Opus_723

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

1 Follower

About Opus_723

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Because it's fun. If we get private servers, me and my friends will probably collaborate on building an interstellar empire, but at some point one of us is going to turn and begin the orbital bombardment, I know it.
  2. That's encouraging! I would have guessed that integrating out the ship's trahectory would be too prohibitive for the smooth flight planning we're used to. In that case, I completely agree that putting the planets on rails but integrating out proper ship trajectories in the resultant time-dependent n-body field would be a wonderful compromise. The effect of n-body dynamics on the ship is, I think, where all the cool *rocket* science lies, not so much the effect on the planets.
  3. Question for people familiar with the Principia mod: Does it update your trajectory immediately and smoothly as you burn, or adjust a maneuver node, the way stock does? That seems like the biggest number crunch to me, I'm curious how Principia handles it.
  4. I currently use a mod to move my navball out of the center of the screen because I feel like it crowds my view of the spaceship itself, so I personally like the layout here a lot.
  5. Did I miss the memo that games just stop being fun when sequels come out?
  6. I could definitely see some sort of 3-SOI scheme working alright, and I think that's probably what they will do. You don't actually have to do true 3-body physics for a small ship in a binary system, so it's actually not *that* crazy, but... They would, I think, have to integrate out your trajectories instead of having an analytic formula like the conic sections. That probably won't reconcile with our need to watch long trajectories update smoothly and instantly as we change velocity. EDIT: On the other hand, I just learned that there is an n-body physics mod for KSP1, so maybe the integration can be done faster than I presumed. If that mod works, then they could totally do the small mass approximation to the 3-body problem easily.
  7. The screenshots on the announcement page look like they're in-game (I think?) and although they're not as high-quality as the trailer they look really good, and the art style is very similar.
  8. I'm just a little nervous that the multiplayer is going to be something like co-op Making History missions instead. I'm crossing my fingers hoping it will be more like sharing a Minecraft server.
  9. I have a buddy who loves space stuff, sends me updates on SpaceX launches and everything. I tried to get him into KSP once but the learning curve is kind of steep and he really wanted some way to do multiplayer with me. He doesn't really enjoy playing games by himself, he just wants to socialize with his friends. All I really want is to be able to share a solar system with a friend or a small group of friends, and I will be ridiculously happy if that happens.
  10. I'm still reeling about multiplayer. Can we get an idea of what *sort* of multiplayer it has? Like, are we talking shared solar systems or are we talking co-op missions a la Making History?
  11. Woah.... WOAH. Wait, how does the *multiplayer* work? There's so many ways.... how? I've always wanted to share my solar system with a friend like a Minecraft server.... Is... something like that happening?
  12. I've been playing around with trying to fashion the Klaw into a sort of harpoon that can be fired at a distant target, but unfortunately the Klaw doesn't engage a target unless it collides at very slow speeds, so it's not nearly as fun as I had initially hoped. Does anyone know of any mod parts that will grab things like the Klaw, but still engage the target at moderate to high impact speeds?
  13. I never did buy Making History, but if I can use the robotic parts in the Mission Editor, I have.... ideas.