Jump to content

Pthigrivi

Members
  • Posts

    3,883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pthigrivi

  1. I’ve noticed this as well. It has to be a bug. It feels like transferring from one ladder to another is borked. The legs are also really spongy for my taste even when the turned all the way up.
  2. One thing new thing that's been happening in KSP2 that I didn't do in the original: for whatever reason I've been oversizing my 3rd stage and using it not just to circularize but also to transit on munar missions, aiming so it plows into the Mun or Minmus and then separating my lander to do the rest. Something about the re-jiggered tech tree has made that more attractive for some reason.
  3. Just a fun one: how are you all doing your gravity turns? Do you have a formula in your head or do you kinda wing it? Does it vary from rocket to rocket much? I've found I've just been carrying over my old ascent profile from KSP1 and its working fine, but I have no idea how optimal it is. 1st stage has a TWR around 1.5, tilt about 5 degrees after clearing the tower and gun it to about 150m/s. Then throttle back a bit, slowly climbing so I hit 250m/s at 6km. At 6km up I throttle back up and begin a turn to 45% ending around 12km up. I stay at 45 until my Ap hits 40km, then slowly complete the turn to horizontal while keeping time to Ap between about 1m to 1min 30. Once Ap hits 80km I cut throttle and coast up to the circularization burn. I find this to be pretty efficient but its not like a perfectly smooth arc--which Im guessing is better? At the same time I prefer not to stage while turning, so if Ive got a 3 stage rocket its nice to drop side boosters before transitioning to 45 degrees, and drop the 2nd stage at the end of the 45 degree burn.
  4. Yeah I personally found once I discovered Mechjeb's aerobrake prediction tool back in the day I started aerobraking nearly every time I was encountering a body with an atmosphere, so basically any mission besides Moho or Dres. It's free real estate, as they say. I'll also point out that players are going to be taking atmosphere readings any time they go to a planet with an atmosphere anyway. There's no new or repetitive work being done here on the part of the player, just adding a dynamic that makes science relevant to exploration outside the tech tree and creates some incentive for diverse play styles. Right so unlocking aerobrake prediction, topographic and biome overlays, resource prospecting, and unlocking simulators for testing rovers and ascent and descent vehicles. I'd say thats substantial, and there are probably others I haven't thought of.
  5. Okay so a) for anyone who hasn’t modded their game this how aerobraking and reentry has always worked. Its still how it works. Save scumming and learning by doing is how everyone learned to get to orbit and land on the Mun. Thats the kind of basic task that is going to require every new player a bit of practice so they understand the nature of it. Reentering Kerbin on those first several missions is similar. And then b) you don’t have to save scum and do that on every new planet. Alternatively you could dip into the high atmosphere and take an atmospheric reading and voila: you’d have unlocked aerobrake prediction on all subsequent passes even with that first initial vessel. This conversation is in the context of Regex saying he personally wants to plow into the atmosphere in a pilar of fire and us explaining that he could absolutely still do that if he wishes. This is gate keeping with an a very simple, easy to use gate. Its no different than using a scanner to unlock topographic data. It’s certainly easier than unlocking parts or proving supply runs. Its simply a way of giving experiments actual utility and the game more depth in progression. Think about scanning or fog of war in any game you have ever played. Being able to see absolutely everything without ever exploring is certainly a QoL feature thats being “gate kept”. But thats kind of the point? You have to go there before you know everything? Thats kind of my whole critique, that science in KSP isn’t doing something thats very basic in all games that are about exploration: having exploration reveal new and useful information about the world you’re in.
  6. This is just an incomplete feature of the game. We should definitely be able to track visually and easily where we’ve been and where we still need to explore .
