basic.syntax

Members
  • Content count

    1184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

532 Excellent

About basic.syntax

  • Rank
    The glass is half full
  1. "not a priority" is the only conclusion I can draw from the current development focus on new parts for the Expansion. Roverdude carefully did not say that he approved or did not approve of the condition of older parts last week, when he said they are "aware" of their art asset inventory, only that the term "placeholder" did not apply to them. The current state of being "released parts" does not mean they never get an overhaul. I personally believe that Squad will refresh the older parts, given enough time and the doors not closing at Squad's offices.
  2. The new Missions can't translate anything into the career game... but the parts should be fun to play with, if properly added into the tech tree. New toys to unlock! All I can read in the blurred tea leaves is "progress is being made" and "some complexity here." Without some text to go along with it, players can't contribute any meaningful feedback along the lines of "why are you considering only these aspects of planning, what about these other aspects." "Wouldn't it be more clear, if this step was moved before this other step?"
  3. Although "missions" appear to be a separate game mode not contributing anything to a Career Mode game, I hope / would like to see the new parts available for use in career mode. Which means they would have to be assigned values for the tech tree. Really good question here; scoring will differ wildly depending on mods used. The included "historical missions" will be subject to a "top scores" thread somewhere in the forums, I am sure.
  4. My understanding based on what they've said so far, is the expansion's "missions" will each be stand-alone efforts: in order for them not to be "contracts," the missions can't show up in the contract system, and by extension should not contribute anything to a career-mode game. A separate game mode. The concept of giving the player a numerical score at the end, is also new.
  5. I think Nestor (and RoverDude more indirectly) has answered this question: they are aware of the state of every part in KSP, they want to make it better. You shouldn't assume that is going to be the case. Despite what some are saying we are actually listening. We just don't impulsively react after one or two rant posts. We, as a company have to consider the options and try to pick the best alternative based on several factors and that takes some time. If Nova could be made interested in working on KSP stuff again, I think it would be cool if he was given a chance to revise and update some of his early parts that haven't been touched yet. Nova is also responsible for some of the neat labels on parts and funny part descriptions... I'd love to see this off-the-cuff piece of "historical information" added to the description of the "GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector": (Don't like my post if you agree, go back and like his some more ) ( just don't reply on a 2 year old thread, it irritates the moderators
  6. Thanks RoverDude and TriggerAu for taking the time to write up some of the team's current thoughts and directions... your comments would fit well in the top post
  7. Some very nice engines to go beneath a very nice command pod. Keep up the good works!
  8. And that's one reason I'd prefer something as ambitious as a rewrite of how KSC is put together, to be a new and separate game. Let KSP "1.0" keep its focus. As Pthigrivi notes, true arbitrary placement of space center buildings on Kerbin or other planets should include some terrain deformation / sculpting options... and while we're thinking up all this work for other people - Unreal or CryEngine may be better suited to the task I also appreciate the line of debate this spawns (better suited for another thread) of whether expanding to other planets in a KSP "2.0" would depend on an expanded resource system for local construction, or assemblies that would be purchased on Kerbin and flown out.
  9. minepagan writes about a functional city builder; and if they took on that large of a project to code that much flexibility for "KSC" it would not be too big a step from there to building space centers on any planet. Let that be KSP "2.0." I think the idea adds too many features (and would have to rewrite too much code) to "tack on" to "1.0."
  10. +1. The WIP art assets were in process of being reworked, they must exist somewhere in the "when we have time" folders on the server. I understand what the priority is right now, but I remain hopeful.
  11. 1. KSP design puts Kerbals first, to create an immediate "I want to help this character succeed" connection for new players; uncrewed rockets first is obviously more realistic. For that, RoverDude made a neat Sounding Rockets addition that would fit well in a "Tier 0", if not for the Marketing department 2. Obviously a matter of strong opinions, but the "repurposed oil drums" art style of certain parts doesn't bother me.
  12. Instead of "bring back the barn" I will ask: "please give us a Tier 0" - and rebalance the upgrade expenses (As I'm sure was intended, way back when "Tier 0" was sneak-previewed.) This picture from a 2015 post by SkyRender is fascinating: (source) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albert_II_V2_launch.jpg Germany's V2 rocket Test Stand 7 is also a neat historical reference.
  13. The new parts continue to look sweet - keep up the good works! After the Expansion is out, we may yet see overhaul of existing parts by a different artist.
  14. "Failure... is not an option!" - couldn't resist, even tho the meaning is kind of opposite
  15. In this episode of KSP Weekly, one player highlights a minor graphical oversight in hope of a fix, and another player surprises Squad with a plea that dramatically floating rocks NOT be fixed! Next week: Squad introduces staff psychiatrist.