• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Wanderhoof

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 日本語でKSPをやってみたい。楽しみに‼ 
  2. Right. Those are the IRL factors that lead to orbital decay and controlled (or uncontrolled, yikes! ) deorbit of space stations. KSP space stations, by contrast, require no maintenance nor resupply to remain in their stable orbits, keep their crews supplied with food and oxygen (assuming Kerbals respirate and ingest nourishment). But, as for IRL space stations, given a regular resupply of fuel and parts and other supplies necessary for life support, in theory, couldn't they be maintained in orbit in perpetuity given sufficient resources (notably, the funds necessary to provide all of the parts and infrastructure for resupply and regular maintenance)? I realize it is not a practical theory, as public will and political/bureaucratic focus to sustain such and endeavor seems to be utterly lacking. It was more of a daydreaming theory... a probable what if? And, since I am daydreaming and wandering off on tangents, if (IF) a space station were of sufficient mass and in high enough orbit (somewhere around the distance of the lunar orbit?), in terms of human lifespans would its orbit be considered indefinitely stable, akin to moons and other orbiting planetary bodies? Wow. I really rambled there... sort of just thinking out loud, I suppose. I will readily admit to knowing precious little about space stations in solid technical and scientific aspects. But, they do fascinate me, and I always love a good discussion about them even if it means I need to be 'taken to school'.
  3. Huh. That is strange. I mean, I believe you! But, most of the vehicle interiors have that weird bending distortion effect that made me think of 2D in parallax... aside from the actual crew and their seats... kind of like a movie backdrop, for lack of a better analogy. That said, if they are fully 3D modeled, this is even better! That means if (big IF) free-roaming IVA features were ever added, some of the work is already done! Hooray! Great news! Thank you for sharing! Heh heh, oops, my poor choice of words. Yes, we can look out the windows. I was meaning it in a bit more prosaic sense, like floating up to the windows and looking out, or walking by the windows on a station and looking out... face pressed to the glass like an excited child. I fail at prosaic descriptions; tougher than rocket science?
  4. If paid DLC gets added and it seems to be features or add-ons I would want and enjoy, then I will gladly purchase it. Because, I believe in financially supporting games and companies that provide me content I enjoy in the hopes of extending the life cycle of said games and companies a bit longer if not in perpetuity.
  5. As a note or addendum to my original post, I would be totally willing and happy to acquire these features (fully fledged i.v.a. control and interiors) as paid dlc. From what I have read here and there on the forums, dlc seems a rather contentious and frequently maligned idea. And, I am not trying open a debate on that can of worms here. I am only putting forth that this is something I would be willing to pay for and/or see as a separate dlc add-on. Think of it is an investment to keep things up and running... the funds any healthy, sustainable space program needs.
  6. Kerbals can already enjoy performing e.v.a. - extravehicular activities. But, i.v.a. - intravehicular (is that a word?) activities are limited to menu commands and being permanently strapped into seats. Yes, you can transfer brave Kerbalnauts from one crew compartment to another, but, again, this is through menu commands. Or, if you have greater finesse and control than myself, through e.v.a. transit from one crew hatch to another... this specifically a riskier proposition on a station in orbit versus, say, a ground base or colony. And, this often runs the risk of the dread cloning glitch (which can then create a Kerbal kraken if said clone becomes detached... a Kerbken or a krakbal?). I would love to be able to move around inside crew compartments more freely, controlling a Kerbalnaut in a similar fashion to e.v.a. It would be fun to float about, look out through the porthole windows, see other Kerbals floating about, or even interact with various objects within a crew compartment (what IS in those storage compartments? heh). This would also add more of a base/colony feel (walking about, inside and out) to... well, bases and colonies. I realize there are a LOT of challenges and obstacles to this. - It seems the interiors of crew compartments are actually represented with 2D images and giving the illusion of being a 3D volume through the use of... um... parallax? - More graphic modeling = more lag - This would require another mode of commands (in addition to construction, orbit, docking, e.v.a., etc.) So, yes, this is more wishful thinking than expectation. Still, it would be a cool feature to have and experience.
  7. Not sure if this is the correction discussion to add this, but... it seems to fit/follow. Angled docking ports. Or docking ports that could have a variable angle. Thus far, I can do straight, in-line docking (call it 'noes-to-nose'?) and T or cross docking (perpendicular?). But, I have not found an efficient way (then again, I am most definitely a noob) to make angled docking ports or angled docking port intersections (like in a 'Y' configuration). I could see this useful for making hexagonal (or any number of other geometric, multi-sided configurations) space station rings, as one example. As a side note on the matter of current, real world space stations being temporary and eventually de-orbited, isn't this more a matter of the economic viability (or lack thereof) of keeping them maintained in perpetuity versus whether or not is technologically possible to do so?
