Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pandaman

  1. @Martian Emigrant.  I get what you mean, I suggested the same thing not too long ago.

    You want it smaller for 'normal' use, but then you want it larger to help with more 'delicate' tasks.  The little 'hide' tab is great, but it does what it says and hides it (as it should).   Whereas an extra toggle to switch between two custom sizes would allow that functionality too.  Or perhaps use the existing 'hide' tab to cycle through the three options to avoid an extra button.

  2. The  'Unity sucks, shouldn't KSP use a different engine?' question seems to be one of those 'grass looks greener over the fence issues to me.  You may possibly get greener grass over there, but will the flowers in the borders grow as well?

    Sure, all game engines will have their strengths and weaknesses, but changing to a different  one (apart from the immense amount of work involved) could just as easily create new unforseen issues  that are worse than those that are improved.

  3. On 4/8/2021 at 4:13 AM, JB182 said:

    about 200's hours

    or less... idk but my goal is 300 hours

    I don't know how long you have been playing KSP, and I'm not in any way knocking you, without exception we all started with zero hours at some point.  For a many games 300 hrs is probably 'quite a lot', but for KSP that is still very much 'noob' territory, as you will discover.  As you get more in to it that '300hr goal' will just fade away into the distant past.

    Myself, I estimate I have played around 4000 hrs, over 8 years (started in March 2013), with a mixture of just playing fairly regularly, some very intense periods and  not playing for weeks on end.

    KSP has been described as a 'hobby' in it's own right, not unlike model railway building.  And, from my experience, that's not a bad comparison.

  4. Interesting idea.

    I don't actually know, but I would think that whatever projection method they use (if any) to get the basic landscape they can manually edit the 'undesirable' bits.

    Likewise with adding the nice 'finishing touches'.  The limit, of course, being the amount of time they can allocate to it, and it is doing those 'little details' that can easily use a LOT of time, if you let it.

  5. 1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:


    Only when a game has been stopped being upgraded, you can be calm and sure that your perfectly assembled collection of mods won't make you mad again.

    ...Assuming of course that the mods in question are also bug free and never get updated...

  6. Stock + DLC here.  Because that's what I play.

    I have a few QoL type mods, but would prefer similar fuctionality in stock.

    I tried a 'HalfRSS' mod a while ago, and enjoyed the experience, but for 'just playing' the stock scale works well.

  7. 19 hours ago, jastrone said:

    well. you could still earn science by going to different biomes on kerbin. and also the choice of what to launch doesnt realy matter. especialy in the beggining

    True, but the 'choice' of what i can launch, or do, would be limited, or even removed altogether.  Meaning that even if i just wanted to try a different strategy for a change I wouldn't even have the option. 

    By not having these limitations imposed we can all do things the way we want, if we want, whether or not it is more efficient or 'realistic' .  By arbitrarily limiting such options we could become forced to follow a 'set path' or storyline with very little scope for any alternative, which, for me anyway, is a real turn off. 


  8. 4 hours ago, jastrone said:

    I also think that before you launch your first kerbal to space you should have made it to lko or maybe mun orbit on hard mode

    But that should be a player's choice IMO.

    If it becomes an enforced 'programmed in'  gameplay rule, like - Unlock crewed capsule parts once orbit achieved - then it just limits a player's options and creativity for no real gain.

    Much better to let us choose the paths we wish to follow.


  9. 8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

    A bug tracker for an open beta ought to have a one-click "Banish" button that moves a bad bug report to a "never show me this again" pile along with everything else the same author has submitted or will submit. That might help to narrow down the pool to people who communicate well enough to actually help.

    I don't think that is a bad idea, but all the reports would still need to be checked and filtered anyway, so it could be impractical.

    Maybe a 'triage nurse' could go through them to check that 'essential' info is there (ike adequate description, replication steps, etc.) Then those that 'pass' get added to the list and the rest get dumped.

    IMO an open beta would still be of limited value, and would simply be used by many as a (cheap?) way to get the game early.   The understandably high bug count, and inevitable public complaints could give it a bad reputation, however clearly it is officially declared as  'unfinished, buggy,, open beta' some people will still ignore that and complain openly rather than report properly, and they would be the voices that get heard over the rational ones.

  10. 21 hours ago, Single stage to ocean said:

    Maybe a beta with no ability to fly or rocket but it shows all the engines and parts and vab and sph and whatever they have.

    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.

    20 hours ago, PlutoISaPlanet said:

    So would a Demo be more favorable (to those opposed to a Beta)?

    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 'tool'.

    IMO if they want a wider 'test group' than their in house QA team then a 'closed beta' would be the best plan for KSP2.  I would guess that most of us 'normal players' just do not have the time and/or mindset to effectively document and provide useful feedback.  Bug reporting is surprisingly time consuming 'work' to do effectively, it's not a case of - play and  post "This just happened" - when something goes wrong. 

    I do have the mindset (having previously had 'bug reporting' as a regular side task to my job, I know what's involved), but doubt I could dedicate enough of my free time to do it well enough to be of sufficient value.

  11. 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.

  12. 17 hours ago, Probro said:

    i think rss ro should remain free and always be free

    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.

  13. 15 hours ago, Krymson Skorpyon said:

    I took a break from KSP for a while - the last version I ran was 1.10.1.

    When I came back, I had several vessels in flight, and now none of the crew have jetpacks.

    Is there anything I can do to fix that?  I can't send my engineers EVA to do maintenance on engines.

    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.

    In principle it's not really a lot different to quicksave/load when you stuff things up.  And besides, the cause of the issue is down to the devs changing things between versions, so there is no way you could have addressed it before hand.

  14. 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 expliained, and only implied due to repeating objects (monoliths etc) or similar design and architectural styles.

    And yes a 'puzzle' of sorts that can be 'solved' by finding and analyzing anomalies could be an intetesting bonus feature.

  15. 22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    I don't follow. That just sounds exactly like using the rotate tool but with extra steps, like you can't just pull into the wanted orbit after launch.

    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.

    20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

    It's a roll maneuver after launch, before the pitch maneuver.

    Yes, however this suggestion would in effect perform the roll before you leave the pad.  Making it easier to achieve the orbit inclination you want.

  16. 14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

    What would the difference be from just rotating the craft?

    None, that's exactly the idea.  Set your launch inclination by rotating the craft on the pad.

    27 minutes ago, paul_c said:

    I don't think you mean inclination - I think the more appropriate term is "angle of elevation" or perhaps "heading". Inclination is to do with the orbit.

    You adjust the 'heading' at launch to set the inclination of the orbit.  It avoids Dv heavy large inclination changes in orbit. 

  17. 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 fun, because you want to.

    By all means dream, but have no real expectations of commercial success,  absolutely nothing is stopping you trying for that later on, and it could happen, but that is not an easy thing to achieve.

  18. 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 - subject to change' on stuff.  Look at what happened  with the images of the UI we saw and all the 'less than constructive' opinions that generated.

  • Create New...