Squadcast Summary (24/01/2015) - The Valentina Edition

[Captain Sierra]

Wait.. GP2 was an old resource asset?

It was an old asset, just not a resource asset. (the quote used just said old assets, not specifically resource assets).

[NovaSilisko]

No, thats not what I believe Nova (and I certainly) was referring to. *cough*GP2*cough*

But yay still!

What? I was talking about the resource models that I made back during the original run of that mechanic.

[Vallius]

Regarding the barn controversy, I can see merit in the points of view for and against.

The way I see it, there are only 2 possible origins for aerospace research. One is sheds and barns, and the other is military (like an air force base). Since the kerbals are a peaceful (although certainly not risk averse), the barn/shed origin makes more sense before government funding comes in.

It's not supposed to look like a state-of-the-art at first, and I'm confident that SQUAD will give the models the polishing they need before 1.0. One of the greatest things about this game is how much feedback Harvester and the gang have received from us.

[Wjolcz]

What? I was talking about the resource models that I made back during the original run of that mechanic.

Yep. I still remember and can confirm him making those resource parts. Still got the pics of it?

EDIT: Would be nice to see them again :3

Edited January 24, 2015 by Veeltch

[NecroBones]

As far as the barn and trailer park is concerned, I'm OK with the tier-0 buildings looking that way. Not only do we have historical examples of very humble space/military efforts, but KSP is meant to be tongue-in-cheek to a degree anyway. The fact that we can start with a barn, and end up with something like the real-world KSC, is pretty cool to me.

I was just at our local Air & Space Museum today, and something there reminded me of this discussion. They had the Rheintochter R1 Missile, which had wooden fins, and an almost steampunk-ish sort of look: (photos taken by me today):

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited January 25, 2015 by NecroBones

[BudgetHedgehog]

It was an old asset, just not a resource asset. (the quote used just said old assets, not specifically resource assets).

10 character limits can go jump off a pier

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. I still remember and can confirm him making those resource parts. Still got the pics of it?

EDIT: Would be nice to see them again :3

I don't know if Nova has any other pictures, but this is what I'm aware exists of them:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Frozen_Heart]

Wow those bring back memories!

I remember a user called Mustwinfull had a thread he updated every moth or so with all the new stuff that was being developed on KSP. I followed the resources on there.

[Pulstar]

That arcing detector dish has to be brought back, it just looks so great. Not to mention the pump drill and rock drill. And this processor:

Nova's parts are always great, they were what made KSP stock look stock back in 0.18.

[Northstar1989]

I hope they will be fixed sizes, because Procedural removes part of the challenge of thinking about payload design.

I don't get why people keep making this argument. Having fixed fairing sizes was never a challenge in real life (it's just an aeroshell- they design it to whatever specs are needed), and it wouldn't be a challenge in the game even if they did things that way either. All it would be is annoying- you would just have to use fairings a full size larger than your payload if the payload was just a *tiny* bit too large to the closest size...

Regards,

Northstar

[Caelib]

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that Project "V" is the mulitplayer component -- they announced that they were working on it several releases ago and haven't heard much since other than "still working on it".

[HafCoJoe]

The barn is coming back? Ugh, no. Not only did it look like a piece of crap, but it didn't fit the aesthetic of the game whatsoever. Kerbals shouldn't be regarded as the trailer trash the barn made them look like, and no one even ever launched manned rockets out of a barn, it's just stupid.

Ehm...

Boeing started out in a big red barn. I've been there too. And I wouldn't call boeing "trailer trash" .

EDIT: I'm on mobile so I couldn't easily tell this thread has twelve pages. Sorry! Regardless, I'm supper excited for this next update, and I really hope there are more secrets being added too. I think the only feature that has more hype then the ones listed coming in the next update is the magic boulder. I being a veteran would love to see the boulder added soon or even new locations/easter eggs/monoliths added to visit. A good game has all the necessary requirements but a great game, has the extras.

#savethemagicboulder

Edited January 25, 2015 by Avera9eJoe
oops

[Wjolcz]

snippity snip

Damn! I forgot about that dish! It's so sexay!

[BudgetHedgehog]

this processor:

http://i.imgur.com/J6BWayf.png

Damn, that's a good looking part. Trust Nova to make parts I immediately want Thanks for the share!

[Melfice]

What I mean is that the fun was figuring stuff like that out for yourself. It dosen't sound much but its like giving a player in Skyrim loads of weapons and potions at the start.. sort of...

No.

It'd be like giving a player in Skyrim some loading screen tips, and a quest guide of sorts.

You can follow it, or you can ignore it and do your own thing. The game is still just as open. It just that you now have the telling you in very broad strokes what to expect. Bring a bow and arrow or ranged magic, or find another way to deal with the horde of mages. Up to you.

[Daze]

@Bill Phil - "It's no longer a gameplay mechanic if you aren't limited in payload size..." I think that is why Squad resisted the notion for a long time, I'm kind of surprised to hear of this, I thought fixed cargo bays and now Mk3 was going to be all we got for shielding payloads in the new Aero. I hope they will be fixed sizes, because Procedural removes part of the challenge of thinking about payload design.

