Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Personally I think a 'stock' LS implementaion would be a good addition. Nothing too detailed though. I have not been tempted to try any mods for it yet, and don't anticipate doing so, but a stock feature I would definitely try. It would of course need preference/difficulty settings (No consequences, Reduced crew function, Forced hibernation, Fatal etc. ), to accomodate different players' preferences and to give players the chance to add and integrate the 'bits and pieces' to their existing saves before activating it.
  2. Personally I think space elevators are nothing more than a SciFi dream. I don't think it is a case of it 'making sense', we all have our own styles of play, so what makes sense to me me not to you. But if any of this is actually possible in game then why not, someone will do it at some point.
  3. I'd agree with this. The game would benefit noticeably from a sound overhaul IMO. I'm one of those that always plays with in game sounds on, and almost never with anything else in the background. Given how many people appear to use chatterer etc would seem to indicate that many players do consider sound as an important aspect, whether or not they have 'other stuff' in the background too. Given a choice between a sound update and stock clouds though, clouds gets my vote.
  4. Yes, this ^^^ is a good idea. With a brief 'How to...' in the tutorials that gives the required dimensions, file format and procedure etc. It doesn't matter how 'easy' something may actually be if you don't know how to do it.
  5. OK, I just don't think it 'fits' as the default 'stock' system. The smaller planets make getting to orbit etc quicker (not necessarily easier) than full size which is not a bad thing from a gameplay angle. And, from a design angle, larger planets have much more surface area to model and make look good, and just scaling up directly wouldn't look right. Personally I think I would prefer the 'stock scale' to be a bit bigger, but that's not going to happen. I'm not against options to increase the scale, but don't think such a feature is needed as part of the 'stock' basic package.
  6. No, not in 'stock' IMO. As an official, optional, DLC though, then yes I would certainly consider buying it.
  7. The current system isn't too bad overall, but what it would really benefit from IMO is alignment indicators and a 'docking cam' view. It is a game after all, so 'a bit easier than IRL' is probably the right way to go. The magnets may be a bit 'over powered', but they do at least make slightly imperfect approaches work. Given the lack of UI assistance in stock to help refine the approach they do at least make it playable.
  8. My understanding, based on what @Nate Simpson has said elswhere, is that the game is not being 'dumbed down' or made 'easier' at all. But they are making it more accessible, and easier to understand, by having better tutorials and explantions etc.
  9. Well, the 'rocket science / orbital mechanics' still follows the same laws of physics. So the only big difference will be learning our way around a new UI. Sure, there will be unfamiliar parts etc, but even then we have a frame of reference and basic understanding that will help with a lot of it. When a new CoD release happens it doesn't hamper 'old' players much, as the game still works in pretty much the same way.
  10. Yes, a flag maker 'app' would be a nice feature, and presumably a fairly simple thing to incude. It wouldn't 'need' to be accessible during play, but a link to it from the mission flag selector would make sense. Maybe an extension to this idea is 'vessel nameplates'. A craft, or part, specific 'nameplate' that can accept text input, working the in same way as ordinary mission flags do, but a bit longer and thinner proportions.
  11. Yes, ^^. This sums up my thoughts very well. I know that the system is new to us, and therefore we haven't neccesarily got into the habit of checking before we launch yet. But being able to 'configure' the default crew load out (maybe even as far as defining crew types (how many Pilots, Engineers, Scientists etc.) not just the kit they each carry, as part of the 'design' is a nice idea.
  12. @Martian Emigrant @StrandedonEarth. Thanks, Yes I am using KAC and had that message for the second one. Noticed when I wanted to do its capture burn. For the first one, I checked the astronaut centre, but couldn't remember the crew names , so that didn't help as all 3 lists are quite long. May start noting crew names on my 'Admin' spreadsheet now though. I don't think atmosphere was an issue, though the first one was just possibly in Kerbin orbit at 200km awaiting departure, so I could possibly have screwed that up, but I think I compeleted it's transfer burn. I noticed
  13. Just recently I have had 3 vessels just vanish. I seem to remember reading that others have noticed this not long ago, but I can't find it now. I have had 3 vessels just get swallowed by the Kraken. I sent 15 ships on their way to Jool. On performing their mid course 'tweaks' I noticed one was missing, I figured I may have just forgotten to launch it with there being quite a few, but I was pretty sure I had as it was one of the crewed vessels. Then on sorting out the arrival burns one of the uncrewed vessels was missing, and I know it existed as I had a maneuver alarm set for it.
