NWDogg

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About NWDogg

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Yep, I'd definitely buy that DLC. I'd buy any DLC that Squad put out right now, to be honest, no matter what content it contained. A Realism Overhaul-style expansion/add-on/spinoff title is the one I'd be most interested in. I think, though, that to be an effective and valuable DLC, this theoretical Realism Expansion should be a completely separate executable from the base KSP game. When you load the game, the entire experience should be based around the real solar system, with all references to Kerbals and the Kerbal system replaced with real-world references (planets, correct orbits, humans, etc...). Aside from simply changing everything in the game, the point of having a separate executable would be to alleviate the resource restrictions that KSP faces now--with all the new things that a proper Realism expansion would bring, I don't think it could run side-by-side with the entire vanilla game without making major sacrifices (even with the Unity 5 and possible x64 updates). Don't take me the wrong way, I think the current Realism Overhaul mod set is amazing, but it really could be so much more. So much more, in fact, that I'd be willing to pay KSP's full price or more for this theoretical expansion or spinoff.
  2. Is it at all possible that Squad has sneaked in some optimization methods during their move to Unity 5, and just haven't announced them yet? Things like on-the-fly part welding, on-demand texture loading, asset unloading, etc.. I can't see how they will be able to get a very high quality port onto the Wii U without some major optimizations like this. PS4 and Xbone, sure, they mostly have the power for it, and just need a UI update (which Squad already announced anyway.) The RAM limitations of Wii U are the biggest worry, as has been stated already, and it just seems like without *something* done to the way the game actually works, the port just won't work that well. Or maybe it will, and Flying Tiger are awesome at porting, who knows? I am not against porting to other systems at all. I love the idea, in fact. I can see KSP getting to near-Minecraft levels of popularity, especially since this game actually has characters with real...character. Minecraft has no real 'character', in either sense of the word, and yet that sees books, toys, game spinoffs, the works. A Kerbal movie and cartoon series wouldn't be out of the question if it even becomes somewhat successful on consoles. However, none of that is possible if the console ports don't work or are very sub-par, so I am *very cautiously* optimistic about this.
  3. Just for reference, you can drag the entire KSP directory out of steamapps and copy it anywhere you want on your system, as many copies as you want. When you do this, Steam won't touch those directories and so you can continue to use older versions even after Steam updates KSP. It is hard to roll back if you haven't made any backup directories, though.
  4. This looks interesting, but I couldn't gather much from the limited info in the OP. Is this an original mod, with parts and plugins exclusive to this mod? Or, is this just a collection of other mods/pieces of mods bundled together as a sort of 'modpack' deal to create a specific gameplay experience? As a rather large pack, I'm not so inclined to load up a new install just to find out what it is. If it is original, I'll certainly give it a go...it looks cool from the couple screens you've shown. If it's just a large modpack, though, I'll pass for now. Edit: Ok, I see the line that says it's modified parts and original parts. That line might be better suited at the very top of the thread, and in a font size that stands out more than the rest. I passed it right up the first 2 times I looked it over. Anyway, I'll give this a go, looks interesting.
  5. I'm glad you brought this up. I find the new stock fairings to be absolutely atrocious to build. I swear, I've fiddled around with trying to build simple fairings more than I've actually flown since 1.0. Does anyone else get the problem where the fairings won't recognize a left-click, and so won't place the next section? I am getting that constantly. Maybe 1 time out of 50 it will actually work, and when it does it's while the current piece I'm moving is bulged out 30 feet. And if I do get lucky and manage to build the fairing to the top, it won't register the final click to set the tip piece...until 50 clicks later when it decides to register twice and then deletes the whole thing. Thank god procedural fairings is updated, because these stock fairings make me want to throw my pc into a wall. You're absolutely right, these are definitely the worst thing about post-1.0 KSP (way worse than the iffy aero model.)
  6. I thought Squad was going to implement the ability to switch up the aero model in-game, perhaps with a toggle in the menu or something. What happened to that? I think that would solve quite a bit of issues people are having, as the creative crowd could still fly their awesome-looking designs with the more-forgiving old aero model, and the realism crowd could have the nice semi-realistic aero they wanted. Sure, there's the incompatibility problem with ship sharing, but that's a very minor issue compared to a (seemingly) good portion of the player-base not enjoying the game anymore. Besides, this is the same discussion that was had when realistic-aero was first suggested. The creative crowd didn't want it, the realism crowd obviously did...the only proper solution (that I can think of, anyway) is to allow a toggle for the aero between old/new. That's it. Some creative people will eventually come around to like the realism, but not all, and some realism people will want to mess around with crazy designs sometimes. So the game needs that one little option.
  7. I agree with that. I don't see much of a point in dumbing down anything in this game, in fact I'd much rather KSP be like Orbiter with rocket-building than the game it is now, but most other players aren't like that. Even in this thread, there are differing opinions on how Kerbals should respond to lack of life support. Maybe a sliding scale from 'absolute death' to 'just taking a break' would solve that problem, but I can still see plenty others.
