The_Rocketeer

Members
  • Content count

    2002
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1279 Excellent

2 Followers

About The_Rocketeer

  • Rank
    Rocketpack Superhero

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Too old, thank God.

Recent Profile Visitors

2304 profile views
  1. This is a decent summary for a place where Career goes wrong. If the only reason for having a satellite relay is either collecting science (or operate remote missions to collect science), that's a pretty lame reason. It would be better if the game rewarded you with funding commeasurate with maintaining and completeing missions, not just putting them in situ.
  2. You seem to have mistaken my commentary and conversation for argument. It is possible to contribute to a discussion by expressing a view without intending to particularly oppose any previous statement. Assuming that my remarks were intended as argumentative is somewhat narcissistic, but perhaps understandable considering I was directly quoting you to frame my statements. Edit: @KSK I respect your right to be utterly offended by my views, and I completely accept that I made some very in-the-round and generalistic statements which for many are still doubtless absolutely correct. I also appreciate the time you committed to letting me know what you thought of my post. If I upset you, I apologise.
  3. I agree that learning and wonder are a key part of the attraction of KSP, but I think many videogamers would share the general mantra that in creative games like KSP amateurish whimsy is more fun than professional specification, trial-and-error more fun than calculated perfection, and garden-shed-contraption more fun than precision-engineering. The former make a game for gamers and the latter make what I will call a virtual-model for virtual-modellers. I enjoy modelling and gaming, but in my life I have more opportunity to game than to model simply because it takes less commitment and rewards me faster, even if that reward is 99% gratuitous explosions. Barn-KSP is more convenient to do than NASA-lite-KSP, which makes it more accessible and more cheap thrills-y, but NASA-lite KSP is what the real fans really want to graduate to, myself included. Net-KSP is a confused mess with both ends criticising the middle for having too much of the wrong stuff, yet somehow still succeeds and keeps everybody interested enough to keep playing and define and refine their own experience. Perhaps in future we'll see expansions that spur off in both directions, and then everyone will be happy (except the people who don't want paid DLC... ). Edit: Wow, I was wondering what my 2000th post would be. I'm a little bit proud of this one.
  4. Ah, the barn. The best and worst thing about KSP is it's played by so many people who want a straight up simulator instead of a game.
  5. What's hilarious tho is that every comment on why this shouldn't be done in real life reads exactly like a reason why this would make a great Kerbal facility.
  6. I didn't realise I was dealing with so many experts on aviation safety limitations, pilot training standards, and international airport administration. The EU are clearly wasting their money here. The dummies...
  7. In the UK (where the BBC comes from), particularly in the south east, airports are a major conflict issue between human interests and economic interests. One of the recent plans to deal with that problem (and perhaps the furthest-fetched) was to build a brand new airport on top of a nature reserve in the Thames estuary. Yah. So in this region of the world, and in other places with similar problems, people like the idea of innovative technological solutions to these problems, and smaller, more efficient and less intensive airports are very attractive. Shooting down an idea because it was far-fetched would have seen a great many wonderful human inventions - not least this videogame - never exist. This isn't a crazy idea, it's just one that conforms to different conceptual standards - planes that are designed to land on flat straight runways will always be working with narrower safety margins when landing on banked circular runways, just as they are when landing on, for example, ice or water. On the other hand, those margins can be widened again by designing your plane with this application in mind. I think circular runways are a great idea, and with population densities only increasing in major cities worldwide, I can imagine a future in which they are the norm... assuming of course that fixed-wing air transport remains viable in future.
  8. Yes, exactly. Edit: but in MP, or in any game with timewarp as an option, how important are transfer windows anyway?
  9. Yes, in the sense of speed, but no in the sense of directional control. You would have to plot in the route first by completing a regular manouvre, but you could then use your Elite Dangerous style FTL throttle to zoom towards the destination as fast (or slow) as you liked. This speed control would have no effect on your route, just on your progress along it.
  10. As I understand it, you no longer need to make a rendezvous per se, you simply need an orbit to reach the target's orbital altitude and proceed towards it at a suitable rate to meet the target there. As far as the game is concerned, your vessels rate of progress is affected by a multiplier to increase or decrease the number of meters it moves along its orbit trajectory without changing the parameters of the orbit itself. A bit like running at x speed on a treadmill, which is inside a train doing y speed. KSP calculates your orbit as though you are moving at x velocity, but your ship moves along it's orbit at x + y m/s.
  11. I think this is about the most original and outside-the-box suggestion I've read regarding multiplayer in some time. +1 for that alone @Tex. Personally, I think this is the least attractive part of MP KSP (EDIT: or any KSP come to that - that's why we time-warp it!) anyway. The point is in interacting with another player in a local environment, but the simple practicality of meeting another player far from KSC is the whole problem with MP. The KSP orrery can be a very impressive machine, but it is a one-player game. I envision a small radial part (quantum field generator or something ) that gives the player the ability to manipulate the passage of time for a single craft only, in effect dilating or contracting the passage of (craft) local time without a change in relative velocity. This would allow a vessel to proceed along it's orbital trajectory at a rate determined by the player rather than by the mathematical laws of KSP physics. The parameters of the orbit are still determined by the expenditure of fuel in the conventional way, but the rate at which the vessel then progresses along it's orbit is now in the hands of the player. Sure, it's not for those who seek a realistic experience, so they need not use it. For those with more toy-like expectations of KSP (be they LEGO fans or Trekkies), this would be a real asset to their make-believe games.
  12. Fixed that for you The smart thing to do would be to record a message of personal welcome but social warning, so they'd understand they better go before someone decides to cut one of them up "for science". Said message would need to be in reversed Spanish, of course. Hopefully they'd build a deep burrow real fast, or else they'd get rescued real soon.
  13. Speaking with 4 years of forum experience, I'm aware of no such consensus. If anything I would say consensus is that KSP is correctly played in whatever way you decide to play it. If someone wants to build landtrains, rail locomotives, walking robots, paddleboats or submarines, they can. All those things fit in KSP just fine. Am I right @Overland? Also, consensus being based on collective opinion, I would say that making convincing arguments in favour of something is exactly the right way to go about changing consensus. More of a problem is changing the direction of development - some absolutely consensual ideas for improvement have been around longer than I have (stock dV readout) and have yet to make an appearance in the stock game. Make your case @Julian., but don't expect anything to happen even if everyone does agree.
  14. Uses for trim (off the top of my head): Power setting for stock electric propellor craft. Non-resonating attitude stability for aircraft (matters a lot for hypersonic atmospheric planes, and SAS doesn't cut it). Rover throttle. Low-power sustained RCS can semi-simulate gravity. Gyroscopic launch stabilisation for rockets. Landing busted aircraft, e.g. with a missing wing or engine. Stock station centrifuges. Anything you want to keep moving gently after you switch to another craft or astronaut nearby. One of the many joys of KSP - the possibilities and ways to play are so diverse, you can discover something you never knew almost every time you play. Kudos If you're familiar with how the major control surfaces act on an aircraft (principles of fixed-wing flight), you can think of a trim adjustment as a semi-permanent fine-calibration of that surface to account for environmental conditions. In the days before dynamic/reactive autopilot systems, trim was invented to help deal with the problem of exhausting sustained manual effort to maintain attitude or bearing. It was a bloody good idea too!
  15. Ok then. I disagree.