, if you still insist that you're playing the same game, or modding, if you say that you're playing a different game.

Single-player games are a meaningful term only if you assume that the player has some kind of obligation to follow the rules. If the player doesn't follow the rules, it's not a game, but unstructured playing. On the other hand, if we assume that the player has an obligation to follow the rules, then it's meaningful to talk about cheating in single-player games.

Games are a structured entertainment environment, true; however, it is not the structure itself (or rules) that distinguishes games per se, but rather the way that the players interact with that structure. To be fair, I'll acknowledge that for the purposes of clear vocabulary, giving players who interact with the structure of a game in a non-standard way a moniker such as "cheaters" is valid.

Thus, as a corollary, I don't see your reasoning though on why single player games are intrinsically defined by an obligation on the part of the player to adhere to the rules. A "game" is not an ontologically unique experience which a player can tap into like some form of digital deity; it is an experience that is formed both by the assets brought by the game and by the experiences and playstyle brought by the player. I guess I could say games are like interactive books. As Roland Barthes said of books, the authors (or in this case, the devs) are dead.

Also, I might just be being exceptionally dense, but I'm not quite sure what you meant here by "if you still insist that you're playing the same game, or modding, if you say that you're playing a different game." I don't want to misinterpret you or put words in your mouth; perhaps you could clarify?

Edited December 4, 2014 by JDCollie

[TMS]

I find it amusing when people proudly report that the only clipping they use is that which the stock interface naturally allows.

It's a special form of nonsense that I find particularly yummy.

[Jouni]

Games are a structured entertainment environment, true; however, it is not the structure itself (or rules) that distinguishes games per se, but rather the way that the players interact with that structure.

What do you mean with "the way that the players interact with that structure"? I'd interpret that as the act of playing a game, while the structure and the rules define the game itself.

Thus, as a corollary, I don't see your reasoning though on why single player games are intrinsically defined by an obligation on the part of the player to adhere to the rules. A "game" is not an ontologically unique experience which a player can tap into like some form of digital deity; it is an experience that is formed both by the assets brought by the game and by the experiences and playstyle brought by the player.

Here I think you're talking about the player experience, instead of the game itself. If you remove the rules from the game, you're left with freeform playing (if 'game' refers to the act of playing a game), a toy (if it refers to an abstract or a concrete object), or nothing (if it refers to the structure of the game).

Also, I might just be being exceptionally dense, but I'm not quite sure what you meant here by "if you still insist that you're playing the same game, or modding, if you say that you're playing a different game." I don't want to misinterpret you or put words in your mouth; perhaps you could clarify?

If you change the rules and claim that you still play the same game, you're cheating. If you change the rules and say that you're playing a different game, you're modding the game.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Jouni

[JDCollie]

What do you mean with "the way that the players interact with that structure"? I'd interpret that as the act of playing a game, while the structure and the rules define the game itself.

Here I think you're talking about the player experience, instead of the game itself. If you remove the rules from the game, you're left with freeform playing (if 'game' refers to the act of playing a game), a toy (if it refers to an abstract or a concrete object), or nothing (if it refers to the structure of the game).

We have a conflict of conception I guess. To me, the concrete object of a game (the coded, compiled thing which a player purchases) is inactive. By itself, the game-object does nothing, it is simply an inert collection of structures. It is not until a player interacts with that collection ( and brings their personality into the mix) that the dynamic experience of gaming is produced.

To put it another way, for me the "act of playing the game" is functionally the game.

If you change the rules and claim that you still play the same game, you're cheating. If you change the rules and say that you're playing a different game, you're modding the game.

Ah, well put. I think this gets to the crux of the conversation then. I'm essentially arguing that whenever a player plays a truly single-player game (an object), the resulting experience is unique. Thus, for lack of a better description, two players can own the same game-object, but will still play different games. This means that single player modding is possible, but single player cheating is not.

Of course, once a player makes some sort of claim to another player that they are playing the same game, then the experience is, by definition, no longer single player, because there are multiple players involved, even if only at a meta level.

I guess I'm saying that cheating is only possible in single player games if you, the player, care if other players care that you cheat.

(Also, we may have ever-so-slightly hijacked this thread)

Edited December 4, 2014 by JDCollie

[Red Iron Crown]

So, can you cheat at Solitaire?

[Wjolcz]

Dinosaurs.

I have a rule to not clip full fuel/rcs tanks into each other. But when I remove the oxidiser and want to have some more rcs on board on my VTOL i clip. Seems logical that if you remove half of the content of the tank and it doesnt shrink, then you can put something else in there instead

[Yuming]

I am always obsessed with making EVERYTHING the smallest it can be. I don't use part clipping for lower stages, but for landers and probes, it is a great tool. It does not feel like cheating as long as I don't go overboard.

[JDCollie]

So, can you cheat at Solitaire?

Well, if you do something not within the rules of Solitaire, are you cheating, or are you just "playing it your way"? The answer depends entirely on whether or not you care what someone else would say about what you are doing.

Consider the poll. The option that affirms that part clipping is cheating says "they're not supposed to be connected that way." Not supposed to be connected according to who? And why does anyone accept that who's authority? In the real world, the laws of physics are the "who", and it's authority is accepted because it tends to kill you if you don't. However, in KSP we're not necessarily constrained the same way, and the "who" is actually a community of vocal players which believe that KSP should simulate reality as closely as is possible and can't stand it when someone does something KSP that departs from that vision.

I am always obsessed with making EVERYTHING the smallest it can be. I don't use part clipping for lower stages, but for landers and probes, it is a great tool. It does not feel like cheating as long as I don't go overboard.

Same; I love making things tiny. Small + low part count = win in my book

Edited December 7, 2014 by JDCollie

[panzer1b]

Ok take a look at this craft.

yes i clipped the cockpit, yes i clipped quite a lot of parts in this design, but does it look bad?

I clip to keep stuff that i dont want visible internally (i have 16 ram intakes in this deisgn to have 3 rapiers work in air-mode at super high altitudes. There is no bloody way im gonna make a half decent looking craft when im limited to having everything non clipped. Also, as someone mentioned i think, without stuff like procedural fuel tanks, procedural wings, ect in the stock game, we are fairly limited in the shapes we can make by the stock parts, and in order to get a specific chape of wing, or whatever part we desire, clipping lets us make makeshift parts that are intended to look a specific way. Now for conventional designs, even i stay away from clipping, but when im trying to say replicate a sci-fi ship, or a real world craft, or just make my stuff look like what i want, until procedural parts are made stock (i know mods exist, but i do MP, and i havent run into a server that supports procedural parts without forcing alot of mods i dont want lagging up my game and adding loading times), ill stick to using clipping in certain designs/areas.