Jump to content

The Aziz

Members
  • Posts

    1,813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Aziz

  1. It is not very accurate because we're talking about an object, light source REALLY, REALLY far away. Your drawing, sorry to say, without any frame of reference, pictures like if the star was tiny and very close to the observer. But that happens if you try to apply 3D depth to 2D image. Not your fault. But while I agree that the position isn't quite right no matter how you look at it, the devs are known to show footage from development in incredibly high FOV (just look at any previous videos). That can distort the view. And then again, it's a picture from the development process, so the star and light source may not be the same for the sake of the whole show n tell thing. I've said that a dozen of times already elsewhere, but you should probably know that recording a test scene directly from unity editor (and it most likely is that) won't give you a great performance in terms of framerate, even on beefy pc. I know because I've tried. Hell, even if it was straight from the test build, there's still plenty of debugging tools and other stuff running underneath. With all that being said though... The game is set to release (somewhere) in 2022, and we're getting old planets being redone, assuming this is from this week's meeting. I'm getting slightly worried that we're still a full year from release.
  2. 4G? And here's me, still unable to lift off of Eve.
  3. Was ksp1 forum closed after they announced the end of active development? Do you know if they're going to stop the development after release?
  4. You can go look for it if you're willing to listen to multiple interviews in search for one sentence. I can't be bothered, just recall things from my own memory because I know I've heard it somewhere.
  5. I believe it was. Can't give you a valid source though, I think it was mentioned in one of the early interviews. You could search the forums if you like, maybe it's out there somewhere.
  6. I must say I love the name: because "nerwus" in my language means a person who's easily irritated. Perfect when the engine is gonna glow red and emit heat in few seconds.
  7. Higg poly model from low poly concept, materials, textures, animations, probably also exhaust effects, behavior, parameters... I assume now it's ready to be put into the game as finished product. So yeah, that took 3 months, because there were probably few other things to do as well in that time. Jeez.
  8. There is always pinpoint landing at colonies, discussed many times, figuring out the perfect path around Rask n Rusk and Kraken knows what else. Ksp2 isn't supposed to be more difficult than the older brother, but to be better, and more expanded in every way. It's about adding new challenges without explicitly increasing difficulty of mechanics we already know. Some veterans (to hell with this word, I've been playing ksp for a decade and still haven't lifted off of Eve) may be disappointed, but then they've been most likely relying on mods that increase difficulty because stock game was too boring for them.
  9. Do we really need that in space game? Now I'm gonna hear how aerodynamics are integral part of spaceflight, but I'd rather see devs spend their resources on improving space part, rather than a hardcore, but unnecessary mechanic that will do nothing but add difficulty. Nothing better than adding even more parts to the craft so the elevons and wheels can work. There's a line between hardcore simulaton and game available for anyone, and what you're proposing crosses that line.
  10. Yeah like if landing wasn't hard enough.
  11. Nobody knows the upper limit of timewarp in the second game. Also, you know you can do other things in the meantime? While the interstellar ship flies? Do some errands around the solar system (oh I don't know, prepare second ship? Expand local colonies?) and the years will pass without you noticing. Plus I highly doubt there will be enough distance to accelerate to anything close to c, afaik the devs said the most efficient engines will accelerate to a large fraction of c (and then would have to start braking). But even then the travel time between stars should be significantly longer than usual Kerbin-Eeloo trip. Long enough to feel real, but short enough to not make players stare at the screen (why would they, there's a lot to do elsewhere). I believe there's a fine spot between the two.
  12. It just struck me. While we're in Kerbol system (or any system with a star behind our backs) our ships are always in the sunlight, with the exception when they're on the night side of a celestial body. So we can see them. Now as we're going to leave the solar system, the light from the star would slowly fade away, until the ship is in complete darkness. There's no ambient light in space, the few photons from stars far far away won't do much. I know that we're probably not going to do too much with the ship while it's travelling to another star, but if we do there are only two options. Mount a ton of illuminators on the hull, or operate in the dark.
  13. I'd even more gladly pay full price. Why shouldn't anyone support their friends?
  14. If they want it on different platforms, maybe, I've done that with few games.
  15. It kinda is in ksp1. At least temperature-wise, haven't checked it for pressure, but if you keep a thermo reading on while it's in closed bay, you'll notice that the temperature inside changes very slowly even if you quickly get from space through reentry to the surface. I once landed on Eve and was very surprised by the low temperature reading, until I opened the bay.
  16. Well, yes. Goo is just a way to observe how something behaves in different environment (which is done on ISS, a bunch of material samples have been exposed to space for extended period of time to see how they react). Temperature and pressure are relatively often changing variables (day/night/ground level/high up in the air/nice weather/storm/whatever) so they give a lot of info on how to prepare a spacecraft for a mission to certain planet. I know that KSP parts are everythingproof, the same fuel tank will work on the light side of Moho and dark side of Eeloo, but then nobody knows how science is going to work in the sequel either, so that's open.
  17. Oh but yes, they're useful for reconnaissance (but we can look at what we're doing in real time, we don't have to wait for a photo from a rover to see if the terrain is good enough for driving through) and as you said PR (but we don't know if there's gonna be any public to judge our space program, devs are silent about that). But we got pictures from Venus and Titan's surface, both worlds covered by thick layer of clouds and of course that was good to get a hint of how the surface may look like (rocks everywhere) but we learned a lot more (as in, gained science points) once we got radar pictures of the whole surface from an orbiter (and in Titan's case, even what the lakes are made of). I'd say yes for cameras, but maybe... Infrared?
  18. I'd say I like the idea, but in real world, photos give the least scientific data of all instruments on any spacecraft. You won't learn much from a picture of a rock.
  19. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/198386-would-this-make-sense-hiding-systems-in-progression/&do=findComment&comment=3888476
  20. That's most likely much easier. Surface vab is a huge building with a launchpad on the top. Orbital docks require, well, space, a starting point and maaybe a truss to hold the whole thing in one place. Problem lies with resources for building because while you probably could install a refinery in space, you still need to bring the raw materials from the surface.
  21. Well, yes. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/113-show-and-tell/ Make sure to check it every other Friday, it's more frequent than youtube videos (and often include dev comments)
  22. Why screenshot? If you took a picture of a car in a parking lot, if you didn't see the rear end (where the lights are) you wouldn't be able to tell if it's reversing into a spot or driving out of it. You are there, live, see what's going on each millisecond. And you're not in IFR, you're not lamding in thick fog, you can see the ground below the ship. Use it as a point of reference maybe? 1.6m/s is not fast but definitely noticeable, so just look at the surface, if it's moving to the left, pitch to the right.
  23. Most likely switch between radial/mirror symmetry because I can't see it anywhere else.
  24. One step at a time: You are on Kerbin. Or you sent a telescope into space for better results. You find a star (or just point the telescope at it if you know where it is) and you learn that there are some planets, found with transit methods or whatever. (I don't think we would actually do anything aside from clicking "search" on a telescope) Only then you know their orbits, masses, possibly composition based on the data from discovery (the same way as we can determine whether an exoplanet is rocky or it's a gas giant, its orbital period etc). But that's probably all you can know without leaving the solar system.
×
×
  • Create New...