Kerenatus
-
Posts
132 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Kerenatus
-
-
On 9/9/2019 at 12:35 PM, Master39 said:
And I'm crazy curious about them, will they just be a fuel-like resource tank with an exotic shape or will it have an inventory system to transfer parts and modules? Or even a "kit" system like the MKS ones?
Can't wait to know more about them, I think they're the most interesting unexplained thing in the footage shown up to date.
Being a system to build station and bases directly in place confirmed I really hope for an inventory system.
I think it's highly likely that they carry the things needed to build colony buildings and such.
No point for them to make a quite exotic shaped regular fuel tank imo.
-
3 minutes ago, Master39 said:
I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't take the Daedalus as one of those "2 bigger sizes".
I think that that the whole " 2 bigger sizes" is deliberately misleading.
We have a confirmation that everything in the trailer is made with actual game assets and in the trailer they show plenty of parts that probably won't adere to the standard size system.
The container system, the rover parts, the spherical tanks and the truss system will be probably way more influencing for ship sizes than the "classic" system used for rocket fairing and tanks.
The prevalent thing we will probably see using the size system could be habitats and modules but being inflatables confirmed I'm not that sure.
Yeah those containers don't look like they fit in "classic" size system at all lol.
-
Let's face it.
The part sizes are just not in-line in KSP1.
Both "patterns" are imperfect assumption with artificial exception(s).
-
32 minutes ago, Xd the great said:
Someone on some thread say 1g per 100 tonnes of regolith.
approximately 2million times more than that in earth is what i read
-
8 hours ago, GoldForest said:
The mun does have Helium 3 but only tiny bits
I thought the moon has a sht ton of Helium 3?
-
Fiscal years are artificial "years" that vary from different institutions (even some governmental ones) and, as said above, Take Two's is March 31st.
My assumption is that to give a reasonable margin for enough players to buy KSP2, the release might be half or one month before the deadline, and were there any early access, it would probably be earlier than February. But i'm just being optimistic
-
1 minute ago, GoldForest said:
Kerbin wouldnt be a good place to launch interstellar craft.
Jool would be best. Not only because it has the fuel, but because you could get a massive slingshot around the sun.
But Kerbin is easier to get resources around
-
I'm going to build a HUGE orbital colony around Kerbin as my main construction base of interstellar ships.
-
Kerbal Kolonial Konstruction Platform (KKKP)
-
Kerbal Kolonial Konstruction Platform (KKKP)
-
12 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:
The problem as I see it is that you can't really parrallise physics very well if at all if all the rigid bodies are always interdependent. Which they are in a ship built of discreet parts. The forces acting on individual parts are dependent on all the other parts. You can't put the physics for a fuel tank in a separate thread to the engine if it depends on the thrust forces from the engine for instance. The fuel tank depends on the engine thrust so must be calculated after those forces are calculated.
What happens if, when parrallised, the fuel tank has physics applied before the engine thread gets done? The fuel tank doesn't have thrust applied to it for that tick, and next tick everything explodes because the engine has thrusted forward into the fuel tank which hasn't had that acceleration applied.
The only way I can see to simplify that would be to treat the vessel as a single part unless it's experiencing enough forces to break part connections.
Yeah that's a tough one.
i remember reading a Star Citizen development article saying that they used a "grid" technique which procedually treats certain parts of a larger vessel as a whole, calculating the interactions between those collection of parts, then calculating the parts within each collection seperately. This way the calculation of a big vessel is much more distributed.
Though theses kind of things may be too much to ask for in KSP2
-
28 minutes ago, The Dressian Exploder said:
Three size options: Classic, KSP1 scale; Medium, 2.5x JNSQ style scale, Real Scale.
I haven't used any scaled mods in KPS1, so i'm wondering how well the scaling works for vehicle parts, especially engines?
Is there a solid scaling formula for the parts so we can reliably and conveniently scale them without making them over or under powered?
Or do we just use the very same parts in an easier or more challenging environment?
-
1 hour ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
I wonder how they'll deal with that... as in, will the game let you launch the Orion Drive from the ground at all? Will it work and just completely destroy the space center or will the game not let you use it there?
Conceivably, with enough boosters, you could still use it on an SSTA while only firing it in space...
The kerbal manufacturer might say: Warrenty voided if used at planetary launchsites.
Seriously speaking, we may technically be able to just use it, but at what cost i don't know lol.
-
1 minute ago, Xd the great said:
What about mods in multiplayer? I see 2 problems with it:
1. Someone hosts a server with so many mods it, lag happens.
2. Griefers and trolls blowing up everything with BDArmory.
Mod list surely needs to be unified in MP games. Either to straightforwardly ban mods(the worst case), or to allow the "host" to make a mod list and using perhaps in-game data streamming to load it for all guests?
With that said, i'm wondering how the loading of KSP2 would work.
