pandaman
-
Posts
2,853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by pandaman
-
-
Day One... But may end up being day two if the store/website is too busy.
-
2 hours ago, Vl3d said:
I wrote a post above and am entire thread about how it can be solved. You can read that to pass the time.
But that's no indication of the solution they will 'actually' use.
Theorising can be fun, but it's very easy to not see flaws or problems until you actually try something. Happens to me a lot at work where an obvious, common and easy solution just doesn't quite work in the current specific circumstances.
-
2 hours ago, Vl3d said:
I cannot imagine stock KSP2 without this feature.
Unfortunately I can.
I think it's likely something along those lines will be included, before v1.0 anyway, but I don’t share your apparent over optimism.
-
I'd certainly be in favour of a stock equivalent to 'Trajectories'.
As for landing assistance/autopilot then there is a real life precedent for it (Space X most notably).
So some form of 'unlockable' tech would seem appropriate. Possibly also pilot skill could be used as a 'low tech', but less precise erratic option.
-
On 2/7/2023 at 5:32 PM, Vl3d said:
I cannot emphasize this idea enough. IMO KSP2 is fundamentally built for multiplayer, but will also allow single player DRM free gameplay.
Unlike KSP1, multiplayer was intentionally 'designed in' from the start. But I think it's more likely the opposite way around to what you think. If MP was the main focus it would be much earlier in the EA roadmap IMO.
-
Suggested several times.
Actual terrain deformation is almost certainly not viable or practical.
Wheel tracks etc. could probably be done graphically, but I doubt they would be persistent long enough to be worth the effort.
Both would need computational resources to do and maintain. I (and I suspect most others) would prefer a smoother running game to having those unnecessary, but admittedly 'pretty', things slowing things down.
-
11 hours ago, dave1904 said:
A second screenshot with max settings would be simpler than the explanation imo but whatever.
Only if one was taken at the time.
The person in question was busy doing other stuff, and took it at random, so why would they bother?
I'd rather see more of the average or mediocre images that look nice, as they are going to be more representative of what I will see, than super polished almost 'fake' images that are only achievable on top end systems.
-
15 hours ago, Vl3d said:
I've been saying this for a long time: KSP2 is multiplayer. Multiplayer is the essence of KSP2.
Nope, sorry, I strongly (and respectfully) disagree. The essence of KSP2 is the same as KSP1, which was always intended primarily as a single player game that needed 3rd party mods (and resulting funky work arounds) to give it MP functionality.
That said, stock MP is certainly a nice, and very welcome, addition that will enhance it for many. And I am looking forward to trying it out with my kids.
-
1 hour ago, Vl3d said:
... what do you truly know!? Are you under a NDA? Is everyone under a NDA!?
As I'm sure you are aware, most employees (whoever they work for, and whatever job they do) are under an NDA of some sort to not release confidential company information. Whether that be related to product/design or financial details etc. etc.
-
22 minutes ago, Vl3d said:
AI can also be faked by having pre-recorded milestone missions with events placed on the main player timeline. Computer can just use pre-designed craft for each mission
Which is a bit pointless IMO.
You aren't then playing 'against' anything other than pre determined time constraints. Why not just have a 'contract' that says do 'x' before 'this date'?
-
5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:
It's called emergence, one of the most fundamental properties of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
But, what you are saying is that...
By simply fitting two non relay capable antennae instead of one (or non gimballing engines, if using my example) the requisite missing parts and mechanisms needed will just 'magically appear'.
-
I really don't see the point, or logic, of this idea.
If you want a relay just use the correct part. In fact I generally fit a relay antenna instead of a normal one anyway.
Locically, how would adding two parts not capable of doing a certain job suddenly be able to do it if I fit two of them? Would fitting two non- gimbaled engines magically allow them to gimbal, just by virtue of having more than one?
-
I'm apathetic.
I think it would be a good, interesting and worthwhile addition. But if it never happens then so be it, no big deal.
-
I've done a couple of long drives, and many long flights, to locate anomalies.
Whilst a long drive is a bit of a novelty (especially when heading for the Mohole over difficult terrain in the dark) it's not something I would enjoy very often.
-
In principle I don't disagree. but that density looks way too much for things that would show up on the Kerbnet scan.
I'm all in favour of the 'anomalies' (as in the artificial structures) being about the same overall. Then relatively small distinct geological/natural anomalies (Mun arches etc) that could perhaps show up on scans/photo surveys maybe limit to a few (2 to 10) per body.
Naturally scenic locations, like canyons, waterfalls should just 'be there' to be discovered as you fly over them. Some very large and easy to spot, and some less so.
Kerbin has many nice views to discover, but to have them pointed out automatically by the game system like a 'tourist guide, places of interest' (with the probable exception of Kerbin) would seem a bit off.
-
IMO a fairly basic life support system should be included. It doesn't need hyper detail, but the basics of sustenance and habitation should be represented at least.
IRL crew welfare is the biggest limiting factor for long duration missions after all.
-
The road map items are free updates during the early access period.
Going forward (past v1.0) I understand that all 'updates' will also be free. But additional DLC content will not, as with KSP1.
-
8 hours ago, Vl3d said:
And rivers and waterfalls, like the primordial earth at the beginning of Prometheus! Let's crash comets into Duna and make an ocean!
I admire your enthusiasm.
But I do think it's totally out of scope for official DLC. Both for gameplay style and sheer timescales for anything even feeling realistic.
Definitely hard core, mod only, territory.
-
My first thought was 'Oh no, not that again'... And it's not really something of interest to me. . . But...
I don't think changing the topography is viable or possible, beyond adding 'stuff' on top. But I suppose changing the ground colours etc could be doable. As well as enabling different scatters.
E.g Duna. Perhaps a 'water sphere' could be added in the same way as on Kerbin, Laythe and Eve, and its size gradually increased as sea level rises. The red colour could turn to green over time, possibly even change the ground 'texture' to look more grassy. Then add trees etc as ground scatter.
-
-
46 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:
Said antennas must be correctly pointed, too.
That would be too much micro management for me. Same as decaying orbits etc.
I just 'assume' there is a team at HQ keeping an eye on all that stuff as IRL.
-
I like the idea, but there may need to be some 'filters' to select which events get added,. How is the game supposed to know if a given event is of personal significance? Perhaps 'pop-ups' asking if you want to log it could also be useful.
-
11 minutes ago, Master39 said:
The point is if said middleman is useful in some way... <snip >
I do completely agree with you here.
Steam obviously offers features and facilities that many do find very useful and/or desirable, so it's the right choice for them, just not for me personally.
I do have a Steam account but haven't used it in ages (the only way I could play CoD Black Ops), and I hated being forced to go online to play it as a single player game (not actually Steam's fault as such, I know).
I doubt it will happen, though could in theory, but I would resent being forced to use Steam to play KSP 2.
-
3 hours ago, Anth12 said:
I do want all of the versions of KSP2 so that might be the better way for me to do it with.
And who knows. Maybe the updates will be faster to the KSP Store than to steam/epic
As far as I know Steam are as quick with updates etc. as the official store.
Personal choice of course, but I just don't see the point in using a 'middle man'.
Parallel-sequential missions: allow returning to the past after completing a mission
in Prelaunch KSP2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
I think what the OP actually wants is a continuous 'recording' of each mission that can be rewound to any point, without affecting any other missions happening at the same time.
On the face of it a 'quicksave' or 'revert' type system works almost as well, but that resets the whole game, not just the one mission.
Whilst an interesting idea, I really don't see it as practical, or viable, to implement.