Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Time spent in the VAB represents 'design office' time so would not in itself affect normal game (as in mission) time because as IRL it happens whilst missions etc are in progress, so time 'freezing' whilst in VAB does make sense. Actual build time, if implemented, should delay the availability of the designed vessel without affecting the operation of current missions or use of the VAB for more design work. Probably only one vessel should 'in construction' at any one time, or two if the SPH is used simultaneously.
  2. Seems to me that what the OP needs are some more capable 'stock' ships that can do things like interplanetary without the player needing to spend time designing their own ships if they don't want to. The ships could then also serve as 'tutorial examples' and as a starting point for conversion into more advanced ships. For me a lot of the fun is in designing missions and the ships to do them, but I can see the appeal in having some basic ready to go 'workhorses' to enable new players to have a go at interplanetary travel. @OP. I've not tried it myself, but have you considered downloading read
  3. The 'facility' to be able to access the internet from in game would be handy yes, and I have no argument against that. But not as a substitute for a comprehensive in game offline tutorial/reference/help system to cover all the details needed to learn how to play and learn the game itself. Squad are working on tutorials etc as we know, so we will see the results when V1. 0 launches.
  4. Whether or not you feel Squad can/will implement it well enough is a different issue to whether or not it would be BETTER to be able to access the same information from ingame without needing to have to connect to the Internet to do so. As i said previously, IMO as much help with the basics should be given as possible OFFLINE by using in game 'pop up' tips and access to help menus etc. And, if done well, will convey the info without unduly affecting the flow of play.
  5. Having access to info on the Internet is certainly an advantage. I learnt most of the basics from tutorials and videos etc. and lots of other interesting and useful stuff from forums and wiki. BUT - IMO there is no substitute for decent tutorials 'supplied' with the game and access to a detailed user manual from within it during play. Perhaps a downloadable PDF that sits in the game folder that can be accessed via an in game menu would do the job. If could then be printed by the user if so desired.
  6. Only if you have an Internet connection! I favour ingame info where possible, at least for the basic and common stuff. For KSP that would be how all the UIs work, how to reach orbit etc. As well as inbuilt comprehensive tutorials that can be aaccessed from the start menu. I get quite annoyed with the CAD software I use at work just links me to the Internet when I only want some basic info on a feature.
  7. My original response and post on this was - no, not quite. And I still feel the same based on what little I know (zero) about squads progress with developing the new features and bug fixes etc. That said, if they are confident that they can achieve their target then why not go for release. It has been a long time in development and the basic core of the game is all in place. Huge though the scope of this update will be it does make some sense doing it all in one go. All the bits will be in place so major balancing and bug fixing will only need to be done once. Extra planets and improvem
  8. Apologies if this is in the wrong place, but... Can the glitch where some anomalies float above the ground or sink beneath it out if sight be fixed? It's good that some can be very hard to find, but surely that all at least need to be visible when reasonably close, regardless of graphics settings.
  9. I do agree with spacetoddity's point that it does contradict what was said when beta was announced. I too expected a few more updates in beta. But plans change. It was obvious that they worked hard to get 0.90 released before Christmas, rather than force everyone to wait until January, so maybe some less critical 'in progress' bug fixes just failed to make the deadline as a result.
  10. 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.
  11. Victoria Beckham. She has redesigned the flight suits and IVAs so they blend in nicely together. Vijay Singh. A golf course on every planet?
  12. 'V' - very important name ? Valentina's a good guess but your'e all wrong... It has to be Vladimir Putin (or Vanamonde).
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. @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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...