Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. I have had fairings knock stuff off when I deploy them. I have always put it down to design error on my part, and been able to stop it happening by making design changes/tweaks to the fairing and/or the vessel around where the fairing is mounted.
  2. It's certainly something I would be interested in trying. Either as a dedicated 'KSP2 RSS edition' or a DLC pack. I don't want to have to fiddle about with a complex suite of dependent mods, but as a 'pre packaged' whole I would be willing to give it a go. I did try the 'HalfRSS' mod briefly in KSP1, and it seemed to work ok with stock parts as they are, so that may be a more practical DLC solution.
  3. That makes sense. Dismantle unused/crashed vessels for recycling. Maybe salvage some parts for direct refurb and reuse, and the rest convert to raw materials. Didn't Elon say at some point that one advantage with making Starship out of stainless steel is that it can be reworked and reused fairly easily on Mars if needed.
  4. I voted yes to all, but simply because I think it would be nice if they could be included. If tech/programming difficulties make it impractical then it's no big deal, I will be content with what turns up. I think large scale buried/subteranean colonies is not going to happen, and terrain deformation is out of scope IMO. But I could envisage small 'habitats' and 'landing pads' etc being constucted out of local regolith (similar to the Tylo cave, Mun arches or Dessert Airfield) or into cliff faces by sticking a 'facade' on the cliff to indicate what's there, without changing the actual u
  5. Which is absolutely fine if the refund time window is long enough to give newcomers chance to evaluate it fairly. From zero real exposure, I would not have got my head around the basics in KSP well enough in just a couple of hours playing time to confirm if I liked it enough to buy. As it was I could fire up the demo, learn how the VAB worked, try a few launches, get a basic feel, and an idea of extra the possibilities a full version offered. The (limited feature) demo with time to play at my leisure got me hooked, a rushed two or three hours would have left me unconvinced at best.
  6. Fair point, though I tend to disagree. Also, what about non-Steam (or similar) users? I got the demo first (v 0.18.x) from the Squad store, and liked it enough to buy the full game a week or so later. Even though it was not expensive, at the time I had mininal 'spare cash' and was not in a position to just buy and take a gamble, and wanted time to play and evaluate sensibly. A short 2 hour 'refund window' is fine for the 'oops clicked purchase by mistake' cases, but would not have been anywhere near long enough to decide whether I liked it enough to buy, especially a game as comple
  7. This ^^ A demo is exacty what it claims to be. Whether it has limited funtions, features, or a time limit or whatever. It's purpose is purely to let potential customers try before they buy. Also, if it has bugs it will deter customers, not encourage them.
  8. Pre release/early access for the general public? No. Nor do I think it is a good idea for KSP2. The only exception may be (as I and others have said before) a demo of some sort a few weeks before full release, but I think that is unlikely. As for releasing early playtest and review versions to some YouTubers etc (with NDA and embargo of course) then I would be very surprised if they didn't.
  9. Voted 1 as that's the closest. In reality though it will be buy and play as soon as I have time. I doubt I will make special 'plans' or take time off.
  10. I would tend to agree with this. However, I do think that tides would be a nice extra feature to have on appropriate bodies. Currently only Kerbin, Eve (as Gilly is so small probably too little effect though) and Laythe (which could be quite complex if the other Joolian moons have an effect as well as Jool. But who knows what delights await us in the new star systems. Tidal molten lava seas anyone ? (don't set up your base on the beach) or the ocean world from Interstellar? But, yes, overall tides etc. would be a fairly low priority feature. And quite possibly a disproportionate
  11. I do plan on buying KSP2 on release, or very soon after, but there is absolutely no point in pre-ordering from what I can see so far, even if it becomes an option. And that does also give me a chance to double check reviews, just in case. The only 'supply problem' I can envisage is slow download speeds due to initial demand. If it takes me an extra day or so before buying then so be it.