  14. As a (potentially vital) piece of equipment, then yes they should absolutely be an available option IMO. But I think it should always be an option to choose whether or not you take them .
  15. I strongly suspect that some people are greatly underestimating the amount of work needed to actually model a planet well enough to make it interesting enough and suitable for use in game. Yes, like any CAD or graphics software, pencil and paper or paint and canvas, with a little practice you can do a lot of the big stuff quite well and quite quickly, but it's the little details that it needs to give it character and 'polish' that can really take the time, and that just does take time even for highly skilled experienced artists.
  16. If the idea is for entrants to create a 'concept', using maps and illustrations etc to help communicate the ideas, then I could see it being an interesting thing. The actual 'creation' of the in game assets themselves would be much better done by the dev team IMO. That would mean everyone has a chance for their idea to be considered, not just those with the tools and skillset. And also ensure that it works in game and blends in visually with the existing planets etc.
  17. I had it for the first and second times towards the end of last year, that is since March 2013, so yeah, not that common.
  18. Actually, I would say the 'principal' is basically the same... The vessel needs to be the right density in proportion to the 'medium' - helium balloon in air, submarine in water etc. But yes, the technical challenges however can be very different.
  19. I suppose 'in principal' floating in an atmoshere is not much different to floating on, or in, an ocean. You just need to get your bouyancy and pressure tolerances right. Although there is a distinct change in density on boundary between the surface of an ocean and the atmosphere, which makes staying at that level much easier. I don't expect large floating/flying colonies to be a 'stock' thing, but airships could be a possibility.
  20. Thanks for your help... Yes background sounds still happen. It feels like 'if I wait just a bit longer' it will work, but it doesn't (I tried that too). No pets, or kids at home, to blame, the fans etc. look clear, and no sign or 'vibes' of overheating. Given it's age and what it's doing I'm reasonably confident a new GPU is probably the way to go.
  21. The last couple of days KSP started locking up or occasionally crashing, and I wondered if others have experienced similar behavior. It does the same thing with or without mods, so posting here. I have 131 flights in progress, with a 'cluster' of 15 vessels en-route to Jool, so they are on broadly similar trajectories, but still a long way apart. When doing mid way maneuvers I select a vessel, place a maneuver node, focus on Jool and fine tune it, and perform the burn. Then whatever method I use to select the next vessel the game gets 'stuck' and won't progress to either the new ves
  22. How about a track from The Warning? The best thing to come out of Mexico since KSP itself, and a nice 'homage' to the game's roots. And why not name some Kerbals after them too while they are at it? Dani, Pau and Ale Kerman 3 badass sisters.
  23. This one is strictly for the Alt F12 menu, but... As a slight tweak to the 'Set Orbit' menu, add a 'Rendezvous with Target' option. Basically a shortcut to the targetted vessel rather than having to scroll through the list. And also, as a bonus, enable the 'Rendesvous with' feature to work with landed craft.
  24. Well... Whilst obviously not human, Kerbals are not aliens to Kerbin they are 'natives', or at least appear to have been there long enough to be considered so. Humans would be the 'aliens' there. Or just maybe... Kerbals are 'settlers' from another world, that just happened to be toxic to most native species on Kerbin (apart from grass and a few trees). Which could explain the lack of other life forms (like 'War of the Worlds' with a darker twist to the ending).
  25. Nicely done. My only attempt at that failed. Not quite enough Dv to stabilise orbit ftom Duna (shoddy piloting), so tried pushing. Couldn't get him in the right place to push squarely (no central engine bell to stick his head in) so had to repack the chutes and climb back in. Used the chutes to land safely and wait for rescue.
  • Create New...