T1mo98

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

205 Excellent

About T1mo98

  • Rank
    Craft Connoisseur

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm thinking Squad will continue to take care of KSP 1, whilst giving regular feedback about KSP 2. Eventually they could join in developing KSP 2.
  2. Will the classic parts shown in the trailer be updated to look more like their revamped looks? Will the DLC parts and mechanics be carried over?
  3. I can indeed see that the parts have been reworked, but I don't think it's enough. Take the Poodle for example, it still has that tiny nozzle in this trailer, so I really do hope that these are placeholders. It would be a real shame if they made this entire game new and awesome but then forgot to use the revamped parts instead of the ugly old ones.
  4. Something I've seen in the trailer and screenshots that worries me a bit is that it seems like they've just ported over all the parts from KSP. I wouldn't be as worried for this if it weren't for the fact that the parts shown were the older models before any revamps. Let's hope that these are just placeholders and that they will make them look like the revamps or make them even better. Let's also hope that they integrate a lot of the new features added in the latest updates and DLC's.
  5. So, KSP 2 just got announced and we are all really excited. I never expected this but I'm so happy they've done it anyway. Throughout the years feedback has been an important part of KSP's development, so let's start it off early. Now that the game is still in early development, I think it's the best time to already start giving feedback. I know two trailers aren't much, but the sooner we give feedback, the earlier the developers can choose to integrate it. I'll be the first: I hope the parts we've seen so far are place-holders for the final ones. Mostly because a lot of the parts shown which have been ported over from KSP seem to be the old models, which in my opinion looked a lot worse. I hope they will either port over the revamped parts or make entirely new ones that look even better and more realistic while still keeping a slightly goofy style.
  6. I'd say mods, because I think the resources of a DLC could be better spend on other features first, like life-support, more complete part families, more planets and exploration, otherwise it's going to have to be a DLC way down the road in which case a mod would be faster. But definitely, console needs to get more support, that's probably where most of the really young audience is, judging from my own experience.
  7. I do understand you and I do think that there is a place in the market for a very technical game like what you propose. I happen to think that spaceflight should be among the top priorities of mankind, along with fixing the climate, so in my opinion having a game like KSP and a company like SpaceX is amazing to get young people more interested in the sector. You say you want KSP to cater to a much larger potential base, but then I will again comment that by making a game so immensely detailed and technical it actually limits the group of people who want to play it. You need to grab someone's attention first and slowly introduce them to the world, not drop them into it immediately and overwhelm them with graphs, diagrams and calculations. If a kid downloads the game and immediately has no idea what to do he will more likely drop the game and go do something easier and more fun straightaway than staying and learning, because he hasn't gotten a reason to be interested in it yet. That's why I say; keep the technical stuff as a mod. If a kid downloads KSP or any other game he will first have fun launching rockets and exploding things, he will then try to actually make good designs within the game itself and eventually he will start to wonder how all the things actually work, he'll start to watch videos like Scott Manley, install RSS and RO and eventually he'll go learn all the minute details of how a rocket engine works for example. It needs to be a slow process otherwise you'll simply scare them off.
  8. You never said it, correct, but with your proposals it seems you want to push it in this direction, which simply isn't what KSP is about. KSP is about bringing rocket science down to earth so anyone could understand it, that's why it's so popular. [snip] that's what we have to do, get more people interested. Introducing unnecessary realism and design details doesn't get the uninitiated interested, it would just scare them off. Instead, the dev team should focus on other features that are astronomically more important. Yes, this game has a learning curve, the worst thing we can do is increase it even further thus making the game less fun for those who don't want to spend a couple of hours tweaking their engine settings. You said it yourself, Career and Science mode are not as important, so the proper thing to do would be to make them that, instead of abandoning them in order to focus on hyper-realism that less than 10% of the playerbase would want to make use of. I don't want DLC that only caters to a small part of the playerbase and I don't want a DLC to focus purely on the stuff that doesn't matter. I want DLC that expands the game for everyone. As I said, it's great if you want to toil about with engine fuel intake settings or whatever, but don't try to claim it's something we need or all want. It's great that you want more detail, go make a mod or something, it's the proper place for something like this.
  9. It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn. Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits. Just because Squad shared your crafts doesn't mean they want to add unnecessary detail and complexity to every game mechanic.
  10. Not the point. It doesn't matter if we can already build something that does the job, it's about building whatever we can. There's been calls for propellers for YEARS, but now that they're finally added it's suddenly not good because you need to learn how to use them?
  11. Good luck using only jet engines on a helicopter. If you tune the motor size, RPM and Torque Limit properly you can get some pretty efficient designs.
  12. Here's what you do: Set the engine to go 100% through Custom01 or something. If the blades are in the neutral position (deployed with authority limited to 0) Assign the blade authority limiter to the throttle. This way you will throttle the plane by pitching the blades. It's very precise and requires more attention than 'simple' jet engines. If you have more than 1 engine, say 2 on both sides, make sure to have 1 set to Clockwise and the other to Counterclockwise. Same for the blades. If you don't do this the plane will tend towards a direction other than straight forward. If you find plane spinning in place you need to check whether the deploy directions are set correctly, so invert the one causing the spin. Note: This is coming from someone with no experience in the matter, I'm just saying what works for me after fidgeting around with it for an hour or so. Here's my first succesful plane.
  13. Choice. You can either assign them to the throttle control or instead assign the pitch of the propellers to it.