• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

About Leopard

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. tend to start single use, same design over and over, usually not that optimised either. gradually goes to 'single use/multi-purpose" e.g. a probe going somewhere with a few small satellites riding piggy back. find I value time too much to bother much with re-usability
  2. personally for LS and orbital decay/station keeping stuff there are two easy solutions, the obvious one is a toggle in an options menu, personally the better option is roughly thus: as the player you are meant to be at the cutting edge, doing things for the first time, exploring the boundaries, you are not micro managing everything though. so lob a satellite up, baby sit it for a while - some sort of alarm when its orbit changes more than say 1km at Ap or Pe, you go back, correct it, once you have done that a few times successfully its now "routine" and can be managed automatically - as long as the thing has fuel - so you can either re-supply or replace over time. for a space station say you design a fuel launcher, you fly it a few times, once its reliability is above 'x'% again it can be automated - pay the cost and you can have a launch every few months or whatever. provides a point to developing reliable re-supply craft, without the need to actually fly each and every one of them yourself - also means you could arrive at your space station to find a tanker craft on final approach and just sit back to watch, or find the one docking port is occupied at present, your call is important, please hold.. I would like the sort of difficulty thing the console version used to have but no longer does. you have 'easy', 'medium', hard' and custom, can click one of the first then change it, use it as a basic template - the ability to then save those settings to use again would be nice
  3. I've completely given up on KSP on console ever actually being fixed, the attitude to basic usability testing is shocking when stuff like this occurs on your first flight - tends to suggest a lot of code testing has occurred without actually trying to play the game. pity, I wanted to fall in love with this game, but as it is, its just not worth investing the time in likely going KSP2 but on a PC this time
  4. comes down to this, pretty simple really, you have to expect people to use the platforms you offer your product on e.g. if this was Windows only software having a website that required a plug in that was made only for the Mac would be generally unacceptable, this is on a console, so you need a feedback mechanism that works on a console - it would also work better, e.g. diagnostic files, or the game feeding directly into your bug tracking software, recording exactly where the user is in the game, what they were doing etc. would you personally find it acceptable for this bug tracker to be available by post only? its basically the same, this game is on platforms open to people who don't really have a traditional web browser, they may only have a phone, or tablet, they may not even think of the internet as a way to feedback build it into the damned application though, and all of a sudden you can have detailed crash reports, stack traces, whatever you want, stuff the actual user can't even see but is highly useful - how big is the save file? how much spare RAM or disc space is there? add a couple of fields for comments, you have the user ID etc, will also make grouping multiple reports of the same issue a lot easier or you could use a tool that requires registering and creating another account, on a different platform, that works differently to the games platform, that game players may or may not even have. you are now stuck with what individuals call things, a lack of screen shots etc that you can take for granted more or less on a PC consoles may be essentially crippled PCs these days, but they work and are used differently, if you are going to support them you need to do it properly
  5. Or you could have a fault reporting system suitable for the platform in question but hey like whatever
  6. #1 blocker for me is buying a game and discovering to actually do much more than some basic tutorials means spending "x" on multiple additional content packs don't mind DLC stuff for extra missions, parts etc, but the basic game in and of itself needs to be playable properly, not crippleware
  7. if I didn't usually post using a mobile phone I would perhaps consider it assuming it was a bug tracker related to a company that actually fixed bugs, as opposed to pouring petrol onto the dumpster fire if this was freeware or open source perhaps, however this is paid for commercial software, apparently "extensively tested", yet still, several years after the first release suffering from the sort of bugs that anyone actually trying to play it can discover pretty quickly you want feedback for a console game? stick a feedback mechanic into the flipping game, heck you could have the thing report game state and other similar useful information alongside it, you know, as a not inconsiderable level of actual commercially written software does? Heck I wrote a feedback tool into some stuff I wrote, so its obviously not difficult, but then I actually bothered to test stuff directly over and above automated testing so what do I know?
  8. You are dealing with a console game maybe have a bug reporting tool actually within the console port?
  9. so name it Jool High or similar, using the convention from Traveller, the orbital bit is place High and the ground bit is place Low, or place Down. where "place" is a world name or sometimes a large city where there are several such stations Station Mc Stationface is is then
  10. personally I find the "test" contracts tedious, but would be more than happy with them if parts had say reliability - that improves as things are 'tested', perhaps with a player directed choice over what to optimise for from: reliability cost efficiency power (where appropriate) and the ability to use this to customise parts, plus providing an actual reason for test flights, yes perhaps have some financial reward for such but the primary purpose being to gain better parts through testing - the contracts to test prototypes, beyond that its up to you, every flight becomes a "test" flight for all components which can be gradually improved. Tourist missions are Ok, if a bit repetitive, would prefer them to appear later though, say when a number of flights have been successful at doing "x" satellite launch missions are fine, but could do with a bit more to them, e.g. a requirement to put several satellites in the same orbit with specific phasing between them, or specific requirements to launch a pre-designed satellite onto a specific mission - e.g. sending a probe built by someone else to Duna orbit or Eeloo flyby etc - up to the players space agency to fly the mission what would be nice is more of a feeling that missions are linked, scaling of a reputation for success works well for this but also series of linked missions, like a requirement for say a Mun exploration series of missions as we have via "worlds first", except with a bit more guidance - e.g. landing _here_, photo recon etc. what would be nice is for some of the system parameters to be a bit variable, e.g. say Duna gravity varies a bit, atmospheric density likewise so there is a reason for exploration missions (not just look it up on line, or do what you did in a previous game), perhaps some moons are only firmly identified once you get a probe there, ditto resources etc, you discover them by 'doing', perhaps funded missions, perhaps self funded
  11. Silly: station mcstationface less silly: Kerbin highport, or just Kerbin High
  12. have Lore and other things as part of one of a set of default scenarios and have one 'blank' one thats a real sandbox, even with finances etc. so you can have an earth like history, something more 'junkyard", ones with a narrative set of missions etc but make it optional
  13. One thing I'd quite like to see, as an option, is the option to randomise certain in game parameters - basically make it so when you start a new game it can be slightly different to the last one - e.g. if say planning a flight to Duna and you want to use aerobraking, you will need to find, by experimentation, where the atmosphere ends and what the optimum altitudes are. perhaps the science returns vary a bit, perhaps the orbits of a few planets and moons change a bit, not vastly, but tweaked a bit engine performance varies slightly, maybe a range of parameters and the ability to 'fix' or 'vary' them. in effect a way to make exploration matter, you are learning stuff you can't just look up, but if that doesn't appeal a way to switch it all off
  14. and then discover that you can't use them unless games are specifically written to use them
  15. Personally having "endured" KSP 1 on Eggbox, my take on this is one word Avoid will be getting a PC in the near future for other reasons, will be upping its specification slightly and will run this on that most probably