  7. YOU have. Most players have not. All those new players have a lot to gain from manually encountering reetry heat and its repercussions. Try to understand: you and me are old—this game isnt for us. I don’t make broad game recommendations based on my own personal playstyle or what I happen to know from playing KSP1 for thousands of hours. I don’t really personally care about planes at all, but I recognize that a lot of players love that and there should be a path in the tech tree for them to find a home and experience the game on their terms. Maybe they want to do planes and probes to get that historical feel. Maybe they just like piloting and its planes and crewed landers—be damned preliminary probe data. Lots of folks have pointed out the tech tree is a bit—slender. These key strategic decisions and broad gameplay opportunities are not being well catered to. The key distinction Im trying to make is not simply between new capabilities and QoL features. There’s a fuzzy line here. High ISP engines are QoL but also gate-kept through tech tree progression. What Im pointing out is that some gameplay experiences benefit from trial and error—learning by doing—reiterating with different launch configurations and mission profiles and landing techniques. Other gameplay elements like estimating dV budgets and finding ideal transfer windows don’t respond well to trial and error. Nobody is going to intuitively deduce that they need to timewarp 230 days before departing for Duna. Nor should they be exiting the game pull up a dV map jpeg in a browser. Those are tasks that require built-in tools. Anything like that should not be gated. For many, many other tasks like designing launchers or learning basic orbital transfers or landing or docking players really need to learn by doing. The game should no-more land for you than it should design boosters for you. That exploratory process IS the game. Many of these learned processes though gain from the option of automation once they become old hat. We can save pre-designed booster and launch assemblies and re-use them. We should be able to automate re-supply missions to colonies after a proof-run. The sweet spot is taking the time to learn and achieve these kinds of tasks and then earn the ability to automate them so they don’t become mindnumbingly repetitive. Thats the specific category of QoL features that should be unlocked by doing it manually first.
  8. For dV and interplanetary transfer planning I would say no, those should absolutely not be gate-kept. Just like SAS that should be given because these are not skills that map well onto trial and error. You need specifically built, in-game tools to solve those problems. Aerocapture is a bit different though. This is a learning experience. I think for players there’s actually a lot to be learned from many attempts at reentry and from quick loading an aerocapture at a new planet a few or even several times to get a feel for it and understanding with some trial and error what heat flux means and what the practical limits are in different atmospheres. Having done just that many times though the question becomes can we get a visual estimator for late game? Can practice at aerocapturing around Eve or Laythe unlock a handy visual guide so I don’t have to do it 20 times on every mission? This to me feels akin to supply routes. The first run is a cool engineering and traversal puzzle. Subsequent runs are boring and repetitive. This kind of dynamic really speaks to unlockable QoL.
  9. Oh and I think this is an important point: I wouldn't want the game to make players send a probe first, just create some added incentives so investing earlier in probe parts in the tech tree became a more viable and attractive option. Right now progression and experiment rewards are really leaning much more heavily on crewed missions which ends up making the process feel a bit rote and linear. If there were a couple other more viable paths it would create more diverse gameplay strategies. Its not about forcing players to play one way or another, but offering up some well-balanced options.
  10. Oh haha summer 24’ sounds more reasonable;)
  11. Exactly. Precision landing and/or rover traversal absolutely should be key components of the game but that particular contract comes way before you have wheels and much too early in the progression for players to have mastered landing within a km or so of a non-targetable landing zone. Also just from a design/writing standpoint you should introduce more geological, science-based discoverables first so the Mun Arch reveal feels more special. If you start with alien artifacts first nerdy geology formations feel like a let down (even if they’re actually cooler).
  12. Listen there’s absolutely a skill to to making music that never gets old. Some of that is about timeless melodies and bar-to-bar change-ups that your mind never quite catches up to. This is why Aphex Twin tracks last and last (this is actually the premise of the 90’s ‘acid’ rhythm structure thats become so prevalent in modern beat-making.) The other strategy to music that doesn't get old is for it to be utterly, maximally inoffensive. It stirs no notes, no strong reactions, it fades into the background like an old commercial or grocery-store pop song you’ve heard 500 times. All it conjures is benign resignation to mundane consumption. Its like the dead-end reboot sitcoms with canned laughter that boomers somehow still watch on network tv, or CSI wherever same-show same-formula nothing that people still let their brains wallow and die in. It doesn’t get old because ultimately there’s nothing actually there.
  13. Yall the KSP1 music was fine but it was selected because it was free. Its public domain, generic music like an elevator. It wasn’t specifically designed by anyone to suit KSP or be in a game or for any other specific purpose. The VAB music plays during my wife’s yoga videos—because its free. Its a nice callback but its nothing special. Its specifically designed to be completely generic and nothing special. Your attachment to it is entirely and utterly nostalgic. I dont know how much you all know about music and production but just listen to what Mostrom is up to on these tracks. They’re very specific to the environment and task and the moment and the devs have clearly given him a decent budget for live instrumentation and recording authentic soundscapes. He’s got themes for each world and they’ve built them into dynamic loops that react to what you’re doing as a player, increasing the drama of approach and landing and proximity to POI. Its all very, very well done.
