Difference between revisions of "Talk:Planned features"

From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Extra Colour(s) for Expansions/Mission Packs/Small DLC)
(Removing Old Ideas and Plans: new section)
 
(53 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{User:RoboJeb/Archive
 
{{User:RoboJeb/Archive
|algo=old(31d)
+
|algo = old(31d)
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Archives
 
{{Archives
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|age=31
 
|age=31
 
}}
 
}}
== Misc ==
 
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? [[User:Trbinsc|Trbinsc]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:UmbralRaptor|UmbralRaptor]] ([[User talk:UmbralRaptor|talk]]) 04:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 
  
 +
== Questionable ==
  
I decided on a new colour due to the new update cycles not guaranteeing features any more.{{unsigned|Causeless}}
+
If there are no more kind of resources, how will the life support work? [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]]) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (CDT)
 +
:That you have to ask the developers, but we got sources for both statements (and then from the same person so not a case of “dev a says this” and “dev b says that”). But for example, what if Maxmaps was talking about mining, selling and converting when he was talking about resource systems (like how Kethane works) and not just “add a resource which is magically added to your craft”. And one part of life support resources is already implemented as electricity. Also both statements are kind of vague: He didn't say they will never ever add resources, just that they haven't found the right way yet and not actively searching for it. And adding life support sounds like it's being added in the far future when their position about resources might have changed. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 03:47, 28 September 2014 (CDT)
  
 +
== 0.90.0 / Beta ==
  
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)
+
The [http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/100106130289/beta-than-ever-the-future-of-ksp most recent blog post] explicitly suggests that most of what's on this page should now be disregarded. What's to become of the planned features list? [[User:Ninetailed|Ninetailed]] ([[User talk:Ninetailed|talk]]) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
:But as he said it's community driven. And while some misinterpret this page, it's also used to list features for the next version. I vote against discarding everything now, because we can't be sure what Squad is actually doing. Especially for everything where there is a more or less recent citation. [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 19:31, 15 October 2014 (CDT)
 +
== Newest Blog Post ==
  
: Nah, I think it's nice in showing how far the game has progressed. {{unsigned|Causeless}}
+
Ok so the most recent blog post talked about aerodynamcs overhaul and deep space refuelling, should we add that? — [[User:Bashir 203|Bashir 203]]
 +
:agreed i also read the blog post just add citation - [[User:joshwoo69|joshwoo69]]
 +
::Yeah blog posts from the devs are probably fine, especially if it's about the dev blog tuesday. (Oh and do you two know that four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>) automatically add your username AND timestamp.) — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 21:32, 31 December 2014 (CST)
  
:: That's what the [[version history]] is for... --[[User:The-Bean|The-Bean]] ([[User talk:The-Bean|talk]]) 12:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
+
== Secret Feature ==
  
::: I'd say it's much easier to that a quick glance at this page for an overall idea than needing to hunt through the update history. Not to mention that newcomers may be confused when they only see one planned feature and won't realize the game may be near to completion. Sure, the title of the page implies only planned features, but it's really a question of either fitting the technical details perfectly (in expense of both ease of use and simplicity), or doing the simpler, easier, and really more intuitive option. {{unsigned|Causeless}}
+
One of the devs talked about a secret feature, where would that go?--[[User:Bashir 203|Bashir 203]] ([[User talk:Bashir 203|talk]]) 10:05, 18 February 2015 (CST)
 +
:I'm not sure, it's very vague and the question is if it will be explained before it's released or discovered afterwards. Could you maybe show the reference? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 17:32, 18 February 2015 (CST)
  
:::: I agree that already-added features should be removed from this page, because they are no longer "planned features". To alleviate any confusion, we can add bold text to the top of the page which says "Features already present in the game are described in the [[version history]]." If the goal is to provide a general overview of "features in the game", that belongs in more of a tutorial setting, not in the Version History or Planned Features articles. &mdash; [[User:Elembis|Elembis]] ([[User talk:Elembis|talk]]) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
+
== Removing colors showing features ==
  
