• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Psycho_zs

  1. Congrats with The Milestone! Right of the bat, my favorite killer features: depth masks and hemispherical tanks
  2. How about a hybrid system for career mode? Design a part (semi-)procedurally and commit it to production for some cost (analogous to tech tree initial purchases). Redesigning a part would also cost some money, etc. So it would mostly be the same lego build process, but one could pre-customize some of the pieces for money and science points.
  3. Looking good! Although Ike might be a bit too glossy for a dark rock.
  4. Orbital Assembly Facility/Dock/Something
  5. If you think about it, thrust in timewarp and orbiting a binary system are technically similar in that both are a replacement of conic formula in trajectory calculation.
  6. Holy [bunch of words prohibited on this forum]!!! So may good yeses!
  7. Two questions with related subquestions about craft construction: 1. In short: will noodly rockets make into the final product. Long: How similar the physical behavior of rockets will be to KSP 1? Is it conceptually the same, or is there some plan to make them stiffer but more brittle? Judging by pre-alpha footage they are still pretty wobbly and can be bent pretty far before breaking. Breakage, dynamic pressure limits? Too much sidewind destroys tanks (feature from FAR)? 2. Is craft structure still strictly a tree? How about multipath/loops? Are stack decouplers still a thing (I mean they are backwards, thrust plates/interstages are conceptually much closer to reality)? And yet another one: what about less crazy near future tech? Fission-powered electric propulsion: Reactors + Hall thrusters, MPDs, PITs? (BTW, if I was in charge of making a new KSP, one of the first things I would do is to try and get @Nertea on the team )
  8. I think the second variant is for you, it specifically mentions breakages.
  9. YAY! A flame war! ) YAML rules. That's all there is to say on the matter.
  10. Translation here:
  11. Life support is already confirmed as a feature, most likely already as a difficulty option. So this section of the poll is about specifics.
  12. Consider it a single long list with multiple choices (forum limits to 3 questions with 20 variants per question). I hope I didn't forget anything important....
  13. Considering support of thrusted timewarp, this would be a great scenario.
  14. Well, they will have engines similar to the Epstein drive because of their torch-ship qualities But they mention Orion and ICF engines among those. So the similarity is rather stretchy.
  15. In KSP 1 crafts are structured as trees, with every part having a single parent down to a root part. This is a limitation for the building process, which manifests itself in the way radial decouplers are used, inability to form structural loops, multiple pylons etc. There is a multidock capability (and Recoupler mod that uses it to simulate multipath constructs), but it is not trivial to utilize it. So I wonder, will there be any relevant changes in KSP 2?
  16. This in stock would be awesome.
  17. (Edit: whoops, wrong thread.) Anyway, they aren't putting Epstein drive in the game. But yes, metallic hydrogen is a bit too speculative for a non-magic tech.
  18. Persistent thrust confirmed: We’ve had to overhaul the map view and map system to allow you to plan a continuous acceleration trajectory, and of course we’ve had to add a couple more levels of time zoom because many of these voyages take years and we don’t want you to have to literally sit at your computer for years.
  19. LF/OX was referred to specifically as methalox. There will be metallic hydrogen as next step.
  20. More generally and importantly, persistent thrust, propulsion during analytical timewarp - that would be a killer feature. And judging by burn-flip-burn kind of travel mentioned in one of the interviews, there is a good chance of it being implemented.
  21. Scalable universe as a difficulty setting... We can dream, right?
  22. The main hurdle in KSP is physics. In two parts: poor performance of Unity's physics engine (or the way it was used in KSP 1) and soft body model not being the most appropriate choice for simulating rockets. They might fix or smooth over the first problem (it's one of their stated goals), but we have no idea yet of what (if anything) they are going to do with the second. That german interview featured pre-alpha footage of some extremely floppy rocket, same undampened springy noodle motion, it seems.
  23. First of all, YES! HELL YES! [snip] Second of all, what engine is it based on? Also, any word on Linux support?