Noir

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

1 Follower

About Noir

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nice. Looking at the bracket, the next round is going to be interesting. Good Luck @Pds314 and @Pds314!
  2. This. I've seen maybe a few dozen comments asking for multiplayer over the past 7 or so years. About as many people have asked for multiplayer in KSP as they have for in Fallout. And pretty much your entire comment (along with many others I have seen) indirectly scream "Fallout 76"! People have a right to be concerned...
  3. Oh even better! Allow a paid mod be a base mod for a bunch of other mods! That would never end badly! You could call the system the Kerbal Kreation Klub 2.0! Hmm... where have I head that one before? And no, the joke isn't the acronym. Shouldn't need to say that.
  4. Miss type. A few to many many twos to keep count of. Both have had similar issues in the past.
  5. I know this community hates anybody who doesn’t follow the hype train blindly, but when I first saw the announcement, I honestly thought it an out of season April fool’s joke. Because that’s what KSP2 has always been. I’m not really sure how to express my thoughts into written words. It just looks horrible. And the blind hype for it is terrifying. This isn’t helped with the lack of gameplay shown. I’m sure more details, including gameplay, will come soon. Maybe they’ll surprise me by having Kerbin’s soupmosphere on par to FAR’s, along side FAR's other features. Or that the comms network have been updated to be closer inline with RemoteTech’s system. Or maybe all DLC for KSP1 will be in the base game for KSP2. Maybe they will even fix the propellers and rotors. Maybe they’ll even have sound! But where things stand currently, beyond performance, there is nothing persuading me to buy the game. I’m not asking for a discount or anything. Besides, the hype train would get mad if I did. It would be nice if they did try to persuade me though. But I have no idea what they are offering for $80-100AUD. Maybe I'm just a bit salty that Age of Empires 3 DE wasn't mentioned at Gamescom. Or maybe it's because I've been down this road before with Bethesda. Remember that time when Skyrim didn't have microtransactions? I do. I know the basic argument against this is: And I probably won’t. I have other games that I’ve neglected for years which I’ll play. And I’ll happily continue to play the sub 20 FPS version of KSP. At least until KSP2 is confirmed to be good. But maybe they’ll surprise me. Maybe it'll be good. Sadly that's the same maybe I used for Fallout 4. I'm sure the hype train will be mad regardless.
  6. Careful, people 'round here don't like that type of attitude. Now please present your Hype Ticket© to the man at the counter.
  7. No idea if it's really called "Maneuver mode". That's just what the devs called it during a KSPLoading. EchoLima just called it a orbital information panel, which makes more sense. Just feel that the mode would be more useful if it wasn't hidden away by the flight controls. UI should not be hidden behind UI, unless it's only used for a short period like the resource tab. I just don't like having to chose between the flight controls or useful information. The terrain height could be in the orbital information panel, like how KER does it. The sea level altimeter is normally used to gauge how high up you are, and I don't think anyone uses it as a 100% perfect value. I mainly just use it as a guide line. Knowing that you are roughly 2km off the ground when flying is great, even if you are only 1.5km up. But being told you are 500m off the ground while trying to land on the 76m high runway isn't great. Kerbal G limits can be turned on in the settings. But it isn't a 1:1 between Kerbal Gs and craft Gs, since different Kerbals have different tolerances, as Loskene said. However, G forces don't effect the craft beyond stress overload, but that's normally when a sudden changes happens. In real life, some parts might have a G limit before they break. So G forces don't really do anything unless you have Kerbal G limits on, and if the Gs are effecting your craft, the game will tell you when your wing falls off. Lights are good for landing and not running into things. Having the UI change slightly is useful in knowing if the lights (or breaks) are in a on or off stage, since lights can be turned on and off independently. Worth pointing out that the UI button for breaks is a toggle, while the shortcut is a hold button. The abort button slides out when hovered over, so the same system could apply? Either way, backspace is the keyboard shortcut and is easier to hit. Normally when using aircraft with FAR. The tiniest bit of trim along with SAS turned off works really well with FAR (and a good design). But it would be nice to know where the trim level is. It would also be nice to set some control surfaces to pitch, and another to only trim, like a real aircraft... But ya know... I guess robotics can do that.. An interesting thing about that is the original devs didn't want that to be the case. They just wanted a wacky rocket launching game that used semi real physics. They wanted players to rely on trail and error. This would also explain the vertical speed display. As Loskene said, I also do use the vertical speed display, but only to see if I am slowly gain altitude or losing it. And that's only with aircraft and FAR. I think it would be fine if they just moved it next to the nav ball. But they could always get rid of it and replace it with a more basic indicator on whether you are gaining or losing altitude. But as I said, if the devs were to redo the UI, they should consider redesigning elements of it opposed to just changing the styling of it. That doesn't mean they couldn't use your new style of cause.
  8. It looks great! But I feel that if the devs were to update the UI, the time would be better spent redesigning where UI elements are instead. This is more directed at the devs, and not you. Your work looks greats. But this is coming from someone who has spent many many many years playing this game. While also watching new UI elements added awkwardly into already occupied space. Semi-long list of possible changes and an example picture in the spoiler: All of this is just examples of how the UI could be redesigned. The UI works, but could be better. Just feel that since there is already discussion on the UI, now would be a good time to discuss updating and redesigning it.
  9. One small think I'd like to see changed is how the PAW sliders work. The fact you moved the hash (#) toggle button from the top corner to next to the slider is great! But I feel it would be even better if the hash button was replaced with the input box instead, moving the numbers out of the slider. This would allow users to adjust the values by either sliding the slider or punching a number in, without needing to toggle between them and reducing the number of clicks needed. It's something I wish the devs did originally anyway. Other than that, everything else looks amazing!
