Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)

[Red Iron Crown]

Thanks again for maintaining this ObsessedWithKSP, text is the best way to deliver information for many.

If I can make a humble formatting suggestion, I would say leave all the Squadcast notes in the OP and hide the older ones in spoiler tags. When a new one comes out, add it to the OP and spoiler the previous one, then add the new one as a reply to the thread as well. Adding to the OP helps those just discovering your thread, adding it as a reply is better for those of us who are already subscribed. Just a thought, probably not worth doing for this update as we're probably only a Squadcast or two away, but if you decide to do this for the next update as well it's something you might consider.

[BudgetHedgehog]

If I can make a humble formatting suggestion, I would say leave all the Squadcast notes in the OP and hide the older ones in spoiler tags. When a new one comes out, add it to the OP and spoiler the previous one, then add the new one as a reply to the thread as well. Adding to the OP helps those just discovering your thread, adding it as a reply is better for those of us who are already subscribed.

I like that idea - I was thinking of doing that before settling on this way, but your idea makes more sense. Gimme a minute, I'll get it sorted out.

[hellion13]

Its like watching your kids get ready for their first day of school....Or going to a theme park for the first time and seeing the rides pop up over the hills while you're still on the highway.

[Corovaneer]

First VAB and SPH can only build ships that have up to 50 parts. Engineers will tell you if you go over 50 parts.

I'm going to have a problem with arbitrary number limitations. Personally, I would prefer a limit in height\size and\or weight. That would make a lot more sense.

[Shadow_Spark]

I'm going to have a problem with arbitrary number limitations. Personally, I would prefer a limit in height\size and\or weight. That would make a lot more sense.

I second this. I also thionk they could do it similar to that ScanSat mod(or whatever it's called...) where you need to do a 'scan' of a planet or moon to get the biome map.

[Robotengineer]

It would be cool if they made a small Part Module for antennae, that would allow them to scan planets and after a complete scan allow you to look at biome maps in the map view. Or as a tracking station upgrade.

[metl]

I would rather see the biome areas unlock on the map as you collect EVA science from it (or some type of on the surface science such as a rover.) Keep it simple though, so unlocking one biome area unlocks all of that type of biome across the entire planet for view (so you know what biomes you have and have not been to.)

[RocketPilot573]

I'll just wait until a modder makes an IVA for the new cockpit.

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I'm going to have a problem with arbitrary number limitations. Personally, I would prefer a limit in height\size and\or weight. That would make a lot more sense.

If construction took time to occur, the part limit would seem to make more sense - we have time to bolt 50 parts together before we need to (down tools/move on to the next project/dissolve ourselves into the ground). At the moment, it's an arbitrary limit - and height and size limits would seem equally arbitrary if, as has been hinted at, we can now apply arbitrary part clipping.

[SheepDog2142]

This looks really cool. ITs a big step in a good direction. Now it just needs a stable 64bit so I can run a massive multi system game with 2000+ parts

[I_Killed_Jeb]

That's a definitive "YES! HELL YES!" from me. in-game biome maps should definitely be unlockable.

Great to see we can use them in the debug menu till then

The fact that they would hide this in the debug menu to start with makes me wonder about their vision for a final UI, which as it is is quite limited and unsatisfactory

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

The fact that they would hide this in the debug menu to start with makes me wonder about their vision for a final UI, which as it is is quite limited and unsatisfactory

The fact that they would build this and expose this (yes, in the debug menu) would seem to me that they're looking for feedback. If they didn't want to move on from where they currently are, then they need not have made any changes at all. "Yes, there are more biomes. Find them for yourselves."

[Thomas988]

I'm going to have a problem with arbitrary number limitations. Personally, I would prefer a limit in height\size and\or weight. That would make a lot more sense.

Exactly! Part count seems forced, while mass/weight/building size is much more natural.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

The fact that they would build this and expose this (yes, in the debug menu) would seem to me that they're looking for feedback. If they didn't want to move on from where they currently are, then they need not have made any changes at all. "Yes, there are more biomes. Find them for yourselves."

By this logic nobody has to do anything. That they're looking for feedback is great. That they need feedback for such an obvious feature is not. Currently the only way for you to know what the biomes are through internet searches or by directly flying over them, both are unsatisfactory especially in light of Fine Prints becoming stock and with it the need to go to specific biomes. BTW, your last sentence has exactly been the attitude with biomes thusfar, and hiding them in the debug menu that most players likely don't know about amounts to the same thing.

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

By this logic nobody has to do anything. That they're looking for feedback is great. That they need feedback for such an obvious feature is not. Currently the only way for you to know what the biomes are through internet searches or by directly flying over them, both are unsatisfactory especially in light of Fine Prints becoming stock and with it the need to go to specific biomes. BTW, your last sentence has exactly been the attitude with biomes thusfar, and hiding them in the debug menu that most players likely don't know about amounts to the same thing.

I'm not sure what confuses you about this logic - they obviously want to change things (because they've changed things) and they're obviously seeking feedback (because they've put it in the debug menu, out of the way of everyone except everyone currently seeking this information). I was pointing out the contrary position that obviously *doesn't* hold - that if they were not seeking to make changes here, they wouldn't have done so.

[Space.exe]

OMK. Cant wait i will defiantly be starting a career mode save.