  12. Yeah, I do know. I just wanted to quickly illustrate the basic concept though, so didn't think about it enough at the time. On the face of it this doesn't seem to be a very difficult thing to do. But then I'm not the one who has to make it work.
  13. Yes, I missed that, sorry. Didn't mean to steal your idea. They do say great minds think alike though. Hmm, looks like there is another Pandaman, if @Pandaman09 is still active on here.
  14. Yes lakes etc at different altitudes, as well as dry bits below 'sea level' would be nice. As well as creating an opportunity and a plausible explanation to have different 'fluids' at different altitudes with unique biomes or properties. Could they make the 'water sphere' off centre with the planet centre, or keep it central and make it slightly egg shaped, then by rotating the water at a different rate to the 'rocky' bit it would simulate tides to some degree. Eg. Kerbin rotates in 6 hours. Move, or bulge the water sphere towards the equator a bit and spin it every 3 hours. You w
  15. Love is probably too strong a word, but I certainly respect them. I do my best to avoid 'mishaps' and will rescue them (eventually) if 'getting stranded' or setting up an outpost isn't part of the mission plan. I've got past being too precious about them though. Being an astronaut is a risky profession after all.
  16. Does she play KSP I wonder? And could she even be on the forums by any chance? I expect she is at least aware of KSP and the introduction of Velentina Kerman , so she may well have had a look to see what all the fuss is about though.
  17. Overall I like them, or at least the basic style of them, more than the original ones. BUT, I agree with several other post on here. They are difficult to 'read', especially on small screens. The eyes in particular would benefit from being bigger so we can see the expressions/emotions properly. Afterall that's their purpose right?
  18. How do you determine 'intentional' as opposed to 'didn't realise, sorry'? Rules like this need definitive, enforcible limits.
  19. Personally I think a 'stock' LS implementaion would be a good addition. Nothing too detailed though. I have not been tempted to try any mods for it yet, and don't anticipate doing so, but a stock feature I would definitely try. It would of course need preference/difficulty settings (No consequences, Reduced crew function, Forced hibernation, Fatal etc. ), to accomodate different players' preferences and to give players the chance to add and integrate the 'bits and pieces' to their existing saves before activating it.
  20. Personally I think space elevators are nothing more than a SciFi dream. I don't think it is a case of it 'making sense', we all have our own styles of play, so what makes sense to me me not to you. But if any of this is actually possible in game then why not, someone will do it at some point.
  21. I'd agree with this. The game would benefit noticeably from a sound overhaul IMO. I'm one of those that always plays with in game sounds on, and almost never with anything else in the background. Given how many people appear to use chatterer etc would seem to indicate that many players do consider sound as an important aspect, whether or not they have 'other stuff' in the background too. Given a choice between a sound update and stock clouds though, clouds gets my vote.
  22. Yes, this ^^^ is a good idea. With a brief 'How to...' in the tutorials that gives the required dimensions, file format and procedure etc. It doesn't matter how 'easy' something may actually be if you don't know how to do it.
  23. OK, I just don't think it 'fits' as the default 'stock' system. The smaller planets make getting to orbit etc quicker (not necessarily easier) than full size which is not a bad thing from a gameplay angle. And, from a design angle, larger planets have much more surface area to model and make look good, and just scaling up directly wouldn't look right. Personally I think I would prefer the 'stock scale' to be a bit bigger, but that's not going to happen. I'm not against options to increase the scale, but don't think such a feature is needed as part of the 'stock' basic package.
  24. No, not in 'stock' IMO. As an official, optional, DLC though, then yes I would certainly consider buying it.
  25. The current system isn't too bad overall, but what it would really benefit from IMO is alignment indicators and a 'docking cam' view. It is a game after all, so 'a bit easier than IRL' is probably the right way to go. The magnets may be a bit 'over powered', but they do at least make slightly imperfect approaches work. Given the lack of UI assistance in stock to help refine the approach they do at least make it playable.
  • Create New...