::::: I, too, agree. Is there an official procedure for proposing a change like this? [[User:Holomanga|Holomanga]] ([[User talk:Holomanga|talk]]) 07:54, 12 April 2013 (CDT)
+
Regarding the colors on the "planned features" page (http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features)
  
== Faster Game Loading, done, really? ==
+
It might be a good idea to provide some color-blind support by adding markers as is done most elsewhere to note the different implementation timelines.  If it is decided to stick with the colors, any other mixture of colors other than yellow and green would be good.  Those two look exactly the same to most color-blind users. <small>— Preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BevoLJ|BevoLJ]] ([[User talk:BevoLJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BevoLJ|contribs]]) 05:18, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)</small>
 +
:If you are color blind, you can help us with tweaking the shades of the yellow-green-blue to make it differentiable for the color blind users. [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]]) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (CDT)
 +
::We could orientate us at [[w:WP:COLOR]]. And at least for themselves the colors have enough contrast ([http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=FFEE44 yellow], [http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=42C0FB blue], [http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=00FF00 green]). Not sure how to test with each other though and I'm not sure if there is a good solution or if there are different types of color blindness. Maybe we should simply add an annotation or so to mark them as such (like in [[synchronous orbit]] with the daggers). — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 09:13, 27 March 2015 (CDT)
 +
:::There are three essential kinds of deficiency in color perception — basically a lack of red, green, or blue perception, with blue being the most rare. Here's an [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb263953(v=vs.85).aspx article depicting color perception].
 +
:::Relying on <span style="font-family: cursive">font-face</span>, ''italics'', <u>underlining</u>, or even <span style="border: 1px dashed black; padding: 1px 6px">borders</span> are more reliably accessible to all, and color can continue to be used for most people's convenience. It's important, though, that the colors be light since the text is dark — low contrast makes the text hard to distinguish from a background whose color you don't perceive much of. --[[User:Brendan|Brendan]] ([[User talk:Brendan|talk]]) 23:40, 29 March 2015 (CDT)
  
I hate to come across as snarky here, but surly improving the load times and general game performance is an ongoing thing? [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 11:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
+
== Features Implemented in 1.0 ==
  
== Protection on this page ==
+
I removed features which I know were implemented, and see no evidence of further development. If I missed some evidence, please put them back in in yellow, and adjust the citations. Similarly, I'm not sure if the "Spacecraft Stats" is finished, and have tentatively turned it yellow, and I'm not familiar with the tutorials, so someone should look at that. Do we know what the next version will be called? (I assume not.) [[User:Cultist O|Cultist O]] ([[User talk:Cultist O|talk]]) 21:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  
Perhaps this page should be protected so that only users marked as 'Squad Employees' are able to edit it. Maybe some sort of elevated users as well, who can help keep it formatted and tidy. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 07:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
+
== Nomination for Deletion ==
  
:I don't see why that's necessary.--[[User:Craigmt1|Craigmt1]] ([[User talk:Craigmt1|talk]]) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
+
I see this page was nominated for deletion, as it is "Largely inaccurate information caused by misunderstanding, misquoting, and out of date information." I would argue that replacing it entirely with features confirmed for the next version seems heavy handed. It is useful to have a list of features the devs have confirmed for eventual inclusion (such as multiplayer) or even those they have discussed, but not confirmed (such as more planets). Instead, I would argue for:
 +
* 1. removal of all current and future entries lacking strong citations,
 +
* 2. reworking of all remaining "partially implemented" entries to reflect specifics,
 +
* 3. restructuring of the page into 3/4 sections rather than the current highlighting scheme. (next update, future updates, considered, and repudiated)
 +
* 4. removal of all instances of "(available with mods)"
 +
Hopefully this would solve the very real problem expressed by the nominator, but without loosing the useful record of what we can hope for. [[User:Cultist O|Cultist O]] ([[User talk:Cultist O|talk]]) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  
:: Well, I guess for now it is ok, but I can see it becoming a problem with people editing it to list 'planned features' that are made up. I know that at the moment, there is only one Squad employee on the wiki. It's something we might have to consider though. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
+
: '''I disagree'''
 +
:A wiki should be factual, not wild speculation.  Removal of uncited information is a start, but many of the partially implemented features are actually never intended features.  Even reading the citations, someone misunderstood something.  IVA's for example are done. There was never an intent to suggest any more than each pod/cockpit/crew cabin having it's own IVA, read the citation and you will see that.  The name of the page itself is misleading, many of the listed items on here are not planned features at all... Life Support? Not planned, only speculation from the user base.  In fact on the page named "Planned features" there is a section named "Not Planned or shelves".  That is just crazy.  Some of these items were discussed by former developers who do not work for Squad any longer.  Finally, some of the information is based on personal twitter accounts of the dev team, that has proven to not be reliable and many times vague. If the information didn't come from an official Squad account, be it Dev Notes, Official Twitter, Official Facebook, Squadcast, or whatever, it doesn't belong here. This page hurts the community by spreading false rumor and speculation, it is a hindrance.
  