  8. I'm a long-time FAR user, so I got fairly accustomed to launching just about anything in that model. The new stock aero, though, feels off to me. I don't know how to explain it, but 1.02 stock feels much more difficult to maintain control on rockets than FAR ever did. In .90 FAR, I could launch single-stack rockets with no fins easily, but in this new stock I've been having trouble keeping any rocket (with fins, no fins, fins up high, fins down low, reaction wheels, RCS, etc...) from flipping straight over. I also have trouble getting anything other than the 3.75m parts into orbit. My 2.5m designs flip wildly at around 15km, and I haven't gotten a 1.5m stack past 30km Ap. I don't know what the difference is between FAR and this new stock, but new stock is absolutely more difficult than FAR ever was, for me. That said...I do actually like the new aero. It feels so much better than stock ever did before, and I'm not giving up on the new challenges. I look forward to nuFAR being released, because I much prefer the feel of FAR, but I can live with this new aero model until then.
  9. I think the majority would like to have some sort of life support system in game, but the problem lies in how it is implemented. As you know, there are several mods that currently or have tried to implement such a system in an interesting way, but the nature of life support means that this system is going to be mostly passive. Each of these mods does things a little differently, but it ultimately boils down to 'do I have enough X resource on the ship?' rather than adding any meaningful gameplay decisions. Now, I suppose one could ramp up the interactivity of life support mods and implement a system that would need to be monitored and checked and adjusted continuously. That may fix the passive problem, but then you run into the very likely situation that it becomes micro-management, grindy, or just plain annoying to deal with. So no matter which type of system you make, passive or interactive, there are gameplay problems that come with them, and not a lot of benefit to be gained. As well, there are varying opinions on how Kerbals should respond...should they die? or simply become inactive for a while? Or maybe even some other gameplay detriment/effect. There are many possibilities, so no 1 system can effectively cover what each player expects. The best bet with this is simply to allow the player to choose which type of life support system (or not) they want to use. There are several mods that do the job wonderfully, but differently enough that they are distinct. If Squad implemented such a system into stock, it would maybe satisfy 1/4th of the players, while the rest are looking for something completely different anyway. I'm not saying they couldn't do it...they certainly could...but their time is probably better spent implementing other features and fixes to the rest of the game, while leaving relatively minor stuff like this to the modders.
  10. While I think that the aero overhaul and bugfixing are necessary for 1.0, I honestly think you should consider pushing the balancing back to 1.1. There are going to be plenty of out-there scenarios and situations that won't get covered in testing, inevitably, so there very well could still be balance issues after 1.0. The same goes for bugs too, but it's best to squash as many of those as possible at every opportunity. As for the feature set...I dunno, of course it is your call but you will get bugs introduced with these new features no matter what. You will need to fix bugs after 1.0, and if you hold back features until 1.1, you will need to fix bugs after 1.1 as well. Plus, again with the balancing, once you introduce new features you will need to re-evaluate the balance of parts again. To me, it seems like pulling off a Band-Aid. Do it all at once and get the pain out of the way, or do it slowly and feel the pain the whole time. I would tear it off quickly, if it were up to me. (I also guarantee I'm the only one of this opinion, so you should probably go with what everyone else says.)
  11. I was just looking for a way to get some sort of Night or dark theme for these forums, and I see I'm not the only one. It's unfortunate that it isn't an option. Reddit (or RES anyway) has a white-on-black night theme that is easily 1000 times easier to read than this forum. I, unfortunately, can't stand to look at this forum for more than a few minutes at a time before my eyes hurt...and it's a shame because I much prefer this forum over the subreddit.
  12. Wonder if the thread regarding 3d printing of ships has something to do with this? Seems to fit the bill, even if in idea only.
  13. Maybe, just maybe, they've partnered with some sort of animation studio to create a Kerbal cartoon or web series, or something. Or perhaps a Kerbal comic book. Maybe a collaboration with a new toy/merchandise manufacturer to create a line of Kerbal action figures. I seriously doubt [snip] a partnership with a major publisher/developer. I would like to see a SpaceX-themed pack like they did with NASA, but I doubt that is it either. I would put money on it being something outside of the game industry, like toys or cartoons or comics. Something along those lines.
  14. Kethane has that cool hex-grid-based map view, but past that Karbonite is in every way more fully featured, easier to use, and flat out better, in my humble opinion. I never could really get into using Kethane, even though I had it installed for over a year before Karbonite was released. As soon as it was, though, Karbonite quickly replaced Kethane for me and I haven't looked back. The only major problem with Karbonite originally, the ugly orange blobs, was solved quite a while ago and replaced with a much more elegant biome-based system. So Karbonite for me, definitely. Are there even any other options besides these 2? I can't think of any.
  15. I'm just guessing obviously, but I wouldn't count on it taking much longer than the previous few updates. I have a feeling that Squad has all their ducks in a row right now, and are barreling along as quickly as they can. Why they are doing this, I have no speculation, but it seems to me that they are planning on this update being out soon. Like, soon without the trademark symbol. I'm in the 'Yes, it's gonna be ready' camp, but if I'm right about this...that they are hurrying along this update...then maybe some of the concerns raised in this thread are valid (rather, more valid than they already are.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't be the only one that is reading into this a 'quick approach' for this update.