Dragon01

Members
  • Content Count

    3,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

449 Excellent

About Dragon01

  • Rank
    Flight Director

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is a bad idea to put into a DLC. Life support should be a core mechanic, and station gameplay should be built around it. Otherwise, it's kind of boring. Running resupply missions is OK, as long as you don't need to do that too often. There should be functionality in place to reduce requirements. Fully closed loop off planet life support would probably be necessary for interstellar flight, and colonies should be fairly straightforward to make self-sufficient (otherwise, it's not really a colony, just an extraplanetary base).
  2. TBH, this is likely the actual purpose of the whole thing. Raise a lot of internet armchair lawyering, make some noise and capitalize on a "public scandal". If one of the women involved wasn't in space at the time, nobody would be talking about this, since the fact that it's two women divorcing isn't enough to raise an eyebrow anymore. I don't know what exactly there is to gain by doing that, but these cases tend to have a lot of emotion involved. Yeah, and put them into space jail. Followed by a trail in a space court and being sent to space gulag one the moon (hint: don't build mass drivers if you do that...).
  3. All it proves is that it supports pretty graphics. Under the hood, it's a low-budget piece of junk it always was. It works when you're not trying to do anything unusual with it (like modeling an entire solar system). Yes, sooner or later Unity will likely hold the game back. It'd be much better if they took time and money to write their own engine, or at least used something more advanced. The only positive thing about it is that modders will have an easier time transitioning. Converting their models and workflows to a new engine would be harder than going between Unity versions.
  4. I've never heard of this concept, and it's very silly anyway. They can't do it "in a matter of seconds" to manned craft, not to mention the pesky Newton's 3rd law would dictate they'd each need engines as powerful as the accelerator coils. You could, perhaps, set up a megastructure that would essentially be a conventional mass driver writ large, but if you have that kind of tech, you probably have other ways of getting that fast (which you'll need to use at your destination, anyway, unless you're making relativistic weapons). Besides, the devs said no FTL, not no relativistic drives. In hard SF, you sometimes see mass drivers used to accelerate a ship they're mounted on. This we might see in KSP. We might also see electromagnetic catapults for launching things to space, for use on low-G, atmosphereless colonies, maybe some assisted launch systems for atmospheric ones.
  5. Rather, I think it would be best as the structure for you to build. On the Moon, Heinlein-style, or other planets. On Kerbin, it'd probably be a hard sell due to atmosphere, though something like that could work for giving spaceplanes a kick. That doesn't follow. A mass driver has nothing to do with FTL. It has a decent exhaust velocity and is noticeably propellant-flexible, but it's limited by materials and power production, being an electric engine. The proper use of a space mass driver is to propel asteroids by throwing out parts of them that aren't worth refining.
  6. Mass drivers I can get behind. In fact, with the SF colonization focus, they're kind of an obvious conclusion, what with many classic stories featuring them. Something like Project Babylon... well, I don't think it'd be good for much on Earth, but on Kerbin, it might.
  7. I do hope for a better soundtrack. Royalty-free music from KSP1 not only gets old quickly, but it's not even particularly good. Especially VAB music. I turned it all off a long time ago, and replaced with just playing my own tracks in the background.
  8. My point exactly. Many other games are not "inherently" violent. People playing them are. A nuclear pulse unit is literally a slightly tweaked nuke (usually a wimpy one, granted, but still a nuke). A fusion beam cannon is a fusion engine that's deliberately pointed at somebody (it generates a beam of particles going at a very high speed. You can cut another ship in half with that). An ICBM is a space rocket aimed at someone's head (in case of many real LVs, quite literally). As soon as multiplayer is added, people will use it to blow each other up, because that's what people do when playing multiplayer games. It might not be endorsed or it might be accepted, unless you demolish player-player interactions (which, admittedly, might be needed if griefing gets out of hand). Space Engineers didn't have guns at first, either, so people just kept throwing blocks at each other early on. They still do that, because guns in SE are implemented in a somewhat funny way. I hope KSP multiplayer won't go into that so much that devs start to carter to that segment of the community, but some of that is unavoidable.
