• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About T1mo98

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. As I said, it's an optional game mechanic that's disabled by default. It's a very sad day when people complain when devs add more content and more choices and ways to play the game. If you think it ruins the challenge, just leave it disabled and never touch it. The only thing it does is increase flexibilty and functionality for those people who specifically want to use it.
  2. You seem to forget that having other launchsites is not a default setting in the game and has to be turned on in order to get them. So unless someone explicitely turns them on, the challenge is NOT gone. If people enable it they aren't interested in challenge. There is nothing wrong with adding optional features. This entire thing feels like completely useless outrage for no reason, made without giving much thought about how it would be implemented.
  3. You have to enable other launchsites through the difficulty options to begin with, I doubt the Mun launchsite will be any different. People who still want to learn the game and want a challenge can just leave this setting off, since it is disabled by default. It would only be a extra option, say for people designing new crafts and then being able to quickly test them on the Mun or deep space without needing to get them there first. I won't ruin the challenge because people who decide to turn it on are not looking for that challenge to begin with. If anything, the ability to launch from other sites should be available in the tech tree with Woomerang and the Dessert somewhere in the middle and the Mun landing site being the last thing you unlock, to indicate the Kerbals are able to set up a permanent base on the Mun. With a couple other buildings added to make it look like a Mun colony. That would be cool and balanced since you would still get the challenge in the beginning and you would get something cool as a final reward.
  4. T1mo98

    Fairing Bug

    Are you running stock? As the others said, you probably have it attached to another node within the fairing. You need to turn those off and attach the satellite to the base again. (btw, if you are playing stock, why are you running an older version?)
  5. Looks great, but will we also get a varient we can properly place at the end of a tank with a node?
  6. The top part is held in place by the bolts we see, the bottom part is attached to the pistons. How exactly would it fall apart under gravity?
  7. Not trying to diminish Nertea's work in any way, but this engine doesn't fit in with the other redesigns we've seen. Squad has made a decision with the direction they want the parts to take, simply saying 'This model is more realistic', does not qualify that it is actually better.
  8. Not the lowest common denominator, but the majority of the playerbase. Why would you sacrifice a good design because a couple people are upset about the scientific accuracy of it? Yes, you could drastically reduce the thrust, but that would change the entire balance and role the Twitch used to play. There are things that KSP just doesn't need to teach, and rocket plumbing is one of them. Otherwise why is everyone fine with engines being able to relight infinitely many times? There are sacrifices that need to be made in scientific accuracy in order to benefit design and balance. Attention to detail is great, but not when it comes at the cost of balance. There are two options here: 1. Add a turbopump to the design. I'm not a designer, but I don't think it would work in such a small engine, correct me if I'm wrong. 2. Reduce the thrust, thereby pushing the Twitch out of it's intended role and breaking the balance. I'd also say it's not a matter of 'The door is too big', but more 'the grain in the wood is inconsistent with the type of door it would have been in real-life' It's such a small, insignificant detail that in the end doesn't matter to the enjoyment of the vast majority of people playing. In that case it is better to make a slight compromise in realism in order to benefit design and balance. But that's just coming from someone who has no clue how to design an engine or a game, so what do I know?
  9. I'd classify this in the category "Does it really matter?". It looks good, and that's the main objective. Only rocket nerds are going to notice such things, no other person who plays the game is going to notice "Oh, this radial engine does not have a turbopump, but only has slightly lower thrust instead of much lower thrust" (Couldn't you also just say that the turbopump is hidden inside the structure the engine is attached to, just having an external nozzle?)
  10. If I go back and look at previous Dev screenshots from actual Russian varients, the colour is way more greenish and lighter than this. I don't think we should pay much mind to the names of the varients, since they have been weird in the past. For instance, some of the adapters were called 'Black and White' when there wasn't even any black on it and the Russian varients was just called 'Orange'.
  11. I don't think this is the Russian olive colour. To me it looks to be more like the black nosecone colour.
  12. I'm loving all these part revamps, but when are we going to get new stuff? I'd love to get more modern parts, like new engines based off the Raptor, BE-4, Merlin, RL-10, etc and more airplane parts like turboprops or helicopter rotors. Along with that some modern structural parts and structural tube adapters in various shapes and sizes. More science equipment, more solar panel types and maybe even servo's. I have a whole list of specific parts I'd love to see. A graphical update would also be a nice feature, something like EVE, but stock with the option to turn it on or off.
  13. On Steam you can always ask a refund if you haven't played more than 2 hours. In that time you should be able pick up any performance issues the game may have on your platform. Also, just because MacOS is supported, doesn't mean it's equally as supported as the Windows version. These are all things that should be pretty obvious to a Mac owner or someone who's interested in tech, Macs just are worse at games in general than Windows. That's why you'll almost never see a hardcore Mac gaming rig. Btw, if you have any knowledge of software development, you'll know that new bugs pop up all the time, you can fix 1 thing and 3 other things break. I have a job in testing software, and each new release fixes things and breaks even more things. With a game that has so many complex mechanics, it's not easy, I'd say almost impossible, to completely crush every bug whilst not creating new ones. They're still a semi-indie developer, with nowhere near the resources of something like DICE, Blizzard or EPIC. Also keep in mind that if they were to switch game engines, they would essentialy have to rewrite the entire game or huge parts of it. The decision to use Unity was a very sensible one when the game was first developed, and there might just not be the resources they need to completely fix it. It's very easy to criticize them for the decisions they made, but it isn't easy to actually make those decisions.
  14. Then the issue is probably the Mac, since KSP isn't really built for it, and MacOS is pretty bad for games when compared to Windows.
  15. That's most likely the mods being not completely compatible with 1.6. Without mods mine launches very quickly. Do you have KSP installed on an SSD? Because that might help.