:::What generally happens is that squad posts a lot of their upcoming plans on the blog,the forums, and reddit, which gives users a chance to come here and add what's been confirmed and saves them the workI just don't see vandalism or misinformation becoming a big enough problem in the near future to justify taking away user control.  It's not like we can't undo it, anyway.--[[User:Craigmt1|Craigmt1]] ([[User talk:Craigmt1|talk]]) 12:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
+
:My suggestion would be a new page, call it Upcoming Features (the word "planned" implies there has been no action, just planning) and on it only include those things that are announced through the official Squad channelsMaxmaps twitter and offhand forum/reddit comments are not official announcements.
  
::::Ah, I thought Squad where putting the planned features on here them selves. [[User:Thecoshman|Thecoshman]] ([[User talk:Thecoshman|talk]]) 12:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
+
:[[User:Alshain|Alshain]] ([[User talk:Alshain|talk]]) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
::::: Maybe a couple of us do, but most of the feature announcements are made on the forums or blog.  The Wiki is mostly the users' domain. -- [[User:N3X15|<span class="squad">N3X15</span>]] <sup class="plainlinks">([[Special:Contribs/N3X15|C]] &middot; [[User_talk:N3X15|T]] &middot; [{{fullurl:User:N3X15/Sig|action=edit}} E])</sup> 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 
:::::: If it becomes necessary, we could subject changes to moderation by Admins.  Admins would obviously forward any content not cited from official blog and forum posts new content to Squad Employees, or one of the Squad Employees that maintains the blog could regularly monitor the page for unmoderated, uncited, additions.  However, we should only do this if rumors things Squad hasn't been completely start being misinterpreted as facts on this page. 
 
::::::
 
:::::: The reason for the potential of rumors and misunderstandings is as follows: Squad Employees have been quite vocal about things they wish they could put in, that are currently not a priority, but are on the table for things to be added in future releases.  This doesn't mean those things will ACTUALLY be added, just that they have been proposed.  Other times Squad Employees will say to stop suggesting a feature.  This isn't always because they have decided to never do that.  It just means they've heard it already, and whether or not it's on the road-map it's been/being considered.  If it hasn't happened, it doesn't mean it won't happen, just that they are aware of the option, they've weighed it, and they've decided it's isn't currently worth the added work when so much other work needs to be done.  Some people have trouble with this concept of priorities.--[[User:Ruedii|Ruedii]] ([[User talk:Ruedii|talk]]) 23:31, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
 
