Announced KSP Asteroid Capture Mission Pack

[Taleric]

Now that is the type of mission pack stuff I like to see. The lessons learned by developing this will also open up new KSP mechanics, and play that mirrors real/theorized missions is just fun.

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/01/27/na ... ce-program

[FlowerChild]

I don't know man. When I hear about stuff like this and KSP Edu, I get the increasingly sinking feeling they're chasing after too many things at once.

Don't get me wrong, it's a cool idea and all, but the game is seriously lacking in certain fundamentals, and they seem to be chasing these big old tangents.

[Taleric]

The loss of dev time for all the standing issues is a hit. It is hard to figure what will come from the continued shift toward education activities.

I try to temper my displeasure with dev loss by recognizing youths that are honestly impacted by the games subject matter. I can't blame Squad for taking NASA and eduction partnered projects for all the PR and press it provides.

If time must be lost it will be at the potential gain of funding, additional opportunities/support and a new mechanic.

[Taleric]

Can't wait to d/l and boot this up when I get home. I am looking forward to seeing what all can be done moving the asteroids. Also the plus size parts and structural enhancements are welcome.

I am confident tons of great mod additions will come from this and am curious what FC will do to incorporate to BTSM.

Maybe the move to 3.0 will be short so we get the contracts also.

[FlowerChild]

Already talked quite a bit about my integration of BTSM with it over on the mod thread on the KSP forums. I'm working on the update right now actually.

As usual, I'm not half as excited about the new stuff as many people seem to be :)

Personally, I find the whole thing to be more about NASA fanboy service rather than any form of consistent gameplay or respect for the existing "balance" (such as it is). In a lot of ways, I view this stuff as the "wolves" of KSP with the devs getting stars in their eyes and seemingly forgetting other considerations.

[Stormweaver]

I seem to be noticing a bit of a performance increase with the new update, which is welcome. And the improved joints feel good - I was worried it'd be too stiff, but there's still a bit of wobble if you're too heavy-handed with the controls.

Cba checking out the new new stuff tonight, but I'll probably give it a quick run through tomorrow before I go back to BTSM ^.^

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, the new joints are a bit of a mixed bag IMO. Yes, they're stiffer which is nice and results in less wonky behavior with stuff like batteries, but there are occasions where they feel artificially stiff. Try a splashdown landing and I suspect you'll see what I mean. It feels distinctly weird under certain circumstances.

Mentioned this in the BTSM thread, but was happy to notice struts are still needed for stuff like radially attached engine + fuel stacks.

Not a criticism of the feature as this is obviously in my court, but I also noticed the new joints thoroughly fucked the balance of the very early game in BTSM as rockets tend to fly much straighter now, and you can easily hit high-space with our standard 1 large SRB + 4 small designs.

And yeah, performance is definitely better, although I don't seem to be getting the kind of increase people are raving about. Granted, I also have my dev environment open which is a performance hit in itself, and I'll be sure to try it later without once I'm done with the update.

Initial load time seems to have also increased, which is particularly annoying to me given I have to go through it every time I want to test a change.

[Taleric]

Wow yeah good performance boost there.

I see what you mean about the stability FC, and this is just magnified IRT BTSM where flight capabilities are fine-tuned to stability.

In a sandbox the parts look/function nicely. With "creative" mode it is just fluff though. To capture on a budget would be a seriously enjoyable challenge and is still sorely missed.

So not a total loss I am glad it was done so long as it is a one time project. Now we can get contracts in .24

[FlowerChild]

I'm honestly not even sold on the look of the new parts. The engines and claw look kinda nice, but man, those fuel tanks, the new adapter, and the new decoupler are seriously bland. They have a very "mod" look to them, and I don't feel fit the feel of the rest in the game.

And this is from a guy that strongly favors the black and white striped 1.25m fuel tank, so it's not the color scheme I'm talking about. I'd probably need an artist to tell me what it is I don't like about them, but I know it's there :)

[FlowerChild]

To follow up, doesn't this just look plain ugly to anyone else?

