Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


691 Excellent


Profile Information

  • About me
    Veteran KSP newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

6,581 profile views
  1. There were some issues with the integration, and I tinkered with it recently, so I probably broke something there (or maybe CLS got updated). Will check it.
  2. I suspect that merely fixing the existing bugs and improving performance (two highest-priority tasks the devs have mentioned) will take at least 3-4 months. Then each step in the roadmap will probably take about 6 months, so that the game will be more or less feature-complete in 2025 or 2026. I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the features wouldn't be implemented in the end (e.g. multiplayer, which requires massive changes to the game). It sounds pessimistic, but remember how many times the initial release has been postponed. I just hope the development won't be abandoned before the game is solid.
  3. Interesting, thanks for the link,
  4. I probably used the wrong term. I meant that this could be done using the approach of dividing space into spheres of influence and drawing the trajectory in each SOI. Of course, the shapes will be different from the current simple keplerian ellipses. But if we assume that the second most influential body is the main body's parent (which will be the case in 99.9% situations), they shouldn't be too hard to compute or predict.
  5. It's interesting that KSP2 concurrent players have decreased and fallen below KSP1's three days after the release. How normal is that?
  6. Problems with development were obvious from the start. All the Star Theory/Intercept controversy notwithstanding, I could see that things weren't going smoothly from the developers' comms, or lack thereof. When you develop such a complex game as KSP, you should have lots of interesting things to tell users about new and improved features. It should be getting more substantive as you get closer to the release date and more things are already in place. Instead, we got rare and often irrelevant posts or videos, and very few actual gameplay pics or footage. To me, it was a sign that development was going very slow and that there were still major obstacles. Moreover, it became clear that the game would have very few new features compared to KSP1 (namely, multiple stars, colonization and multiplayer), and almost all of them are still a long way down the road. I can only speculate as to why the development was so slow and inefficient (there are some better-informed opinions in this thread), but it looks obvious that the game wasn't really ready for release, even as Early Access. Apparently, Take 2 finally lost their patience and pushed it out. I hate to be a Cassandra and I hope to be wrong, but I feel that, unless a miracle happens and the game will be quickly fixed and improved, the development will be abandoned long before it reaches its later milestones.
  7. Indeed, there is nearly zero chance that N-body physics will be implemented in KSP2. It's a big overhaul of the fundamental systems of the game. I have another idea that might, just might, be more feasible: three-body physics. Basically, instead of having just the vessel and the main body, the physics system might also include influence from the second most influential celestial body. It would be Kerbin when you are near Mun or Minmus, Sun when in a planetary orbit and so on. I think it could still be done using the existing patched conics approach and would be reasonably realistic while not too computationally difficult or unstable. It would allow you to have Lagrange points, for instance. The SOIs would have to be much bigger (e.g. Mun's SOI would end at a point where the Mun's influence gets stronger than the Sun's), but crossing them would have a smoother effect on the trajectory.
  8. For now, I'm waiting for KSP2 to take shape, at least. Will probably buy it when the Science mode is in (or maybe a big discount). Then I'll see what gaps there still are to fill with mods. I have some ideas, but it's really early to say.
  9. Space Age 1.3.8 Added a button to view the active vessel's log when in the Flight scene Download here
  10. I know what you mean. I have also complained elsewhere about KSP2's lack of interesting new mechanics, although I was talking more about things like life support, reliability, radiation, heat management, signal delay etc. They might also for example make kerbals more individual or autonomous (add some sort of AI). Planetary weather could be a very interesting addition. I'm also disappointed that the developers basically took the easy road of just adding more celestial bodies and parts, something this community could have done very well on its own (and perhaps even better). There is still hope that some new features will be introduced later, but then the devs should think outside the box and try to not just create a remake + visual uplift.
  11. Yes and no. Of course, one can always find a challenge, but if to have a decent challenge you need to go deep into the far future and speculative technologies, it's not what KSP is to me (i.e. plausible realism + complexity). I think actual space flight already has a lot of interesting challenges, which I wish KSP (1 and 2) would simulate. There are so many interesting - and real - mechanics that might make the game deeper and more enjoyable! But I'm afraid the actual challenge will be like: build a HUGE rocket and make sure it doesn't disintegrate on launch and doesn't fry your PC; land on a planet and mine some Unobtainium, fuel your ship, repeat. And as a reward for all this grind you'll see some (undoubtedly beautiful, if your graphics card can handle it) fantasy planets. I mean, apart from colonies, there are basically no new interesting mechanics promised. Even a Career mode is probably not a thing, so hello overengineering! Ok, I just hope I'm wrong and the game will indeed be as deep as most commenters here claim. Otherwise, my only hope is modders. For now, it looks like I'm going to stick with KSP1 and watch the sequel from a distance.
  12. This release fixes some stress- and training-related issues introduced in Kerbal Health 1.6.4. Kerbal Health 1.6.5 Fixed: Training was sometimes taking place for wrong parts. Fixed: Some parts info in existing saves wasn't correctly updated, which caused incorrect stress- and training-related behaviour. Download here
  13. This release marks 6 years since Kerbal Health, my first game mod ever, was published. It's been quite a ride! I want to thank everyone who enjoyed this mod, criticized it (in a civil manner), provided ideas and other feedback and especially helped with pull requests. With KSP2 around the corner, I don't know if I'm going to do any more significant releases of Kerbal Health, but I do plan to issue fixes and rebuilds when necessary. Kerbal Health 1.6.4 Changed: Made the training system more consistent on vessels that utilize multiple parts of multiple types. It is now assumed that kerbals use parts (and therefore experience stress) in the proportion of the number of parts of a type on the vessel. So if you have 3 labs and 1 Hitchhiker, stress from labs will weigh 3x more than from the Hitchhiker. Unfortunately, this change required some tweaks to the save files. So it is recommended that you visit every crewed vessel after loading the game to update the relevant values. Downgrading to Kerbal Health 1.6.3 and lower is also not guaranteed. Download here
  14. Christmas update! Kerbal Health 1.6.3 Changed: In-flight training now works differently: kerbals now always gradually increase their training level for the vessels they are in, without a hard cap but with diminishing returns, so that they never actually reach 100%. The speed of training depends on the kerbal's stupidity (the higher, the slower), current situation (more challenging locations yield more training, and being on the ground on Kerbin stops training) and the current training level. See more details in readme. Changed: KSC training caps have been reduced. Based on the Astronaut Level facility, they've been reduced to 30%, 50% and 60% for levels 1 to 3 (from 40%, 60% and 75%, respectively). Changed: EVA now also requires training, which currently can only be done in flight. Changed: EVA health factor reduced from 10 to 8 HP/day to compensate for the above change. Changed: Default Stupidity factor for training speed is now 50% Improved: Training Info UI Fixed: Events would almost never happen. Also event checks are conducted much more often now, which is especially important for probable events. Download here
  15. Like I said, the stock game is very easy (although it wasn't at first, of course), so I'm adding more challenge with mods. I just don't see a point in visiting every planet, neither from the gameplay perspective (I can probably earn all the money and science I need without even leaving the Kerbin system) nor for personal satisfaction: once you've been to one planet, the difference is only the size of the rocket and the textures you see on the screen. So instead I challenge myself to more realistic gameplay: with life support, signal delay, parts failures etc. etc. I wish the stock game in KSP2 offered me more of this, but I'm afraid it will instead offer less in an attempt to make early game even easier and interstellar travel more accessible to the proverbial "average player". I hope you're right, but so far I've seen very little details of these plans. I don't see it (with the exception of colonization, which is also supposed to very late game in my book) in the roadmap, and it may never really materialize.
  • Create New...