Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. I agree that the current focus should be on U5 etc. But squad are right IMO to take time to fix issues with the current version as they have done. Adding new features at the same time, if they are ready, is a bonus, they are done for 1.1 and we just get to play with them earlier and they get 'field tested' into the bargain.
  2. what 5th is saying is that the hammers COM is inside the head, and the hammer will rotate around its COM as you know. Due to aerodynamics the handle will behave like the tail in a dart and trail out behind as the hammer falls. Even a dart with the flights not fitted into the stem will still fly pointy end first, just not as stable as with them. Hope this helps.
  3. I don't see any real advantage with having extra launch sites. But the option to build additional landing areas and runways with full recovery bonuses would be a nice feature. Being able to align runways other than East-West would be a real advantage for landing from inclined orbits.
  4. I understand the irritation with frequent updates, but IMO if they are hot fixes for issues that need addressing they are better to update rather than wait.
  5. I'm with Kaos on this one. Good idea (it would have been jolly handy for me last night), but overall it may be a bit if a frustration in practice.
  6. I have terrain scatter turned off, partly to save my processor power a little, but mainly as it just seems wrong to have huge boulders dotted around that aren't actually there.
  7. I think a couple of proper float type landing gear parts for landing on oceans etc would be a very good addition. Ballast tanks that enable the making of submarine could be fun and open up extra exploration possibilities without additional terrain work. Not to mention the option to create under sea monoliths and anomalies. EVA suits would need weight belts though.
  8. I notice that his discussion resurfaces fairly frequently. My 2 cents... Yes, I'd love more planets and places to visit, but I think priorities should be elsewhere. If we had them, say next month, then after a few weeks the novelty will have worn off, people will be complaining about the extra strain their rigs are under and there will be a new campaign for 'outer planet x' as everywhere has been visited and it's getting boring going to the same places all the time. For now I think it's better to put devs resources into U5 and v1.1. rather than "more rocks like we already have but differen
  9. The first official Asteroid Day. Tuesday June 30th 2015. Seems suitably important (and relevant) for a space fight game, and it just so happens it's next week too.
  10. Good spot sir! Unless my maths is way off though it's a 50% reduction not 100%, but the news is 100% good.
  11. I've been holding off doing anything big for weeks in the knowledge that 1.0.3 was on it's way and I'd very likely need to re learn a lot and risk losing ships if I designed them for a system that was going to be seriously re balanced. Now it looks like the 'balance' side of things is not going to get any big changes for a while I feel I can start serious spaceflight again. Not had chance for more than a quick dabble so far to make sure it downloaded ok. But I will start planning proper missions again now.
  12. It's just a quiet patch. We just had the PS4 'debate', and all are waiting for 1.0.3 , once it arrives a whole new series of 'why isn't this fixed squad are rubbish' and 'I don't like it I want the old one back' posts will appear. Squad are, rightly IMHO, making sure they have fixed all the bugs they can and balancing as best they can before releasing 1.0.3 so they don't need to spend time on 1.0.4 and can concentrate on the Unity 5 port and v1.1 so there is not a great deal going on that hasn't been talked about a lot already.
  13. Like most on here I was a bit disappointed with the Dev notes. Yes, PS4 is a hugely important thing for KSP, whether or not it is of interest to any of us individually, it's not to me, I don't have, and will very likely never have a console, but I understand the significance of it. I felt let down by there being no actual Dev notes of any sort. I knew there likely wouldn't be much news on 1.0.3, but a few words along the lines of "Only back in the office yesterday so nothing much to report, 1.0.3 progressing well please bear with us while we get it as good as we can" would have been nice, an
  14. 'My other car is a Rover' With large KSP rover map icon. Only KSP players will get it, others will be confused. - - - Updated - - - Nice! For our US players and maximum KSP publicity send Hillary Clinton one for her campaign trail with a photo of our favourite pilot that says 'Jeb for President'.
  15. Random failure would be a no go for me too. I like Grumman's idea of 'random increased toughness' if an element of randomness were to be included. But I don't think it would add enough to game play to be worth it.
  16. I tend to agree too that the 'stock' Kerbol system size is a fairly good compromise, I can fly around and explore Kerbin in a relative short time and I don't need to make rockets bigger, just because stuff is further away. I wouldn't have a problem if the default system was bigger, but all it means currently is the numbers are smaller to go anywhere, the actual physics doesn't change. There could be a valid case for a game set up option to select system size (like a simplified RSS), but it's probably not worth the devs time atm, if ever, when RSS is easily accessible to any who want it. I pl
  17. Not sure if this has been suggested before, but I couldn't find it. Simple idea... click on the throttle display scale to set the throttle to that level. Using the keys never seems to quite get it where you want, and it would be much more flexible than a series of selectable presets.
  18. A warning in map view gets my vote. Any warning or alarm should really make itself known in all screens or views.
  19. I did an 8 ship anomaly exploration of Duna as my first interplanetary manned venture. 6 2-man crewed landing missions (one crew for each anomaly and 3 spare crews) and 2 service vessels (1 and a spare) to return all crews home. Turns out it was a good plan. I lost 2 crews to the kraken on arriving at Duna soi, and stuffed up my orbit insertion with one service vessel and burnt most it's fuel. The remaining crews got home safely, but one had an 'entertaining' return to orbit resulting in one kerbal having to return to the surface to await rescue from the surviving spare lander and the ot
  20. It's not a major issue, but science collection and contracts in sandbox are certainly something I would like to have in the game.
  21. I was experimenting with shuttle the other day, with some success. I launched a shuttle and deployed a satellite in LKO then landed the shuttle at KSC. Next step, launch an empty shuttle and retrieve it. All went well, I loaded it into the cargo bay and attached to an internal docking port and set off for home. Then I noticed the load was drooping through the bottom of the cargo bay and flapping about like crazy (if you have ever seen a stallion side on you will get the idea). Anyway I tried again with a claw but it did the same thing. Struts only work when building a load in before laun
  22. I think a 'kids mode' in principle is a good idea. It needn't change the main game at all, it could be another option in the 'start new game' menu that just has easier settings, and maybe fewer parts. It could be a very good way to let youngsters actually play properly.
  23. From my experience KERs suicide burn function works only on vertical velocity. So it gives a very false reading if coming in at shallow angles. It works ok when coming down close to vertical, but I still burn a bit early just in case.
  24. As well as a 'cruise control' where it tries to maintain a set velocity, maybe an option to maintain a set 'g' acceleration would be useful too.
  25. Glass spheres make great lenses. Instead of an eclipse you get a death ray:)
  • Create New...