  
== Spans or ColorBoxes ==
+
:: I would argue that proper implementation of my steps one and two would eliminate this problem. If there is not enough evidence that something is indeed planned, then it should be removed. For what it's worth, were I implementing my plan, I would not find a single example you listed as having "strong citations". I have not been through each citation to the degree where I could determine whether or not enough content exists for each category I suggested, and if there is not a single feature that falls into one, then of course there is no reason to have it. However, if for example, there ''are'' features that the devs have expressly stated will not be added, then I see no benefit to removing that fact from the page. '''Edit:''' I guess to clarify my position, I am worried that limiting the page only to things which are confirmed for the next update, has the potential to lose things that have been substantively confirmed or denied for the more distant future. I feel that that information is important (and it would be even more silly to split the page.) [[User:Cultist O|Cultist O]] ([[User talk:Cultist O|talk]]) 00:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  
Hey, I saw that [http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/index.php?title=Planned_features&diff=15178&oldid=14753 the ColorBoxes were replaced by spans]? Now I added them to make it easier to read especially with the red background. So is there any reason to use spans instead? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 10:00, 6 May 2013 (CDT)
+
::: Not necessarily the next version, but through confirmed sources.  Multiplayer would be an example of a confirmed upcoming feature that is not in the next version.  But it is about the only one on that list. The stuff in blue is good, pretty much the rest needs to go. It is either already complete or unverified from any official source of information. I still disagree with the page name, the word "Planned" indicates it is something they want to do in the future, not something they are actively working on now. Squad has not confirmed anything through official sources that isn't being worked on now.
 +
:::[[User:Alshain|Alshain]] ([[User talk:Alshain|talk]]) 07:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  
:Surely it would be better to use a ColorBoxes for clarity, but I think it is wrong displaying — [[User:Andrew221|Andrew221]] ([[User talk:Andrew221|talk]]) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (CDT)
+
== Outdated features ==
::What do you mean with the last half of your sentence? — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 14:43, 8 May 2013 (CDT)
+
I moved features that are outdated to a new section called 'Outdated'. These features need a new reference or need to be deleted.
:::Text should be in ColorBox, right? But it is not. ColorBox is next to the text. – [[User:Andrew221|Andrew221]] ([[User talk:Andrew221|talk]]) 07:31, 9 May 2013 (CDT)
 
::::No it shouldn't be in the ColorBox because that won't change anything. The reason I used them to have a white background for the text. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 08:33, 9 May 2013 (CDT)
 
  
== Citation Needed? ==
+
I didn't want to delete those features because I want that to happen by the mods.
To avoid spreading of false rumors, I think that we should go the Wikipedia way here and enforce that each entry in this list '''must''' have a  reference to a developer statement as a source. Retroactively finding sources for all the entries here might be too hard, but we could at least try to enforce this for new entries. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] ([[User talk:Crush|talk]]) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (CDT)
 
:'''+1''' That would be reasonable. Any new entry need a citation of some official. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 12:42, 7 May 2013 (CDT)
 
::Definitely agree. I spent most of the last 4 days contacting Squad trying to get some official word on the multiplayer issue. How would you reference emails or forum PMs on the wiki though? [[User:Leonassan|Leonassan]] ([[User talk:Leonassan|talk]]) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
 
::: Well, you can link to forum threads.  As for emails, maybe a screenshot or something.  -- [[User:N3X15|<span class="squad">N3X15</span>]] <sup class="plainlinks">([[Special:Contribs/N3X15|C]] &middot; [[User_talk:N3X15|T]] &middot; [{{fullurl:User:N3X15/Sig|action=edit}} E])</sup> 16:05, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
 
:::: But not to PMs. Screenshot might be a choice: [[Special:Upload|Upload it]] and then use &lt;ref&gt; to reference to the image. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 16:49, 29 July 2013 (CDT)
 
  
== Extra Colour(s) for Expansions/Mission Packs/Small DLC ==
+
[[User:ArnePeirs|Olympic1]] ([[User talk:ArnePeirs|talk]]) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  
As I write this, "Asteroids" under Celestial Bodies is marked Blue with "Citation Needed". Since I'm not entirely sure if outside sources such as [http://www.polygon.com/features/2014/1/27/5338438/kerbal-space-program Polyon] can count as official Citation here, despite that the linked article's supposed to represent very closely what SQUAD shared with them, I won't add that citation. But it raises a question: If the article is correct, then the Asteroid in question may not be what we expect. It could be something as "simple" as a large body that's running on vessel physics as opposed to Celestial Body physics and only appears in a Scenario, such as the simple ones SQUAD made long ago to help teach basic controls.
+
: I'd like to see that section removed as well. I see no need to have anything here that is not cited. Who are mods and how do we get them to look at it? Is it a problem if we just remove it? If someone really wants that section there, they can always revert the change right?
  