Spoiler

Show

[Taleric]

Ok not a kerbal look/feel, it is very Saturn V. It is such a big phallus! It demands respect!

[Gunnerman21]

Yeah.. the liquid boosters were really not needed as we can easily make our own... which is what this game is supposed to be monetizing on :P

But 3.75 meter parts were definitely needed as I can remember a few rockets I've seen with the fuel tanks no-clipped into each other to make a bigger tank.

Asteroids are okay I guess as they provide a "role-play-able" aspect like "er ma gerd Kerbin's gonna get hit with a class E asteroid, we gotta do somthin.." But all they really are is science. Each asteroid is different and thus has individual science, which is balls because most form the same way in real life. It'd be like trying to capture snowflakes and discover new things from each one. Sure their shapes are different, but composition is about the same.

[HavokSCOUT]

To follow up, doesn't this just look plain ugly to anyone else?
--snip--

Call me crazy, but it almost looks too smooth. One of the things that I like about KSP is that all of the parts look unique, in that they don't really "go" with anything else. That rocket looks like something NASA might take out of a large cardboard box: premade and bland. Granted, on a basic level it looks well enough, it just doesn't fit in with KSP's style.

[FlowerChild]

Call me crazy, but it almost looks too smooth. One of the things that I like about KSP is that all of the parts look unique, in that they don't really "go" with anything else. That rocket looks like something NASA might take out of a large cardboard box: premade and bland. Granted, on a basic level it looks well enough, it just doesn't fit in with KSP's style.

Yeah, agreed. I find these parts look almost cell-shaded (especially that engine heat effect...ug...makes it look like my rocket is emerging from Cool World) which doesn't really fit with the look of the rest of the game.

EDIT: Adding reference because getting old sucks and nobody knows what you're talking about anymore:

[devak]

To follow up, doesn't this just look plain ugly to anyone else?
--snip--

Call me crazy, but it almost looks too smooth. One of the things that I like about KSP is that all of the parts look unique, in that they don't really "go" with anything else. That rocket looks like something NASA might take out of a large cardboard box: premade and bland. Granted, on a basic level it looks well enough, it just doesn't fit in with KSP's style.

Yea the great thing about KSP rockets is that it really does look like a strapped-together design, crude and "found lying on the side of the road" look. Now it looks like it got a fresh paint of coat and it just kills detail.

[Ozziie]

I'm having a bit of a floppy rocket problem in the new patch..

[FlowerChild]

Rofl.....dude, you just totally made my morning. Ty :)

[FlowerChild]

And BTW dude, beyond being absolutely hysterical, is the above also a legitimate bug report or something you put together specifically for the vid? :)

[Ozziie]

Nah sorry, I was trying to separate some RCS tanks as I was using them heavily in the lower atmosphere but they were empty dead weight by the time I was in space.

I put them between my lower stages and I imagine they just can't take the strain of the weight above them. There are 2 there at the base of the erm.... shaft?

[FlowerChild]

Nah sorry, I was trying to separate some RCS tanks as I was using them heavily in the lower atmosphere but they were empty dead weight by the time I was in space.

I put them between my lower stages and I imagine they just can't take the strain of the weight above them. There are 2 there at the base of the erm.... shaft?

Cool cool. Just wanted to make sure.

I'll take a look at the RCS tanks though to make sure they have the appropriate node sizes on them (this affects how the joints behave now), as I suspect Squad may have missed a number of them as I know previous to .23.5 I saw a number of them that were wrong in stock part files, but didn't correct them as they didn't impact gameplay.

Anyways, thanks again for the good laugh man :)

[FlowerChild]

and yes...the 1.25m RCS tanks didn't have their node sizes properly set, so you actually inadvertently reported a stock bug (which I just fixed) ;)