pandaman

Members
  • Content count

    1665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1199 Excellent

About pandaman

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. DELETED POST...

    Ahh the wisdom of youth!
  2. Eclipses!

    I tend to agree with @Rocket In My Pocket on this one. I started playing KSP because it interests me and i still enjoy doing 'space stuff', not because it looks nice. Not that better quality graphics and visual treats would not improve my enjoyment, they absolutely would (and do, which is why i installed SVE), and no doubt updated graphics etc would help grab the attention of a few who wouldn't otherwise look. I don't play ANY game just because it's pretty. KSPs main appeal (IMO) is the subject matter and gameplay, and that won't change just because it has prettier pictures. Do I think Squad should improve the visuals and sounds etc? Yes, definitely, but not at the expense of the minimum specs needed to run it. By all means let those with the right hardware have the joy of gazing on the magnificent swirling upper atmosphere of Jool through the broken hazy clouds at sunrise on Laythe if they can. But to deny so many players the challenges and joys of just landing on the Mun just because they don't have a high spec machine would be such a shame when tbe gameplay itself can run without one.
  3. Well. I'm a PC user and my loading has always paused when 'Loading Asset Bundles'. Enough to make me wonder if it has frozen at times, especially with my old rig. So it possibly isn't a MacOS thing, but just a 'thing' that takes a bit longer to load than other 'things'.
  4. The audacity of DLC

    I take 'recurrent consumer spending opportunities' in this context to mean 'ongoing opportunities to buy stuff'. This 'could' apply to microtransactions of course, but it could equally apply to a series of much more substantial DLC/expansions. True, I wouldn't buy the 'same' DLC more than once, but i would buy new DLC/expansions as they appear, if they appealed to me. I don't see microtransactions as viable in KSP, i certainly wouldn't buy any. But good quality expansions would be of interest to me.
  5. Have you had to push your ship yet?

    I tried it once. Small Duna lander with 2 crew in command seats. I stuffed up my ascent and didn't quite have enough fuel to circularise, so one kerbal got out and stuck his head in the engine bell to push. I failed, and had to abandon the idea before the lander re-entered the atmosphere, leaving it to re-land on the parachutes that I re-packed before ascent (for just such an emergency) with the other crew in his seat. The pusher had JUST enough juice to get into a safe, but very eccentric (and lonely) orbit. As it was a multi ship expedition, with ectra ships as back up, i was able to rescue both crew and return home safely.
  6. Well yes, of course, just like anything. But it's not that i get bored of what 'stock' KSP has to offer. I take a break sometimes because other, non KSP, stuff just grabs my attention and having extra content available in the form of mods hasn't changed that. Not that i dont understand your point, and i can definitely see the appeal of installing mods that give new challenges, i just don't find that i 'need' to do so to maintain my own interest or to give me stuff i want to do in the game. I got bored with the current Career mode very quickly mind you, but Sandbox has kept me coming back for more.
  7. Yes, you did say 'keep'. It's all down to personal preferences, but I still happen to disagree. Your point above could be applied to virtually any game (Once you've beaten the 'last level' there is nothing new left to do unless you install expansions and/or mods). And for me KSP has a much greater replay value than any other game i have played. Yes I do use a few mods myself, but none that add extra stuff to do as, after nearly 5 years, I still haven't run out of new things to do or old things to do better. I played for 2 or 3 years without using any mods at all, so if the mods I use were not an option for me then i see no reason why the game would be unplayable for me now. Each to their own, but I almost exclusively play Sandbox, as personally I found Career to be a bit lacklustre. You are certainly right in saying that mods can add a huge amount of extra 'content', and that's a very good thing. I just don't think that it becomes 'unplayable' without them.
  8. I have to disagree with you there. Yes, some mods do add some 'essential' tools that should really be in stock IMO, but the game is far from unplayable without them. AFAIK mods are just not an option for the console releases for technical reasons unfortunately.
  9. Hunger for Kerbals

    My line of thought is with @klgraham1013 on this. Life support is such a huge deal for real life space missions, that it should be represented in some way at least. It adds mass due to supplies and equipment needing to be carried, and adds a time constraint to missions. It doesn't need to be u!ta detailed, maybe just a single resource that represents air, food and water etc, and electricity consumption to power it. And also some form of recycling and perhaps greenhouses. And toggleable of course.
  10. I welcome the idea of an updated and more unified appearance and a choice of different skins etc. I agree that there could be an issue with identifying the different separators and decouplers in the parts list. So how about using different coloured arrows for each size? It won't change models at all, or the overall appearance much, but would help with identification a bit.
  11. The audacity of DLC

    As said above, DLC is one way of getting current players to buy something else and therefore raise extra revenue to keep paying the bills and the project alive. This extra revenue can finance the continuous development which (although it causes the odd tantrum by breaking mods and not having a 'definitive' version that won't change) improves the base game over time (forthcoming v1.4 etc) at no extra financial cost to the current players. And, if the DLC is successful enough, more will most likely follow adding more additional content that expand on the base game beyond the scope of the updates. To me this is better than an alternative scenario where we have to pay again for each and every version update. As more updates are released I (presumably along with the vast majority of players) will download and use them for free. As more DLC is released those who it appeals to will buy it and those who don't want it won't. This means it is vital that the DLC is of sufficient quality and value if Squad want people to buy it. This way I think we all win, we players get good quality new toys, both in the form of new free updates and DLC, and Squad get to carry on as a viable business.
  12. What is the Acronym for "Minmus"

    Musicians - obviously
  13. Hohman Transfer

    'Fraid so. But then again i have a clear plastic ruler at work that I occasonally hold up to my monitor to quickly compare sizes and scales in CAD. They all think I'm nuts, but as a quick comparison tool, rather than to get proper measurements, it works rather well.
  14. I think the only way a 'storyline' could work for normal gameplay, as opposed to a specific structured tutorial, would be in the form of linked 'missions' (very much like current contracts but with less choice). Complete mission A, which triggers mission B, and so on - well, the whole point of a STORY is to limit options and give you a pre-set path to follow right? It's not for me, but I can see that it appeals to other players, so as an option why not. Maybe the Mission Builder in the forthcoming Making History DLC will facilitate the creation of 'stories' that players can then share. I would quite probably enjoy playing through some of these for a change. But to have a 'set' KSP story much like those on the FPSs I have played really doesn't appeal to me at all.
  15. Development Update for Consoles!

    Well, Santa delivers stuff during the holidays so...