Capt Snuggler

Members
  • Content count

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

679 Excellent

1 Follower

About Capt Snuggler

  • Rank
    #1 Porkjet Fan

Recent Profile Visitors

838 profile views
  1. I used to be completely against all procedural parts, But now I really think procedural wings would help with aircraft building. Piecing together all the little wing segments is tedious. Clipping together loads of wing segments to get the desired shape just looks messy at best. Stock wing thickness is often out of proportion with larger designs. I invite everyone to check out Bac9's mod. it really opened my eyes to how much better my KSP life could be. *For the record, I'm not convinced procedural tank sizes would make a positive addition to the game, however tweakable tank skins with heat tile and ultralight gold foil options, with their respective pros and cons, would be a nice addition.
  2. I support this.
  3. 1.875m FTW!!! now you guys need to change the scale and power of those Kickback SRBs...
  4. The thrust measuring rig and later the harrier used a reaction control system powered by the jet engine. Think KSP should have one too but with new parts. more parts! MORE PARTS!
  5. Programming isn't really the right word. more script writing. kOS is a bit too complex for stock while MechJeb is does too much, removing the player entirely. I'm suggesting simple context based "if commands" the player can use to automate events in the flight plan like staging automatically when the engine cuts out or changing pitch at specified altitude. when stacking these commands you could easily automate the entire launch process. other processes could also be automated with careful planning, but there is still allot of room for error on the players part, much like the craft building process. *In the late game the process of repeatedly launching rocket after rocket with similar payloads becomes very tedious. This should help alleviate that while still making the player responsible for success or failure.
  6. sorry, I have no idea what your talking about. I am arguing for more restrictions/challenge. in the form of life support requirements for crewed missions. please read the thread before derailing it. If games are defined by what you have to do in them, surely having to plan for life support requirements in your mission adds to the game. traveling to Duna (and beyond) should be a completely different prospect from traveling to Mun. At the moment in KSP the only difference is the Δv. There is nothing more to it. and thats fine for probes but sending a living crew should require something extra. EXACTLY! more challenge = more sense of achievement = more fun = more game #more game, not less!
  7. Snuggler forgets nothing! we have all heard this argument before. I'll leave you to look up the biology and organic chemistry. #more game, not less!
  8. The game should not be v1.+ Its not finished. Life support (LS) - minimum of Heat (Electric Charge) and Air (O2) with relevant parts and functions. scrubbers, processors, generators. Adequate mission planning tools with alarms to assist players with LS system. (Δv calculator, LS calculator, flight planner, mission calendar with alarms) Procedural tank system with tweakable resource contents, size (with limits), auto tank skins + light weight "skinless/gold foil" and heavy heat shielded skin options. *tank tweakables only accessible within VAB **backwards compatible to preserve current craft files Procedural wings. *backwards compatible to preserve current craft files Player programmable probe cores using drag and drop programming system. number of commands limited depending on core. allows probes to operate outside of communication range. also automate flight plans. (eg: "eject fairing when alt = >20000" or "set throttle 0 when perigee =>70000") *not quite autopilot as player has to program it. Complete planet survey system. visual cameras, cloud penetrating radar and map view layers. feeds back to mission planning tools. let the kerbals take pictures! Clouds. puffy, fluffy, wispy, clouds
  9. If the current mission planning tools and resource container system is not up to task, then they need to be upgraded and refined to make it work. This is something that has always bothered me about the development of KSP. so many opportunities for deeply interesting gameplay mechanics have been passed up because existing systems/tools/mechanics/artwork were not adequate. Again, this should be an argument for MOAR GAME not less.
  10. I understand and agree with this, but this is and argument for better resource management and tools, not fewer resources. more game, not less.
  11. The game doesn't penalize for this, so it is true. Personal sentimentality shouldn't be filling in for incomplete game mechanics. possible but tedious, which is pretty fair. if kerbals had a Life support clock ticking (finite LS resource) this could be a sufficient constraint to allow science Kerbals to produce "science over time". This would give reason for longer and larger missions. proper space stations and surface bases would be necessary to support long term crew, more in-depth logistics, more in-depth game.
  12. @eddiew its ok, Sal merged the recent thread with a previous popular thread regarding LS for house keeping. Topic is still relevant as stock game features still don't make sense. eg: Probe missions being harder than crewed missions.
  13. This is priceless knowledge
  14. simple fact is currently you can wack a Kerbal in to a single seat pod and send them off in to the cosmos. there is no penalty or requirements they don't even need power to stay alive. its just silly. the games got it backwards. why are probes harder...???? Kerbals should require a minimum of Life Support (O2) and Heat (from electric charge) all arguments to the contrary are invalid. srsly think about it.