Jump to content

mattinoz

Members
  • Posts

    1,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mattinoz

  1. It also make the game more modable if there is a base game system that makes a structure that is consistent. Gives the mods something to hang one without making a system from scratch. You don't need 6 competing life support systems with a vast array of mods compatible with half of them if there is a solid base. They don't need to go overboard either, concentrate on good game play then if a modder wants to make a process around making x-factor more realistic they can.
  2. Lets face if you are still going to push to limits as you get better and tutorials trigger based on failure then I'll probably still see all of them anyway and take a moment to enjoy.
  3. If you divide the universe in to manageable chunks for the physics engine when it seems odd to me ruling out using that mini-verse to create the local gravity playground. Assuming the system will include visible bodies then the central sun(s) of the system are likely to be included unless a long way out. Seems to me it would be less complicated long term to have a system handle it than to fine tune it be hand. Sure systems will be on rails and craft will be able to go on rails to avoid station keeping. I do wonder if it will be possible to get in such a low system gravity situation that kerbals will be sub-orbital to a colony ship when EVA.
  4. https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/dev-diaries/developer-insights-4-ksp2-engineering/ According. to this early insights there will be multiple places in the game that more than 1 body physics will be applicable Rask/Rusk is only one example of it. There was early talk of a spacial graph that extracted mini-scenes that a craft was in assuming that system is what decides how many bodies have enough gravitational influence but I doubt it ramp up based on system specs as that would make it harder for new players to learn from more experienced players with better hardware.
  5. I did pay for 1 to 2 dlc expansions a year say 8-9 month turnaround would need to be like KSP expansion and each one include a new game machanic or system a bunch of parts toys to go with that and a new system that really challenges the system. wouldn’t pay individually for parts. Would love to see collaborations with moders in the DLC packs. if paying a mod craft sharing would rather that be direct with producer. would subscribe to host or share hosting costs of a private multi player game.
  6. The first question about docking we’d need an answer for is does the game with its new spacial graph, multiplayer and such consider the craft merged in to on craft when docked or do they now remain 2 or more. requiring a explicit merging to allow space construction without merging with the construction platform. then all the construction clamps also come in the play as options.
  7. Shame they didn't sneak an ice cream minus 2 in one of the other systems at the right distance. Well not that we know of...
  8. I might be about to say something dumb but... if the star exhaust had energy to cause damage when it seem to me it would be worth while having some deflector round the engine to push it in the direction of exhaust. Indeed the engines around would reflect in the wrong direction and reduce thrust. Given the evidence we have to date seem like its harmless.
  9. So looks like 1 month less each time between tentpole videos. Only one tentpole left with modding/multiplayer.... that tentpole would indeed make sense to be followed by a Community Stalwart event of well known moders and streamer which means beta release ready to play say a month after. So thinking release 4 +1 + 1 months just in time to built hype for xmas.
  10. and Modding in same video last tentpoles of the announcement all that time ago.
  11. Multiplayer and KSP2 community I'm sure we'll see many of these things. And mods for the ones that can't be done in stock
  12. Yes every command pod should be fit for a purpose any features for that purpose should be assumed to be installed by the engineer in the design team responsible. Sure pods would get better over time have more function to service new purpose but should fit a mission profile the player would currently be targeting. Sure that probably means a bigger range of Pods or support pods. I mean you wouldn't send an Apollo to Mars so you shouldn't expect it to have the function required to get there.
  13. Anything floating around "nearby*" would seem to be fair game. Junk, Moons, asteroids, planets. anywhere with a lower launch cost than from the surface. Kerbals have advantage over us a lower launch cost and well there dense *nearby would seem to be relative to the Dv used to get it and where the fuel for the Dv comes from.
  14. Surely the point of building in space is to use material from space instead of launching it. I which case you only need to launch the smallest machine that can build something bigger. Just don't install the the ravenous AI on it. Would think a bunch of 3D printer drones just restocking them with ribbon somehow like harvesting space junk.
  15. I want to build a network of asteroid cycler colonies that harvest nearby small asteroids to feed the machine on them to build a supply of escape pods for delivering passengers and cargo to destinations as they pass. Bonus points if they can railgun or "spinner-apolt" the escape pods towards the destination to reduce fuel supplies needed.
  16. Failing that you could just spin your craft up to speed during the orbit breaking burn. Plus continuous acceleration on rails will give semi-offical gravity like in the expanse. Seem KSP2 has most bases covered from what we have seen.
  17. Well sure we hear you but.... the radiators already look a lot like solar panels and the game is modable .... So do you want to have us using a half hearted mod that converts the radiators into solar panels and posts creations of things not intended by the game but still massive fun to build that need procedural solar panels. First thought I had was solar and radiator domes for colonies. Maybe cover over a small carter with geothermal power plant inside making a nice location for crops.
  18. Yes the planets aren’t cool at all and hanging out there for a long time isn’t going to be fun… they are balls of molten planet after all. I see a lot of mia kerbals trying to get surface samples.
  19. Isn’t there a nuc engine in game that works by dropping bombs out the back and detonating them every few seconds based on throttle settings. If system handles that then isn’t that conceptual similar to a bucket of x tonnes of resources turning up every few minutes. It is a flow that averages to x per second but visually could be contained in bursts.
  20. No but do turn on AppleTV screensavers of basically the same thing shot from the ISS.
  21. It would be good if the space centre had a few additional pads (like we've seen in videos) to land on out of the way of the main building. Landing on the top of the VAB might be fun but it's not the place to learn.
  22. Pitch: Kerbal Screensaver for desktops and TV. ... Timelapse videos of all the places your kerbals are currently hanging out on your multiplayer server.
  23. Firing off to space was never my problem..... unplanned, uncrafted re-entry was always my problem.
×
×
  • Create New...