Sudslv

Members
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Sudslv

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. I guess you didn't look at any of those photographs. you can clearly see that in the real life picture there is detail, which isn't present in KSP. You can see rivers with certain shapes,grass, distinct mountains, clouds, ect. meanwhile in KSP it is just a very bad quality texture spread over dune-like land with no detail in it. Im not asking KSP to be looking exactly like real life. I just want there to be some kind of detail in it (mountains that resemble mountains, lakes, ponds, rivers and so on). it doesn't have to be very detailed either. We clearly see how good is the modder community for this game, so i wouldn't see a reason why squad couldn't make an SDK tool for making terrain in KSP. It would be a lot easier handling the huge map of KSP and im sure there would show up plenty of people who would contribute free of cost and put some detail into the map. The problem is that squad is acting weird and are heading to closing the KSP project and starting something else. As someone else said in this thread, that they have cut some planned features. and the last several updates don't justify the time it took to implement them - the Mk 1-3 part hd reskins aren't made by squad and the deadly reentry and FAR were out long before 0.90 and 1.0 I have said it before - i cant name any other project with this big potential as KSP. It just needs a bit more features to make it more obsolete. I agree that we need optimization but even the KSP developers are human and by doing the same thing for a long time they can lose interest in it, so new unique stuff to do could keep everyone, squad included, more interested in it. Im so agitated by all this is because of those recent titles that have been coming up - bread,goat,island survival,ect. simulators. They show potential but when the last wave of people who will spend money on it passes it gets abandoned and in my view Squad is heading that way.
  2. I am skeptical about squad releasing any major map improvements because of those huge version leaps. As well we can never know who could take on continuing improving the KSP. After all it wouldn't be the same working on a dead project. I really hope that squad wont abandon it so early (or maybye not that early - 4 years). Time will show us.
  3. I would disagree on that, by making the game FEEL finished the devs will start to think that it IS finished therefore as i mentioned previously - abandoning the project. there are some inconsistencies in game mechanics but really for us - the people who know about KSP longer than 0.90 it feels like we have seen everything, i like building stuff, in this case spacecrafts, but once they are built it would be good to make some use of them by doing something progressive/fun. in previous post i talked about the map, but aswell just by adding lets say 10 unique science parts that do some actual science beyond logging a data (like leaving something like a drill mining for several days and analyzing the ores found on this body or making an experiment on how magnetic poles have developed on certain body), squad could attract more players and give us the same feeling when we started playing the game. Just by adding bunch of small parts that can have multiple uses will make the game more fun and greatly expand the gameplay time before getting bored. There is kerbalEDU which is supposed to help in education and i believe by adding stuff that does real science (same as NASA) we could not only have fun, but learn about something. before i started playing KSP i knew pretty much nothing about how orbital mechanics work.
  4. The game is not even done and they do 2 big jumps from 0.25>0.90>.1.0 its like saying "okay we are done with this game, most of the people who would buy the game have already done it, so lets speed up the final version, fix few bugs and start a new project". the game is FAR from 1.0 Other than making and flying rockets/airplanes/rovers there is nothing to do. Its like all these bread simulator/goat and what not simulators where they just give you few features, suck out the money and abandon it as the hype goes over. What they really should do is add all sorts of things to all the planets and add those other planets that they have been promising us (gas planet1-2 and their moons) Currently the KSP looks great and i cannot name any other project with a greater potential. If you would take a bit of time to just fly around the plants you may get disappointed because there is nothing to fly to. I would want to see lots and lots of things like "the mun arch", but with better texture colliding so it wouldn't stand out so much as a foreign object. The surface of planets need to be reworked because its mostly all bumpy without real flat surfaces (big fields of grasslands instead of the more unrealistic bumpiness everywhere (but it just might be me as i'm living in an area with highest mountain peak 300m ASL and mostly 30-60m ASL)) and the mountains look bad. what i would want to see is: -water bodies above sea level -detailed mountains(at least 2x more than what they are now) -dozens of lakes, ponds, streams, rivers -caves (of all altitudes, underwater as well) -Detailed, more realistic water -natural objects of interest (volcanoes, waterfalls, mountains with steep falls and holes to fly through, ect.) -Some signs of kerbal presence (in kerbin/mun) - Dams, observatories(detailed arecibo observatory would look really good) , cities, random buildings, monuments, ect. And these are just about the map, there are plenty of things to add in science, parts, gameplay, career... Im hoping that the worst case of squad slowly abandoning KSP unfinished isn't currently happening and that they might once in a lifetime check the suggestions forum because there are SO much of things that should be added, but unfortunately there are more of those which should not. Tundra in KSP: Tundra in real life: So you can see some differences. And rethink if KSP should be 1.0
  5. i cannot agree more on the career mode, its completely broken and doesn't make sense ( thats why im sticking only to science mode untill career is fixed). All these part testing contracts and what not, don't make sense. There was a mod which added some game objectives like dropping a bomb in certain location and getting money for it, so it would add weapons to the game (Which in no way possible could break the game mechanics, only open new possibilities, what the player can do). So it would make moderate amount of sense if once in a while some army kerbal character would show up and ask you to use your rocketry skills to destroy a certain enemy or something like that. aswell other contracts which would just ask you to go to some location and inspect something (like meteor crater, poisonous lake, wierd hole, ect.) anyways i hope everyone gets my idea, enough ridiculous part testing contracts and add something real that gives the player impression like he's actually doing something progressive. In my opinion the career mode should have its own story (possibly with cutscenes). I may make a suggestion thread of my own where i can better elaborate what i want to see in future KSP.
  6. how to make models?

