• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

184 Excellent

About mattinoz

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Yes the design even includes side plates that look like they are intended for radiators.
  2. Given everyone is so focused on dollars, yes all signs look bad. Should be noted I'm an Architect so very use to reality never being as good as potential.
  3. What if you eject boosters before leaving the ground? Would that still be a SSTO? Now to find a catapult runway mod.
  4. Except that mods are in the end unreliable. They can go away at the next update never to return. Making it hard to expand on the expansion. Even if the DLC is covering the same ground it then represents a commitment to that feature going forward. Making it a reliable base for other mods. Instead of 20 life support mods, one could be stock, some more complex system mods could expand in one way without having a full implementation. Other could expand in completely different ways and both would be compatible by nature of working with the same core. Same of DV calculators, flight data, science mods, habitation, kerbal pilots having basic autopilot skills but allowing a base for a mod autopilot. To me that commitment makes buying DLC a better spend than spinning a few funds to a modder.
  5. There could well be a game changing feature set in this expansion. I mean the following is just a random off the top of my head list of things that have a better than good chance of being needed to really make the pack work, If they are really cover human space exploration to date:- Mun missions need a folding rover with some minor crane and construction systems to allow it to fit in the base of the lander. Folding parts for various exploration satellites. Lots of new science parts with various time requirements "Fog of war" mechanic on maps so the player feels like they have a sense of achievement from exploration. Spaceship One and Whiteknight both in the atmosphere and suborbital at the same time. Air bags for those throwing yourself at the ground (on Mars) and hoping to fly moments. Mission planner to me implies some dV targets coming out of the mapping part of those mission plans. dV targets means some way to check target in craft builder.
  6. Gemini Style as well.
  7. Funny no one complained (at least not that I heard given it was pre-internet) when simCitywas released as simCity 2000. The main improvement being graphics now 2.5d. Gameplay pretty much the same. It's only when they started messing with the scope of game play to push the graphics harder did all go to water. I think it is fair to say version 1.0 has hit it graphic limits, any significant upgrade in my mind is a version 2 thing.
  8. There are many companies with flags in KSP already and it's a great way to sort parts. I'll agree within each company parts should be consistent in style. However would question the need for a full game consistency. You want to be able to see the character to tell what parts are used for craft people post on forums. I might be more a case of a few mergers and company division spin-offs. Before deciding which one need work.
  9. Well if you are going to localize text on parts it would be better to do it procedurally as decals over the base texure like flags. If you are going to do that well why not expand to allow custom user text on parts.
  10. Curious if Squad would be willing to build DLC packs more on a crowd funding model? set a target at which the pack becomes free, goals before that would knock the price down. Encourage a bit of extra investment out of the funders with some limited edition kerbal based rewards.
  11. To me it's more a lego city motorbike than a duplo piece. You could build it with parts but it never look as good.
  12. Is it just me or does the LEM suggest a change in the model tree for the expansion parts? So that it's - Tank - Faring / decoupler - Tank (Line of structure) |_ engine(s) instead of - Tank - Engine - decoupler- Tank Faring _| It's always seemed odd to pretend that complex moving machines like engines can be suddenly structural.
  13. A set of mods could be a DLC pack if there was some commitment those mods in the DLC pack will updated to work at release data. "USI presents" DLC pack that gets delivered in the update with a switch on the game save to switch on the DLC pack would be real time saver.
  14. I would think stock multiplayer would be a year to 18months of development with 2 or 3 partial multiplayer releases in that time.
  15. I don't think you even need to alter the stats of control systems, just make the SAS smarter. Low stars use the overshot and correct code of the current game. middle stars start countering rotation before the mark to avoid overshoot. High star kebels who know how to burn a node, gear the initial rotation thrust to be at the node orientation just in time. Both systems would save resources without undermining the physics of the game. I know, I know, I remember the backlash of "autopilot" skills was almost as bad as the physics boost backlash. To me the later is completely understandable as undermining game play. However in the case of Kerbal Pilots I don't get it. Kerbals are meant to skilled but they are just ballast even in the current system.