Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pandaman

  1. 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, or lack of it, they want to.

  2. [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]

  3. 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 ignored from a gameplay perspective, but a delay to get that design launch ready is not out of place IMO.  It can be time warped through if there are no other events that need attention, and if there are, then that is where building ahead to minimise preparation time comes in.

    Starship is a good example...  Space X can build them fairly quickly, but not instantaniously.  SN8 did it's job, SN 9 still needed finishing building before they could launch it.  And even if it had been completely built and ready it still needed taking to the pad and fuelling up before launch.  Were it already on a pad (and tested) then yes it could in theory have been fuelled up and launched very quickly.

  4. 9 hours ago, K^2 said:

     

    On a serious note, though, adding currency as one of the resources creates more opportunities to balance gameplay and progression. You can always come up with a story justification to it, and you're just handicapping your design by throwing it away as one of your tuning knobs. I think currency costs should stay. But the way you generate income should be more related to progression than mindless grind.

    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.

  5. 17 hours ago, K^2 said:

    Part of the problem is that I might not know what I'll need to launch in advance. Usually, in KSP, I can just open up editor, delete the top part of the rocket, and build the payload I need, then snap the rest of the rocket back on. In order to have pre-built rockets that took up construction time, you would really have to re-think how we design, build, and deploy rockets. I think that's a little too much.

    We are going to have supply routes. Maybe complexity of the rocket you assign to a route can influence how often a launch can take place, because it would take time to build that rocket. That'd be a neat little mechanic. But I'm not convinced it fits core gameplay.

    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.

  6. It's certainly something I would be interested in trying.  Either as a dedicated 'KSP2 RSS edition' or a DLC pack.

    I don't want to have to fiddle about with a complex suite of dependent mods, but as a 'pre packaged' whole I would be willing to give it a go.

    I did try the 'HalfRSS' mod briefly in KSP1, and it seemed to work ok with stock parts as they are, so that may be a more practical DLC solution.

  7. 5 hours ago, mattinoz said:

    Can we consume the superlander itself for materials?

    Assuming there are any redundant parts after careful design.

     

    That makes sense.

    Dismantle unused/crashed vessels for recycling.  Maybe salvage some parts for direct refurb and reuse, and the rest convert to raw materials.

    Didn't Elon say at some point that one advantage with making Starship out of stainless steel is that it can be reworked and reused fairly easily on Mars if needed.

  8. I voted yes to all, but simply because I think it would be nice if they could be included.  If tech/programming difficulties make it impractical then it's no big deal,  I will be content with what turns up.

    I think large scale buried/subteranean colonies is not going to happen, and terrain deformation is out of scope IMO.  But I could envisage small 'habitats' and 'landing pads' etc being constucted out of local regolith (similar to the Tylo cave, Mun arches or Dessert Airfield) or into cliff faces by sticking a 'facade' on the cliff to indicate what's there, without changing the actual undelying terrain.

  9. 25 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

    I doubt it'll be distributed through any other channels than app stores, and they all have similar refund policies.

    Which is absolutely fine if the refund time window is long enough to give newcomers chance to evaluate it fairly.  

    From zero real exposure, I would not have got my head around the basics in KSP well enough in just a couple of hours playing time to confirm if I liked it enough to buy.  As it was I could fire up the demo, learn how the VAB worked, try a few launches, get a basic feel, and an idea of extra the possibilities a full version offered.  The (limited feature) demo with time to play at my leisure got me hooked, a rushed two or three hours would have left me unconvinced at best.

  10. 13 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    IMO there's not much point with free demos, given Steam's refund policy. If two hours of playtime won't tell you whether it's a keeper or not, a demo wouldn't make much difference.

    Fair point, though I tend to disagree.  Also, what about non-Steam (or similar) users?  

    I got the demo first (v 0.18.x) from the Squad store, and liked it enough to buy the full game a week or so later.   Even though it was not expensive, at the time I had mininal 'spare cash' and was not in a position to just buy and take a gamble, and wanted time to play and evaluate sensibly.  A short 2 hour 'refund window' is fine for the 'oops clicked purchase by mistake'  cases, but would not have been anywhere near long enough to decide whether I liked it enough to buy, especially a game as complex to learn as KSP.

    I think there is probably a place for 'demo' version, in some form.  Whether it be limited features  or a 'game time' lockout or whatever,  as a 'try it out' option.  But as a pre-release 'bug finding' tool (as was suggested) then it is of no value at all.

  11. 2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    Then again, limited demo is limited and thus the players won't catch bugs related to content that isn't there.

    This ^^

    A demo is exacty what it claims to be.  Whether it has limited funtions, features, or a time limit or whatever.  It's purpose is purely to let potential customers try before they buy. 

    Also, if it has bugs it will deter customers, not encourage them.  

  12. Pre release/early access for the general public? No.  Nor do I think it is a good idea for KSP2.

    The only exception may be (as I and others have said before) a demo of some sort a few weeks before full release, but I think that is unlikely.

    As for releasing early playtest and review versions to some YouTubers etc (with NDA and embargo of course) then I would be very surprised if they didn't.

     

  13. On 2/18/2021 at 9:57 AM, Wubslin said:

    ...Tides are probably not going to be a part of the game, they don't need to be. I say we should be grateful if the game even ends up allowing for the existence of bodies of water not at the sea level.

    I would tend to agree with this.

    However, I do think that tides would be a nice extra feature to have on appropriate bodies.  Currently only Kerbin, Eve (as Gilly is so small probably too little effect though) and Laythe (which could be quite complex if the other Joolian moons have an effect as well as Jool.  But who knows what delights await us in the new star systems.  Tidal molten lava seas anyone ? (don't set up your base on the beach) or the ocean world from Interstellar?

    But, yes, overall tides etc. would be a fairly low priority feature.  And quite possibly a disproportionate amount of work to implement.

  14. I do plan on buying KSP2 on release, or very soon after, but there is absolutely no point in pre-ordering from what I can see so far, even if it becomes an option.  And that does also give me a chance to double check reviews, just in case.

    The only 'supply problem' I can envisage is slow download speeds due to initial demand.  If it takes me an extra day or so before buying then so be it.

  15. 5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

    Just a little critique: It should be a symetrical oval, not egg shaped. Normally, tides should come nearly twice per day. It may seem counter intuitive, but there is a bulge toward the moon AND AWAY FROM the moon:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Principal_lunar_semi-diurnal_constituent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

    Tide_overview.svg

     

    Yeah, I do know.  I just wanted to quickly illustrate the basic concept though, so didn't think about it enough at the time.

    On the face of it this doesn't seem to be a very difficult thing to do.  But then I'm not the one who has to make it work.

  16. 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 will get one high and one low tide each day.  Or maybe have it always 'bulging' towards the Mun.

  17. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...