Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


39 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Don't California my Utah... thank you that is all!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Weather plays a huge role in real world launches and landings on planets. Seasonal effects have dire consequences on when we launch rovers to mars etc. For those that want a sandbox experience, make an option to turn off weather; or time warp.
  2. Only if they remove multiplayer... which is what we're all patiently waiting on. So those that have to scratch their MMO itch are pacified. I'd also say that sandbox is an entry point into the new game, so people can play around with the mechanics to see what "works" and what "doesn't work". Without this, people could dump time into a game, only to find out a specific base/ship really doesn't work for their goals. So if you remove the creative mechanic where people can test certain projects you're actually removing the ability to discover new ideas/designs. Unless... they have a mechanic whereby you can retrofit ships/bases without significant financial implications. Think of it like the real world AF Hornet whereby you have several generations of planes that are very different in both hardware, and utility. Upgrades to radar/optics being the main difference in them. Regardless I still wouldn't cut out creative mode... think about the first game of Kerbal you played. Understanding how you actually fix a hard point to a planet, and bolt parts together in space/orbit/etc. was challenging and not necessarily intuitive. So it's not necessarily that the end user did/didn't want a certain outcome, they just needed to figure out what the "game" was asking them to do. Again, this is the reason for creative mode, so end users know what the game will ask of them so the end user can plan and understand how to achieve their goals.
  3. Could tie electrical resource to them (batteries), which would make them less functional and require solar etc. Would also fit the narrative of automation for smaller bases. I've always found it interesting that Kerbals can live for hundreds of years lol, doesn't seem to crush the emersion though. What might be cool is actually progressing in tech to outfit Kerbals with cyber implants; better flight stats, better survivability on planets. Add in upgrades for suits for longer stints in harsh environments. Cool stuff.
  4. Could be gas... Is that similar to THE Ohio State? Just curious... because they had their posteriors handed to them last year. Just sayin'... its been 600+ days since they've beat that team up north. Go Blue!
  5. Space Engineers takes up far less resources than KSP1 when both programs are actively running; matching unmodded for unmodded. Feel free to prove to me otherwise, do runs with both and provide me with your CPUID cut sheets and HWM sheets; include all clocks, temps, stagnant resource allocations, clock-cycles used/unused etc. It's not what I think, its what I know having played both games on both X299 and Z690 platforms; and I know the same of Threadripper. Furthermore, if you'd like to continue this debate I'd be happy to construct a poll on hardware for this forum, to see if the average user even comes close to these very capable platforms. Most people are on Z590 at best, and my 4yr old X299 will rip that to shreds, and still struggles with KSP1 in "average" scenarios... again solid on Cinebench, A64, Intel Burn, and we can even compare our scores on 3D Mark if you like as well. Please feel free to include YOUR PC specs (all of them), and continue to give me updates on your KSP data (FPS, CPU usage, Dimm usage, temps, and clock-cycles used/unused, as well as initial resource allocations etc.) Yeah, provide facts with screenshots, or it's not proper evidence. Just saying a thing... doesn't make it so. Looking forward to your results...I'll even give you a "one-up" and tell you what mods will stress Space Engineers the most, and you can bench those in comparison to KSP1 vanilla. I think you're not giving facts, and I'm pretty sure you know it. It's nice to debate, but now provide the evidence.
  6. I experienced a griefer in "Hell Let Loose" just 12hrs ago, last evening... this is a very niche multiplayer game; don't ever believe it was a Steam best seller past it's 24hr release date/time. So if a niche' game, 6 months after launch has multiple griefers... well, I'll *scratch my bald head*. Also experienced griefing in WoW Classic, people jumping in my screen space just to get attention. Also experienced griefing in WoT (World of Tanks) *Constantly in this game*, with people blocking friendly fire, or ramming/pushing-out into enemy lines of fire. I could go on if you like... honestly, let me know... I'll go down the list...
  7. Yes I get that... marketing sold a lot of copies of Cyberpunk 2077 as well. However, the functionality of that game, and its ability to run on certain platforms was all but a failure. The rebound to that was a gaming culture that snapped back at CD Project Red, and darn near collapsed the studio as a whole; it actually affected financial markets. The brand (Cyberpunk) and the developer now have a tarnished reputation (Witcher and so many successful releases) all wiped out by some poor planning. What I think you're asking, is for this smaller dev team to overcome a lot of present day hardware challenges with a lot of 'tricks', and by tricks I mean genius programming. That's a lot to ask, and if/when it comes out and it doesn't live up to "multiplayer-fan" expectations of a living universe of kerbal ships/stations/platforms... then there will be a backlash. I've read many of your prior posts talking about "seeing a large starship leave a dock from space while you're viewing planetside", and "playing with large space stations and craft" etc. I just don't believe hardware is there yet, or at least I haven't experienced it yet...and I'm currently sitting on two very different but powerful rigs; a Z690/12900KS, and a X299/i79800x, the later being a true workstation build that's designed for mass calculations, encoding, bla bla bla. I'd love to see functional massive multiplayer, but I honestly think that's still 10yrs or so out with a sim program like this. Empyrion hasn't been able to do it, Space Engineers (Keen) hasn't been able to do it, and several others have come up short. My basic ask is... slay the Kraken, if they can do this in single-player, without too many sacrifices in realism or visuals, then I'll be 110% impressed; because I understand how bold this game is. Scrapping surface tension physics with parts would certainly do a lot to free up resources, and I'm sure there are other ways (I'm not a software engineer), but again I think hardware is the limiting factor with what you're asking. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but we'll have to wait for the game to see if that happens.
