• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

910 Excellent

1 Follower

About passinglurker

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist
  1. Regex already covered most of what I would have said for a rebuttal but as for this comment here I will say I'm not expecting perfect or even my own preferences honestly, but trying to make sence of the inconsistencies in stock balance makes it clear stock balance is terribly half baked. You can't honestly crack the config files open and try to connect the dots and not see this. I may have my own ideas on how to fix this but at the end of the day I just want to see SQUAD put some damn effort into the actual core game play instead of always just trying to broaden their market of non-discerning customers with ports and localizations.
  2. Size doesn't matter to twr and isp only raw thrust is constrained The mammoth also has integrated fuel tankage and for all we know some of it's bulk is purely aerodynamic so again size doesn't mean the vector can't be powerful I can tell you the reason. SQUAD CAN'T BALANCE. Career mode is sloppy they've been too busy tacking on new features and fixing all the bugs that makes they've never stopped to polish what they have. Any way SQUAD balance isn't worth putting on a podium. So you can't say SQUAD knew what they were doing when they made the 1.25m engines krap and that we all have to roll with that. Personally I think 1.25m (besides vector nerv and dart) should be put about on par with 2.5m (3.75m can remain awesome cause it's endgame content) As it stands now early game is a royal pain having to stack pancake tanks and bad gimbaless engines to the limit your control wheel can handle because they won't give us any other means of flight control.
  3. It would be nice to have a counter balance when using only one drill, or an inline drill/mini ore tank combo part. anyway how about instead of massively inefficient why not just make it limited to producing monoprop?
  4. Actually it's not the vector is just the 1.25m equivalent to the mammoth and the main sail with the price and tech tree placement to match. All of the other 1.25 engines besides the dart are just under powered by compassion scewing your judgment. That being said something that is early game has thrust vectoring and isn't made out of pig iron would be appreciated. Maybe give srb's 1 degree of gimbal? Real srb's gimbal after all just say it's liquid injection thrust vectoring if you don't want to animate the nozzles
  5. no pics? *sigh* now you're not even trying to alleviate my unease about paying real money for parts guess I'll just have to drop a donation on @Beale too so that I can some day make a potentially regrettable blind purchase with a clean conscience...
  6. Ion engines are a bit of a gimmick in ksp unlike real life they have enough thrust to land you on the mun because ksp can't handle the long/slow burn style of flying adding more/bigger ones will just make this more apparent. If you want to buff them the best thing to do is reduce the xenon tanks dry mass ratio and adjust some of the part and resource prices (it's arbitrary and not balanced making almost any other way to fly more affordable)
  7. Do the IVA camera's also assume this?
  8. Hey if you want to strap mk1 nacelles to your 2.5m rocket body I won't stop you and if they made a set of 1.25m rocket parts AND expanded the MK1 style set we'd might even be on the same page, but if I had to choose one I'd want the sleeker option when it specifically comes to 1.25m parts.
  9. There seems to be a misunderstanding here no one is advocating everything be "spaceplane light grey" with color coded dark/light grey and yellow stripes for fuel content or anything like that As Rocketeer says old parts should be brought up to the same standards of quality, but when people refer to a unified aesthetic they are referring to things like porkjets aborted revamp or what roverdude described as " not junk, but not human proportions either. Chunky, with a slight cartoony feel with a bit of accompanying oversaturation." a lot of this is fairly subjective but to be clear as one of the loudest pushers for this that I believe different styles are fine (rockomax vs. jeb's junkyard) but different aesthetics are not (nova skillo vs. porkjet) Though unless there are plans in expanding on the mk1 parts I do think most of the 1.25 meter parts (especially engines and tanks) should be converted to space plane style so that small space planes don't look so kitbashed (and it doesn't help that 1.25m parts are some of the oldest and most "placeholder quality" parts around)
  10. Who even started this old "mech jeb is cheating" myth? I doubt anyone even believes it anymore
  11. Yeah I may be interchanging some terms the wrong way but just to be clear there can be different styles (the difference between a sleek space plane and a technical looking lander) but they have to keep the same aesthetic (something in the ballpark of "not junky trash, but exaggerated, toyish, and by extension 'played with' in appearance") older parts aesthetic don't align with porkjet's parts. Many don't meet the same level of quality or detail because they were intended to only be placeholders and were never upgraded. These need to be replaced no debate the concern here is that if the history parts are trying to fit in with all the different aesthetics that exist in kerbal it might become an in to justifying keeping the old parts. but it isn't all bad with the history parts meeting people's desire for mercury pods and F-1 engines and such squad would then be free to replace the old parts with more original designs unconstrained by the expectations of history buffs. That is again assuming they do this right and not try to justify wiggling out of the rocket revamp.
  12. This is the problem right here you can't unify the aesthetic by trying to bridge kerbal's archeological layers of art leads you have to pick one (Porkjet style and only porkjet style) and throw away the rest as if they were only temporary placeholders. Anything else will look like squad is trying to get out of the rocket revamp which won't fly given peoples continued interest and inquires into the revamp despite the news that it's been shelved.
  13. It certainly isn't helping the games fractured aesthetic if it looks like ooold mk1 can "stock-a-like" as opposed to making an attempt at the more modern "pork-a-like".
  14. Excuse me but I gotta go drop some money in @CobaltWolf's pocket or I fear I won't be able to buy this DLC with a clean conscious. (Before anyone says it I realize this is a minute detail and may not be the final final product but it still reminded me that donation buttons are a thing)