Jump to content

shdwlrd

Members
  • Posts

    2,001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shdwlrd

  1. No, I think planet pack was KSS10 or something like that. The Toy Planet mod was a bunch parts ranging from 100m to 1.5m in the form of the Kerbin celestial bodies minus the sun. (I did make a Kerbin version of the solar system ship from Andromeda with them.) People have already done the math for Kerbin in the past. The planet would have to be denser than Uranium or Plutonium to have the gravity constant the same as an Earth like planet. (Definitely possible in the grand scheme of the universal unknowns, but not with our current knowledge.)
  2. That's why the whole Kerbal universe is considered a toy universe by some. Unrealistically small celestial bodies.
  3. Betty - What is that? Bill - It's Jeb up to his old tricks. Please smile for the camera. I don't want to be here when he gets here.
  4. A fairing that can be both procedural and manual wouldn't be that difficult to do. If you think it is, you're over thinking it. This is a part level option, not one that would affect the whole of the game. You either choose to create the fairing manually or have the system create one for you. It's not that complicated.
  5. Yes, KSP2 is playable. No, it isn't fun to play. Once KSP2 surpasses KSP1 in features or someone makes an autopilot mod, I won't find KSP2 fun.
  6. I miss the procedural fairings mod. Much less headaches than the manual fairings.
  7. Puzzles won't be good for the more routine day to day science gathering. It would become tedious very quickly. I can see doing puzzles for the science breakthroughs though. I can see it as a small distraction to the routine of the game.
  8. I would say that most in this group do have a clear opinion. They may not choose to share it publicly, or have already shared their opinions without screaming it from a soapbox whenever they can. They may not want to interact with a community beyond sharing cool screen shots, mission reports, and bug reports. Overall, not getting too worked up for something out of their control and (hopefully) enjoying the game in their unique ways.
  9. Yeah, it's kind of a pain. I was hoping you could surface attach things to the wings. One thing I would like to add to this list is the ability to add multiple control surfaces to the wing. So you can have separate control surfaces for pitch and roll.
  10. It was mentioned that they intend on using DOTS for later parts of the game. (Primarily the background resource tracking.) Intercept knows the flaws of KSP1 and intend on not repeating them. (How successful they will be has yet to be determined.)
  11. Love the fact you have to use the polite corporate speak of "It's not happening."
  12. If you're referring to the tutorial screens when you land (crash?) You should be able to turn those off when you start a new save. (Maybe also in your current save, never looked.) They are there to help you not feel bad about crashing and to offer "training" to help you not do it again. Also, who knows how Kerbals deal with death.
  13. I'm thinking of a physicsless part that would mimic a spinning prop.
  14. that's cool. makes me miss the flapjack. any chance to get some fake prop parts for a build like this?
  15. No problem. It's not to bad of a bug. Just annoying to find your test pilot missing. And figuring out that they love the craft so much they want to live there now. (Why? I don't know. There's not a lot of room in a inline Mk1 cockpit or capsule. A Mk3 cockpit has a bunch more room. But it's their choice for now.)
  16. Nope, that doesn't always work. I've lost Jeb, Val, and Bob to the workspaces. I've always created a new workspace for new craft. It will always select the next Kerbal in line unless I physically pull the Kerbal out of the craft prior to closing the workspace.
  17. You really think that? Most of the time I spend on the forums is skipping the same complaints over and over again by the same people. The same rehashed arguments, the same rehashed accusations, the same rehashed meaningless data. I mean almost every single thread in this section and the dev dairies decends into enough bickering, gaslighting, flame baiting that the mods are censoring the threads to keep them on topic and within guidelines. Am I happy visiting the forums? No, not anymore. Why? Because the negatively is so great that there no possibility of having a constructive debate without it turning into a echo chamber of the same meaningless and unwarranted arguments about KSP2 development failings and short comings that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I'm sick of the degrading rhetoric against the devs, the studio, the game itself, and the people who actually want KSP2 to succeed. This forum is very toxic with unwarranted hostility to any positive outlook for KSP2. At this point, I find this ringing true on here more and more. "The biggest waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who doesn’t care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on discussions that make no sense. There are people who, for all the evidence presented to them, do not have the ability to understand. Others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and the only thing that they want is to be right even if they aren't."
  18. Most were closed cause they devolved into shouting matches and insults. Plus this is the 4th time I think this subject has been brought up. Beating dead horses comes to mind.
  19. I think it will be the case similar to Valhiem, Avorion, Space Engineers. The multiplayer experience is meant for a small group of friends. Any public or large scale servers are your problem and IG won't officially support them. At least at first anyway. So player beware.
  20. HarvesteR has his own game to develop. (Which looks like fun.) Why would he return to KSP? Why would a billionaire invest in developing a niche game with an AAA number of developers? Not enough return on investment. I wouldn't even go into the game stop comment. Definitely dreaming there bud. Just remember to stay positive when you realize you're back in reality after waking.
  21. That was what I was thinking. But I thought up another reason to be able to tune the jet engines, exoplanets with atmospheres. After remembering that the rocket formula is a truncated form of the thrust formula, I remembered that atmospheric composition, pressure, temperature, and intake rates all affect the amount of thrust that a jet can produce. (All this after reading that it's getting hot enough in Arizona to be worried about some aircraft not being able to take-off. Hot dry weather is bad for flying.) Also super cruise without spamming engines.
  22. Thanks Nertea for the in depth explanation of how thermals will work.
  23. Yes and no. All the jet engines needs an increase to their thrust in my opinion. My gripe comes to the Pather engine. The dry thrust is lethargic at best, the wet thrust is insane. Let's take the plane I was flying. The typical acceleration was 1-5m/s/s for cruise mode. But with the afterburner, the acceleration was around 10-15m/s/s. I can't give hard numbers, but I know the afterburner mode is too powerful. (Not that it's a bad thing.) I think that for the Pather, you should be able to tune both the dry and wet thrust separate from each other. Ended up getting off my point. You should be able to tune all the parameters within the operational envelope for each engine. If you want a low and slow plane, you should be able to tune the max altitude and power curve to facilitate that. If you want that huge cargo plane to have the best efficiency at high subsonic speeds and high altitude, you should be able to fine tune that.
  24. I don't know if this is related or something different, but I've noticed that when you adjust the position or size of a wing or stabilizer, the left side will always invert. In most cases, it will return to normal once you complete the move or save the changes.
×
×
  • Create New...