mattinoz
-
Posts
1,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by mattinoz
-
-
On 4/14/2023 at 8:44 PM, The Aziz said:
I don't like playing with strangers and I don't have any friends who would play it.
Depending how it works - you could use it to play with yourself.
Use different timelines for separating out unrelated missions. Set up an agency for long running special missions, then let them sync-in to the cannon as shorter timeframe agencies catch up. Joint venture with your own diverse group of agencies for complex missions.
-
Here's me thinking that would great engine arrays, blown away by space balls.
-
8 hours ago, Rosten said:
Life support would be an annoyance and I have no idea why people keep wanting annoyances in games. It's basically asking for timed missions. How many people like timed segments in games?
The challenge mostly, ie. the fun of beating a semi-realistic situation in different ways to see which one works the best. (replay value)
There are millions of dollars a year spent on games that rely on timing as a factor and KSP can't talk multi-player without people point out how fun a space race would be.
-
4 hours ago, Sequence said:
You make some fair points. I guess the real issue I was having was with too many mods and too little performance, so life support felt like an obvious thing to remove from my mod list. I hadn't thought about it in terms of the supply line features coming down the road.
Doesn't suggest that taking some of these mods pulling them in to the base game and optimising them would be a better plan.
Then not only would you have fewer mods but they'd each have for interface frontage to stay out of each other ways and avoid battling for resources.
-
The most disappointing thing about this is that with out a base game mechanic to act as a starting point we'll end up the same as KSP with thousands of close but not compatible LS mods so adding one LS factor would require a whole LS system in the mod to build that factor on.
If the game had a basic mechanic like USI-LS (picked at random as author is part of dev team but not sure he's alone as KSP dev team members who've written an LS mod) then at the very least we need to factor in enough mass for supplies as part of our designs. We get simple trade offs about speed to get there, how long to stay, how many crew to take. etc... other simple mass trade off items like recycling to save weight.
If base LS in place Someone wants to expand that then at least the leavers to pull in the mod are in place and another mod could pull the same leaver for another reason. Without it each builds a potential conflicting leaver or tries to pull the other ones leaver. ie. You could build a radiation exposure or health mod that triggered behaviour or lack of productivity as the low supplies state, instead of creating a whole new behaviour.
-
On 4/10/2022 at 4:36 AM, KSACheese said:
Personally, I disagree with fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters. I think that the game would lose a lot of it's lego-ness that I love so dearly. To be fair, it could definitely be useful in reducing part count and making rockets a bit more custom, but again, I think the "slap-it-all-together" nature is somewhat diminished when using procedural tanks and boosters. Also, a big challenge in KSP1, and likely again in KSP2, is being able to build what you can with the parts on-hand, and that is also messed up a bit when procedurals are introduced. If, however, they have limited presets (similar to those structural tube pieces in KSP1), or can be limited by what tech level you are at, I could get on board with it.
As far as SRBs go, however, I think and interesting solution would be to instead add solid fuel sections that can customize the burn time or thrust to a certain degree. If I am not mistaken, some SRBs in real life are segmented, but I may be wrong about this.
I completely agree with the structural parts, however. Sometimes a truss is either just a bit too short or a bit too long and can be quite frustrating. Completely agree.
Having had a mis-spent youth with a good hand me down lego collection the whole Procedural parts aren't lego like still confuses me.
I mean if I make a shape like a tank profile I can repeat that profile in one block high increments until I run out of blocks and It become one things as far as I'm concerns although it still could fall apart. Well just adapt to the changing situations on the fly.
ie Bring it on as far as procedural goes for me .
Tanks, booster, solar panels, wings the works. Have an off thread structural test in the part that might deform the tank in a future (milliseconds later) physics frame so the slow down happens as things go pear-shaped and you can watch the full glory of the explosion.
-
Would assume most major theme updates and DLC will each have a new system to well offer challengers specific to the each new game mechanic.
-
I am excited for the Mac edition
-
On 1/8/2023 at 8:07 AM, shdwlrd said:
Steve Jobs and his bizarre thoughts how his products should be used.
Steve Jobs showed the the first Halo demo seen in public at Macworld New York last century.
-
On 2/18/2023 at 7:02 AM, Chibbob said:
This is where 4 years of waiting, for 80% of us, end.
Who does that leave given the Mac/Linux 15% were dumped 6months ago?
-
I assume the Mun lander is caller R2-Detour?
-
Mac version or No Buy.
-
3 hours ago, pandaman said:
Do not under estimate the time, skill and 'vision' needed to create interesting planets (or anything actually), especially on the scale and detail level KSP2 needs. Even with efficient and 'easy to use' software.
Any worthwhile creative software naturally has its learning curve. It's only ever 'easy' when you get familiar with how it works.
Sure as long as we at the same time don't underestimate the time skill and vision of KSPs community content creators and their willingness to share tip tricks learnings with each other and interested newcomers.
The free publicity alone from foresting the community would sure cover maintenance and improvements of a tool that is used in house anyway.
-
On 2/12/2023 at 12:27 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
Please go back to 2019 and see if you can get them to listen.
Rover wheels were possessed in KSP.
Unless what you are trying to do is put the Kerbal back into orbit without a vehicle.
-
11 hours ago, Nazalassa said:
Late Merge?
