Jump to content

Pthigrivi

Members
  • Content Count

    1,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,766 Excellent

1 Follower

About Pthigrivi

  • Rank
    Space Cat

Recent Profile Visitors

4,456 profile views
  1. All great info, and though a lot of that is beyond me not being a programmer I think I understand the pitfalls. If Intercept has come up with some clever work-arounds/simplifications, great, but even if not and bases are all rigid I hope like starcaptain says that there’s a good amount of assembly flexibility if for aesthetic reasons alone.
  2. Super appreciate the breakdown because from the kind of basic, predictive statics equations I deal with this is a much simpler problem. I always chalked the sudden, resonant explody situations to reaction wheel tea-cupping and poor terrain interactions. Most things in real life don’t rattle themselves to death without some unexpected resonant external force like wind or seismic movement. Seems simple enough to ignore/remove that kind of thing from the system? The nice thing is these structures dont have hypersonic aerodynamics to deal with, they just have to not fall down. Couldn’t they run a
  3. No Im pretty sure I recall Nate saying something about structural limitations to how colonies are built being a part of the challenge in an interview. Damned if I could find it now though. So far all of the colonies Ive seen seem to be built on orthogonal (all-90-degree) grids but I might be wrong or maybe this is a choice and not baked in. This is in contrast to KSP1 where triangular and hexagonal symmetries allow for different building layouts. How easy or difficult this would be to implement is hard for me to guess, but I’d love to see it in the x + y axis at least.
  4. To (mis)quote an engineer whose name escapes me “engineering isn't the art of making things that stand up, but making things that just barely don’t fall down.”
  5. Im an architect professionally so this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Im psyched to see the colony building mechanics especially as they relate to bodies with different gravities because it radically alters your relationship to statics and the kinds of things you can build. There are restrictions on cantilevers here on earth that would not exist on Minmus, and the organizational considerations in orbit are different from both. Colonies on Gilly could and should look much different from ones on Tylo or Eve. We don’t know much about the colony construction UI but Id love to see the abili
  6. Honestly Im completely okay with this. It looks like huge increase in scope from KSP1 and a lot of new gameplay to iron out. To me thats always the most important thing—that the game is fun and the mechanics are well oiled. To this end though I’d welcome a public beta so players can dig in and give feedback and find all those edge-case bugs that are hard to spot.
  7. I don't mind necrobumping this because it was a good conversation. I voted "good" but I probably should have said "like it but wouldn't do it that way". I don't actually disagree with any of this and I think an in-game wiki is a good idea, but I'm not sure flavor text is really a very strong game-incentive. I think players are driven by rewards, and unlocking parts is going to be the strongest motivator in the game no matter how you slice it. I also think longer duration experiments could work especially if there's some life support mechanic to counterbalance it, but it's worth considering how
  8. This is a crazy good idea—unlock the tech tree in-situ rather than at KSC. There would probably want to be some flexibility by having multiple locations at which each node could be unlocked. Grouping parts also might be hard given how many there are. But you could let players speed up research by allocating bigger labs with more crew that needed more LS solving the time-warp problem, you’re encouraging players to set up research stations all over the place,... its a genius concept.
  9. @Master39 All good questions, and I'm sure Intercept has been thinking a lot about all that. Obviously I loved KSP1, and honestly most of the time I was playing career and loved that too. I think folks are forgiven for misunderstanding the contracts because of the way some of the UI is structured. They worked best when you treated them as optional side-missions to tack-on or dove-tail into to big headline missions you were doing anyway--player-driven probe-survey missions and flags and footprints crewed missions to different worlds. Because KSP2's scope is so big I feel like a lot of KSP1's ni
  10. Continued wall-o-text thoughts on this: This leads me to believe that maybe we DO want funds, because it might offer some player flexibility to either pay huge prices for exotic resources on Kerbin or mine them off-world with a bit of work. Maybe advanced engines and exotic fuel processors need rare-kerbin elements to be forged, which are very expensive on Kerbin but could be mined on Tylo, Moho, and Dres for 'free'. Maybe you can also find He3 on Gilly and the Mun and Bop but nowhere else. So if you're trying to build a big interstellar fusion engine you'd have a choice and some strategic
  11. Damn, brotha. My largest 2-stage lifters with NFLV had payloads in the 70t range and I thought THEY were big. Agreed. I’ve only dabbled in MKS but routinely play with USI-LS. The key I think is having most of what you need available by ISRU in that planet’s local system so you aren’t that reliant on resupply from kerbin. The wait times between launch windows and flight durations are just crazy long for that kind of thing. The Kerbin system is easier because presumably you could launch anything right there, but Duna and Dres and Moho seem like appropriate training grounds for livi
  12. Of course you could, but this is a thought experiment designed to imagine and test what different resource transfer schemes could and couldn’t handle. If a route returns to point A I don’t see any reason it couldn’t have multiple stops along the way, so long as the same qty of each resource was onloaded and offloaded at each stop. A similar thing might happen with a Minmus fuel tanker that drops off some fuel at Munar orbit before descending to LKO. Even if the transfer isn’t physically modeled the timings of different resource transfers really should be constrained by flight durations and dV
  13. The easiest solution is adjustable legs and suspensions. If your rover won’t dock because its too low or too high or laden with fuel from mining just lift it up or lower it down. You’d still need to coordinate a bit but the tolerances would be more forgiving. Or just a docking port on an arm that automatically telescopes and articulates to the target port when you get close. More than this I want stock snap rotation when docking.
  14. This seems like the hardest part to me even if they are doing magic transfers. A lot of the calculus could happen in the back of house but it still has to be robust enough that players can't easily abuse the system and intuitive enough that they aren't getting wildly unexpected results. Without getting too speculative we know at least that colonies will have multiple resources and that automated milkruns will be part of how resources are transfered. This will mean designating some craft as colonies/stations, others as transfer vessels, and somehow doing 'proof' runs and saving them for future
×
×
  • Create New...