Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. My guess here would be that 'if' multi monitor support is to be included as an option then the decision to do so was very likely made in the early stages of the design process. Therefore it would be 'built in' as efficently as possible, as is the case with multiplayer. It is not a new suggestion, it has been mentiond several times over the years for KSP1 so I would expect it was on the list of considerations at least. If they haven't worked on it yet then I would imagine they either aren't bothering, or they consider it sufficiently straight forward to add in later if they want to.
  2. That may well be the case, but I did not research it, I merely quoted 44% or 45% as that was the proportion used frequently by @AlamoVampire.
  3. I would be in favour of a separate window for the Map view if possible. Whether it's 'draggable' on to another monitor or not, which as @Vanamonde has illustrated, is actually separate issue.
  4. And just imagine how handy it would be if you could just move that undocked view aside out of the way, so it didn't obstruct your main view, but still see the map and have it large enough to read? Would that be of any use to you at all? That is exactly the kind of option that a multi-monitor setup enables. Yes, a single BIG screen may be adequate, but a multi screen setup can allow much more flexibility with how they are placed too. And all screens do not need to be the same size either.
  5. @AlamoVampire I don't think we are really that much in disagreement overall. We both want KSP2 to be the best it can be, as soon as is reasonably possible, and therefore don't want time and resources wasted that can unduly affect that. My 'argument' isn't about prioritising this feature at the expense of others, rather about just being in favour of including something I would like, if it is possible and practical to do so. I also believe it would be of interest to a large enough proportion of other players too. If the devs are working on it and able to include it on releas
  6. @AlamoVampire I do fully understand your point that diverting resources away to develop multi-monitor support would probably not be a wise option. And to be fair, as I have said before, I can't disagree with that. There are certainly more important things to focus on. However, that does not alter the fact that (according to your numbers) nearly 45% of users could use it if available. So, presumably, would find it useful and would be pleased to see it included. Yes it is 100% an option, and rightly so, but so is multiplayer - which, by your logic, they are diverting resources f
  7. Except that integrating it properly, from the outset, would avoid the problems associated with 'bolting it on' afterwards. A lot of KSP1s issues seem to be related to adding lots of features that were not even considered part of the game's scope when original development began. KSP2 is able to learn from that and start afresh and build a lot of those things in ftom the start. So it may even be the case that it is already 'in the pipeline', though I haven't seen any indication yet. But nor do we know anything about multiplayer either, beyond that it is confirmed to be included in
  8. @AlamoVampire I think it is fair to say we are both correct ... Yes 44% is certainly 'less than half', but it is also 'nearly half'. It is not therefore a huge minority, and I would also expect that this proportion is probably more likely to increase than decrease. I am not arguing that this is, or should be, more important and given a higher priority than many, or indeed most, other features. It is, for me at least, very much a 'very nice to have if possible' thing. I understand the point about it potentially channelling resources away from developing more 'key' features, and I
  9. Well 44% is nearly half, so that's not an insignificant number (most politicians would get elected easily with that proportion of the overall votes) so why not consider providing it? As I've said before, it is a feature I would appreciate and use if it is included, as would many others I believe (I guess even many of those arguing against it would too if they had the hardware). I don't know how practical or 'easy' it is to actually implement, or the technical implications of doing so, but that is a different issue to whether or not it would be a useful feature to include.
  10. That may well be the case, and if so then never mind, we haven't 'lost' anything. But that still doesn't stop it being something I would be happy to have as an option.
  11. Sorry, but I take a little offence at this ^. Just because I have, and regularly use, two monitors does not make me, or anyone else who does 'superior'. I have them purely because I find them extremely useful generally, I have two 'cheap' monitors as they are much more use to me than a single one that costs twice as much. Yes, KSP does work fine with one monitor, and so it should. But that does not mean that being able to use additional ones couldn't enhance it. I recall at least one other thread discussing this for KSP1, so it's not like 'nobody' wants it. I currently use my
  12. I switch revert off for my 'serious' saves, I only have it enabled on my R&D saves as that's my 'simulator/test bed'.
