Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Absolutely, and that may well be a worthwhile option. But as you know, that is effectively enlarging the QA team rather than a proper 'pre-release', as those taking part will need to be selected and almost certainly sign NDAs.
  2. Fair enough. I understand your impatience, and disappointnent in having to wait even longer. I feel it too. However, imagine playing it without all the features working properly, graphics not fully developed and with numerous glitches and worse, all interrupting your fun, and potentially clouding your judgement and spoiling your enjoyment of the final product. Now put yourself in the devs shoes, receiving lots of complaints and 'suggestions' about what they already know is broken or unfinished, for something they never wanted to release because they knew it wasn't ready. It wou
  3. With respect. This is exactly why I think early release/beta is a bad idea. Too many want just want to 'play it now'. And the devs would be forced to use time and resources to support and maintain a product that is just not ready.
  4. I would not be surprised if there is an equivalent to the Monoliths, but I hope any 'magic bonus' they may give is not too much, and not the only way to unlock certain tech. One thing I like about the Green Monoliths is their randomised locations, there aren't any spoilers in the forums that point to the locations, you have to detect and locate them. I originally tracked down all the original anomalies by getting the locations from a forum thread (before Kerbnet) and had great fun doing it, but I much prefer finding them myself by using the stock scanning tools.
  5. I admire your optimism, but the end product would almost certainly be an outdated and unjustifiably expensive game. Any attempt to integrate the inevitable new advances in tech would introduce potential new bugs. And that level of work over such a time scale does not come cheaply, any 'investment' needs to be recovered through sales revenue. This ^.
  6. I'm no programmer, but I'm realistic, and understand enough to know that if software is 'bug free' then you just haven't found them all yet.
  7. From a gameplay perspective the size of the planets and moons in the Kerbol system works fairly well. And they are confirmed to be the same size in KSP2. Also, bigger celestial bodies have much more surface area, so that means a huge amount of extra work detailing them up if they are to look right. I would therefore expect the 'average' sizes of bodies in the new star systems to be about the same, but with quite a bit of variety overall.
  8. I hope there will be some. I also hope they will be 'fit and go', as the jet engines currently are, with 'stats' and fuel types appropriate to their intended uses/environment.
  9. Value for money is subjective, of course, and yes $60 can be a much more significant outlay for some than others, and (afaik) that is not an uncommon price point for new games these days. Assuming I will play KSP2 a similar amount as I have KSP1 that is an incredibly low, cost per hour. I am surprised so many people pay around half that, or more, every month to subscribe to sports TV channels just so they can watch other people playing it. But they presumably consider it suitable value for them.
  10. Early access? Hmm. My personal opinion, but I doubt it will happen. And I am not convinced it would be a good idea anyway, except for perhaps releasing a proper 'Demo' version a few weeks earlier. Why?... First, KSP1 needed to 'test the waters' to see if it was a viable product/business plan. And it evolved enormously as a result. KSP2 doesn't need that. Second, a huge amount has been learned from KSP1 and the features it has, and the community responses, discussions and requests. KSP2 can tap into that, wheras it just didn't exist for KSP1. Third, I think the va
  11. Looking awesome, thanks for sharing. Keep these little updates and sneak peeks coming, it will keep our spirits up and the hype flowing during the extended wait.
  12. Well... A little disapointed, naturally, but not shocked. I did say a when it was announced that I thought the 'Fall 2021' date was a realistic target. But it turns out I was wrong on that one (Me, wrong? Yeah I know, unbelievable ). That date is still sufficiently distant for as to not feel like a massive change has been made (even though it has, in reality). It will come when it comes. I don't want to put a curse on it, but I am convinced that it will get finished and released sometime (cue the JFK 'Before this decade is out....' speech with appropriate edits). So much time,
  13. I like these ideas. Wheels sinking may be a tricky one to solve visually without it just looking wrong, but simulating the effect on traction etc of different surface and textures may well be doable.
  14. I wouldn't be surprised if a few submarine and boat oriented parts are there (ballast tanks, suitable props etc) to enable oceanic exploration, but I doubt it will get a lot of attention.
  15. As above ^^ I think that starship has already left orbit. Nothing wrong with suggesting, or asking, but I would guess that decision was finalised a while ago. If they are in great, if not, never mind.
  16. Simple idea, and a very minor issue to be fair, but... Add a toggle option to change whether a craft is included in the 'flights in progress' total or not (default would be have them counted). In the 'early days' flags were counted towards this total, and sensibly IMO they no longer are. Currently (afaik) everything else is, apart from debris, I would like to be able to remove things like Science experiments or 'dormant' craft, such as rovers etc, left behind on the surface after a mission from this total too. With an option to add them in again if I go back and re-use them.
  17. Nice. Will the work lamps count towards the 'flight count'? Or will they be treated as flags are, but without the 'name plate' option? And, will/can they show a 'label' at a distance in the same way as flags and other parts do? Enabling them to be used as beacons.
  18. That is of course 'Northern Hemisphere' autumn/fall which is basically late Oct to Dec. So sometime 'before Christmas' would be a fair estimate based on what they have stated.
  19. Have patience. Most likely this is just the first of several 'reveals' of new stuff in 1.11. My guess is that all of Jool's moons will get a revamp this time as all the other bodies have been done over the last two or three updates. There will quite likely be some other additions too, such as part revamps, and maybe a few new parts connected to other gameplay tweaks and additions. As well as numerous bug fixes (and potentially a few new bugs too, but that's just the nature of software development)
  20. Basically yes. Move your cursor over the icon and wait a second or so, it will sort of 'reset' it so that it works again. You can then use your mouse normally. You will then need to click windows to activate the transfer in the usual way. It is a bit inconvenient, but it works.
  21. Try hovering the mouse over the resources tab (top right). Not a 'fix', but quick and easy work around for now.
  22. No option for 'It would be cool, and I may think about getting VR hardware at some point'.
  23. Interesting idea, could add some extra dimensions to mission planning. I doubt it will become a feature though, but definitely needs a toggle if so.
  24. I've encountered this a couple of times now and I wondered if anyone else has experienced something similar... First time, I was landing on Dres and the lander 'sunk' into the ground quite a lot on landing, but I just put it down to a surface/graphic glitch. Then when I detached the rover it behaved as if it had no traction, the wheels went round, but the rover did not move. So I EVA'd the crew who then promptly exploded on contact with the ground. Then, after doing other stuff for a while, the issue resolved itself, the lander jumped up and settled on the surface properly and the rover
×
×
  • Create New...