  8. I would like to see a multi-player option added to the game (figuring out time-warp mechanics aside). I'm trying to avoid being salty in my reply here, but some of the posts I read... let's say my reaction to them was somewhere on the spectrum between disheartened and frustrated. Thus, unfortunately, while I do 'come in peace', some of my thoughts on the matter are probably tinged a shade of confrontational, so I will offer preemptive apologies here. - Just because you personally wouldn't use or don't want a feature added to the game is not the same as saying no one else would use or want said feature or that it would not be a good feature to add to the game. (For example, I'm not into building space planes for the time-being, but I think it is a great feature in the game and enjoy seeing what other players create with it.) - Just because you don't know of a use for a feature is no the same as the feature having no use. - Just because there are large or difficult challenges to address to make a feature viable (such as handling time warp with multiplayer) doesn't mean the feature isn't viable or reasonably implementable. - Multiplayer is not just about receiving validation from others, but can be about adding new dynamics from cooperative problem-solving to the enjoyment of sharing wonderful experiences or overcoming challenges together to resource or operational delegation to even adding some manner of competitive challenge. There could be a lot of fun and interesting challenges and even advantages to a multiplayer feature, even one implemented on a limited scale. The closest analogous game I can think of is Flight Simulator, where different people I played with enjoyed many different aspects of the game and those different experiences came together into a greater whole. Some people enjoyed being the ATC, some people enjoyed flying about small aircraft, some people enjoyed the pilot-copilot experience of working together, some people enjoyed flying large passenger aircraft, and some people enjoyed just being passengers on those large passenger aircraft and watching what happened during the flight. Definitely because of the scope of space travel, notably when it comes to time management, there are some inherent challenges to implementing a multiplayer feature to KSP. And, I honestly have no idea what would be needed to be added to the software architecture to support such a thing. But, I do see a lot of possibility not entirely dissimilar to the above analogy. Some players could be mining on the Mun, others could be making science trips to a orbital station, while others could be making supply runs, while someone else could be managing the tracking station, assigning flight paths, controlling the comnet, and so on. I do think just plopping multi-player into the game as is wouldn't be 'enough'. It would probably benefit from its own game mode with additional objectives and missions specific to that play style (such as, a challenge to dock two player-controlled craft in space, etc.). That all said, I do see multiplayer as something that could potentially add new 'worlds' of experience to KSP.
  9. I really like the Freelance and Realistic mode ideas as stated. For the Resource mode, I would love to see many different resources put into play - food, water, oxygen, processed materials (you mentioned ore, but I could see a few different materials that would be interesting to manage). For the different resources needed, different ways to attain them could be implemented, such as hydroponics modules for food and oxygen, mining ice asteroids for water, other mining and processing for processed materials, AND/OR having to make resupply missions from Kerbin to whatever station or base needed said resources. This could lead to another layer of challenge for managing space stations and also open up more possibilities for bases/colonies on appropriate planetary bodies. Also, instead of just being stand-alone, Resource mode might be a good addition that could be 'laid over' the other game modes, i.e., Career, Sandbox, Realistic, etc.
  10. Basically, a flight data recorder, right? I think this would be a very cool addition, and not just limited to acceleration and temperature data, but all sorts of parameters and inputs would be great to have recorded... even played back!
  11. I just started playing, sooo my ability to contribute will be minimal. That said, here is what I have learned so far: 1. When docking, if you are close to your target (100m give or take) and with 0 relative velocity, just take it slow and easy from there. If you have RCS thrusters (because, why wouldn't you?), it is better to creep up accurately on your target (0.5m/s, for example) and nail your approach the first time rather than yo-yo back and forth a dozen times. Slow and steady, slow and steady... This probably is considered "Well, duh!" level of knowledge for experienced KSP-ers, but it took me awhile to get the whole patient approach thing down. I just 'felt' things should be moving more quickly. That was not a helpful feeling. 2. Struts are your friends, especially when building larger vehicles that may want to wobble like a bowl of gelatin. 3. Learn the different key bindings and how they change from mode to mode. Pressing the wrong key may or may not have lead to an explosive encounter between ships. Maybe. I admit nothing. Anyway, even when things are moving slowly (relatively speaking), being able to press the correct keys with precision (versus guessing and hunting and pecking) helps. 4. Don't be afraid to try something - even if it seems weird, improbable, or difficult beyond reasonable safety parameters (let you Kerbals do the worrying). I have 'failed' countless times, but each time I learned something new, adjusted for it, and got a bit better with each attempt. Which reminds me... 5. When changing the build of a ship for better (or even just simply functional without unnecessary explosions) performance, changing one major structural component at a time between launches will help you understand how each thing affects your ship. If you change a dozen things between launches, it can be hard to tell which one thing had which specific effect (good or bad). The two biggest areas I have noticed this in are in figuring out fuel-thrust efficiency (it really, really sucks to be stuck in space with no fuel) and flight stability (I have had some wobbly ships like like to tumble through the sky like a fireworks wheel). 6. Finally, press ALL THE BUTTONS and use ALL THE PARTS! There are so many features in KSP, it is fun to keep discovering new things! OK, those are my noob suggestions.