  14. Thats my feeling. I like cute things but real science has a different bent and tone. It took a while for me to teach tiktok that I like astrophysics and rocketry and cosmology but not dumb UFO jank. Im keeping my mind open and considering this is one for the kids. I am decrepitly old at this point after all.
  15. Id be fine with that. Now that the game is pretty solid there are a lot of UI gaps, science tweaks, and needed tools for interplanetary that I'd love to see phased in before colonies. Those will take time by themselves besides the work integrating colonies. I think everyone understands the EA release was just much too raw but to their credit IG worked really hard dealing with orbital decay and joint wobble and a zillion other problems. The best way to build on renewed community faith would be to keep releasing solid, substantial updates in the lead up to 0.3.
  16. Im going to write up a really thorough set of recommendations when I get through the tech tree but I'll say out of the gate that both the mission tree and and the tech tree need some work. When I first started playing KSP1 Scott Manley and many other players recommended landing on Minmus first rather than the Mun specifically because the low gravity helped train your landing skills in a more forgiving environment. To my mind this is kind of the entire reason Minmus exists--as a low-gravity training moon. We should definitely see an earlier branch in the mission structure--probably right after orbit the Mun--to start to explore Minmus as well and at least have the option to land there first. Very minor/early spoilers in this next bit: I also have some thoughts on minor but important changes to the tech tree and experiment returns to make alternate strategies (early probe and plane missions) more viable so the process feels less linear and more like a real strategic choice. I want to at least clear tab 2 before I make recommendations on tab 1. I'll also say it again we 100% need biome maps to help understand where we've been and where new science can be found.
  17. Ahh of course. Thanks! I knew some of these would just be me being dumb.
  18. That will likely come in some form when resources are added in a future update. I've found though that at this stage of the game I don't personally need the cost factor (honestly in KSP1 the cost factor quickly disappears when you have a million bazillion dollars.) I just make vessels that have a reasonable dV padding and go for it. I do agree resource costs will add a lot to part choice + tech tree strategy down the line though.
  19. I think these are going to become much more important as colonies and resources are added. I find I use them all the time in modded KSP1 installs when I have a lot more equipment to haul around and most of that is happening in vacuum. I imagine they'll be cheaper in terms of resource cost as well.
  20. Basically tie it into the transfer window calculator and alarm clock, selecting each destination + leg, muting any leg thats intended to be aerocaptured, and even save that flight plan to the vessel so it can be viewed and altered in flight. Its a lot of work but I think you'll see so many more players going interplanetary with this in place.
  21. Ive only gotten as far as Minmus and the music in this game has no business being this good. I love the subtle adjustments depending on altitude and what you’re doing. Its so seamless. I also weirdly love the tracking station music. Sometimes the music is slightly too serious but in a weird way you feel the contrast between the bubbly nostalgic synths of the training center vs these distant worlds and it makes them feel kind of ancient and alien and slightly scary. It really expands the emotional tone of the game. I hope when we get to Debdeb it gets even weirder. Howard—whatever you’re doing, keep doin it dude.
  22. Honestly the general tone is really pretty great. This is the least of my concern. The flavor text is great, the mission briefs are cute if maybe a little belabored, but then Im old and ruthless. Im less convinced by the ancient aliens overstory thats happening with the artifacts. Again its cute but its not my thing. I appreciate that many of the newer discoverables are slightly more hard-boiled and Id love to see science dig deeper into that.
