Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. My gut feeling here is NO, not quite. All those proposed new things are bound to cause some bugs and balance issues that a little time in Beta could certainly help to find and fix. But it is important not judge the game on how it is NOW in v0.90. If they take care with the implementation and testing then why not. If it turns out too buggy it is their Rep and sales that will take a hit. If squad are, for whatever reasons, prepared to take that risk then go for it. I for one am looking forward to v1.0 and what it brings.
  2. Victoria Beckham. She has redesigned the flight suits and IVAs so they blend in nicely together. Vijay Singh. A golf course on every planet?
  3. 'V' - very important name ? Valentina's a good guess but your'e all wrong... It has to be Vladimir Putin (or Vanamonde).
  4. Yes please. I had this issue recently. Was going to suggest, but saw this thread. Realised all my fuel had drained from a lander. Decided to fix the design in VAB for future missions and couldn't.
  5. This idea gets my support. Places of interest to visit on every body that also give some science or other reward that makes them more than just cool to see.
  6. Until recently I didn't do names other than simply 'minmus 01' etc. Now I have started naming ships 'properly' I found it helps with identification and ads a little extra depth to my own game experience. My system is fairly simple... eg. Duna - XK - 01 - Gagarin. The 'Duna - XK' indicate the intended planetary body and primary function (X= explorer, K= crew capable) these are used in VAB/SPH too. The number is obviously to differentiate between multiple sister vessels. The 'name' is given to ships (other than small probes and rovers etc.) are the names ( Gagarin, Armstrong etc.) of astro
  7. IMO the 'aero model' should be as good a representation of real life as is reasonably possible. Maybe with some 'tolerances' adjusted or toggleable, but close enough that 'copies' of actual aircraft will fly 'something like' they do in RL. I expect that will also mean 'tweaking' the atmospheric code too, and if it means making the atmospheres thinner and/or higher to get a more gradual change in density with altitude then so be it. A more realistic aero model along with re-entry heat damage would be a great enhancement to an already great game. Backwards compatibility should not be an is
  8. Hi all. Interesting thread. One thing that just occurred to me when reading about parts 'improving' with higher tech and the issue of existing ships automatically 'updating' when across the solar system. When tech level allows an improved version of an existing part create a 'Mk2' version with the new attributes and distinguish it with a slightly different colour scheme (no need to create a new model) this could replace the 'original' in the VAB to avoid obsolete parts clogging up the parts list, but the original 'MK1' version stays 'in the system' so will not affect already built vessel
  9. With my current multi ship mission to Duna I am pretty much doing what parameciumkid mentioned above with some success. I wait or timewarp until KSC is close to the optimum ejection angle for the 'normal' transfer burn from orbit then launch, level out and keep burning, rather than circularise first and leave from orbit. I found I don't need to fiddle much if at all to get intersection.
  10. I agree with OP that 'biome' is technically incorrect so a more appropriate word should ideally be used, though it's no big deal either way as long as it's easy for everyone to grasp what it means in game terms. And currently 'biome' does the job. IMO there needs to be a particular name for them, as 'biome' is now, for clarification to avoid confusion with other 'area description' names used in game. I had never really come across 'biome' before playing KSP (sorry, Minecraft never really appealed to me, just take me away and shoot me now), but I got its 'KSP meaning' quite easily. With tha
  11. @The Yellow Dart - I haven't re-quoted to save space. That pretty much explains what I was thinking and why - only better. Thanks. Docking ports welded together works fine functionally, but would look wrong unless a 'fairing' of some sort was used to cover the original ports, in the same way engines get covered in the VAB. Some sort of 'angle snap' would be needed to ensure things line up. It wouldn't be too critical for circular sections, but would look odd if the graphics or windows didn't line up.
  12. Congratulations on a great app. Do you have plans to include Launch/Transfer Windows? Or if it does already where do I find it? Cheers. Keep up the good work.
