Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pandaman

  1. 2 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    It's kind of funny to think that Valentina Tereshkova is still around and active. Nowadays she's a conservative politician and a State Duma representative for the governing United Russia party. I'd expect that's a bit of an anticlimax, from being a cosmonaut...

    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.

  2. 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? 

  3. 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. 

  4. 49 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

    But in stock, the robotics are just straight up missing sound, wheels silently glide over the ground, and too many other actions are only signified with that staging “boom-ring” sound. I’m not sure whether I’d put a sound enhancement or clouds higher up on my wish list. 

    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.

  5. On 28/01/2021 at 4:25 PM, Kernel Kraken said:

    Why not just an option in the menu to upload your own flags? It opens your file explorer, you select the .png of your flag, and boom, it's in the game and you can select it any time you want. Simple and easy to use without restricting people to in in-game flag editor that absolutely wouldn't stack up to GIMP or Photoshop or MSPaint. This'll make it a ton easier for more tech illiterate people to upload their own pictures into the game, and I doubt it would take very long to implement. I sometimes still have trouble installing mods and I've been playing the game for nearly 5 years now. being able to skip all of the unnecessary file navigation would be a blessing.

    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.

  6. 7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Here we go again

    Paraquoted: "Not in stock, but as long as I need to pay, it'd be fine"

    If it's possible, it shouldn't just be another paid DLC developed to milk wallets. I'd prefer KSP 2 to not relegate features to glorified paid updates DLC, but that's probably not likely since Squad got corporate overlords involved with the the KSP name.

    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.

    If they release it as a free update, then great, I'll take it thank you very much.  But if they do it as a paid DLC I will consider it at the time,  as in "decide whether I want to part with my cash" when I can judge it's value to me.  The whole idea of a 'real' solar system version  just seems more suited as an 'add on' to me.

  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. 13 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

    I agree but not for the same reasons. I feel that even though the devs are adding more complex features they are trying to dumb the game down for a younger audience.

    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. 13 hours ago, K^2 said:

    It'd be nice to have some quick defaults for a specific craft, because having to go through and manually edit each member of the crew is a bit of a drag. But otherwise, I like the system we have in KSP latest, where both parachute and EVA pack are optional equipment, and you can chose to bring  extra propellant, repair packs, or some other hardware instead. So hopefully, Intercept is paying attention to KSP updates.

    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.


    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 it was gone when the fleet was about half way to Jool.  I 'cheated' a replacement to where I estimated it should have been.

    The whole (original) fleet was 15 ships that departed Kerbin within a few hours time span so were roughly equal distances from Kerbin, and on similar paths, but spread out laterally quite a bit, all trajectories were quite well separated on map view and arrivals at Jool system quite spread out time wise.

    The third one was in Jool orbit, in Vall's orbital path, but not close to Vall.  I was going to set up it's manouvre to get an encounter and it just wasn't there.  Very unlikely Vall interfered with it due to relatove positions, and the short time it was there but a slim possibility I suppose, even then I expect it would have been more likely ejected than destroyed.

    Oh well, poo happens I suppose.

  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.  Then tonight a third had vanished, and I know I put it in Jool orbit yesterday.

    A 'my ships keep vanishing' as a bug report isn't much help, as all I do is switch on, play the game then notice that one has gone when I try to find it, presumably they vanish on either closing down or starting up the game, but I don't actually know.

    I have changed graphics cards a couple of days ago,  but it happened both before and after the switch, so don't see how that could be related. 

    The plot thickens, a couple of days later and all my Debris has just vanished too.  ( not a huge deal in itself, but odd).

    Going to try a fresh download and install, and see if that works.

  14. 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.


  15. 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.

  16. 3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

    It's totally different because:
    1) You need a 1 000 times larger balloon.
    2) The air is not as viscous as water, so the platform is highly unstable.
    3) You still need a lot of water and resources, but don't have them next to the ship even close.

    The floating cloud islands are good when you have a magic or a cheap teleportation technology.

    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.

  17. 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.

  18. Thanks for your help...

    1 hour ago, VoidSquid said:

    If you switch and have that lockup, does the music still play? If yes, I'd point my fingers to the graphics card too.

    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).

    50 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

    something as easy as clogged up fans and/or heatsinks (esp if there's a cat in the house ...)

    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.

  19. 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 vessel  or Tracking  Station, forcing me to close it, or on occasion  the game crashes.  The PC itself doesn't seem to be affected, just the running KSP.

    Could it be due to having a lot of active flights,  or a 'group' on similar trajectories giving it too much to work out?  Which doesn't feel right somehow, but seems possible.  Or, my 'gut feeling' is it may be  my GPU starting  to play up (4 to 5 year old  GTX 950), as it has recently started to lose connection to my second monitor during start up, but is then fine after a restart.

    I have not had a save this busy, before so wondered if it's 'normal' or even 'common' and I need to be less ambitious, or whether I should look at replacing the GPU, which I'm ok with if it's needed, but I'd rather not as I was planning on a new machine in a year or two anyway.  I  updated the driver, but to no effect.

    Any thoughts?

  • Create New...