  13. The facility to use multiple monitors would be a handy thing to include, especially as multi monitor set ups are becoming increasingly common. But single monitor use should always be assumed to be 'the norm', and from what little I've seen that appears to be the case.
  14. When I think of LS, and hear it referred to, I tend to think more in terms of 'in flight' for small and medium sized missions, rather than colonies. To me a 'proper' colony needs to be largely, if not completely, self sufficient, otherwise it's just an 'outpost' (Antarctic science stations for example). So the mechanisms to provide that self sufficiency need to be part of the whole package and, once up and running, can be assumed to just 'work' and pretty much ignored gameplay wise. Other than things like keeping an eye on whether you need to add more capacity due to growing population
  15. Hopefully none. I don't use many mods anyway, and with any luck the few I feel I do need will be addressed in the base game. Mostly organisational... Alarm clock, Transfer planner, Craft and Tracking Station organisers etc. Then for gameplay just Docking Port Alignment. And SVE for the clouds.
  16. As I said in an earlier post in here, I have mixed feelings. Which is why I started the thread. Lots of good point made both for and against. The idea of being able to design a vessel from scratch and launch it in what is effectively zero game time just feels a little 'wrong' somehow. But also, to impose build times in line with RL is probably way too much from a gameplay perspective too. It makes sense to have the design process not 'eat' into mission time, as in KSP1, as this will naturally be an ongoing process by lots of boffins in the background, which is simply abstracted in
  17. I certainly have mixed feelings about it, but thought I would bounce it out there to maybe generate a discussion. I like the idea in principle, but I agree it could create lots of other hassles and issues if not implemented well.
  18. I was thinking along the lines of treating the VAB interface as a separate 'design' facility, which is basically how we use it in game now anyway. Then once designed you select 'build' and it takes 'however long' before it is available for launch. At which point it shows as available , it then takes maybe a day to get it ready for launch.
  19. I've not seen it mentioned, and a quick search gave no results for KSP2. Does anyone think there may be, some form of craft construction time introduced into KSP2? And does anyone have any thoughts on it in general? I can see it having an impact on 'progression' games in particular, and may give added importance to re-usable craft.
  20. I would say yes to the 'essence' of both, but I sense that KSP2 will have a slightly different feel and/or focus so 'total inclusion' is probably not appropriate.
  21. In that case, the best way is to just knock up an Excel spreadsheet that has exactly the details you need.
  22. Cool idea. Like flags, but different. 'Poo' emojis all over the solar system here we go... Or just drop a 'token' like some of the Apollo guys dropped stuff on the Moon.
  23. No worries, alt/f12 (on PC) opens the 'cheat menu' there is a 'Create Kerbal' option in there somewhere. You will still have to use @Just Jim's guide to create the suit though.
  24. I seem to recall the forums reactions to the announcement that KSP was coming to consoles. They were along the lines of 'Bad idea', 'That will cause lots of problems', 'No mods' etc etc... most (if not all) turned out to be true unfortunately. @Demordrah if you can, grab it on Steam for PC while it is on offer. I know it won't solve the problem, and I feel your pain, but it will at least allow you to enjoy the game again. Edit... Hopefully KSP2 has, and will, learn a lot from the KSP1 experience in this regard, and my gut feeling is that they are doing. Not just with the conso
  25. I am certainly taking the shown UI as a 'work in progress' so not overly concerned, especially as (at least as I understand it) changes to colours, fonts, icon positions etc are not hugely difficult to change relatively quickly, and stuff may need to be added or removed as gameplay tweaks require anyway. So, I regard what we see now as an 'evaluation' version, rather than 'this is it'. Much of it may well be placeholders to provide something useable for now. Many good points have been made about the appearance and arrangement, and I expect they will be noticed and considered before anyt
×
×
  • Create New...