  13. Okay, the idea of being able to assemble and weld parts in orbit rather than just using docking ports has been suggested and requested many times. One way of making it practical to actually do in game could be to have 'weld joint' parts. They could in essence function in exactly the same way as docking ports, with a few different sizes etc. And perhaps some type of 'angle snap' integrated into the magnetic attraction to enable parts to be lined up accurately if positioned close enough in orbit. When 'docked' they would only form a fairly weak connection, sufficient to stop them just drifti
  14. The only 'stock' solution I know of is to not be flying too high and fast when you drop the probe. Then circle around it and watch it to ensure you stay within the safe distance until it's landed.
  15. Has it been working previously? I would try a fresh download and install if it looks like something is corrupted. First, copy your saves folder to your desktop. Then proceed as if you just bought the game for the first time. It may be worth renaming your current game folder rather than deleting it yet. You can then move your saves folder into the newly created game folder. Apologies if you are a 'seasoned' player and this is telling you stuff you already know.
  16. I like this idea, been thinking along those lines myself. This may very well not be at all practical, or even doable, from a programming point of view, but... It could be handy if some configurations of these welded parts could be saved as new 'custom' single parts, like small sub assemblies. This way you could create custom sized and shaped single part fuel tanks, maybe even with engines attached. This would help reduce the part count quite a bit too.
  17. If by that you mean things such as RSS, and other realism addons then yes I comletely agree. But the essential 'behind the scenes' game mechanics should follow as realistic physics as is reasonably possible. By this I mean things like patched conics, which is not 'perfectly' realistic, but it is more than adequate and close enough for game purposes, and introducing a better atmospheric/aerodynamic model (which is on the way). The planet sizes and distances are not what many players call realistic, but they work quite well for the game, the same 'laws of physics' apply as they would if they
  18. For me the Tracking Station UI could be improved a little... On a few occasions I have terminated the wrong flights. I know primarily this is my fault for being clumsy or tired after a long flight to the Mun, but a few minor tweaks would reduce the risk... 1. Re order the Recover, Terminate and Fly buttons so that Recover is in the middle and Terminate and Fly are at each end, and increase their spacing a little. 2. Highlight the selected flight a little more clearly by giving it a brighter colour or a border on the list. 3. The 'Are you sure...' pop up window could show the flight name, an
  19. I try my best to keep them safe - Rescue missions, and specially designed rescue vessels etc. And I feel guilty if any perish due to my own carelessness etc.
  20. This pretty much sums up my thoughts too... Realism wherever practical, especially with regard to physics and atmospherics etc. , even if 'toned down' a bit for gameplay reasons, so that lessons learned in game have some 'real life' value. Representations of other things that have real life implications and importance (such as resources and life support etc.) in ways that don't bog the player down with fiddly details they don't want, but feel 'believable', if not 'realistic' in game.
  21. I'll echo Signo here. Go for it. If your design deltaV adds up. You will have fun and learn whatever
  22. That's one of those 'what's the point of that' ideas that's actually quite good, and jolly handy in a crisis. I Like it.
  23. Computer repair man did good. Mine are now safely back at KSC for the new year 'debriefing session'.
  24. Thanks for your comments. You do make some good points. #1 I agree that this would probably be more trouble than it's worth as it would go unnoticed by the vast majority of players anyway. #2 The idea behind this is that IRL all Space Agencies will have an agenda of some sort, either of their own or imposed by their governments etc. This woukd be a way if simulating that. And yes to achieve any of the objectives I mentioned a combination of all the available methods will need to be used. But how you use them may vary depending on what you ultimately want to achieve, thereby giving a di
  25. A few ideas for possibilities when starting a new career. 1. Initial planets start positions randomised? This way optimum launch windows would be different for every new game. Helping make each career a bit different. 2. Program objectives. When starting your career define a primary objective for your agency. These could serve as a way of adding variety to your games and also providing 'victory conditions' for those who want them. On reaching your objective you can quit and claim victory or continue with or without a new set of objectives. As a rough idea they could be along these li
  • Create New...