Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned features"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Wouldn't it make sense to remove the features that have been added (green). After all, these ''are'' the ''planned'' features.[[User:The-Bean|The-Bean]] ([[User talk:The-Bean|talk]]) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC) | Wouldn't it make sense to remove the features that have been added (green). After all, these ''are'' the ''planned'' features.[[User:The-Bean|The-Bean]] ([[User talk:The-Bean|talk]]) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | :Causeless - Nah, I think it's nice in showing how far the game has progressed. | |
| − | Causeless - Nah, I think it's nice in showing how far the game has progressed. | + | ::That's what the [[Version History]] is for... --[[User:The-Bean|The-Bean]] ([[User talk:The-Bean|talk]]) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:41, 19 June 2012
Hey, shouldn't the EVA feature be in green, because it's the main focus of the next update? And maybe Long-duration smoke trails and Fuel-dependent larger explosions too, because Silisko is working on better particle effects for 0.16? Trbinsc (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- As this page is currently arranged, probably. That said, A 3rd color for features in the next update might be clearer. UmbralRaptor (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Causeless - I decided on a new colour due to the new update cycles not guaranteeing features any more.
Wouldn't it make sense to remove the features that have been added (green). After all, these are the planned features.The-Bean (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Causeless - Nah, I think it's nice in showing how far the game has progressed.
- That's what the Version History is for... --The-Bean (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