Since in that case we can't really call it a new "Feature" since it's not part of the game's mechanics or even the main Campaign, it should probably be marked as something other than an upcoming "feature". In fact, as we probably will start seeing new things SQUAD plans that is more in line with extra missions or even official "mods" in the sense that they don't change the core game, just offer and optional extra feature or two, perhaps part packs, then if those have any place on this page at all, they should be marked different from the rest of the features, to let players know what will be optional, or in need of extra action on their end (DLC and Expansion Packs don't just appear after every update).
+
: [[User:JEIhrig|JEIhrig]] ([[User talk:JEIhrig|talk]]) 04:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  
If these aren't pointed out, unless the wiki viewer keeps an eye on KSP news, he/she may be mislead by the presence here. (Not to mention, if the Asteroid mentioned her WILL just be a Scenario, we could remove the mention of Asteroids planned for the main campaign scale, on account that there technically is already one asteroid in the game, despite its function possibly being very different from an open campaign asteroid (field).
+
== Features implemented in 1.0.5 ==
(Forgot the Signature, sorry mods)
+
 
--[[User:Ictiv|Ictiv]] ([[User talk:Ictiv|talk]]) 08:24, 29 January 2014 (CST)
+
At the very least, nothing should be listed here for 1.0.5 anymore since it is released. I've removed items for the following reasons:
:Now without adding any colors, Ringotuna removed that color and I added that remark that there is something happening but we don't know what exactly. As you said, in theory you could add a vessel which looks like an asteroid (I think there is or was a mod). But on they could also work on adding n-body (apparently it isn't that load heavy) were the bodies aren't on rails anymore. Then you could add something like Kerbal Attachment System and tug it somewhere.
+
 
:I don't know how this addon is treated. It could be a mod from NASA, like that KerbalEdu mod, or it could be some kind of DLC. If Squad at some time announces a DLC or expansion/mission pack we could add a different color. I also merged some references. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>&#91;[[User talk:XZise|talk]]&#93;</small> 05:24, 30 January 2014 (CST)
+
* EVA navball added
 +
* Delayed jet nozzle effects to 1.1 since while there were jet nozzles added, I did not confirm they were changed.
 +
* New and overhauled parts added
 +
* overhaul of buoyancy models
 +
* Delayed radiotor part to 1.1 since I didn't see any added, just improved.
 +
* Thermal improvements
 +
* Contextual contracts added
 +
* Contracts overhauled
 +
* Core heat modeled
 +
* MK1 cockpit updated
 +
* Delayed MK2 cockpit since I did not see that listed on the 1.0.5 page
 +
* Eye position for portait view updated
 +
 
 +
The items delayed to 1.1 might may well need to be removed, but I have not launched 1.0.5, and haven't read in-depth on these items, I don't want to remove anything I am unsure of.
 +
 
 +
Most of what I used for reference is simply trusting the 1.0.5 page. So if something is inaccurate with my changes, they will need to be fixed there as well.
 +
 
 +
http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.5
 +
 
 +
(Also removed "Modding" section under "planned features" since it was empty. Left the "Modding" section under "Outdated Features" alone though)
 +
 
 +
[[User:JEIhrig|JEIhrig]] ([[User talk:JEIhrig|talk]]) 02:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== Removing Old Ideas and Plans ==
 +
 
 +
This page is really old, and most of the ideas are from devs like MaxMaps, who left the team over 3 years ago. Would it make sense for either the entire page be deleted, or remove almost all of the content?

Latest revision as of 15:29, 4 January 2019


Archives
Threads older than 31 days may be archived by RoboJeb.

