Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Yes, I missed that, sorry. Didn't mean to steal your idea. They do say great minds think alike though. Hmm, looks like there is another Pandaman, if @Pandaman09 is still active on here.
  2. Yes lakes etc at different altitudes, as well as dry bits below 'sea level' would be nice. As well as creating an opportunity and a plausible explanation to have different 'fluids' at different altitudes with unique biomes or properties. Could they make the 'water sphere' off centre with the planet centre, or keep it central and make it slightly egg shaped, then by rotating the water at a different rate to the 'rocky' bit it would simulate tides to some degree. Eg. Kerbin rotates in 6 hours. Move, or bulge the water sphere towards the equator a bit and spin it every 3 hours. You w
  3. Love is probably too strong a word, but I certainly respect them. I do my best to avoid 'mishaps' and will rescue them (eventually) if 'getting stranded' or setting up an outpost isn't part of the mission plan. I've got past being too precious about them though. Being an astronaut is a risky profession after all.
  4. Does she play KSP I wonder? And could she even be on the forums by any chance? I expect she is at least aware of KSP and the introduction of Velentina Kerman , so she may well have had a look to see what all the fuss is about though.
  5. Overall I like them, or at least the basic style of them, more than the original ones. BUT, I agree with several other post on here. They are difficult to 'read', especially on small screens. The eyes in particular would benefit from being bigger so we can see the expressions/emotions properly. Afterall that's their purpose right?
  6. How do you determine 'intentional' as opposed to 'didn't realise, sorry'? Rules like this need definitive, enforcible limits.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. No, not in 'stock' IMO. As an official, optional, DLC though, then yes I would certainly consider buying it.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. @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
  19. 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.
  20. 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 .
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...