Jump to content

Missingno200

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Missingno200

  1. I have something a bit vulgar. I can't say it, so I'll just let Captain Scout do it. (It's fine, my brother has plans for one where it's titled "come suck my juicy"... you get the idea.)
  2. I have something very important to suggest:Procedural structural parts. Why? Because making rovers specifically is a pain. Yeah, we have the nice rovemat thing, but that only works for smaller rovers. You'll need to somehow cobble a rover together if you want a bigger one, and that can be obscenely difficult. Having procedural structural parts would make such a task far easier.
  3. I'll take space travel for 200. What were the first two artificial satellites?
  4. Alright, reviving this thread since it's that time of month again. I'm interested in seeing a capsule being shown off, preferably with an IVA!
  5. I'm just going to post my definition of skeuomorphism and move on. Skeuomorphism can still use abstract icons, things like "pencils", although often paired with skeuomorphism for extra readability, aren't actually what skeuomorphism is about. The best way I can describe skeuomorphism is this: What button stands out more? A button that is a solid colored rectangle with some text, or a button that is still a rectangle with text, but appears to extend outwards with its border? The solid colored rectangle can get lost rather easily, especially if it is a similar color to its surroundings(a problem with transparent backgrounds.) However, a button that appears to "pop out" by either looking recessed away or jutting out at you will generally not get lost in the clutter, even if it is the same general color as everything else. A more practical example of this(my original example was an emergency stop button) is the Windows 95 start icon VS the Windows 10 start icon. If you did not know EXACTLY what that button looked like from the start, I'm betting you that you'd struggle to find the start menu on Windows 10. Likewise, if an instrument panel looks like it's flat and transparent, it may blend right into space(especially since their color scheme is mainly black for the border for some reason,) compared to something that has a pushed out look that kind of looks like a physical panel. This is why, despite having all of these nice electronic displays, most planes actually have a physical set of instruments and buttons, including a navball. That and also the electronic displays can fail while you're still in control of the aircraft. I never meant anything about the symbols, the symbols can remain as abstract as you want, provided that you can accurately describe them and they represent what you expect at all times. What you described I personally do not think is skeuomorphism. I don't know what it's actually called, although I do know that it is often paired with skeuomorphism to enhance readability. 1:Yes, that's actually KSP. The guy on the 4chan thread has some super crazy screenshots and some video, which were apparently done in KSP1 with a bunch of mods. I don't know any of the visual mods if he used them, but I recognize RasterPropMonitor and Scansat. 2:I'm betting IVA's are confirmed, since they did confirm that the windows would have permanent transparency, instead of the whole opaque/transparent toggle that KSP1 has.
  6. You know what? I really want them to show off IVAs now. At least one of them. Any one. I want to see if you can do an instruments only flight with KSP2. Someone on 4chan hyped me up for this. I wanna know if we'll get JSI styled IVAs.
  7. It feels as if though my points were totally overlooked. In any case, when I first left the house earlier, I was planning scathing comments, and explaining how just because you study UI/UX does not mean your points are instantly valid, but I have since calmed down. I'm going to agree to disagree, and move on, because frankly, this is a stupid argument to take, and our definitions of skeuomorphism appear to be divergent, making any meaningful conversation exceedingly difficult.
  8. The thing about skeuomorphism is that people seem to forget why it was adopted. There's been several studies on this, but I'm a lazy bugger so take my words with a grain of salt here:Skeumorphic designs were adopted in the past because it is a lot easier to quickly navigate a program/website where there is intuitive UI designs drawing your attention. It doesn't matter that it's considered old design, which frankly most people here probably LIKE over the new things anyways, regardless of benefit. Regardless, something that looks like a rectangle won't draw your attention like something that looks like a proper button. Someone once compared a skeuomorphic reskin of an existing website(I believe it was Facebook), and found that navigation, on average when tested with about 50 people, was 66% faster with the skeuomorphic reskin. Keep in mind that the layout was IDENTICAL, which means the only difference between the two was that one was using the standard CSS and image set, and one was using a modified CSS and image set which did skeuomorphism. In short, the reason why I'm concerned personally about it is that skeuomorphic designs are a lot easier to gleam information off of, and are much quicker to navigate, both exceptionally crucial when doing a fair more complex operation like landing a spacecraft. I'm not asking for something gaudy, I'm asking for something functional. Yeah, unfortunately. I'm not a fan of that theory, but I suspect you're right. However, I think they may not want to show off too many new parts. The reason for this is that they have a bunch of "safe crafts" which they use to prevent the accidental announcement of new parts. It's a loose theory but it's my only hope because I don't just want new parts.
