Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pthigrivi

  1. Real question: has anyone seen evidence of auroras at any point?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. @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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. And maybe Im not understanding, so help me out. I could be wrong but I think we're missing something fundamental: the relative position of each planet to each other is driven by time. Likewise the position of every vessel relative to every other body is driven by the date. If I zoom out on day 3 I will see a very different arrangement of planetary positions than if I zoom out on day 200. This means you need to know what the date is at all times in order to make transfers. In order to rendezvous with any other player's vessel you need to be able to see where it is, and where it is is also relative to what its date is. If it's traveling between Kerbin and Duna that flight path and those encounters are tied to the relative positions of those planets and what time the transfer maneuver was made. If I have a trajectory that leaves LKO, swings by the Mun, exits the SOI and encounters Eve there is really only one time that that specific trajectory can exist. So if I have a vessel that's going to Duna, a probe that's going to Jool, and I have a shuttle I want to meet up with a friend's station in orbit around Minmus, what happens? Does my shuttle get transported to the stations' time? Does the station get pulled into the shuttle's time? If the person who made the station then also wants to dock does that vessel also get pulled into my time? When I'm in map mode looking for friends' vessels to rendezvous with where do I see them? As they are in their time or as they were in my time? Do you see the problem? Oh I think this is absolutely a real issue that players will have to navigate. On the positive side you don't actually have to warp all the way to another player's current time to interact with most things--just past the date that an individual vessel was last edited. If a player decides to jump way out ahead of the group and timewarp with a vessel for 800 years then that vessel won't be accessible for a while, but everything they left behind will be. I suspect this and the desire to engage will keep players steadily leap-frogging somewhat close to each other. If I join a group thats been going for a while I don't have to start at day zero and catch up. I can just start close to their current time, dock with their already elaborate stations and bases and hop along as I need to. If that group is voraciously zooming through time and constantly updating things way into my future maybe that just isn't a good group for me and I should find a gang thats' more my speed, so to speak. No no, you would see the station as it was in your own time, not as it is in the future. Whether it's ghosted or highlighted or its icon is a different color or whatever, it's just a visual cue to the player that you can't dock with it until you move forward to its edit last date.
  12. Well you can handwave away two players being in the same space with wildly different tech levels. You can't handwave 2 vessels simultaneously attached to the same docking port. In broad terms I'd say there are 3 main branches to the ideas folks have come up with. The first branch are the 'permission to timewarp' versions, where everyone exists in one time-plane and players vote or take turns being able to time-warp with everyone else dragged along for the ride. These do technically work and there's no risk of paradox. The downside is it makes KSP a turn-based game, with each turn taking potentially 10 or 20 minutes, and with several players you're waiting potentially more than an hour before you can actually fly or do anything. And sure, you can mess around in the VAB while you wait, but in general the pacing would be absolutely glacial and this doesn't really sound like "playing together" anyway. Might be fun for some but it doesn't appeal to me. The second branch are bubble universe versions, where there's no continuous timeline and you just teleport into the timeframe of other players. This is mostly fine if you're doing simple things like flying jets together or a one-off mission to the moon in which you dock to a friend's station. It seems like the idea in KSP2 is that we're building little mini civilizations with colonies and supply vessels and prospectors and mining vessels going everywhere at once. When you have multiple vessels in interplanetary transit and entering and leaving different SOI's you really need some kind of spatial/temporal continuity, and having many different vessels jump from one timeframe to another sounds like a recipe for disaster. The third branch are the 'leapfrog' models, where everyone can play at their own pace and in their own time, but in order to interact they need to leap forward to sync with other players or at least past the last edit of any given colony or vessel. This preserves continuity and causality and still allows everyone to participate in a shared world at their own pace. There's still a bit of diversity in the way's this would work in practice (are things greyed out or solid and on rails? how do you manage permissions? is it hosted online and anyone can hop in or out or is the group save tied to a single host? etc.) but these are to me the most promising versions. Who knows though, Intercept may have come up with something better that none of us have. This is a whole other question. The easiest thing of course would be to just give players access to the same space and let them do whatever they want. If people want to race rovers they can sync up and do that. If they want to build a station or interplanetary ship together they can put components together and send them on their own time and then hop ahead to assemble them. If they want to do a space race to the moon they can decide on their own whether they're racing in player-time or in in-game-time.
  13. I’d say though that out of the 50 ideas we’ve seen only dozen or work at all, and just a handful solve the nitty gritty hard problems. Even the best solutions will require some real coordination and mental gymnastics if we want to accommodate things like depleting reactor fuel or life support.
  14. The main paradox problem is much more mundane. Player 1 has a space station, docks with it, and drains the fuel from it. Player 2 is tooling around in Player 1’s past, connects to the same docking port, and drains the same fuel because from their perspective it hasn’t been drained. The way to prevent paradoxes both in resource levels and in having two vessels attached to the same port is to grey out the station for Player 2 until they have synched or jumped ahead of Player 1, or more specifically ahead of the station’s last edit.
  15. I don’t know that a KSP coop project would be very analogous to a card game. It’s probably more like a construction site where various subs may or may not be building components in their own shops or on site installing at the same or different times but everyone is still contributing and coordinating toward the same goal.
  16. Welcome to the forums! As you can see this is a big source of debate. We’re all hoping single player mounts up to a real progression mode that fleshes out many of the systems that were a little lackluster in KSP1, but also for a sandbox mode or two that enables free-design. We don’t know what the multiplayer solution will look like (see 47 pages of speculation), but I kind of agree with Bej that voting and simultaneous warp probably isn’t it because it becomes really clunky in practice. Much better would be something more akin to Luna Multiplayer where players have the freedom to do what they wish in their own time but can choose to sync or jump ahead of other players to interact. Paradoxes are a very real practical problem but so long as each vessel’s continuity is preserved and they remain greyed out until another player has ‘leapfrogged’ past the last edit/interaction we should be okay.
  17. It economically ludicrous and it should be slightly embarrassing that it was ever pitched, compared to the very promising and plausible applications of the starship system.
  18. Only when you're in big trouble.
  19. Apparently Mario’s last name is Mario, making his full name Mario Mario. I don’t know how to feel about that.
  20. I spent a bit of time last night explaining to my parents what the chopsticks are and what starship is planning to do and I think their brains exploded.
  21. Im also just not personally as fussed about how a game looks as how it works. If it was just KSP1 with atmospheric scatter and clouds Im good. Im mostly interested in how progression and colonies will work and how tight those mechanics are. Lots of really good games don’t look like much of anything. All that matters is they’re fun and make you think.
  • Create New...