Since we will have multiplayer, and in KSP1 we load everything before start, does it mean we have to choose single or multiplayer before open the game and load everything needed afterwards? Or will it be loading universal "stock" data then dynamically loading needed mods for an actual in-game save?
-
41 minutes ago, SkyKaptn said:
I vote for a stock RSS system that can be found via interstellar travel. And a big YES to scalable solar systems as a difficulty setting. Actually I find the latter to be of utmost importance to satisfy veteran player's skills and need for extended realism without having to rely on a cascade of mods that break through versions and time.
I got an idea: they could add a stock RSS system as one of those "free-dlcs", and add some new systems as paid dlcs.
-
25 minutes ago, Bartybum said:
I'm saying that while in a shared VAB session, let both builders save the craft at any point to their own clientside repositories, but only allow the host of the building session to control which craft file is being worked on at any given time. Picture a normal singleplayer VAB session, but now add a guest. The guest is just along for the ride, but can add/remove parts and save the craft to their own repository.
Since neither of us two are writing the game, I think it's a bit premature to think it can't be done.
I'm always talking about the issues related to the being-worked-on craft file my dude, you don't work something on nothing, you work on a file. But since you don't know the basics, i'd leave it here.
Also, i never said or implied in any prevous post that it "can't be done". I'm talking about whether the gameplay experience that suggested feature might bring worth the resource that it could potentially cost. By resource, i mean both developing and maintenance resource, in terms of both human and monetary ones. Only technically possible is faaaaaaaar from enough for a feature to be implemented.
28 minutes ago, Kerbart said:You have to weigh benefits vs implementation cost. VAB sharing appears very complex to me to implement. Things go haywire enough in the office when two coworkers edit the same spreadsheet at the same time, and that is kindergarden compared to what goes on in the VAB. And for what? Is it that much of an experience that you don’t want to miss out on it?
As this said.
Above all, it relies, of course, always on the actual developers to decide anything development related, but since this conversation occurs, i'd like to add my bits as well.
-
11 minutes ago, Bartybum said:
Assuming the craft file is local to the VAB-host's client, you could just not give the guest access to the VAB-host's craft file repository. Furthermore, you could give the guest a "download craft file" button to let them save it to their own local repository (if the host checks a "share craft file" button). It's the same as sharing a cockpit in a flight simlator server, where the guest can push buttons (add/take off parts), but the host still holds the reins (saving, and what craft file is loaded).
seperate craft files => seperate editing, which is effectively just sharing craft files like what we have on steam right now, but in a relatively convenient way. You won't be able to edit the same thing simultaneously in the way you suggested, which makes sharing live VAB pointless since it's not live at all.
On a friendly note, might i suggest having some basic grasp of programming and network?
-
On 8/23/2019 at 5:50 AM, Bartybum said:
What? I just suggested a very simple fix to the abuse - how is there any potential [~ snip ~]?
Saying "oh no I think it's best left untouched" in light of what I've suggested is a total cop-out.
In a technical vew, allowing building a vessel live between several players may well require the server to constantly saving temporary craft files for every online game and even more back-up files if reverting is allowed,which is highly inefficient. While doing it solo, the game needs only to save it locally and having the craft file online only when you decide to share certain crafts.
I don't expect them to arrange that much server resource for the MP feature of the mainly solo-focusing game.
It may look simple in human logic, but require a [~ snip ~] ton of unnecessary resource for the computers.
-
On 8/23/2019 at 5:36 AM, Bartybum said:
Not really. If they suddenly grief you, then you kick them, then revert their changes one by one until all their griefing is reversed.
If their griefing has been slow and not really visible over time, then a system that informs you when and what they've just placed would fix that issue too.
IMOH, allowing players to share VAB live doesn't really worth all the potential [~ snip ~]
Sharing crafts or semi-assemblies directly in-game is a decent and much more abuse-free option.
-
No doubt they will try to optimise the performance, but it still really depends on what specific laptop you are using.
-
1 minute ago, Bartybum said:
This ^^^ and my suggestion combined would be great - forcing a save prior to accepting, and then having the ability to revert guests' changes
If vessels still use a tree structure, it'd be quite hard to revert guest changes only while a vessel building is in process.
-
9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:
Still room for abuse.
"Hey can I join you?"
"I don't know."
"I only want to see what you're working on."
"Okay."
[Ninjamaster_123 has joined the build process]
*Ninjamaster_123 proceeds to randomly and quickly add and delete parts before they can be kicked.*
"Hahahahhahahahaha" - Ninjamaster_123LOL This makes me laugh
-
It occurs to me that i'd love to see an even more efficient loading process(in terms of mod-heavy installs).
-
With better planetary features(more detailed terrain, scatter, interesting places) coming with KPS2, even the old-sized planets should "feel" bigger for exploration, but i do agree that we could use double-sized globes.
Will KSP 2 be released to mobile?
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Is this an out-of-season April Fool's joke?
Just kidding.
Maybe not.