Panel
-
Posts
110 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Panel
-
-
Here is my entry. Despite, or perhaps because, it's a deathtrap, it manages to go 109 m/s in level flight. I guess that's why they wear space suits. If I calculate correctly, my score is 5.54.
EDIT:
Here's an improved entry, with a slightly better score of 7.74.
-
I'm not really sure this fits with the theme of the game...
-
I have never needed 0.625 meter fairings, but ui have always wanted a heat shield in that size. All of my small atmospheric drop probes are forced to have a giant heat shield and fairing, adding unneeded mass and volume.
-
Looking at Kommander, it doesn't really seem like what the game is built for. Career mode was originally meant to be played as the administrator of the space program. You are right, though, the system is very broken, and restricts the way you play. Career overhaul has been suggested several times recently, and the most recent up to date thread is found here.
-
40 minutes ago, Veeltch said:
Nope. This game is about rockets and doesn't have proper water physics.
It's a game about rockets, and doesn't have very good aerodynamic modeling. Who needs plane parts and the runway?
Seriously, though, this a good idea. I don't use hyperedit, so I always have found it hard to get my boats in the water.
-
The thing is, I am playing with mods. I have Strategia, KCT, and Engineering Tech Tree as the most game-changing. I have not been able to find anything for better career overhaul, but it's still not up to snuff.
That's why this thread is in Suggestions and Development. We are suggesting a way to improve the game.
-
1 hour ago, Roastduck said:
You basically want a complete redesign of the game, which isn't likely to happen since the game is no longer in alpha or beta testing
Yes, yes we do. We know that it's unlikely, but the current game is pretty broken.
-
23 minutes ago, The Optimist said:
Perhaps existing craft, such as space stations and previously landed probes could continue to provide reputation as long as they are active.
This is a great solution! Besides helping to reduce filler missions, it would give an actual reason to launch bases and stations. For balance, they could stop giving rep after a certain time. Also, I'm not sure about probes. They would do their science for rep pretty quickly, and probably wouldn't need this.
-
49 minutes ago, Firemetal said:
I believe they are adding two new gas planets in 1.2.
Where did you hear this? I don't remember anything about it.
-
You mean you want thermals and weather added? That would be pretty difficult. Although I like the idea, I don't think it will be stock.
-
It isn't that difficult. It is already done with solar panels, and dev notes mentioned antennas in 1.2 will have the same effect.
-
Why would you need to complete a whole program to get rep? Why not give portions of rep per mission? You would select the Mun landing program, and be given a program tree (which could either look like a mini tech tree, or not be visible, and use a similar UI to contracts now). When a mission is completed, you get rep, which gets you funds. You would also be offered the next set of missions. For example, when complete the Mun flyby mission, you could be offered both an orbital mission and a long duration multi-flyby mission. Each completed mission would give rep, and they would be much more rapid. Also, funds could be given in smaller amounts monthly, spreading it out to make it easier to do rapid-fire missions.
-
On June 10, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Veeltch said:
Yes, I agree. But the career can be overhauled without the need of science points AKA "The Closed Loop Career".
Science experiments feed into reputation, reputation feeds into annual income, annual income feeds into science experiments (you build vessels that can perform science with and get you rep that way).
I will draw it at some point just so it's easier to understand
EDIT:
OK, so here's the explanation:
1. - Using money you build and launch vessels capable of doing science experiments
2. - Science experiments show the HQ that you are not passive (useless); reputation increases
3. - Reputation proves you useful; annual funding increasesMONEY - You get more cash for accepting programs; spend it (and time) on tech (parts' research).
SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS - No longer rewarded with science points (now they get you rep); each experiment is weighted based on how hard it is to perform (the closer to the surface of a planet/moon it's performed the more rep it gets you).
REPUTATION - If you do experiments, then it means you are not sitting on your butt all day long; income increases.Programs - this is what is offered in the Admin Building instead of strategies; programs influence the theme of your missions (if you've picked the Jool Exploration Program then you should expect missions to be based around Jool's SOI).
Missions - Those are what you get based on what kind of program you've picked (previously called 'contracts') .
