Jump to content

pandaman

Members
  • Content Count

    2,332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pandaman

  1. I'm not convinced a proper memorial to Leonard Nimoy is appropriate. A reference would be cool if done well, but there is a real danger of setting a precedent.

    As for memorials in general a general one to fallen real life astronauts somewhere on kerbin with perhaps a name plaque that gets updated as and when appropriate works for me. Even then there are two distinct categories - those killed in the line if duty (eg. Apollo 1, Challenger and Colombia crews) and those who died naturally (eg. Neil Armstrong).

    All astronauts make a contribution to the future of space flight and science etc. Some are more publicised and/or famous, but especially in the current era, the 'pioneering' aspect is less prominent.

    I fear that to select particular astronauts for memorials could risk not doing justice to those who made just as big a contribution, but did not hit the headlines for whatever reason.

  2. Duna has an atmosphere so you can use parachutes to land, but you will need more of them than on Kerbin as its much thinner, so play safe and allow extra deltaV to slow you down for landing if you need to. If you estimate 1500 dV to get to orbit that will give you a bit of a margin, but allow more on top for the rendezvous. RCS will come in handy for the rendezvous too. Depending on what exactly you want to do I would suggest go for 2000 dV minimum as a starting point and, if you can, add more if practical.

    Your rendezvous could eat up a lot if you're not careful with it so it may be worth giving the 'mother ship' extra fuel and RCS so that it can manouvre to save the lander needing to carry enough do it all.

    Tip from experience - repack your chutes after landing, that way you can abort your take off and increase the chances saving the crew.

    Hope this helps.

  3. Glad you're ok. That's the important thing.

    I 'parked' my first car in a ditch many years ago. It rolled over a couple if times before finishing on its roof. The most serious injury was mine - a few minor cuts on my hands from the screen shattering and a bruise on the head from a dent in the roof.

    I found the whole event rather surreal, and the sounds it made were just awesome.

  4. Dying? No I don't think so. It's just starting to reach maturity.

    It's been through it's childhood and started 'big school' with v0.18. Since then it's grown into an 'unstable adolescent' and with v1.0 is about to start adulthood. It's changing to be a more complete, balanced and stable (hopefully) individual - and it's just discovered girls too :).

    It still has some growing up to do of course, but the next release is that first step into the big wide world outside.

    Ok. Light hearted waffle aside, we are in that gap between releases, when activity slows down. We are all interested, excited and concerned about what's in v1.0 and how it will be received by the world. But this is a relatively long wait and squad needs to take it's time and get it as right as possible. But it's not dying, not by a long way, as far as I can tell.

  5. It is a simple matter of attaching as many external seats with parachutes to as many decouplers as possible on a rocket. Then insert Kerbals. Finally, at a high enough altitude, decouple them all and one has bound to land in the site!

    Nice theory, but it is doomed to failure because of the way the game deals with multiple objects in atmosphere. Any vessels not on the ground and out of physics range (more than 2.5 km) of the active vessel gets deleted. It's not a bug, it is how the game avoids needing to work out aerodynamics for lots of objects simultaneously.

    I couldn't work out why my para drooped probes just kept vanishing until I found that info on the forums.

    You can para drop probes if you circle near the probe staying within 2.5 kof it until it's safely on the ground. This is easiest if you drop from low altitude.

    Hope this helps.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 ready made ships from other players or mods etc? That may be one way of addressing your 'time spent building' issue.

  8. 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.

  9. The contents can be the same, but the UI will be worse. I can't see Squad spending comparable time and effort to perfect the UI as the developers of common web browsers, office suites, and operating systems have.

    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.

  10. 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.

  11. Even if the information could be found ingame, it's always more convenient and less painful to use the standard tools to access it online.

    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.

  12. 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 improvements to the existing ones are ideal for future 'goodies', but have no bearing on current playability etc. Nice though they would be They can wait.

    What can really let the release down is missed major bugs, and that's what I think most of the community is concerned about. It can give a very bad impression of an otherwise excellent

    product.

    The only missing features that I feel are needed in the first release are reentry damage (which may be covered by the aero overhaul with any luck) and clouds, purely for eye candy to impress newcomers.

    So - Squad, if you can do all this and squash the bugs in one go (and I do think you are capable) then yes it is the right time to go for public release.

    But please, before you 'launch', double check your staging and make sure you haven't forgotten your solar panels and batteries.

    Great game, Awesome job so far. Keep it up.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...