  9. I don't think it means that. That would be very different from what everyone is expecting. Most people, when speaking of KSP multiplayer, think "dock to your friend's station" kind of thing. Telemachus is a lot more niche thing. TBH, I don't think much of multiplayer either way.
  10. What I hope is that they won't waste time on mechanics related to combat. Rocket parts are already very easy to weaponize. Mass drivers are even easier, if the devs decide to add them (with the focus on SF tech and colonization, highly likely). In multiplayer, this will inevitably happen. What I hope the devs won't do is carter to those kinds of players by adding features endorsing that kind of behavior. It'd be a huge waste of time, and the result would turn off exploration-minded players while likely not being much good as a combat game, anyway. There's already a realistic space combat game, much more realistic than KSP, in fact, called Children of a Dead Earth. Bellicose players can go try that (it needs more love, anyway).
  11. Warfare is confirmed to be in main game. That is, it has multiplayer. It also has nuclear warheads pulse units, beam cannons fusion engines and ICBMs space launch rockets. Considering how multiplayer gaming usually ends up as, people will be launching them at each other in no time.
  12. My biggest concern is that so far, they don't seem to be doing early access. Indeed, I haven't even seen any of them post here. Once nice thing about early KSP was that Squad communicated with the community and incorporated their ideas. You know how the thrust of a rocket engine varies with altitude? For a long time, what varied was the fuel flow. If this error wasn't pointed out by several realism-minded community memebers (myself included), they'd probably act like this to this day. Or, for that matter, anyone remember how the whole spaceplane segment of the game came about? KSP simply wouldn't be the same game without extensive community feedback. If KSP2 lacks that, I'm just not seeing it ever getting this good. That goes double for a multiplayer game, actually. Another, though very different, realism-oriented multiplayer sandbox, ArmA3, also involved the community from the very start (once again, myself included, though I reported exclusively on the SP side), and benefited greatly from feedback. Community testing is especially important in this case, since there's no way you can set up a testing system that mimics a server with a hundred players scattered all over the world. It doesn't matter what release date they set if they don't start consulting the community way, way before that. Considering the standard KSP1 has set, and the hype that's already building up, if they bungle the second part at release, it might well be curtains for the series. One way to avoid that is to bungle it at pre-release, where the only people who'll be affected by that will be the ones willing to work with the devs to fix things before the actual 1.0, hopefully making the official release live up to the hype.
  13. I'd say this is more likely a conjecture from before MOL's true purpose was known. Lack of a Gemini B (depicting a full-sized spacecraft instead), presence of a Transtage, an equipment module aft of the experiment module and the small size of the experiment module itself mean it just wouldn't make for a good spy satellite. Seeing as the mockup had a transtage, and the Gemini B being up there isn't obvious if you don't know about it, it seems like it's a logical extrapolation from what was known at the time. It could also have been a proposal for a civilian station piggybacking on the MOL idea. It does look like a cool alternate configuration, close to the MOL we have now (indeed, that's probably where they came from in first place).
  14. Let others worry about contracts. I think that a large telescope would be a really nice part to have. DMagic Orbital Science has telescopes, but quite frankly, they don't look that great. Indeed, I'd love to see DMOS instruments in BDB style. Telescopes and ELINT dishes, especially, since those are large parts that make building big sats worthwhile, but ones currently available look meh at best. Oh, and don't worry about KSP2. It's about a year away, and even then, there's no telling if it'll be any good. Squad is still going to be working on KSP1, last time I've heard. Indeed, if anything, it may cause KSP1 codebase to stabilize.
  15. Well, an R-29 blowing up on the platform and taking out the RTG would certainly be a cause for concern, what with this being a hypergolic missile.