[Corovaneer]

If construction took time to occur, the part limit would seem to make more sense - we have time to bolt 50 parts together before we need to (down tools/move on to the next project/dissolve ourselves into the ground). At the moment, it's an arbitrary limit - and height and size limits would seem equally arbitrary if, as has been hinted at, we can now apply arbitrary part clipping.

But all parts are different, while the count is for all parts, it makes no sense either way.

And natural constraints of the building seems like something much more sensible - that's why you can upgrade building to make it more spacious/with reinforced floor/better equipped.

Weight and size limits allow you to be smart about the way you build your ship, while part count is silly. "You can't place 4th RCS unit because that would be 51 parts. You can only place three."

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I'm not sure what confuses you about this logic - they obviously want to change things (because they've changed things) and they're obviously seeking feedback (because they've put it in the debug menu, out of the way of everyone except everyone currently seeking this information). I was pointing out the contrary position that obviously *doesn't* hold - that if they were not seeking to make changes here, they wouldn't have done so.

I'm not confused, because it's not logic. Again, I never said they're not looking for feedback nor did I say they're not seeking to make changes. I'd ask that you examine my statement a bit more carefully prior to responding. And if it's in the debug menu, it's not "out of the way of everyone except everyone currently seeking this information." It's out of the way of everyone unless they know of the debug menu and also are seeking that checkbox out.

[Sasquatch_Punter]

What exactly is so wrong about the part limit? Lower tier building represents lower tier/inexperienced engineers. Less complexity suggests that your space program is less capable in its infancy, which makes sense.

[NecroBones]

Part limits might be a somewhat artificial constraint, but this is also a game system. It's just a method of constraining complexity. I would suspect there's a size and part-count limit, which I'm OK with as long as they aren't oppressively confining.

[Sandworm]

Part count limits seem an arbitrary, too easily implemented, constraint. I chalk it up, yet again, to Squad emphasizing cartoon image over simulation. Need to take that extra science experiment? Just ditch that fairing cove (5+ parts using KW). Rocket wobbles? Instead of four fins to stabilize, just add a super duper magic SAS unit.

It will also encourage mod authors to create multi-use parts. A decoupler and parachute is interesting. A command pod with integrated chutes, retro rockets, heat shield, docking port and RCS thrusts all to save on the part count is boring.

Would part limits be a careful way of increasing KSP's performance numbers? Forcing new players to adhere to small, simple, craft will certainly increase their FPS.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Sandworm

[Linear]

Part count limits seem an arbitrary, too easily implemented, constraint. I chalk it up, yet again, to Squad emphasizing cartoon image over simulation. Need to take that extra science experiment? Just ditch that fairing cove (5+ parts using KW). Rocket wobbles? Instead of four fins to stabilize, just add a super duper magic SAS unit.

It will also encourage mod authors to create multi-use parts. A decoupler and parachute is interesting. A command pod with integrated chutes, retro rockets, heat shield, docking port and RCS thrusts all to save on the part count is boring.

Would part limits be a careful way of increasing KSP's performance numbers? Forcing new players to adhere to small, simple, craft will certainly increase their FPS.

Good feedback, and your last point is interesting but i'd like to think they're leaning towards introducing a more efficient rocket design to newer players, and perhaps emphasize to existing players small works too. :-)

[Spatzimaus]

Part count limits seem an arbitrary, too easily implemented, constraint. I chalk it up, yet again, to Squad emphasizing cartoon image over simulation. Need to take that extra science experiment? Just ditch that fairing cove (5+ parts using KW). Rocket wobbles? Instead of four fins to stabilize, just add a super duper magic SAS unit.

Honestly, you could get around this pretty easily by making it such that some parts do not count towards the part limit. The small science gear, for instance, shouldn't penalize you, although the materials bay and such should still count. After all, sticking a thermometer on the outside of a rocket shouldn't make it any harder to fit into a primitive assembly building. I'd also put fairing covers, flaps (the ones that attach to separate wings, not canards), lights, and such in the same category; basically anything that has little or no mass and attaches radially shouldn't count towards the total, because these are things that are designed to be patched onto an already-complete design without interfering with it in any way.

Really, though, any part limit just penalizes folks who like building complex (but not necessarily huge) designs. I've got a 32-ton spaceplane that has more parts (270ish) than my 600-ton rover (220). Which would fit better into a small spaceplane hangar? What I'd prefer to see is a basic "Complexity" metric that's a combination of part count, total mass, and total cost, and have THAT be the limiting factor to your construction.

[Corovaneer]

I think dividing parts into those that count and those that don't is harder to implement than make a simple weight threshold. It will also make it harder for modders.

And weight limit would also encourage people to refine their designs by learning more about part functions, to know what is excessive and what is just enough, and where it is better to cut some mass. After all, whatever goes to space is often measured in kg\$1000, and there are "heavy" class rockets and "light" class, etc.

Limiting by a part count number will just be annoying, because it limits freedom - for newbies, freedom to make mistakes by going in excess or overcomplicating your ship. For experienced - freedom to take on dangerous missions on low tech levels.

[BudgetHedgehog]

You're already limited by weight thanks to the launchpad/runway. Starting tier one can take, I think it's about 10 tons. You physically cannot launch anything heavier than the limit.