Questionable

If there are no more kind of resources, how will the life support work? NWM (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (CDT)

That you have to ask the developers, but we got sources for both statements (and then from the same person so not a case of “dev a says this” and “dev b says that”). But for example, what if Maxmaps was talking about mining, selling and converting when he was talking about resource systems (like how Kethane works) and not just “add a resource which is magically added to your craft”. And one part of life support resources is already implemented as electricity. Also both statements are kind of vague: He didn't say they will never ever add resources, just that they haven't found the right way yet and not actively searching for it. And adding life support sounds like it's being added in the far future when their position about resources might have changed. — xZise [talk] 03:47, 28 September 2014 (CDT)

0.90.0 / Beta

The most recent blog post explicitly suggests that most of what's on this page should now be disregarded. What's to become of the planned features list? Ninetailed (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (CDT)

But as he said it's community driven. And while some misinterpret this page, it's also used to list features for the next version. I vote against discarding everything now, because we can't be sure what Squad is actually doing. Especially for everything where there is a more or less recent citation. — xZise [talk] 19:31, 15 October 2014 (CDT)

Newest Blog Post

Ok so the most recent blog post talked about aerodynamcs overhaul and deep space refuelling, should we add that? — Bashir 203

agreed i also read the blog post just add citation - joshwoo69
Yeah blog posts from the devs are probably fine, especially if it's about the dev blog tuesday. (Oh and do you two know that four tildes (~~~~~) automatically add your username AND timestamp.) — xZise [talk] 21:32, 31 December 2014 (CST)

Secret Feature

One of the devs talked about a secret feature, where would that go?--Bashir 203 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2015 (CST)

I'm not sure, it's very vague and the question is if it will be explained before it's released or discovered afterwards. Could you maybe show the reference? — xZise [talk] 17:32, 18 February 2015 (CST)

Removing colors showing features

Regarding the colors on the "planned features" page (http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features)

It might be a good idea to provide some color-blind support by adding markers as is done most elsewhere to note the different implementation timelines. If it is decided to stick with the colors, any other mixture of colors other than yellow and green would be good. Those two look exactly the same to most color-blind users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BevoLJ (talkcontribs) 05:18, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)

If you are color blind, you can help us with tweaking the shades of the yellow-green-blue to make it differentiable for the color blind users. NWM (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (CDT)
We could orientate us at w:WP:COLOR. And at least for themselves the colors have enough contrast (yellow, blue, green). Not sure how to test with each other though and I'm not sure if there is a good solution or if there are different types of color blindness. Maybe we should simply add an annotation or so to mark them as such (like in synchronous orbit with the daggers). — xZise [talk] 09:13, 27 March 2015 (CDT)
There are three essential kinds of deficiency in color perception — basically a lack of red, green, or blue perception, with blue being the most rare. Here's an article depicting color perception.
Relying on font-face, italics, underlining, or even borders are more reliably accessible to all, and color can continue to be used for most people's convenience. It's important, though, that the colors be light since the text is dark — low contrast makes the text hard to distinguish from a background whose color you don't perceive much of. --Brendan (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2015 (CDT)

Features Implemented in 1.0

I removed features which I know were implemented, and see no evidence of further development. If I missed some evidence, please put them back in in yellow, and adjust the citations. Similarly, I'm not sure if the "Spacecraft Stats" is finished, and have tentatively turned it yellow, and I'm not familiar with the tutorials, so someone should look at that. Do we know what the next version will be called? (I assume not.) Cultist O (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion

I see this page was nominated for deletion, as it is "Largely inaccurate information caused by misunderstanding, misquoting, and out of date information." I would argue that replacing it entirely with features confirmed for the next version seems heavy handed. It is useful to have a list of features the devs have confirmed for eventual inclusion (such as multiplayer) or even those they have discussed, but not confirmed (such as more planets). Instead, I would argue for:

  • 1. removal of all current and future entries lacking strong citations,
  • 2. reworking of all remaining "partially implemented" entries to reflect specifics,
  • 3. restructuring of the page into 3/4 sections rather than the current highlighting scheme. (next update, future updates, considered, and repudiated)
  • 4. removal of all instances of "(available with mods)"

