mattinoz

Members
  • Content Count

    771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

359 Excellent

About mattinoz

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If they use a good model like USI LS that is simple then the player is well advanced before life support concerns kick in and provide them a new level of not unexpected challenge. i found the lack the life support in vanilla immersion breaking once you had crew in space for weeks if not years at a time. Still they can have fun with it and make it very kerbal but see no reason to turn it off if parts are assumed to forfill a certain roll.
  2. In the case noted couldn't you do a multipass aerobrake. say 3 passes so you could dump the heatshield for the final pass when the craft is slow enough to deal with reentry heat. Add a small probe core and engines on the shield boosts it out of atmosphere set it up to rendezvous with a tug to take it back. Although kOS makes these sorts of things more fun build test fly once get to use them on going. Deflation would still be useful here to make the easy to pack on to a tug for the return journey.
  3. Could be the elements are designed to go over an artwork chrome not yet in game. They should go one way or other even both. Cockpit base chrome to tie it together and control locations or no chrome and transparency.
  4. Would be nice to have a glide path that skirts the mountain range.
  5. I believe I too would clap mid presentation for sub-assembly editing while not attached. Hoping maybe sub-assemblies created this way or added to library will "symbolised" so editing effects all instances. Even maybe allow you to carry over improvements to a sub-assembly to another launch of an older craft.
  6. Somewhere between South Africa and Perth according to https://www.antipodesmap.com/ Well that explains the heavy coat.
  7. In the video they show the build on pad but I'm sure they said this was just for the video. Still would be one way to make build time a thing.
  8. Given they are setting a price that is higher than most people have paid for stock and all DLC they better deliver a fair amount of content. That said modern US accounting basically requires them to DLC us once a year to even keep staff on the project.
  9. Instead of a part or a new ability it could be tied to Kerbals themselves. Give them learnable skills and assignable to facilities. So it becomes part of the game to balance keeping Kerbals Safe vs sending them on adventures so they learn new things. Instead of upgrading facilities like the tracking station, mission control or training centre the capacity of these would be tied to the staff assigned to them or the remote counterparts.
  10. I'd think per-save (even per-situation) asset loading and activation including mods would be a massive bonus to KSP2. The sort of thing that would set up the game for 10years of future development. It was talked about as an aim in early Developer blogs but dropped out of discussions.
  11. Also said files are not compatible with no plans to make them compatible. Which to me suggests complete change to how data is structured in the file.
  12. Why just 4? also begs the question will we have different docking systems in KSP2? always seemed odd the ships merged to one but not in a very structural way. I wonder if we’ll have docking that is softer less structural again, then maybe two steps up from there being stowed for other craft in cargo bays. Plus construction than embeds the parts into the main craft.