mattinoz

Members
  • Content count

    542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About mattinoz

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Is this a problem or an opportunity? If the code is well documented then another dev should be able to pick it up and add in a different function. If the code isn't well documented then at some point that will kill future progress. Even if well documented the current code will most likely hit a point where assumptions made (ie. the ship is the centre of the universe) make further development troublesome. Given Multi-player has been talked about as DLC/ expansion it will bring in cash flow and pay for a modernisation pass needed to keep the single player game developing. If at the same time it means a single player can be a multi-actor and sometimes have a mission directors hat on to play-plan a single mission to completion then zip back in time to the start of that mission or shortly after launch put the Program Directors hat and start the next adventure. Then it could in itself be an improvement to single player games. Time frame is still important. I'd imagine squad wouldn't want to take on more than one DLC project a year so this year is out.
  2. I'd assume kerballed pods like camera probes would trigger random calculation of the map. After all that time drifting in an inky void I'd be looking out the window and grabbing photos of anything interesting. Plus well drifting in the inky void is low cpu demand game and perfect for delayed random detail generation of a body you have an encounter with. So by the time you land even if you go express the detail will be revealed. Agree fully don't want to punish the Kerbal Way of just hit and hope. To me it's all more about getting more detail, more features, more meaning, more things to do, more reasons to look, even maybe more options for starting in a completely different syste
  3. If systems were generated it strikes me that the new save game start up would be excessively long to generate vast levels of detail. If there was a fog of war a lot of that detail would never be unlocked. So why not use one to help the other? The instruments don't just reveal hidden data but create by observation. That would give a reason for instruments to take some but not alot of time to work. Also the stock data for each planet that can be selected at random could be really low.
  4. Yes broken record here.... But time should keep slipping into the future. As a start but other time mechanics would be good as well, even if they have been basically completely ruled out. I'd rather see paradoxical separate time lines for missions so we can plan by play and still have the tycoon challenge be challenging.
  5. Do we really need a way to compare our archievements? Indeed would challanges coming with the DLC be more interesting if they could be shared with a new reference system?
  6. Hey so what happens with interstage farings now we have hollow decouplers (in more than one size hopefully)? Hoping this is a sign of change to the way the whole interstage is set up. I mean engines or anything in the middle should dangle off the bottom of a tank and shouldn't be carrying strurtural load untill it fires. It something that has always struct me as odd in KSP. Now if these new decoupler have and auto generating but tweakable procedurally generated interstage faring that really would be choice. Not that the new DLC pack isn't looking pretty cool so far but fixing a few strangenesses along the way can't hurt.
  7. This forum would be pretty dull if this list was applied rigorously.
  8. All I'm going to say is there aren't many notable tycoon or sandbox games that don't have different sandboxes with different starting conditions as a standard feature. Yes understanding in KSP each level is many many worlds so not so trivial to make but to me would make a great addition given KSP has very good replay value anyway. Yes, I realise the contradiction in what I'm saying.
  9. So given no one official can probably answer this due to NDA's and other jazz....but curious the tank butts are army green, for want of better colour name, and I can only think of one lifter that was ever that colour and can't even confirm that as even most of the google searches show a mix of a white variation. Just curious if tank but colour will respond to tank colour with the obvious hidden question are we getting tank colour variations to pay with. Wiil there be a weight penalty for dark colours. These teaser parts prompt more questions than they answer. Or I'm an over thinker like my father and my father's father.
  10. Couldn't the mission control staff have crew portraits on either main screen or map screen? Clicking on them could bring up a status report on what they assigned to watch. The same could be applied to skilled kerbals on board. Edit: Although that would mean we'd need to hire Kerbals and train them up and keep them hanging around the space centre in order to fill seats. I'm not adverse to this but would think it might get a strong reaction.
  11. Why just consoles, is there a reason Maneuver nodes can't have keybindings in the non-console version?
  12. Can we stop calling them bolts when they are clearly a mix of rivets and weld contact points?
  13. If this is the craft I think it is... Then don't you also need a Crew module to insert into the leading edge of the wing going the other way?
  14. Well, some people who are far, far, far, far better pilots and aircraft builders* than me have suggested Asymmetry in craft design is a good thing. https://www.wired.com/2011/07/burt-rutans-boomerang-safety-through-asymmetry/ *It's kind of hard to argue with a guy who has been to space in a craft of his own design. Also think it's time to try and build a boomerang in KSP
  15. You'd have to say it's already doing it bit in this regards.