BadLeo

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About BadLeo

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,103 profile views
  1. It's been largely a guessing game, but I believe I'm doing it correctly. Well, at least for the orbits in sight...
  2. I didn't have the slightest idea on what direction to aim for the burn and what "pattern" of orbit to look for. The way I did was that I put the craft between Kerbin and the Mün and hoped it would drag me along it and, with a small nudge I could maybe hit the L5 (the one behind it, dunno if that's the correct one), but I guess my nudge was far to strong and it just threw me far away. Your pic is indeed very insightful, though, thanks!
  3. Erm, sorry to make such a simplistic question that must have been asked before, but what is the proper frame of reference to look for lagrangian orbits?
  4. Eh, I don't think so. Well, I would say it's not entirely incompatible, but the orbit info provided for KER might not reliable due to its complete rework of orbital mechanics. Surface readings would probably still work fine, but Principia also changes stuff regarding the navball (sorry, not remotely knowledgeable on coding, can't properly describe it). I guess it would be quite some effort to make both compatible, I couldn't ask you to do this just because of one player. EDIT: Well, it seems Prinicpia supports KER. So, the issue might have something to do with the way it uses the NavBall. Since Principia models n-body physics, it changes the navball according to the change in reference frame, which I suspect is why SUA is having some trouble, but this is wild guess on my part.
  5. I think the key factor is to realize no game will ever be 100% complete, in the sense that, after released, people will always find things that could be added, subtracted or tweaked (shout out to Lisias)... the difference between allowing players to do those things to their hearts content or not allowing at all is the difference between a game being played by an unyielding community 10 years after its release and a game abandoned by all but a few die hard fans in less than half that time. Regardless of the actual content a speculative KSP2 would have, I believe it would be down right dumbness to not make it live up to its predecessor's modularity or, preferably, to build over and expand it. Sure, T2 will find a way to profit on that, probably in the form of endless DLCs a là Paradox Studios, but if the core game is rich enough in terms of content, it doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as its modularity isn't affected in a harmful way, and it might even encourage the acceptance of (reasonably priced) DLCs. Looking by that perspective, I don't see backward compatibility as an issue. I mean, assuming T2 won't leave KSP abandoned to go for its second iteration, which doesn't seem to be the plan, as they recently released their intentions to put out updates every 3 months. If they leave KSP on a state the community can more or less agree (hahaha) as finished, then its support around the idea of a complete new KSP2 will be almost granted. In that sense, any expense here and now could be worth as an investment on the IP's general value with eyes on a long lasting franchise. And I honestly don't know why T2 would buy it other than to have that. Now, would you feel sorry to let the things you've spent so much time and effort building to go for a shiny, brand knew game? I absolutely, 100% guarantee you wont' IF, as I said, KSP1 isn't left half-done (it's technically already done with the release of 1.0, but, whatever, we know it isn't, really), AND IF you have a lot of expectations to look forward to. They will hype it, they will promise things, they'll make you count the days and, hopefully, they'll deliver it all, and you'll have a new blank canvas to build a lot of amazing things. In the event it flops and all the expectation is frustrated, though, you'll still have the old KSP to go back to (while regretting the trust you put and the money you wasted on those greed stand-up guys, YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, EA!).
  6. Uh-oh. Decided to give Principia a go and it seems SUA isn't showing up its magic along with it. Do you have reports on that?
  7. It seems to be working on 1.6.1... Well, I didn't actually crash anything, dunno if it is working properly, mind you. But the blue artifact is still there, so, remove the file Jade_Falcon pointed out.