  9. In defense of the "outrage", most of that goes down to the fact that we're used to KSP 1's nice, glossy, and frankly pretty flawed UI. Giving us something that really just looks like a modern-day corporate logo for a UI, no matter how much of an improvement it actually is in terms of design, doesn't look great, and given that it looks like a modern-day corporate logo for a UI, even if it's WIP, that's concerning to those who liked skeuomorphism.
  10. Yeah, you definitely did miss something. Every other Friday, there's a showcase released here.
  11. I don't think it's about it being majorly flawed, I think he's complaining about using nuclear bombs as a propulsion method.
  12. I mean, that all depends on HOW you define a major announcement. I'm aware planets aren't, they flat out said the only planets they'll be showing off here on out are those shown in the trailer and Kerbol planets.
  13. Well, another round of our regularly scheduled Friday showcase is coming up in 4 days. What do you think will be shown off this Friday? I personally think, with the current track record, that we're probably get something related to the visual effects, or maybe a new engine. On my wishlist, I'd like to see Multiplayer, but that's just a distant hope.
  14. I feel the unnecessary compulsion to point out that War Thunder does not in fact have multiple aerodynamics models applying themselves differently to every plane, they have 3 different sets of stats for each plane for each mode, that is slightly tweaked to give better balancing and closer to realistic flights. In other terms:It's a lot like sticking 3 extra pairs of wings in your fuselage for an "arcadic" experience, and just removing them if you wanted a "realistic" experience without FAR.
  15. "Pre-alpha footage" and "test game footage" does that already though.
  16. It was missing a single S and I could've pulled the Megalovania here...
  17. I said most recent just to be absolutely sure I didn't accidentally reference another podcast I wasn't aware about myself, so... no. Sorry.
  18. Is that the case? I haven't encountered that feature in many non-MMO(or subset) games, co-op or otherwise. Portal 2 and Space Engineers are the only two I can think of.
  19. The planet revamps were exceptionally overdue, the part revamps were also overdue but not as much, the art style was completely off the rails prior. I'm not sure why you directed the rest of this message at me though, because I didn't say anything against LMP, I've been advocating for LMP's handling of time warp this entire time. Actually, there is one thing as of recent that would suggest this. I'm trying to remember, but I'm pretty sure I heard it in the most recent podcast. They mentioned Kerbals having emotes you could do to signal other players in multiplayer. I can't really think of why they'd be adding that... I'll go looking for it in the morning. My track record for memory isn't totally reliable, so maybe I'm misremembering it, but I swore I heard it not too long ago.
  20. He doesn't want limited SAS, IE:early probes and unlevelled Kerbals. He wants the full SAS experience right out of the gate.
  21. Or, you know, I could be passionate about a Mars base, and he's the only one thats actually making it happen right now. [snip] This last one isn't planned anymore, and frankly for some obvious reasons. No country would want something that looks like a ballistic missile coming in 2000 miles away from their shores. Just wanted to get that one out there, since a lot of detractors have been latching onto this even though they dropped that idea sometime early 2020.
  22. You can already disable both in options, they apply primarily to career mode, which makes sense. Career mode needs an overhaul. I don't particularly want a KSP1 style career mode, where there's no loosing, just soft locking. I don't want to share my money and science points with others in multiplayer.
  23. KSP is an arcadic simulator, but ok, your points are pretty well written.
  24. Okay so I went into an unfocused ramble about how KSP 2 should have the specifications of Doom Eternal, so the tl;dr:KSP 1 is severely unoptimized. Doom Eternal's low settings look fantastic and run on hardware 6 years out of date. KSP 1's minimum specifications are a lie, they should be doubled, which makes them on par with Eternal's minimum specifications. KSP 2 has the chance to do the optimizations that would make it run on the same or very similar hardware to KSP 1 with its new minimum specifications, provided that the team actually does optimization right. I don't actually think this is the case myself. KSP 1 lacks a huge metric load of optimization. It even struggles on my beast of a high end computer(5700 XT, Ryzen 5, 32 GB of RAM.) To give you an idea of what good optimization can do, Doom Eternal at high end settings looks almost as good as the upcoming KSP 2(subjectively speaking.) There's a lot that game is doing, and it's incredibly clear at this. However, you can still run it on hardware that's 6 years out of date just fine, provided you run it at low settings(which still looks fantastic.) Now we look back to KSP 1. It misses that margin by a lot. Its minimum specifications should be at least doubled, because I've PLAYED on the minimum specifications in the past, and it is like trying to run Half Life 2 on an Atom processor. However, if we do that, you will realize that much of the minimum specifications will actually match Doom Eternal's! This means that KSP 1 needs to have a lot of optimization, because there is no reason for Doom Eternal to run smoother than this game. (Before you ask about physics, Doom Eternal may have a much simpler physics engine, but it's also doing more physics body calculations a second, which, as someone who has written a ludicrously primitive physics engine in the past, more than makes up for that gap.) KSP 2 has the chance to optimize where KSP 1 does not. It will not fall into the same technical debt issues that KSP 1 suffers right now. KSP 2 could easily match the minimum specifications of Doom Eternal, provided that they know what they're doing.
×
×
  • Create New...