Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Start it up, see what's there, and wonder how many of the 'I won't buy it if/because.. ' crowd caved in and bought it anyway. After that, have a look through the new tutorials, play in 'sandbox' to get a feel for it, then look at a 'career' game to see if I like how they implement it. Then have fun.
  2. I don't have no. The only 'terrain builder' type things I have used was the map creator for 'Combat Mission' (a WW2 wargame) and a 'Golf Course Creator' for MS Links 2003. Both of which worked pretty much how I envisage something for KSP working... You would specify the size and shape of the total area to start, you could start with flat ground or use the option to randomise the basic terrain, with custom parameters, like 'hill density', and max heights. You could then edit the terrain as desired and then add features, like water, buildings wooded area etc. Both gave lots of scop
  3. Great stuff, thanks @Nate Simpson and your team for showing us. KSP2 is looking like it will be worth the wait.
  4. I think it is very easy to underestimate how much work would be involved in creating an interesting planet, no matter how easy the editor is to use. Simple 'randomisers' for basic terrain etc would work well enough to get the basics, but what about the little details that make it truly 'unique' and 'interesting'? A pencil and paper, are all the tools you need to make a work of art, but to actually create one takes imagination, skill and time.
  5. I agree with what @AlamoVampire said on this. I wouldn't expect any additional celestial bodies in the Kerbol system. The fact that the exsting ones have had a serious makeover effectively makes them all 'new' anyway, just in the same places as KSP1. There is, I suppose, scope for one or two 'newly discovered' bodies way out beyond jool, which would be nice, but I doubt very much theyvwill be added.
  6. Presumably, as there are male and female kerbals, some form of 'interaction' between them would be required for population growth, as is the case with most life on Earth. So it would seem sensible for it to be linked in some way to the proportions of each gender and overall population level without any need to consider the actual 'method' (beyond forum users' curiosity of course).
  7. Graphic representations of weather/precipitation would very be cool, and add a 'limited visibility' aspect, but I doubt we will get weather 'simulation' of any real substance. Bad weather warnings, with a randomised risk of lightning strikes in storms, or maybe strong gusts suddenly blowing your craft off course etc could possibly be worked in without having to model realistic winds etc though.
  8. I would hazard a guess that anomalies will in the game. I wouldn't expect the Squad logo on a 'monolith' equivalent, if there is one, though, but a few references to Squad and other KSP1 'history' would not surprise me.
  9. Had they said from the outset that the Kerbol system was different, maybe with new planets, or perhaps essentially the same, but scaled up to say 2x KSP1 size, then I expect most of us would be happy with that, as it is a 'new' game, nit justvan update But the decision to keep it the same, but with improved planet detail does make sense. Familiar enough, but with the changed planetary surfaces themselves adding different challenges and experiences.
  10. Yes I am in favour, and yes I would use it (but you know that already ) Q2... Included and properly integrated at the outset would IMO be a better solution than bolting it on afterwards.
  11. I found that the Fuel Transfer bug can be worked around by switching vessels then back again. You will need to use the tracking station or map mode if no other vessels are nearby though. A bit inconvenient, but not a mission wrecker.
  12. Yeah, turned out to be a little less straightforward than it initially appeared. I certainly hadn't fully grasped the implications of the difference between 'multi window' and 'multi monitor'.
  13. But we don't know any details of how it's replacement will work, so you may even like it more. We will just have to wait for more info, and judge it when we get chance to actually try it. I really like the 'idea' of career mode, but every time I try it it just fails to inspire me to want to continue. I don't think the issue is 'money' or 'science points' themselves, but more the overall implementation of both science and career modes. Many players enjoy them, but many others seem to feel the same as me.
  14. I do agree, they could easily have mentioned that multi monitor support is inluded, and then left it at that. In the same way they did with MP pretty much. So I do tend to think it's not in the mix. Although one potential argument in favour of not showing it (other than 'surprise' factor) could be how it is interpretted by us, a lot may not read the text that says 'this is a handy, but not essential feature'. Look at what happened with the UI bits that got shown, many seemed to assume that it was the final version and that is how it will be, when release was still 18 months away. I do
  15. I am in favour of including the feature, and would use.it. A lot of the arguments against relate to the extra work, and potential delays and problems of adding it, which are not unreasonable concerns. However, what if that work is already done and it is already able to be included, but just not shoen? (perhaps so as not to risk suggesting that players will 'need' multi monitors to play it). Would those against it argue for it's removal, accept it and not use it on principle, or give it a try if/when they can?
  16. One wonders, could this perhaps indicate another NASA collaboration?
  17. I think you may be confusing asteroids and comets. Asteroids are fairly common, but do not (I believe) get any bigger than Class E.
  18. I just think they are out of scope for the game, so not in stock IMO.
  19. As @Bej Kerman said. Crashing is a part of the learning process, to let new players know that crashing often does not necessarily mean they are rubbish at it is no bad thing. There is a difference between 'glorifying' the crashes and giving the idea that it's 'normal' and not to lose heart when it happens frequently. I like the style of the tutorial artwork, it doesn't need to be flashy, it just needs to convey a message as easily as possible.
  20. Definitely in favour of including the feature. I can't add anything useful to what I have already said elsewhere on this, so will leave it at that.
  21. Just my thoughts, but I would expect that KSP2 multiplayer would be far more likely to go down the private server path than use company hosted servers. Even if numbers of participants aren't actually limited, the nature of the game doesn't really lend itself to masses of players online at once. Not just due to the gameplay seeming to be more suited to small group cooperating (or battling it out), but also the 'part count' problem is multiplied just by virtue of having more players and/or vessels around. And I would also strongly agree that specific weaponry parts should be strictly
  22. I do understand the concerns of how it may affect 'performance'. I have no idea how big an issue this could be, but if designed in from the start then the impact should be minimised. I would also fully expect that T2 want KSP2 to be able to run adequately on 'ordinary' computers, as not doing would just limit their potential customer base and reduce sales. I really don't understand the argument that it is a 'pointless' or 'useless' feature. Have those making that argument never had a couple of reference sheets next to their keyboards whilst working on something? Or never had two text b
×
×
  • Create New...