Jump to content

Red Iron Crown

Members
  • Posts

    15,114
  • Joined

Everything posted by Red Iron Crown

  1. That sounds doubleplusgood!
  2. To those who argue it must be a hard g because the g stands for "graphics" I ask: How do you pronounce "jpeg"? What does the p in jpeg stand for? And finally: Why are you a hypocrite?
  3. Soft G is the only correct answer. I will die on this hill.
  4. Been a fun ride for the past decade with this game. Sad to see development ending but all good things... All the best to the developers and staff, both past and present. Thanks for all your hard work and I hope your next endeavors are as successful as KSP has been.
  5. Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated.
  6. I feel like everyone missed the "and and" you were pointing out.
  7. The EDU version of KSP uses DRM. Perhaps more understandable in that context as piracy is particularly rampant in edu settings, and not just (or even mostly) by students.
  8. As I recall @vexx32 was the true ringleader of that particular bit of silliness. I miss that guy, hands down the best riddle writer on the forum.
  9. Except for the part where they say I created the Green Iron Crown account. The last post in that thread is a more accurate account even if the poster is a bit of a jerk.
  10. Rumors of my Canadianness are completely unexaggerated.
  11. This assumes that telling exactly what happened would paint them in a more favorable light, that is far from obvious. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Superfluous Horseman. We don't have all the facts, we likely will never have all the facts. Stuff happens. I try not to play politics with gaming. If the game is appealing to me I'll buy it, I don't care what people say about the company. If the game is not appealing I will not buy it, no matter how awesome the company. I think the gaming market in general reacts this way, so if they are concerned about sales by far the best thing they can do is produce the best possible game by whatever means they have.
  12. The fundamental problem of multiplayer timewarp hasn't changed, it's still: Waiting or sync issues, choose one. Hopefully you will be able to choose which better suits the game you have in mind.
  13. /me looks at icy poles of Earth /me looks at liquid water equator of Earth Earth is so unrealistic.
  14. I used to help out with the forum To help maintain its decorum Had to dish out infractions For all the troll actions But now I can safely ignore 'em.
  15. #2 is already implemented, pressing the / key cancels time warp.
  16. To include L3, L4 and L5 would require an SoI much larger than the diameter of the child body's orbital diameter... that would require including the parent body in the SoI. At that point it stops being an SoI and starts being something else. So how do you determine the radii of these not-SoIs? What happens at the transition from one to another? Why are we reinventing the wheel when a wealth of existing knowledge about solving n-body problems already exists? What new problems are being created by using this half implemented model? It's not rude or unfair to point out that other games have solved this problem, or not to accept "math is hard" as an excuse for not implementing it. If it's a design decision to stick with Keplerian then that's the dev's prerogative (a decision I agreed with for KSP1), but to say "we want a more accurate model but can't be bothered to do n-body" is a cop out, IMO.
  17. SoI sizes aren't arbitrary. They're where the gravity of one body starts to dominate that from the other. Even if they were, an SoI would have to be stupidly large to include points other than L1 and L2. My opinion on this is to do it correctly or not at all. I've had quite my fill of half-baked implementations in this game. There has long been a working n-body implementation for KSP in the Principia mod as well as n-body physics in other space games, so we don't need to pretend that it's some sort of intractable problem for a video game.
  18. None of the Lagrange points would be inside the SoI of the smaller body though. This suggestion is unworkable on its face. I'd say either do full on n-body or stick with the Keplerian model already in use. Unpopular opinion: LaGrange points aren't that useful. They're a novelty at first and then almost entirely ignored after.
  19. Nope. @Dman979, he seems to be the latest reply on 50% of the forum games.
  20. Make it cartoony, so it's funny when they run out of life support and their heads swell up like balloons and pop. It's like anything else in the game, you get burned a few times and learn from it. I don't think dumbing down is the answer.
  21. I really hope life support is implemented. It's an embarrassingly large omission for a space game that purports to have any degree of realism; it was silly to leave it out of the first game and would be just as silly to leave it out of the second. It's one of the core challenges of crewed spaceflight, and would serve to make uncrewed missions more worthwhile. It would make high energy transfers useful for emergency resupply or just to reduce life support requirements. Doesn't need to be complicated. One supply resource, one waste resource, with high mass recyclers to make bases and stations self sufficient if that's your thing. And yes, kerbals should die if they run out of life support. I don't get why we're suddenly squeamish about dying kerbals after all the explosive dismemberment we've all done.
  22. Looks like you don't have the slightest understanding of what fraud is. KSP1 and the DLCs are sold as is with no guarantee of future support or development, this is stated explicitly and has been since the very first for-pay version was released. Nothing has been taken from anyone by the announcement of KSP2. You still have exactly the same things you paid for the day before the announcement was made. Using revenue from an existing product to fund development of a new product is business as usual. How did you think such things worked?
×
×
  • Create New...