  8. I'll explain my theory again... since it seems multiple points have been missed. I'll conclude with my "opinion" on the matter and how it relates to KSP multiplayer. If you dislike my opinion and my thoughts on the matter, that's perfectly fine, please be respectful.... Take a look at other games where physics is a large degree of what the CPU (meaning the entire computer not just GPU or processor) has to calculate in multiplayer. These games suffer from a great deal of lag (looking at you Space Engineers), when calculations have to be performed on multiple computers in real time as things happen... it gets ugly; processing power for even high end computers is sub-par... my Z690 Unify X mated with a 12900KS even struggles (rock solid on A64/Intel Burn/Cinebench for 24hrs, at 5.4ghz golden core, and 5.3ghz all core). Technology just isn't there yet, now add in N-Body (if that will be a thing), or even just the "surface tension" physics that KSP1 applies etc. So you're talking about multiplayer functionality (I mean real functionality) when I'm personally not even certain that they've slayed the Kraken at this point. I think its overly ambitious, and it sets the dev team up for failure, and their fans up for a huge disappointment. In the perfect world if we were running our games on "future tech" (quantum computers) where there was a 100-fold increase in processing power... would I like KSP2 to have multiplayer? YES... PLEASE! and ABSOLUTELY... However, I'm a realist, and KSP2 has a lot of moving parts (pun intended)... so if multiplayer turns out to be a half-baked function of the game, with no 'true' playability in the state that hardware is currently in then, I say "leave it out for now". If tech takes a huge leap forward in the next year or two, then by all means code for it. I just don't see it happening at this point. Feel free to disagree, please be respectful...
  9. Hey Gilgamesh... just a quick insight, and I guess a question as well. Multi-player was 'never' a big part of KSP1, it was setting itself up more as a space/mechanics sim than a sandbox for the player and their friends. Most 'sims' are this way for the specific reason that sims require a certain technical expertise, whether it be cars, planes, or rockets. I guess I keep coming back to the question of... why are so many people trying to change the 'genre' that KSP has created, into something like Space Engineers or Empyrion. I mean... if I wanted to play a co-op open world building sim, those are the go-to games at this point. I just see multi-player coding taking up additional resources, and starving other assets in order to create at lackluster multi-player experience, and again... taking away from a single player space sim that already established itself as a genre defining experience. I get the idea of wanting the "lets be friends and play in a sandbox together"... however, how many times does it really turn out that way. Most of the time it turns into grief'ing, and hostility, and just nonsense; who knows, maybe you've had a different online experience than I have; need we look any further than these forums? lmao. The pre-occupation with multiplayer just seems like a waste of resources both in dev-time and CPU processing. Not to mention most people are playing on 'potatos' these days (see supply chain issues). I'll go out on limb and say, I guarantee you that multiplayer will be looked down upon by those playing single player as taking up too many "resources", and those who really wanted multiplayer will be griping and complaining constantly about the lag, instability, and issues with mechanics to a point that they don't play multiplayer at all. It's a lose/lose situation for the dev team...
  10. Cool... I'll be sure to post plenty of pictures from my Windows platform...be happy to assist you with your self depravation. That would be 99.9% of people these days...so you're just like everyone else, sorry to say.
  11. Yeah but "RPG" can mean a lot of things to many different people. Some "Adventure" games are considered RPGs, even though there are no stats related to character progression etc; this is actually the impression that I got was that this was more of an adventure/discovery game, rather than Fallout4/Skyrim (in space), or like Outer Worlds. I could be wrong, but again the impression that I got of Starfield was more of a No Man's Sky / Puzzle scenario (nothing negative about No Man's Sky, it's turned into a fine game, with fun content) I think this is what makes KSP1/2 so incredibly unique, and sets itself apart even from Space Engineers and Empyerion. KSP is really in its own genre at this point in time (a couple devs have tried to emulate unsuccessfully). KSP is all about the struggle to get into space, and a relatively accurate depiction thereof (without needing a supercomputer for true physics calcs and orbital mechanics). Space Engineers and Emperion are the "fantastical" depictions of where we could be in a couple hundred years... Kerbal is a depiction of where we could be in our lifetime if resources are dedicated to it. This is one of the reasons I stopped responding to the people in this very thread that are negative about the game and trying to use their force of will to create a minority voice to change the base formula of the game. It's not about "seeing large starships undock in orbit while viewing from the surface of a planet"... that's just not the aim/goal of Kerbal, it's about "near future experiences" if we have the vision and drive to get there.
  12. Prior to release of KSP 2... and to try to spin some positivity in this room.... wondering/hoping the Dev team can add some atmosphere to the game before release... and a good start would be this 'sonification' of a black hole in Perseus... https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/new-nasa-black-hole-sonifications-with-a-remix.html We live in amazing times, with Musk reaching for the stars, and Cap'n Kirk finally going into space... exciting for people of a scientific mind, especially when we're seeing youtube episodes of a supposed "warp bubble" being created. Love space, but I'll never get to go, thus the reason I'm so excited for KSP2! Rock out with your rooster out!
  13. It was not only the context but the setup and delivery... this would be akin to me walking into a business meeting with a potential client, the client then says they can't make it... yet my boss and I sit in a room and talk about how great our product/company is for hours and blow smoke up each other's tailpipes. It was complete self congratulatory, pats on each others backs, and just weird hearing how this was 'always' the game they wanted to make. The rhetoric used was all pre-rehearsed fluff with no substance on content creation or even what 'type' of game it is. If you need a tissue let me know... I'm here to help.
  • Create New...