Procedural fairings? The ones that shape themselves based on the payload shape? Please no. It's no longer a gameplay mechanic if you aren't limited in payload size, relatively. Unless the payloads follow a specific pattern, like, thd farthest distance plus a little bit as the main "cylinder", and the cone at the top which has a length relative to the payload, and the bottom adapter would need to be resized. Basically, a fairing template(s?) that resizes based on payload size would be acceptable, but nothing that looks like a lightbulb, please.

What? If Squad added a realistic-aero people would have complained it because it will be not fun because you cant do crazy craft but if squad add procedural fairings (which actually is funny and realistic) people complain anyway, it would be better if you have fixed fairings so you cant do strange craft?... People are strange (no offense for you, it's for " ksp=fun1!1!1" players)

[Bill Phil]

What? If Squad added a realistic-aero people would have complained it because it will be not fun because you cant do crazy craft but if squad add procedural fairings (which actually is funny and realistic) people complain anyway, it would be better if you have fixed fairings so you cant do strange craft?... People are strange (no offense for you, it's for " ksp=fun1!1!1" players)

Procedural fairings make no sense. Just look at the first picture of the Procedural fairings page. That's RIDICULOUS.

My main complaint is that it's no longer relevant to have realistic aero if you can make fairings cover anything. The payload size being limited is as much of a gameplay mechanic as the aero itself. you have to think about payload volume, and you have to use it in smart ways.

Really, though, I just want crazy fairings, and I mean CRAZY fairings even considering most KSP designs, to not even be considered. It ruins the concept of a realistic aero because I could just build a crazy ship, and slap a proc fairing on it and boom, no challenge.

[Daze]

@Bill Phil - "It's no longer a gameplay mechanic if you aren't limited in payload size..." I think that is why Squad resisted the notion for a long time, I'm kind of surprised to hear of this, I thought fixed cargo bays and now Mk3 was going to be all we got for shielding payloads in the new Aero. I hope they will be fixed sizes, because Procedural removes part of the challenge of thinking about payload design.

Procedural fairings make no sense. Just look at the first picture of the Procedural fairings page. That's RIDICULOUS.

My main complaint is that it's no longer relevant to have realistic aero if you can make fairings cover anything. The payload size being limited is as much of a gameplay mechanic as the aero itself. you have to think about payload volume, and you have to use it in smart ways.

Really, though, I just want crazy fairings, and I mean CRAZY fairings even considering most KSP designs, to not even be considered. It ruins the concept of a realistic aero because I could just build a crazy ship, and slap a proc fairing on it and boom, no challenge.

Well Squad have just followed the idea of Fun=/=Realism like for the Aero Overhaul.

For me it wouldn't be a problem of having 1.25-2.5-3.75 fairings, but procedural fairings is better and can "flex" trough realism and fun

[Brotoro]

...My main complaint is that it's no longer relevant to have realistic aero if you can make fairings cover anything. The payload size being limited is as much of a gameplay mechanic as the aero itself. you have to think about payload volume, and you have to use it in smart ways.

I don't understand your complaint. If you put a gigantic fairing around a payload, you still have to push that big beastie through the air. So if somebody wants to build a rocket powerful enough to push the bulbous fairing through the (hopefully soon to be more accurately calculated) drag of the atmosphere...why is this a problem?

[Vanamonde]

Snipped some posts. Keep it clean, people.

[Superfluous J]

You know? I totally forgot about KAS. Without it, land refueling is a difficult thing indeed, and it is awesome in general.

Squad could implement some sort of AOE refueling. Like, any fuel tank within 50 meters of the "drill" or "converter" or whatever gets filled. This would remove the little fiddly bits involved in ISRU but would eliminate the need to land right on the docking port at my Minmus ground base, something I think everybody should try at least once

[Yukon0009]

Mhm....I'm sure the first thing people will do in 1.0:

MK3 bomber

Constellation style duna missions

"Karbonite" bases

[Bill Phil]

Mk3 bombers already exist

[Yukon0009]

Mk3 bombers already exist

Wings with fuel, means a fuselage's worth of bombs.

[LethalDose]

I'm just speculating here, but I would be willing to bet that Project "V" is the mulitplayer component -- they announced that they were working on it several releases ago and haven't heard much since other than "still working on it".

Max tweeted earlier that "V" stood for an important name. That's almost certainly "Valentina", which is presumably the name of the orange-suited Kerbelle, who, in turn, is presumably who is named for Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space.

So, I'm guessing you'd lose that bet.

Edit: Confirmed in earlier in this thread.

Edited January 25, 2015 by LethalDose

[Commander Zoom]

Procedural fairings make no sense. Just look at the first picture of the Procedural fairings page. That's RIDICULOUS.

My main complaint is that it's no longer relevant to have realistic aero if you can make fairings cover anything. The payload size being limited is as much of a gameplay mechanic as the aero itself. you have to think about payload volume, and you have to use it in smart ways.

Really, though, I just want crazy fairings, and I mean CRAZY fairings even considering most KSP designs, to not even be considered. It ruins the concept of a realistic aero because I could just build a crazy ship, and slap a proc fairing on it and boom, no challenge.

You heard it here, folks. Fairings wider than the rocket are totally unrealistic.