  12. Where to begin? WITH A GIANT, SOLAR SYSTEM TRAVERSING, SELF-SUFFICIENT COLONY STATION HOUSING THOUSANDS OF SPACE-FARING KERBALS! *cough cough* I mean, probably with a little bit of an introduction. Yeah, that is what I meant. So, I'm just your average, middle-aged dad who never grew out of his "I like adventures and day-dreaming and video games and learning random, cool things and buying and building toys especially if it has a lot of 'bits'!" phase. Building games and simulator games appeal a great deal to all of that in me, such as Flight Simulator, Minecraft, Japanese train simulators, Japanese store management simulators, town/outpost builders, and so on. So, even though I've come to KSP late in the game, so to speak (about 2 weeks before 1.2), it is a perfect fit for my inner child. I should offer preemptive thanks for anyone taking time to answer the many questions I will have, and extend the invitation to message me whenever. Whatever game I play, I enjoy seeing things through the experiences of someone else, too, because it helps me learn a lot, have fresh perspectives on different challenges, and also share in the excitement. Already, I have had some great help in learning to succeed at some rather (at first) challenging and frustrating aspects of KSP because of the help of the community here - that's awesome! So, I really look forward to learning from and playing with the KSP community!
  13. 5th Horseman, you are one of my new heroes for KSP!!! Holy Kerbaltastic! I DOCKED! *does the Kerbal happy dance* I docked! I docked! I docked! Oh, to be sure, it was ugly as all get out. And *nervous laughter*, there were a few moments of bumper cars in space (very slow, so no harm done). And *cough cough blush*, this was after getting a little antsy to try things out and making another attempt after only getting through the second video (which was an GI-NORMOUS help!). This may be the 'beginner' way (as you stated in the video), but it helped me get my approach slow and tight so that I was able to make small corrections... and my yo-yo-ing around wasn't as wild as usual. Of great help, especially, was the part where you described turning sideways to the target and using that as a reference to judge 'braking'. Haven't quite mastered it yet, but it definitely was an improvement. *feeling chuffed* Where I was very frustrated and discouraged before, now I am excited to keep trying and get better and better at docking until I almost look like I know what I am doing!
  14. I am having the EXACTLY same experience as Unigo. Following the instructions on the tutorial gets me (on a VERY good day) to within about 50m of the target vessel... then I start drifting away again, even when it says I am approaching at about 5m/s. I follow all the instructions to a T. I get well within the parameters it says are good. Still, no go. It is a nightmare tutorial that makes me frustrated to the point of having to walk away for a day or so. I think next attempt when I feel up to it, I may scrap what the tutorial instructs and follow someone else's guide. Snark's guide helped with some 'missing' concepts and explanations that the tutorial didn't go over as well as hoped. So... maybe tomorrow. I feel like an idiot, though. Like if I don't get an almost input by input, step by step, screen by screen hand-holding I am hopeless at docking. Sigh.
  15. Aside from the specific details to be haggled over, I would LOVE to see a intra-solar system colonization aspect to KSP. It is, yes, a bit ahead of the current tech curve... but not by much. Really, if you want to get down to (space worthy) brass tacks, fully functional space planes are a little ahead of the current technology curve, but those are fully possible within KSP. So, intra-solar system colonization does not seem an unreasonable feature to add to KSP at some point. I would call it more in the realm of achievable versus fictional... somewhere on the arc between possible and probable. As for giant domes of some transparent or semi-transparent material, this has already been an idea floated about in hard science fiction (i.e., Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars" books). There are concentrations of silica on Mars, so with some manner of processing plant the production of glass, as one example of dome material, is theoretically possible. That said, Mars does have some nasty radiation bombardment due to it's exceedingly thin atmosphere and lack of magnetic field. So, whether glass or any other material, above surface habitats would have to find some way of mediating that hazard. (And I am afraid I really know nothing about the science of how glass would be treated or composited to stop radiation... I am afraid I am just a dabbler in the sciences.) Another option for large, open-spaced habitats (as opposed to a dome on the surface) would be to build sub-surface (i.e., underground) habitats. Given that Mars lacks tectonic plates that shift around, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that subsurface structures would be relatively stable and safe. All that rambling aside, yes, a colonization feature/aspect to KSP would be amazing!