Jump to content

Pthigrivi

Members
  • Posts

    2,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,859 Excellent

About Pthigrivi

Profile Information

  • About me
    Space Cat

Recent Profile Visitors

8,106 profile views
  1. Interesting take. I think since they said no early on its unlikely for launch, but I'd certainly love to play around with it for colony building. I don't expect we'll especially need it because of the road/runway parts, but from an aesthetic standpoint it would be nice. It also begs questions like can you dig caves? What happens to scatter when you mess with the surface? Can you destroy boulders? Or move them around to 'landscape' your site? Is it like fill that you must move around but can't create or destroy? Can you build and then bury modules to simulate hobbit-hole style architectures? I think as an expansion that included submarine and floating colonies this could be really fun.
  2. I think if its real a simulation mode to test before you fly would take care of this.
  3. Yeah I mean there are folks who can't be made happy, but for the rest of us I think while excitement and cautious optimism is totally warranted its also okay to offer constructive feedback on the stuff we're seeing. Im sure the big stuff is locked in, but if there are little details or tweaks we think might improve things there's no harm in pointing it out.
  4. Real question: has anyone seen evidence of auroras at any point?
  5. It was something like instead of going through multiple load screens and loading different files you could work on multiple assemblies at once and toggle the working axis. This is a very vague memory so if anyone can remember the source or wants to call me crazy please do.
  6. I feel like it was hinted that the VAB and SPH are one building now, but I don't know if thats confirmed or if Im misremembering.
  7. We don’t know if there will things like cryogenics. Im guessing probably not, and that Kerbals probably will be immortal. The reason would be that in KSP2 they don’t multiply steadily. Supposedly we’ll get big bursts in population when important goals are met. If all the while their populations are dwindling that would really slow down colony growth and would probably create finicky management problems.
  8. On the ‘flat terrain’ front keep in mind this is the Mun, one of the first bodies new players encounter, and there really should be large expanses of easily landable space with relatively few large colideable boulders. I think the boulders themselves look great, and we’ve seen that many of the later-game bodies look much more rugged. My only critique is it wouldn’t prevent you from adding smaller scale debris that adds texture without making landings and rover travel difficult. Also, this is all subjective so I think we can be kind to each other. There’s going to be a lot of new people coming to the board in the coming months and I hope this place stays as charming and welcoming as it can be. We might just all need to have some patience.
  9. I would say this already looks quite a bit better than current visual mods, though on the nit-picky side Id love to see a bit more small-scale, non-collideable scatter than we see in the most recent screenshots—more fine grain pebbles and stones in the foreground that make the surface look more authentic but dont gum up traversal. To be honest though the visuals aren’t even what really interests me. The really exciting stuff is colonies and interstellar, crazy huge vessels and drive systems, things no mod has really held a candle to. We’ve seen a bit about interstellar travel and glimpses at new systems that seem really well considered, and the fact that they’re building the challenge of surmounting interstellar distances into progression is pretty awesome. If it were me I personally wouldn’t show the two most important systems—colonies and science—until I had the time to do a big deep dive on each and had things polished enough to answer questions about it. They’re kind of complete-thought elements that you don’t really want to dribble out piecemeal. Its true though we haven’t seen a few pretty basic things in a while—stage separation, reentry effects, wheels and rovers, etc. Do explosions look different at hypersonic speeds? Do wheels kick up dust and leave tracks? We’ll just have to see.
  10. @t_v I think you're right though that this isn't nearly as troublesome for stable orbits. Is it alright if you're only really interacting with other players' colonies and stations, and I guess anything within your SOI? It might be worth it. It's just so rare that you're intercepting anything while it's in transit for all the practical costs entailed in causality preservation. And I'll also say on the downside for 'leapfrog' models it becomes kind of a big problem for casual players who constantly feel left behind, especially if you consider LS and reactor fuel or anything that depletes over time. I would be really disappointed if those kinds of elements were cut just to make multiplayer easier. Supply routes are also a problem in this paradigm for a different reason--they're automatic. That means if that one player does warp ahead 800 or even 20 years presumably their automated supply routes will keep updating which will add and subtract resources from many of their colonies and stations and schedule-up last-edited dates pretty close to wherever the player is in time. ---On the other, other hand don't players want to all kind of be on the page and contributing to a mutual progression project and working together to get that next fusion drive so they can build an interstellar vessel together? Doesn't that kind of require being in the same-ish timeline and tech-space? Its a social problem, but its also a question of group-based goals and practical logistics. So I don't know! It'll be interesting to see where Intercept lands.
  11. Hope everyone down there is staying safe. I flew down for the relief effort in the Abacos after Dorian and it was pretty horrific. 1/3 of the houses were flat on the ground, almost all the others took major damage. Hopefully Ian proves much less deadly.
  12. This is part of the reason I'd be surprised if supply routes are more than magic resource transfers on a schedule. I doubt you'll actually see the en-route vessel in engine. I don't think this can be right. You cant hand-wave positional data. The orbital track isn't just a graphical element, its a precise line through space, and if you're trying to rendezvous you need to know exactly where the target vessel is and where it's going down to the meter. The target vessel has its own precise Ap and Pe and inclination and everything else and those are hard numbers, both for the player who owns it and for you. I think what you would see is a track that does visually miss Duna and instead encounters an invisible or ghosted Duna 2m km away from the Duna you see. If you were trying to rendezvous with a vessel far apart from the window you would see a random arc starting somewhere along Kerbin's orbit and ending somewhere along Duna's orbit. For planets with higher inclinations and more eccentricity the difference would be much greater. Basically all other players in-transit vessels would look this way because their transit orbits are tuned to encounter planetary positions that vary wildly from the one you see. As you approach and dock with any one of those vessels you're exactly matching those orbits that in your time hit nothing, so I don't think you have any choice but to have that craft enter the other player's timeline, teleported into the future. It seems like after a dozen or so encounters you're going to end up with lots of different vessels that exist in different times, coming and going from multiple ghosted instances of different planets and its going to be really difficult to know what's real.
  13. I think theres a small but crucial flaw here. If we're trying to rendezvous with anything that's in transit its not actually good enough to be close. You have to be exactly at the same place at the same time. Player one is at Year 1, day 258 looking at their first Duna window. Player 2 has already launched a vessel on Year 5, day 368 on their 3rd window. It wouldn't be a problem to just merge one onto the other if Kerbin and Duna had exactly circular orbits and no inclination, but they don't. If Player 1's transfer would arrive at Duna near its Pe, and Player 2's transfer would arrive at Duna when its near its Ap, then there's a 2,000,000 km difference between the transfer trajectories. When Player 1 looks at Player 2's vessel trajectory in Player 1's reference frame it will miss Duna's SOI entirely. And what happens if they dock and ride together? Does the combined vessel enter Player 2's timeline 5 years in the future and reach Duna safely? Or is it pulled into Player 1's timeline and miss the planet? It can't be in two different times at once. This is even kind of a problem for vessels in stable orbits. If they're inclined or eccentric (as they all are) then what controls the longitude of Ap or the argument of Pe? Say our Minmus station's orbit is eccentric: one player will see that eccentricity perpendicular to Minmus’s line of orbit, another will see it nearly tangental to it. When two players are trying to rendezvous with it in different times who is right? Edit: Sorry, it sounds like Im nitpicking but I know multiplayer mods must have found some way around this and Im curious how?
×
×
  • Create New...