• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent


About LegendaryAce

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Interests Aircraft
    US Air Force
    Advanced physics

Recent Profile Visitors

1333 profile views
  1. Well, then here's an idea. You can program two separate default control schemes for rockets and planes. Use Ace Combat's control scheme for default in atmosphere craft (jets and spaceplanes). (I use Ace Combat since I doubt very many console gamers have played IL-2 Sturmovik, Birds of Steel, or any others) RT/LT - Throttle Up/Throttle Down RB/LB - Yaw Right/Yaw Left Left Stick - Pitch/Roll Easy, right? As for rockets? Use the same default control scheme that we're used to. EDIT: Here's a question for the devs that hopefully I can get an answer for. I've already mastered making VTOL fighters and Jumpjets (Harriers, F-35B's, Yakovlev Yak-141, etc.), so I would like to know if it's possible to implement the necessary propulsion systems to make helicopters.
  2. If memory is correct, this is the 4th(?) time they've supposedly "changed the control scheme". Here's an idea. Play Birds of Steel, look at its player customizable control scheme, and implement THAT in KSP! Maybe let players CHOOSE their own controls!?
  3. Who knows. This whole ordeal has been nothing short of a disaster.
  4. Simpleplanes on iOS has pretty accurate astrophysics when you exceed altitudes over 250,000 feet. If Jundroo made it so the atmosphere changes and it looks like space, I'd ditch KSP on the spot.
  5. Ahh. So vague. Just what I'm used to. Would it kill them to give an estimate on how much is done? Not even when they'll release, but how far percentage wise they'd guess. Oh, on a side note, next Wednesday marks 400 days since release.
  6. *If. I'm still rather pessimistic.
  7. I can quote the first sentence almost verbatim. "In other news, work on the console build continues at a good pace..." Perhaps we'll see this update before the end of the year!
  8. Awesome! Now if I want to, I can explore the Jool system with an Aerospike powered SR-71!
  9. That's what I said.
  10. @Red Iron CrownWell, to each his own I guess. Just figured that this "debate" was degenerating into pure anger. No harm in trying to play Peacekeeper, right? @Everyone Let's just all agree on the following: 1) The current state of the console version is abhorrent, and NEEDS to be fixed. 2) Squad has said they will fix it, and release a working version. 3) Fighting amongst each other and/or Squad staff is NOT productive. 4) Venting and/or ranting is acceptable, in moderation, and when not attacking others. 5) Squad WILL release the PS4 version when the new port is finished. 6) Take everything Squad says with a grain of salt. They obviously cannot give solid details regarding release dates. Is it so hard to follow these? I've already started to, and I was vehement a short while ago.
  11. @Jumba83Dude, you really need to stop. All this hostility and fighting pointed at both the mods AND the devs is counterproductive. You expect Squad to give you a fixed game, but at the same time you're all but crucifying them. Ever hear the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Trust me, I'm still quite livid at the state of the console version, but I've learned long ago that there's NOTHING I or you can do to fix it. All we can do is sit here, and hope that Squad makes right with the console community. @Red Iron CrownWhy even fight with this guy? It's not even worth the energy. Sure, I've gotten into disputes with mods, yourself included, but it doesn't help. As "Global Moderator", shouldn't you be more upstanding than this guy? He's obviously never going to be satiated, so don't give him the pleasure of upsetting you.
  12. I can't help but agree with that. If you wanted to find that out, this is not the place to ask, as it is dedicated to console. Also, @Red Iron Crown, I agree. Though I'm still particularly irritated, it's not very prudent to take out your aggression directly towards the devs, especially when they actually give you a detailed response.
  13. Why not hand it over to me? I could get it to happen no problem!
  14. To answer your questions: 1) Don't outsource your work if you want it done properly, or make sure to vet better. 2) Debug through the typical way a gamer plays and a little harder. The extremes in gaming are asking for trouble. (i.e. 1 rocket with 200+ stages activated at once). 3) A reasonable time frame would be less than a year since the release, and not so long that fans abandon my game. 4) I would trade some smaller bugs for a faster update. I much prefer a hotfix two weeks later than a re-release a year and a half later. 5) YES. I AM! A working base game is better than being told of future updates that will never work unless the game is fixed. 6) NO! Because that's EXACTLY what Squad did! 7) When you can run an open Beta and players can play for more than 4 hours? And we console gamers have EVERY right to criticize anything about this game. Does this answer your questions?
  15. Sorry, new to this topic, but three things. 1) I honestly prefer the Raptor, since A) it's a great looking plane B) It's PSM ability is a first for a Western Fighter, and C) it's powerful Raytheon AN/APG-77 radar system combined with its AIM-120C missiles make it deadly. 2) Are fictional fighters allowed in debate? If so, I'd go with the X-02 Wyvern. 3) If we're going with WWII fighters, there's a few that stand out. The Heinkel He-162 was a pretty cool plane, though sadly built in low numbers. It's top mounted jet engine was quite unique. The Soviet Yak-3 was a real effective plane, and when not in the "Tank Destroyer" arrangement, could take on almost ANY fighter below 5,000 feet. And lastly, I could say that the P-51 is my favorite American WWII fighter, but that honor goes to the Bell P-39Q-20 Airacobra. While not as illustrious as the Mustang, the Airacobra was nevertheless a very useful plane, and it's unique 37mm cannon was a real behemoth.