    Got the answer on different thread - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119044-How-do-I-make-a-collision-mesh-for-ksp-1-0-%28for-my-own-mod%29
  7. To the OP: Parts mod-http://www./download/mw...+Parttools.zip / http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/230125-part-tools-0-23 Tutorial- Tested and working.
  8. Could you give a download link to KSP part tools (1.0)?
  9. same problem, can any of all those modelers help out? btw, this should be moved to Modelling and Texturing Discussion
  10. So i spent a lot of time search around internet and couldn't find any tutorials on how to make models for kerbal space program using blender. im confused how to get the .mu file out of .dae/.fbx/.obj anyone can point out some kind of tutorial on how its done? i tried getting the part tools provided by ksp but all of the downloads lead to ksp main page. any of modelers here can simply share how they get from blender to KSP? Im interested in making buildings to be placed using kerbal konstruct.
  11. it was a very fast and simple build and i think i will redo it and create an actual working 120+ t eeloo orbit and return however i dont plan to go 100% reusable on that, thats overkill for me. it was a 100% vanilla build so i wont use these "nuclear generators", the solar panels was just for show and a bit for making it 125~ tons. As well the thread seems to be [Answered], the OP splitted his ship or went with something like i have displayed. i think i could have increased dV by swapping engines for aerospike, but that would increase burn time.
  12. so i spent a bit of time calculating and experimenting. i ended up building a massive interstellar ship which gives me 7.2k dV and probably someone like scott manley could make Eeloo land and return 100% reusable. to assemble it in LKO it requires 7 launches (can be less). i would never suggest to do single mission for such a massive payload. split it up 3-4x. P.S. there is a dV limit for all engines in ksp! back front The big 2 front fuel tanks weight 124T
  13. is kerbtown open source? it should be as the dev seems to be inactive. this is the best way to place static objects in game, hopefully squad will make something similar to this with extra features (terrain editing,ect).
  14. is kerbtown open source? it should be as the dev seems to be inactive. this is som
  15. Ejectable Engine Fairings

    i would like to see all stock engines have 1-4 fairings. probably: tiny 1 , small 2 , medium 2-3 , big 3-4. it feels more realistic other than having these ugly covers over them.