James M

Ugly? I think the design is awesome!

Oooh Okay yes or no question here then. Is Job Simulator a Sandbox Game? Why or why not? If we can agree on this, then I think we can start talking about the necessities of KSP 2's Sandbox stuffs

Excluding Fallout 4's base construction, what problems in GTA, RDR, WoW, Everquest, Ultima, Eve, etc are you trying to solve? How best to murder something? The Box is the world. The tool is my weapon. I am the child. The resource is the... npcs? The creation is what? A pile of bodies? No. And if your argument also extends to "customization", then by definition, Fortnite could be a sandbox game. What with it's building of towers and different skins. But it's not. MMO's just like the others have a story to tell. That is what the game is built on. (Also if designing an interior of a house in an MMO is an aspect, then it still falls in line with my Skyrim example.) All of these example you gave are just Open World RPGs. Not Sandboxes.

Would you call Skyrim a Sandbox game? What about Scribblenaughts? By your definition both games are. But I think most people would agree Skyrim is not a sandbox game. While you're free to do as you wish, it's truly more of an open world game as creativity is often not involved. The extent of Sandbox there is how I build my houses. If you really want to talk about the sandbox genre, then all you need to do is compare what you're doing to a kid in an actual sandbox. Is Flight Simulator a Sandbox game? No, right? I fly planes where I want, how I want, when I want. But I don't design anything. When's the last time a kid played with their model plane in a sandbox? What about building a sand castle? I think this really gets to the heart of the argument here. Sandbox gives the player tools, toys, and resources and lets them decide what to do with them. A goal MAY be involved, but is always optional. As are the use or constrictions of said toys, tools, and resources. Anything should go in a sandbox game/mode so long as it keeps to the game's physics/rules. Beyond that.. You're hardly playing the same game I'd say. (God modes excluded as that alters the physics/rules involved) Too add, the only reason KSP NEEDS a Creative mode, is due to save files. I don't want what's unlocked in my creative mode to be unlocked or available in my adventure mode.

That was not my whole argument. I just said it was an example. Options are good. Anything that adds to the ability to be creative and test creations is good. Subtracting options is bad. Creative mode removed the ability to mess with the tech tree in my own way. That's all I was saying. This feels like a step in the right direction.

- Technically Correct -

Id like to see some crushable parts. Used of course as a one time absorption object.

Remember to point your draggy side forward when you want to slow down faster and your less draggy side when you want to slow down less. Sometimes just changing the orientation of your ship's entry profile during an aerobrake can be the difference between achieving orbit and landing unexpectedly. (Or flying back into deep space..)

Those who don't agree on some things may have reasons for such. For example, I'd prefer to fill out my own tech tree and select which parts I want available to me so I don't have to filter through and find the stuff I do want in the junk I don't. Of course I could play science mode to the same sort of effect, but that just feels like Sandbox mode with extra steps to me. The only things that should unanimously be seen as a sandbox stable in KSP is unlimited Money, Science, Kerbals and of course the inclusion of a cheat menu. Note however I said "unlimited" and not "absent".

Stationeers would be my choice.

Like the spacebar? Even in SFS, don't you still have to tap on the engines to turn them on or off? Is there some way in that game to turn a group off and another different group on? I don't remember that game having any action group type thingies.

Could you give an example on how exactly you'd improve upon the staging system? From my perspective, action groups give the player all the versatility they would ever need. Furthermore they're editable during flight?

Well it's a thing now, so.. yeah. I mean KSP was already well under way before this happened, but who knows what kind of an effect this will have on our game long term? Maybe none. Idk.

We gonna come back to this now? Take-Two and Zynga merge in the biggest deal in gaming history | PC Gamer

Did you make that music yourself?! I hope I won't have to do that to compete cause I have no idea how to do that yet >.< Heck video editing is a first for me too. Ah just read the description lol. Yep. Got my work cut out for me it looks like. Back to the grindstone I go!

Giggling with excitement right now! Although... I do have a question before I start celebrating. How much of a boost toward the moon will you guys be getting from the falcon's upper stage? Is your entire transfer orbit done with the lander's fuel?

Oh lol thank you. I should've read the wikipedia more carefully, I was just quickly skimming Yeah, apparently, I found that out the hard way! I managed to make a 2x2x3m lander with the correct mass and (theoretically) enough delta v to land once. All I can say is I had to cut all the weight I could and I'm still flying with the narrowest of margins rn.

Phase 1 complete! Landing these by hand is always "Fun"

Another question lol. What's the verdict on cheats such as infinite fuel? I wasn't planning on using them originally, but needing 900 delta-v for lunar injection into orbit and orbit into landing is something severe we have to take into consideration during our design phase. Using infinite fuel would allow players to remove about 2-4 fuel tanks from their builds and still make it look realistic enough to be convincing to the untrained eye.

Is the surface scanning module constituted as a science experiment?

Getting started on the lander and I had a feeling this would happen. The lander so far consists of 1 probe, a structural fuselage, and 19 panels and already weighs in at 1.565t (1565kg). With an expected wet mass of 1980kg and considering I'm not sure how you're supposed to do this with stock parts. Being creative can only take you so far when you're limited on part options and none of those parts are comparable weight -> efficiency wise relative to their real life counterparts. Heck the smallest liquid fuel tank weighs in at 0.1238t (123.8kg) so you only get 3 of those, and you can forget all about adding those two 0.3038t (303.8kg) Baguette tanks to the side of your lander unless you want to otherwise sacrifice accuracy of appearance. Idk obv going to keep trying but I think I'm going to drop size accuracy since everything in Kerbal is scaled down anyway to allow for more a more realistic design.

Oh the F9 you meant. Yeahhhh....

Thanks mate. GetAtt.html (fcc.gov) NASA - NSSDCA - Spacecraft - Details Nova-C IM-1 - Gunter's Space Page (skyrocket.de) Some quick links for people to check out the internal details on the lander. I can't imagine they'll say Breaking Ground and Making History aren't allowed considering the F9 is a 5m diameter rocket. We'll just have to hear back from them to know for sure.

Getting started on this the moment I get home. Bet.

A little late to say something but been busy working. Just wanted to pop in and say we really appreciate the update. I myself started ksp on console and (Ha) prefer it that way so the thought of it maybe possibly one day being in well working order would be a godsend. At least to me if no one else.