Tech - The tech "tree". Now more of a loosely connected set of groups of parts which you can research without caring much about previous steps (takes money and time to research).
Failed missions and time - The reputation goes down with time; failed missions have much worse consequences and hit your reputation harder.Did I miss anything?
This is almost exactly what I would want out of Career Mode! If there was anything I would add, it would be a different set of programs for crewed and and uncrewed missions, and being able select multiple programs at a time.
-
A lot of recent suggestions on career mode is over in this thread, we discussed a lot about contracts and their weighting.
-
As for how to keep missions organized:
Rather than have each mission be to do x experiment in y biome, why not make two types of mission? One type could be to do a flyby/orbit/landing at the specified body, and the other could be to collect x science points from the body.
-
Procedural parts is a discussion fir another thread. What those people are saying is that they would like another stock part size, just not all the parts to go with it. That is fine, I would just like that discussion to take place elsewhere.
-
3 minutes ago, cami said:
Just a small note on the snapping idea. I'm one of the players embracing restricitions and one of the toughest restricitions early game is part count. Availability if only small tanks creates a tradeoff constraint between launcher size and payload complexity. If you have a single part snapping to various sizes that aspect is lost. Also progression in the tech tree has less effect on your reach and more effect on your efficiency, if the longer tanks are available before the shorter ones (you can like or dislike this change, personally I prefer the smaller tanks first).
I believe that those in favor of procedural parts suggested that they be restricted in size based on tech tree progression.
-
2 hours ago, Andem said:
As someone, I don't remember who, said very recently
-
18 minutes ago, Veeltch said:
I was actually thinking about this one and came to conclusion that choosing the missions shouldn't be chosen before the flight. The program should. So:
Pick Jool exploration program -> Build a Jool probe and launch it -> get to the Jool SOI -> accept missions from the program (picking the ones that suit you best) -> perform science -> get rep (#getrep)
That seems very backwards. Apollo 11 knew that it would land on the moon and preform certain experiment months in advance.
-
On other threads, 1.875 meter parts have had mixed thoughts. I think they're needed, but I wanted to see what the majority wants.
I think they are, since going from 1.25 to 2.5 doubles the diameter, while 3.75 is only 150% larger. This makes any rockets with two sizes look very strange. Also, 1.25 meter rockets can only put small payloads into orbit on its own, while 2.5 meter is overkill for anything smaller than 10 tons or so.
-
27 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
-snip-
The goal of a program could be to collect a total of xyz science points from a body. This would encourage exploration in full, while still leaving players a choice of what experiments to run.
-
This would definitely be very helpful. What I used to do was save each mission as a new craft file with minor modifications, but gave up when the vessel list got too long.
-
What about long term experiments for space stations? They're pretty useless right now, with only the science lab really the only useful long-term science thing.
-
Ah. I see. I didn't quite understand what you were saying, this makes sense. The things I would most like out of career mode would be:
1. Exploration programs, configurable in the admin building. These would give certain missions to do, which would get more involved as you complete previous ones. For example, the Mun program would give you missions to take crew to the Mun, starting in flybys, later orbital missions, then landings, and then eventually a base. Programs could be terminated at any time by the player.
2. A monthly budget, based on reputation. Reputation would be increased by doing missions related to the active program(s), and decrease slowly over time. The time it takes for reputation to decrease between missions depends on the time it takes to get to the body involved.
3. A part unlock system based on funds and time. This would basically work as @Veeltch suggested. The tech tree has different starting nodes to research, giving a bit of choice as to how to start the game.
4. Some sort of a construction time mechanic.
These are the four changes want from career mode. It would really make stock more playable to me.
What is this song?
in The Lounge
Posted · Edited by Panel
I can't remember the name of this song, only the melody. It starts off with an instrumental version of it, and later on there are singers doing the same thing. I'm pretty sure it is/was a somewhat popular song. Included is a very bad rendering of it on Vocaroo. Please excuse both my terrible voice and the mic quality.
http://vocaroo.com/i/s07y9NxWCqgo
I hope I can finally find someone who knows this song, and can help me name it.