  23. Okay here are my UI notes. Overall the UI is really pretty solid, Im just listing the items for improvement to keep the list shorter. I'm still getting started honestly so let me know if there's something I've just misunderstood. Many of these have been mentioned previously, just adding data points. General: - It would help to have color consistency on "Training Center" + "Mission control" in the escape menu--just pick a color for each and use in both words. - In settings generally "graphics" is next to "audio" in most games. - I might have missed it but I'd like to be able to rename my agency and set a new flag - Several buildings are missing return to KSC/Go to Mission Control/VAB. Only hitting escape lets us transfer between - As noted highlight/text contrast is so low when renaming vessels in the Tracking Station its impossible to read. - Many menus have very low contrast, especially the handles/ dismiss button at the top. - (Bug) Several General settings are listed as both "on" and "off" until mouse over. Tutorials: - Im wondering if there's a way to interconnect missions and tutorials in a tighter way? Maybe there could be links in between before and after certain stages? - It might just be the nature of the beast but the tutorials seem to jump around a lot--introducing stages in flight before going back and showing staging in the VAB, etc. Would it be better if there was more linear continuity? - It seems like the navball is introduced very late. Again there's a lot to talk about so maybe thats okay. - Science and reentry tutorials are great but perhaps some mention of parts exposed outside the heat shield and recommendations on safe reentry angles? - I figured it out eventually but a tutorial on transmission + estimating power needs would be useful. - Im sure these are WIP but we should have tutorials on plane changes, Radial/Normal burns, intercept + docking, vacuum + precise landing, (and more Im sure) VAB: - Trip Planner should show dV to LKO when "Kerbin" is selected as destination. This could be the default unless another body is selected. - Trip Planner should also be more dynamic, allowing us to select + add up destinations in a more custom way. - I'd love the ability to eyedrop colors in the color manager. - Id like a way to group-select in the Parts manager, especially for setting action groups - I might be missing something but how can we see through fairings? I liked KSP1's explode/transparency on mouse over. - I think its because of atmo vs vac calculations but dV readout in VAB doesn't match when you go to the launchpad. Maybe save the settings? Flight: - Escape should pause the game - Maybe "Go" button should change to say "Stage" after initial launch? - It also took a long time to find the Kerbal Manager... maybe some of these menus should be covered in the tutorials? - Id also like to be able to rename and recover vessels in flight without having to go to the Tracking Station - (Bug) When UI is scaled up the Research Inventory appears in a place that it cant be moved or dismissed because the top is above the frame - Pinned Ap/Pe markers should stay pinned when switching between flight + map view. Focus should also stay fixed. - Probably a bug but vessel icon scaling goes crazy when switching focus sometimes. - (Bug) Time-warp seems to lose count when warping to maneuver - becomes paused when not indicating pause. - I would love to see time to reentry, time to impact, + time to intercept readouts—basically time to whatever is next with more specificity. This is super important for an alarm clock if/when implemented. - Add a ‘toggle antennas’ button next to solar action group. - Safe parachute deploy speed is a bit opaque to me. What is the unsafe deploy speed? - The Navball itself is a bit busy. Target markers should be in a different color (not white) to stand out. - Agreed with others that the maneuver nodes are tough to use and labels frequently overlap and make manipulation + navigation difficult. Definitely add fine-maneuver tool with graphic + numeric input. - Also agreed we should be able to place maneuver nodes when paused and in other SOIs. - The burn-bar should have squared off rather than rounded ends so its visually clear when you've completed the burn. Also agreed^ it should say "burn remaining" and tick down. - Burn countdown lights are great but the colors are confusing. Make it more clear you're hitting Z at zero. - (Bug) I like the warp to maneuver feature but warp-stop notification says warp canceled because of proximity to celestial body. - I would LOVE the ability to snap maneuvers to Ap/Pe/An/Dn. Maybe a right-click option? - Id love if the science button had a subtle audio cue when lit/ new science available. - Research inventory should list experiments from newest to oldest so recent experiments appear at the top of the list. - Agreed^ many experiments are repeating even after being submitted. "Transmit all" should also be greyed out when there's nothing to transmit. - We absolutely need biome maps at the least. Topography would be nice too. - Agreed the SOI transition graphic is handy but a bit overbearing. - I'd love to get more diverse vessel icons back in map mode, and then some. Again Im really pleased with the progress thus far. Im sure a lot of this can be solved in the next year or so. Thanks for all you do, devs!
  24. I don't think it's useless. It still has the values and its nice we don't have to switch to a browser (or the print I have on the wall I fully agree the tool is incomplete though, and should allow us to click through and add and subtract and mute legs. This is really the story of this whole thread: the game just isn't done yet. It definitely needs a transfer window calculator and alarm clock.
×
×
  • Create New...