  8. If I would try to make a list of all that could be added to KSP on a second take of it, to make it a new and interesting game without losing the connection with the first iteration and the community built around it, that list would be, of course, incomplete, not to mention that it would only be a personal view coming from my expectations and wishes, therefore it would be a meaningless, unworthy effort. So, here it is: - They could add a complete historical take on the development of the aerospacial industry, including the political struggle that rushed the technological race, which leads to the inclusion of factions and a competitive way of playing KSP, multiplayer or AI based; - They could add life and meaning to the game by many different ways: cities, regions, flight traffic, etc; economic simulation of the exploration and exploitation of space resources and how it would affect the economics of the planet Kerbin and its society, with success measured not only on how far you get, but how efficiently you get there; a kerbal society, preferably as one centered on scientific achievements and space exploration not only for its own advancement but as a behavior derived from the valuation of knowledge as a worthy pursuit; ALIENS! Disease and sickness that comes from long periods exposed to the unfiltered radiation of space, drama, conflicting but valid goals to exploit ethical issues and all that narrative stuff; - They could add, ya know, the basic stuff: more advanced tech to reach other star systems that they also could add, stuff that you mentioned and that some mods already do, and honestly I think that would be a no brainer if T2 would ever think of making KSP the triple A game kind of stuff they like to do. - They could add some kind of RPG system for the development of kerbal characters, with skills relevant for specific roles and mission management that would require a varied rooster of kerbonauts. That, along with things already added by mods, like life support and proppable objects, construction, etc, would make for a very expansive gameplay. They don't need to make from KSP a X type of space sim and, frankly, they shouldn't. But nothing mentioned here would required hem to do so. Kerbals are the underlining theme of the game,. With their unique naive/benign mindset centered on courage and curiosity, they would in itself maintain the originality of the franchise, that is esteemed exactly because of the kerbal approach to challenge and valour. We know the kerbal way. I've said elsewhere that I believe KSP has an untapped marketing power that would see movies, toys and all that stuff as a natural consequence of its development. T2 might still be a big corp with all the related issues, but it isn't on EA's level. T2 can make all that happen if they so desire, and it will easily happen if a couple of its executives and their kids play this game. A KSP2 doesn't need to be just a cash grab, even though that's the primary concern of any business enterprise. If it is made right, it will show.
  9. My totally unnecessary 2 cents, added even though I don't have relevant info on current sales numbers for PC and console versions: console sales are probably keeping the game afloat, or will, at some point. In fact, this may even be the turning point. They have to give the console people something from time to time. Yes, bug fixing helps everybody all along, but they don't show, like water pipe and underground infrastructure. Nothing is to say, though, bug fixing isn't also being carried out. Last I checked, designers and artists don't fix bugs, anyway. Better get them buttocks working on something.
  10. <S> Yes, I kinda feel we should stop discussing KSP MP. It takes nowhere because: a) People who don't want it won't understand that an eventual MP mode won't take away the SP mode; b) Said people won't allow a proper discussion to happen without derailing it, falling on circular reasoning, snow ball or strawman fallacies, or simply trying to shut it down with quasi-authoritarian claims about how MP would ruin their beloved SP game; c) People who actually want KSP MP will wait whatever time it takes to get it, although from time to time they'll nudge the devs, because of the anxiety resulting from the expectation and the lack of words coming from them; Yeah, let's not talk about KSP MP. Let's talk about politics, instead. Even considering the current political climate, it looks like it is a less toxic topic to go on with, here. </S> Diary entry nº. 178.189.665: Booted my KSP 1.6 for the first time, today, after a long time away from the game. Still no MP. Disappointing? Maybe, but the hope is not lost, at all. Fellow rebel forumates are still going on with the struggle against the Empire of the Singleplayers. New recruits join our ranks by the thousands every day! We WILL prevail! Our cause isn't lost! Our fight to end the tyranny of playing KSP alone is honorable by itself and our reason shines a beacon of enlightenment throughout the KSP Forum that all shall see! I will play it alone today. Yes, I will. But, tomorrow? Tomorrow will be the day I'll join my mates on an MP session to explode many a kerbal, their happy faces in joy and their clouds of puffs in an unison celebration! KSP players of the world, unite!