-
3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
So I finally sat down and read this thread and it kind of confirmed what I suspected when I thought about this problem a couple years ago: its a neat idea but in practice it creates a rat’s nest of issues that kind if negate the benefits. Best solution is to have time move in one direction and just run concurrent missions with alarms and switch from vessel to vessel to execute burns as they come up. There are much less problematic and time consuming solutions to things like stage recovery. And yeah, it has some interesting implications for multiplayer but keeping things simple is the reason I no longer support the green ‘go back’ arrow in this diagram:
In terms of game play it would take many months even years in game time for something happening at duna to travel back to Kerbin. Then even with in the system thing happen far apart that getting them together to interact is a skill in it's own right.
How dense a game play situation are you expecting for this to be a real problem?
Oh well can always be a mod - might even be one before offical multi player once we get a look at the game save file structure.
-
4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:
How would NASA plan a rescue mission for another mission that hasn't happened yet? Bonus points if the rescue rocket has features you would only see in a rescue mission.
Don’t most of the current mars mission plan involve sending ‘rescue’ missions prior to the crewed mission?
supplies and tools not found in the original ship. Whole complete extra ships to come back to earth on.
the difference here is Ksp is a game it can be fun to find your crew in unintended consequences then be able to work backwards to avoid or add an escape route. Sure Kerbals have the luxury of time that humans don’t so you can just launch a rescue seconds after the accident fully customised a decade later the survivors are just sitting waiting. Still it would be more fun to work on incremental success instead of progressively failing.
-
On 2/7/2023 at 6:32 AM, Vl3d said:
There are no different branches. There's just the main timeline current time and the mission time. That's it. Events get recorded during the mission and get added to / placed on the main timeline. As time advanced the events of the main timeline take place.
The system is theoretically functional and allows for a lot of new cool gameplay mechanics.
Why not have different branches and just use one of the commonly available versioning systems to run it?
It looks like GIT anyway so why not use those tools. Solves the transport issues of remote low interaction multiple players by using a well known system and game can then concentrate on close and live multi-player interactions in game.
Ok so you need an editor that stops the merging with the main timeline to cause a paradox but in theory that could be as simple as blocking merges that paradox the timeline. Add say a system to that allows a contract to be issued in the past that solves the paradox if completed. or the player gets reverted to last stable position in their branch. I call it ground hog day mode.
Crash and brake something "its Groundhog Day again" and you find yourself back before last burn or change in sphere of influence.
Yes I'm a big fan of this idea. Let me plan by the seat of my pants. In the same way KSP wanted us to fly by the seat of our pants, crash, rinse, repeat, learn, laugh.
Edit to add:
Would love full "momento" mode ie have scenarios with say a capsule in reentry to KSP splashdown with 3 kerbals and bunch of science data on board from Mun or Duna or such and have to work backwards to put the mission together. Make great forum content as people post speed or efficiency runs.
-
11 hours ago, TheLoneOne said:
the terrain system in ksp never was designed to have the textures of planets change like that while you loaded into the game, so I feel like this is unfeasible because they would have to rewrite the entire terrain system and rendering and loading systems from scratch. Side effect: in the process, break every mod, and every saves. it would liquid off a lot of players basically. I presume its a similar situation with ksp 2.
The terrain system has from what we have been told been rewritten, restructured and rebuilt. So frankly we don't know what is capable of or could be capable of given the stated gaol of the new game was to set up for another 10 years of continual game play and Sales revenue (facts of life).
Sure what is being shown is a first step to take it from minimal product to system that could eat each of the bodies in the system to make a Dyson sphere would still be a massive under taking. overload this with multiplayer and it is certainly interesting.
If they even want to take it that far is also a big unknown but it would allow a decade of interesting scope maybe even 3. So understand if they are thinking that sort of overhaul is KSP3 in 2040.
I think it could be multiple DLC's not just one along this path. with say procedural (but still on rails) Planet generation in between before simple deformation of surfaces and caves and Kerbal made cravens for colonies.
-
Didn't the orginal Mk1 cockpit look like this before it was replaced with the GA style Mk1 Cockpit?
Agree they should have added the new one to the game instead of replacing.
-
On 1/7/2023 at 11:11 AM, Vl3d said:
Maybe, but where? Maybe replacing the small lakes towards the East (lower part of the image)? There's a big hill on the left next to the runways so there's no room there. There could also be some room between launchpads 2 and 3, but that area should always be empty in case of RUDs.
Seems to be some structures hidden by the rocket burn at far end of runway.
-
The original dev team said a few times in years they wanted something like this in game.
it would certainly be advantageous -
21 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
But wait! There’s more!
Similar to a sand storage battery on earth.
I'd assume with radiators out the the inky blackness of space and ground coupling to large thermal mass. there would be someway to have a heat engine making power all night at least.
-
On 11/24/2022 at 6:49 PM, jastrone said:
i have heard this before on the forum and it seems like a pretty popular idea but the main issue is that tou would have to do one boring mission where you just send an exploration sattelite to a new place.
Why boring?
Those missions in real lift have been pretty inspiring voyages of discovery. If anything it would be great if progression made trips like that more valuable gameplay wise. More mapping a discovery parts in the early stages, tighter launch loads or less progression points on Kerbin so gravity slingshots to do flybys has good gameplay targeting.
Those sorts of missions could be fun challenges with high rewards both in terms of skills and opening up the game world.
Imagining Dragons
in KSP2 Dev Updates
Posted
Would it be easier if it worked reverse. Instead predicting a mass left on particular trajectory. Let use set the mass we want at a location then play with different options of getting it there see both the path and the Delta-v needed.
Pull that into the VAB for to use to predict a stage and how much "pilot error" that design might cope with.