  10. Rover wheels already have a destroyed/damaged state, so when the blades get damaged a similar effect could take place.
  11. Honestly, it works fine, my issue was more directed towards how the new engines work, opposed to the physics around them. Their fuel usage is directly tied to their torque output, and the torque output effects how fast the RPM increases. Not only that, but RPM drops rapidly if torque is lowered. This makes sense for electric driven robotics (at least in a game for robotic arms), but doesn't really make sense for fuel powered engines, at least to my understanding of how combustion engines work. I doubt turboshaft engines differ greatly to traditional piston combustion engines, as turboshaft engines are used for land vehicles like tanks. But normally, torque is tied to RPM, not the other way around. As you increase the throttle you increase the amount of fuel entering the combustion chamber. This in turn increases the RPM. As the RPM increases, so does the horsepower and torque. Here's the wiki of power bands. To grossly simplify what each means: horsepower makes you go fast, torque makes you reach that 'fast' faster. Here's a better explanation. Yet in game, RPM has no effect on fuel usage. This would make some sense if a gearbox was being used, but these's not. I don't understand why torque effects fuel usage, since as already stated, torque is based on RPM and RPM is the thing that affects fuel usage. Sorry if you already knew that all that, but that's mainly what I mean. Maybe I am wrong in my understanding of how engines work, but from what I understand, the in game engine don't make sense. Which is also why I've said that the engines are just reskinned robotic rotors. From the way it works now, you can set your torque so low that you use less than 0.01 units/s, but you can still have max RPM. That's great for "cheating" the system, but doesn't seem that realistic. On the other hand, you can max out the torque and use 0.70+ units/s, with not extra speed gain. Of course, that is one type of torque. The other type of torque is directly caused by something spinning, like a reaction wheel. Yes, an aircraft should roll due to the spinning prop. And it does, which is great. However, due to the way KSP behaves at time, it feels more like a phantom force applying torque instead of actual engine/prop torque being applied. Phantom force is when craft just randomly move for no reason, K-drives are an example of this. This is something that would effect players on a "per-user level". You may not feel it, but I kinda do at times. I'm not saying that it is 100% a fake torque being applied. I think it mostly has to do with the unbalanced weight and power of certain parts within the game. Many parts are either being to light or to heavy, or having to much power. Or it might have something to do with the low RPM compared to real world counterparts. I don't think it is helped by how the new props use dark magic to create lift. Basically, it just feels wrong at times, but I don't know how to explain it. But if the engines functioned like they should*, than the spinning prop torque would be undeniably prop torque, and not a phantom force**. *From my understanding of them. **When the Kraken allows it. At the end of the day, the biggest issue with the game is the very fact that it is a game. Airplanes like the C.202 had asymmetric wings to help offset prop torque and (I think) prop wash. However, that is nearly impossible to realistically do in game. Same goes for helicopters with tail rotors and quad copters. We just don't have parts small enough or with enough function to make it happen. Even most of the Space Shuttles people have made aren't 100% accurate. But there's nothing we can do. And in many ways, that's a good thing. I think the heliblades might work well as down force for rovers. Edit: After a quick test, it's possible to recreate the Brabham BT46 in FAR. This may solve the flipping rover issue in the most over complex way possible.
  12. I've done both. I'm also aware of some of the late war/post war Navy Cats that would tear themselves apart due to sudden torque changes. But what from I've experienced in KSP, "engine torque" acts more like a phantom force, due to the odd behaviour of the engines being just reskinned electric rotors (as I've already said). What isn't modeled, and will never be, is prop wash. Jet engines have their own advantages and disadvantages, many more than props. You can't max out the throttle and hope for the best. And for your average airplane you'd want to use a propeller due to the MANY advantages, at least in real life. But I honestly don't understand what you are trying to argue, and I don't have the interest in discussing it further. I don't disagree with you. But when you have been playing this game for 7+ years, and have been waiting for these features for that majority of time, it can be a bit of a disappointment when they are finally added in confusing and strange manner. I personalty am fairly happy with the new content, ignoring the paid DLC for long requested features aspect and lack of prior information from the Devs. There is nothing wrong with having to learn how something works, but we never had to learn how rocket or jet engines work, only how to use them. And neither require extra attached parts to function, which for me, is the big one. As I said before, the jet engines we have currently don't just randomly explode when misused, but the new rotors/props will happily fling off just because. More parts = less FPS + more Kraken. But the content could have been added in a way that made more sense, and without the unwanted part bloat. Or at the very least with a tutorial or some kind of explanation on how the new parts work. Instead, all we got were some "pretty" pictures and told "good luck". The Devs of Cities Skylines have wonderful community involvement, with community driven tutorials on their Youtube channel. I have my own personal issue with the new content, but I'm just trying to highlight how I and others feel about this. Also, being a Fallout/Elder Scrolls fan, this frustration is doubled. It's all good to sit there going "I'm happy with this content!", but that's how you end up with 2 pointless Workshop DLCs, paid mods 2.0, Fallout 76, and other content that nobody asked for. And you're sat there wondering where your beloved game series is gone. People may not like criticism or negativity, but that's how you avoid these questionable content updates. I just want the game to be the best it could be. Let people be critical. It's for the best.