Hopefully this would solve the very real problem expressed by the nominator, but without loosing the useful record of what we can hope for. Cultist O (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree
A wiki should be factual, not wild speculation. Removal of uncited information is a start, but many of the partially implemented features are actually never intended features. Even reading the citations, someone misunderstood something. IVA's for example are done. There was never an intent to suggest any more than each pod/cockpit/crew cabin having it's own IVA, read the citation and you will see that. The name of the page itself is misleading, many of the listed items on here are not planned features at all... Life Support? Not planned, only speculation from the user base. In fact on the page named "Planned features" there is a section named "Not Planned or shelves". That is just crazy. Some of these items were discussed by former developers who do not work for Squad any longer. Finally, some of the information is based on personal twitter accounts of the dev team, that has proven to not be reliable and many times vague. If the information didn't come from an official Squad account, be it Dev Notes, Official Twitter, Official Facebook, Squadcast, or whatever, it doesn't belong here. This page hurts the community by spreading false rumor and speculation, it is a hindrance.
My suggestion would be a new page, call it Upcoming Features (the word "planned" implies there has been no action, just planning) and on it only include those things that are announced through the official Squad channels. Maxmaps twitter and offhand forum/reddit comments are not official announcements.
Alshain (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that proper implementation of my steps one and two would eliminate this problem. If there is not enough evidence that something is indeed planned, then it should be removed. For what it's worth, were I implementing my plan, I would not find a single example you listed as having "strong citations". I have not been through each citation to the degree where I could determine whether or not enough content exists for each category I suggested, and if there is not a single feature that falls into one, then of course there is no reason to have it. However, if for example, there are features that the devs have expressly stated will not be added, then I see no benefit to removing that fact from the page. Edit: I guess to clarify my position, I am worried that limiting the page only to things which are confirmed for the next update, has the potential to lose things that have been substantively confirmed or denied for the more distant future. I feel that that information is important (and it would be even more silly to split the page.) Cultist O (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily the next version, but through confirmed sources. Multiplayer would be an example of a confirmed upcoming feature that is not in the next version. But it is about the only one on that list. The stuff in blue is good, pretty much the rest needs to go. It is either already complete or unverified from any official source of information. I still disagree with the page name, the word "Planned" indicates it is something they want to do in the future, not something they are actively working on now. Squad has not confirmed anything through official sources that isn't being worked on now.
Alshain (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Outdated features

I moved features that are outdated to a new section called 'Outdated'. These features need a new reference or need to be deleted.

I didn't want to delete those features because I want that to happen by the mods.

Olympic1 (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see that section removed as well. I see no need to have anything here that is not cited. Who are mods and how do we get them to look at it? Is it a problem if we just remove it? If someone really wants that section there, they can always revert the change right?
JEIhrig (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Features implemented in 1.0.5

At the very least, nothing should be listed here for 1.0.5 anymore since it is released. I've removed items for the following reasons:

  • EVA navball added
  • Delayed jet nozzle effects to 1.1 since while there were jet nozzles added, I did not confirm they were changed.
  • New and overhauled parts added
  • overhaul of buoyancy models
  • Delayed radiotor part to 1.1 since I didn't see any added, just improved.
  • Thermal improvements
  • Contextual contracts added
  • Contracts overhauled
  • Core heat modeled
  • MK1 cockpit updated
  • Delayed MK2 cockpit since I did not see that listed on the 1.0.5 page
  • Eye position for portait view updated

The items delayed to 1.1 might may well need to be removed, but I have not launched 1.0.5, and haven't read in-depth on these items, I don't want to remove anything I am unsure of.

Most of what I used for reference is simply trusting the 1.0.5 page. So if something is inaccurate with my changes, they will need to be fixed there as well.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/1.0.5

(Also removed "Modding" section under "planned features" since it was empty. Left the "Modding" section under "Outdated Features" alone though)

JEIhrig (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Removing Old Ideas and Plans

This page is really old, and most of the ideas are from devs like MaxMaps, who left the team over 3 years ago. Would it make sense for either the entire page be deleted, or remove almost all of the content?