Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Revamp or not, it's a great place to mine fuel for the Jool system. Minimal Dv to land and launch from.
  2. If they do a demo version then not including the relevant tutorials would be a major oversight, which I can't really see them making to be fair. I hope a demo in some form is made available. It was the option to play a demo (v0.18) that enabled me to decide to 'waste' some of my limited spare resources on it. Without it I would have either waited much longer or, much more likely, not got it at all. 8 years later and I'm still here eagerly awaiting KSP2.
  3. I am on PC. Though NOT bought through Steam. I voted 1 as it apoears to be the closest/only option for PC users. I bought through KSP store and will do the same with KSP2 if I can.
  4. I would expect he (or she?) will apply if sufficiently interested.
  5. Hopefully this works... https://imgur.com/hSDDqh5 I said it wasn't very exciting to look at.
  6. I completely agreee with this. I don't like the idea of a 'story mode' for anything other than a specific tutorial series of missions. I very much doubt that KSP2 will be dumbed down at all, in fact they have said as much. They just want to give players the appropriate tools and information to actually play and enjoy it. That way they will retain more players that would otherwise give up after a few hours because they get frustrated with it.
  7. I don't think it is disrespecful, it highlights one of the major flaws KSP1 has. It is incredibly hard to just open it up and play, even enough to see if you like it. Not impossible I know, but very off putting to many, especially if they have nobody on hand to ask how things work. You shoudn't need to have to resort to youtube to even learn the basics, that info should be accessible in game. I really hope the tutorials in KSP2 cover the UI game functions as well as they seem to be covering the 'rocket science'.
  8. KSP is well known for it's steep learning curve. The fact that most of us seem to have needed to ask Scott Manley to show us how to do things shows that the current in game tutorials are simply not adequate. And not just for the the 'rocket science' things. The instructions as to how the game systems and features work are very poor too. To the point where I am reluctant to reccommend KSP to people who would probably love it because the game does very little to show you how to even play it, never mind how to reach orbit or go interplanetary. The KSP2 tutorials look like they are g
  9. This is quite possibly the best 'teaser' video yet. Lots of great, very interesting and encouraging stuff.
  10. Sorry no, but I will take screenshots (if I remember) and try to post them. Not very exciting to look at though.
  11. You need to 'dock' them with a claw first, then attach two fuel lines - one each way. But using the method above doesn't require fuel lines (until they decude to 'fix it' of course), as you aren't using the 'fuel transfer' function.
  12. Agreed. That's why i only pjay sandbox now. I like the idea of career, and would want to play it, but it just doesn't inspire me to continue playing it after the first few missions. Hopefully the KSP 2 equivalent will be to my liking.
  13. You should be able to see the Star (assuming it is a shiny one and not a black hole or something), but it wouldn't neccesarily stand out from the skybox. They would possibly be among the brighter objects, but nothing obvious to indicate that there are 'visitable' planets.
  14. Definitely. But that is what I meant by 'doing something else', as opposed timewarping just to skip the waiting so long for the Lab.
  15. I do get your point, but it is perfectly possible to 'do something else' whilst the Lab is doing it's thing. Just because you can time warp through it doesn't mean you must.
  16. I am certainly interested in seeing how it works, and looking forward to trying it out. I just hope it holds my interest more than the KSP1 science and career options. But hopefully sandbox will be there in some form anyway.
  17. I disagree, I play Sandbox exclusively. Each to their own, but as much as I like the idea of them I just can't get on with career/science modes as they are now. I have loads of adventures, It's just that 'unlocking tech' isn't one of them.
  18. Another aspect to consider is that, from a gameplay perspective, parts etc benefit from being easily recognisable and identifiable. If the visual differences/adaptations of any one 'part' or 'building' vary too much it could be a little confusing. And, if not properly implemented, make building type A on Duna look like building type B on Laythe for example.
  19. Nice idea, but I don't think different buiiding variants for different environments will happen. If it is done anything like in KSP1 each 'building' will effectively be a part of the overall structure, a bit like large versions of the ISRU converters. So we add on the bits we need (radiators etc) to enable them to work in the environment we place them in where needed Not to mention the additional design work involved,
  20. Surface refuelling has always been a bit 'fiddly', the recently added ability for engineers to attach fuel lines has made it easier, but it can still be a finicky process. The 'obvious' procedure is to have a mining station that harvests, converts and stores fuel, which is then transferred to the vessels needing fuel, either directly or via 'tanker rovers'. This requires accurate landing and/or several docking (or claw and fuel line connecting) procedures to transfer the fuel. Here is a slightly different method that I just tried and seems to work ok, and is less fiddly... The '
  21. Yes, that could certainly work for objects, but not if it is a terrain feature, like a hill or crater.
  22. None, and I have no intention of doing so. Even the occasional users that I do find irritating at times can still raise interesting topics, make valid arguments, or offer a point of view I hadn't considered.
  23. I do understand, and fully respect, this point of view. My 'logic' behind the basic suggestion of some way to enable players to learn about people or events referenced in game is to build on the 'accidentally educational' aspects of the game. If players feel forced to learn it can spoil the fun, but if a gentle prompt can somehow let them know that 'this name has some significance' and can give them a relatively easy way to find out how to learn about it, should they wish to, then why not try to find a suitable way to impkement it. However, it is paramount that the fun of playing t
  24. That is good to hear, thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...