Jump to content

Brikoleur

Members
  • Content Count

    2,276
  • Joined

Community Reputation

4,027 Excellent

6 Followers

About Brikoleur

  • Rank
    Tinker

Profile Information

  • Location
    Igwe, asteroid (6178) 1986 DA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,147 profile views
  1. In the economic system we live in, the question is, would it be commercially viable? I don’t know, but the RSS/RO community appears to be a fairly small subset of the KSP community. It would be very cool, no doubt, but I’m not sure it would pay the bills. On the other hand, there’s Microsoft Flight Simulator which is mega hardcore. Perhaps there’s a public there that would be ready to jump into this.
  2. It's a shame it's so poorly balanced and so sparse, though. Until recently I played exclusively Career and spent a lot of time trying to tune it so that it would be fun, but without much success. Dial up the rewards too much and it's basically fast-forward to Sandbox; dial them down, and you'll end up grinding satellite launches, tourist contracts, or sending space stations somewhere that doesn't interest you the least bit. There is a lot of room for improvement there, and I have perhaps unrealistically high hopes for what Intercept can do with it.
  3. In my opinion there's a lot of untapped potential in IVAs. As sparse as it is, I sometimes fly my craft in IVA, especially if they're equipped with one of the handful of cockpits that offer decent visibility -- it can be a lot of fun especially for things like seaplanes, helicopters, VTOLs, or just small aircraft that are good at bush landings. With better cockpits and configurable instrumentation, you could fairly easily turn this into a flight-sim lite. That would open up a whole new dimension of gameplay fun.
  4. I would expect adventure mode to be, basically, a re-imagined and better version of career mode. Whether or not it'll feature contracts I don't know, but some form of gameplay driving progression and unlocking tech tree nodes for sure, and I hope it'll be a lot more coherent, richer, more varied, and generally more fun than KSP's random contracts. Does anyone here routinely dock craft so that one of them is completely passive? At least I always orient the receiving craft's docking port towards the approaching craft, unless of course the receiving craft has no control (which is rare). A
  5. Ha! I think you'll find some of us who are more obsessive about it will keep you informed, so there's no need unless you want to
  6. Nate has said that part failures aren't on the roadmap. Apart from that, I think that anything that makes the early game harder for new players is a bad idea, it's hard enough as it is.
  7. The career mode in general is... lacking. I'm really glad they're completely ditching it and redesigning an "adventure mode" from scratch. I don't know if sounding rockets or prop aircraft are the solution, but the early learning curve certainly needs smoothing. My biggest early difficulty hurdles were RV and docking. The docking tutorial in particular was just plain bad and wrong – it featured a stationary target craft that you had to dock with, whereas it's way easier to have both craft controllable so that the target craft orients its docking port towards the approaching craft. I was a
  8. No, but I am A designer. Designing and making software is my day job. I shipped my first piece of paid software in 1986. I know how this stuff is made, and I also know a lot of ways it can go wrong. [snip] That was intended as friendly, not uncivil. My hands as a KSP player are extremely grubby, I'm continuously doing stuff that's not about building and flying rockets. I think the crazy stuff players come up with is absolutely wonderful – and as a designer, I think it's largely because of the constraints in the game. KSP strikes a really amazing balance between frustration and re
  9. If you flip a bucket upside down, it makes a perfectly acceptable stool, but it was still originally designed to hold water, not to be sat on. What players end up doing with KSP2 is their business. The designers still need to have a clear vision of what they want the game to be, and it has to actualise that vision. That's the topic under discussion here, not the myriad wild and crazy and wonderful things players will come up with when they get their grubby little hands on it.
  10. Wow, there really are people who want to make flying optional in a game that’s about flying because MY FREEDOM TO PLAY AS I WANT. Takes all sorts I guess.
  11. Yeah, as much as I love planes I think it would be a problem to put them first. Planes are much harder than rockets, and if you jump into KSP expecting to fly to the Mun and are find yourself faceplanting on the runway instead, it's not going to be much fun. I hope atmospheric craft will have (even) more niches in KSP2 than KSP1 and they will be well supported, but they will still be a side dish.
  12. Very interesting, in-depth article about how Perseverance got to where it is. NASA are clearly better than I am at pinpoint atmospheric landings... and they do it with n-body physics enabled! https://jalopnik.com/how-nasas-perseverance-landed-on-mars-an-aerospace-eng-1846332411
  13. BAK Manta – a flying boat/flying wing suitable for use on Kerbin or Laythe. A solar-powered variant would be terrific for Eve, but this one runs on fuel cells. It's one of my all-time favourite planes, it handles really well, is reasonably fast for a prop craft, and operates from water easily: BAK Elvira – the support craft for my Raphael fully recoverable Eve launch system. It's equipped with drills, ISRU, and a mobile crane used to recover the orbiter module and mount it back on the lifter module. BAK Sea Legend – a nuclear-powered light passenger seaplane for use on Lay
  14. Those two paragraphs are the clearest statement of their design intent specifically with regards to the colonies, and they make it pretty clear that this isn't going to be a "3X-like" experience -- the colony mechanics are a supporting system, not a central gameplay plank. The paragraphs you're quoting don't contradict that at all. They just say that they want to make it as much fun to build bases as it is to build rockets – the "toyetic" experience they're talking about. That's awesome, but it has nothing much to do with "3X-like" mechanics, the infrastructure and logistics game @mcwaffles200
  15. I'm basing this expectation on what they stated in Developer Insights #3 (boldface mine) : https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/200604-developer-insights-3-–-ksp2-design-pillars/
×
×
  • Create New...