Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. To me that's not a 'beta', it's just a 'show and tell', whilst a 'beta' is (or should be) a pretty much fully functional version for the final level of testing/development before full release. I would like to see a demo version, but they are two distinctly different things, in my mind. A 'demo' would be a version of the final (i.e. finished) release, with limited functionality of some sort (time limits, restricted saves, reduced content etc) to allow potential buyers to try it out before committing spending on the full game. A 'beta' would be a late stage development /QA 't
  2. It's to do with the rotational speed of the body and the extent of it's Sphere of Influence. The more slowly it spins the higher up you need to orbit to synchronise. If it spins slowly enough then the orbital height required is greater than the SOI, which means you can't do it. Also, a bodies SOI is related to how close it is to it's parent body. Mun's SOI would be bigger if it were further away from Kerbin.
  3. I landed on Mun first too. It seemed logical as it's nearer and easier to 'hit' than Minmus. For that reason, my guess is that most players would do it that way round. Minmus may well be easier in practice, but you don't actually find that out until you either do it or read about it.
  4. I don't think an 'everything procedural' is the right approach, but it would be a good option for some things, especially to help declutter the parts lists... E g. Fuel tanks and wings - select the profile and adjust the length to what's needed.
  5. As it is a mod, assuming one is created for KSP2, then I expect it will be free. The downside, as with all mods, is that due to it being created by 'hobbyists' in their spare time, however skilled and dedicated they may be, it is not the responsibility of the KSP devs team to ensure it works or gets updated and continues to work with new versions of the game.
  6. What I would do, and have done on occasion... Basically what @Martian Emigrant suggests. Create a simple 'cargo' craft with docking port /claw etc and RCS, and whatever parts and crew you need. Cheat it (using Alt F12) into close proximity with the target. Dock it then use the inventory menu to transfer the things you need. You could also take the opportunity to 'salvage' bits off the cargo craft and attach them to the target vessel. Once you have done with the cargo craft just undock and either delete it in the Tracking Station or cheat it back to LKO to rescue any crew.
  7. Each to his/her own, but for me KSP just does not lend itself to a set storyline, and it would put me off a lot, especially with cut scenes. I want to play and explore as I want, not follow a pre determined path, like in so many FPS single player campaigns that are basically movies where you need to 'tick boxes' to get to next scene. A notable exception being a walkthrough tutorial 'campaign' that takes you as far as maybe Mun and Minmus landings. As for some sort of 'lore' or 'connection' between the anomalies then that could be interesting. Even if it is not officially expliain
  8. Ok. When you build your craft they have a default orientation. You can change it by grabbing the root part and rotating the whole craft in the VAB. What i proposed is an option to open a dialogue box to type in the rotation/heading so it sits on the pad in the direction you want, without changing the VAB rotation. Changing the inclination of an existing orbit by much uses LOTS of delta v. That's why you launch as close to your target inclination as possible. Yes, however this suggestion would in effect perform the roll before you leave the pad. Making it easier to achieve
  9. None, that's exactly the idea. Set your launch inclination by rotating the craft on the pad. You adjust the 'heading' at launch to set the inclination of the orbit. It avoids Dv heavy large inclination changes in orbit.
  10. When using Kerbnet to scan the ground we get the 'screen' that shows us what it sees. I think it would be handy to have this area highlighted on the ground somehow so you can get an idea of the size of the area covered.
  11. An option to set the inclination of craft on the pad. I know this can be done to some extent in the VAB by rotating the craft, but it can be fiddly. So why not have a simple 'Set Inclination' option that opens a box to type in the desired inclination?
  12. The obvious suggestion here is to just have a go and make one yourself to test it. It doesn't need to be of any quality, it is just to test the concept,and it needs to be 'quick and disposable' anyway as you will inevitably need to change things as you see what works and doesn't. Cards etc can be made using a printer at home, any boards etc can be hand drawn. Card or paper silhouettes or Lego bricks can be used to stand in for rocket parts etc. Once you have got a basic game that works then you can make nicer looking bits later on. The critical thing here is to do it for
  13. Yes, yes, yes. This has been suggested several times before. Also the same system should be applied to the Tracking Station for vessels in flight.
  14. I'm not too concerned that it will be 'bad'. I may not like it as much as I hope I will, but that doesn't in itself make it bad, that's personal preference. We all have our hopes and expectations, we will all be disappointed about some aspects not being as we expected, or wanted them to be. Not seeing much gameplay wise so far doesn't really bother me, yes I am curious, and a little impatient too, but I can't play it yet anyway so it makes no difference. Anything they do show will be assumed to be 'final' by many, irrespective of if, or how boldly, they say 'Work in progress -
  15. For me... Laythe, as in the machine tool. The 'e' softens the the 'th'.
  16. My understanding ... IRL planets can, will, and do, affect the orbits of others. They would not get anywhere near close to other planets without there being an effect, however small and undetectable it may be to us. But over time big changes can happen. In KSP they are 'set' in their orbits, so cannot interract. And I very much doubt KSP2 will be any different. Even Rask and Rusk, the binary we know about, will have set 'rules' programmed in to make it work in game, and prevent problems occurring. But yes, I see no reason why it would not be possible to programme any behavior,
  17. Hmm. How about Dog-like creatures that can be used for transportation. I am so calling mine 'Rover'...
  18. [snip] Some bugs, no matter how well documented or easy to reproduce they may be, can just be diffcult to pinpoint the actual cause and/or fix. Just because it's not fixed yet doesn't neccesarily mean they aren't trying. [snip]
  19. Personally, I would prefer to evaluate and chosse whether to buy each DLC as and when it is available. This gives them an incentive to produce stuff of interest and quality that we will want to spend more money on.
  20. What @Master39 said. Or.... several thousand customers take up the option to pay an extra $30 for free DLCs... then they decide not to make any. I expect/hope that updates/fixes will continue to be free, but I wouldn't pay extra for a promise of free future DLCs that may be few and far between at best.
  21. I have always assumed that 'VAB time' is behind the scenes R&D etc. So wouldn't have a lot of impact on game time as it can be assumed that it happens simultaneously. I know currently, gameplay wise, we go into VAB and design it, hit launch and fly it immediately, but to me that feels a bit illogical. If, for example, I need to send a rescue mission to the Mun in a hurry (I know life support isn't a thing in stock, so the urgency isn't there, but this is just an example). I can design and build a brand new custom vessel in effectively zero time. I think design (VAB) time can be ig
  22. Yes. I think 'funds', especially in the early game stages, can play a valuable role. For example, funds can be a relatively easy way to convert one resource to another by selling an excess stock of commodity A and use the proceeds to buy some B and C. Or you can speed up development and construction times by hiring more staff, for which you need funds to pay wages. I'm not saying I think KSP 2 will, or should, be a detailed economics centric game. Ultimately it comes down to the implementation, but I do think funds can have a useful role to play.
  23. My immediate thought was for having a rescue vessel 'ready' either on a pad so it just needs fuel and crew, or nearby so it can be ready fairly quickly, or maybe a 'standard' lifter (starship/falcon-esque) where the ship is built, but it just needs payload and fuel, and crew if required. Both of these scenarios would be relatively quick to get ready, hours or days. Whereas building a new copy of an existing design takes longer. And a new design longer still. All relative to size and complexity of course.
  24. Somethings like this would make sense IMO. Toggleable maybe too. It would need some form of 'storage' for already built craft, so the only waiting time would be to get them on the pad and fuelled up etc.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...