• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

89 Excellent


About mystik

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,656 profile views
  1. Ike legacy: basically the darkest object in the system, unattractive and ugly. Ike revamped: dark, unattractive and ugly but in HD textures. YAY! Hype Hype Hype. Flashing gif.gif
  2. Because people have agency. More than they think they do. Because I can and want to. Is that a good answer or is it too libertarian for you? I wasn't dismissing his experience, I was pointing out that he is more responsible of his choices than the game is, but you have to be willing to read. Anyways, I shall end it here. The contest is bad, the prizes are bad, the "I'll do it for free while you get to monetize on it" attitude is bad. Had it been pro bono and for a charity I'd be praising it. As it is, it's just a cash grab at the expense of naivety. But do not let things like reason and arguments get in your way. Ban, bash, hide under the rug. It's they way things are done here.
  3. Legal terms and conditions: 99% of the text. Prize description 1%. Actual prize 0%. Luckily you will get enough people that want a "shot at fame" that are willing to spend time doing your job as a developer and get 0 in return. I guess marketing works on the lesser "aware" folks. No. YOU changed your life. Because YOU purchased this game. Had it been granted to you for free by the developers, then they could take the credit. As far as I see, you owe nothing to the developers as you have payed the exact worth to them when you purchased the game. A game [snip] is a product. What it means to you is different than what it means to the developer. "This game changed my life". Bruh, that sounds like a testimonial from a cult member, or at least some early morning infomercial. Congrats on your career path tho. I know I'll get some lame warning point, have my post deleted, get some cult members... err... fans that will lash at me for daring to criticize anything about the game, squad or the forum. The irony? I'll get banned for "bullying" by some authoritarian bully that thinks nobody should say things he doesn't like. It has happened before and will happen again. As it happens I couldn't care less. <Insert meme here> I don't often post on KSP forums. But when I do, it's to criticize some negative aspect, but I always get banned. I guess this is the vacuous world we live in where everybody must fall in line or get shot.
  4. They're not? Then why are they promoting a competing game development studio? You think Squad isn't raking in the cash for the sale of the idea to another studio? It's so lazy too. Using the same boring ass Unity engine. Wanna bet that the same developers will be working on KSP2? Because I think if that was not the case you'd have some proper developers working on something more modern, like Unreal, which seems that is something even amateur developers can work with but not the developers of KSP, no matter which studio it is. There are some gems made in Unreal engine. But KSP remains to the old and outdated Unity. You know what, I broke my promise and replied again, I promise to be the last one here because I really don't like the new KSP idea at 60 USD after paying that amount already on the original game and DLC only to be asked the same price just for the initial game, not counting the future releases of DLC. No thank you, either offer proper discounts for veterans or it's sailing the high seas for this one as far as I'm concerned. So the devs have to decide whether they want to make some money or no money from my side. I'm willing to pay for my games, but I'm not willing to be insulted or taken for a fool that can't tell the difference between a deal and ripoff.
  5. 60 USD for a rehashed version of KSP? That's the price of AAA games. This is definitely not it. You could have made HD texture in the current one and add atmospheric and lighting effects. What's the matter? Did the sales of the original drop so low that you need to go the Activision way, by rehashing the same idea over and over again to artificially boost revenue? Looking into turning this into the next Call of Duty? You haven't even ironed out the old KSP by the looks of the bugtracker. I would only pay 20 USD (full price) for this game especially given the track record of laziness of the KSP team in implementing useful mods in the game. Until I see a reasonable pricing or you give a significant discount to the users that already bought the original and all its DLC and stop this insane pricing I think I leave this one for "sailing the high seas". I didn't ever plan on ever posting on this forum again. To post this I had to accept a warning point from Vanamonde for calling someone a fanboi, which is an insult only for those that really want to feel insulted and search for any lame excuse to feel insulted, so I guess feelings over facts is more important for the lesser ones. Anyways, I made my point, if you push this ridiculous price for a rehashed version of KSP you will lose me as a paying customer.
  6. [snip] Also, I already established that the reason these mods should be stock is the period between update and the mods being updated making the game unplayable for weeks until everyone catches up. People are too fragile and sensitive around here. Anyways, we've established that a lot of people don't have mirrors in their house and the graphics still suck so we can swipe this thread under the rug. The game has been fixed through the power of ignorance. This is my last post here. I mean, I saw some posts that understood what I am saying, [snip]. I'll go post on Steam, where we can get actual feedback that's not constantly coming from the likes of "I'll gladly accept anything for the money I payed because I like all things and all things are always great and #allgraphicschipsetareequal #nogpuhate #thisgameisperfect and such" crowd.
  7. Don't bother to explain. I got used to the cognitive dissonance [snip] on the forum. On one side you say you want the outdated graphics but you praise the skybox update in the same post. It didn't trigger a light bulb, did it? That's ok. I especially love how you mentioned that skybox is visible 95% of the time on your screen. I guess the atmosphere, scatterer or planet shine will be on your screen up to 90% of the time, thus not meeting your arbitrary limit pulled out of your dump logs, to put it mildly. [snip]
  8. 630 is a very old graphics chipset. Not to mention that it is a entry level one at that. And it is also a mobile chipset which also ensues performance penalty. What you are running there is Legacy hardware. Nvidia stopped providing driver updates back in 2018. If you are willing to use that as a standard for KSP today, then I am afraid we will never reach any sort of middle ground. Mostly because that hardware is 2012 entry level, so it was a budget level graphics chipset even when it launched, let alone 7 years later... I don't see why KSP should care for legacy hardware performance. What's next, GeForce 250 users would like a slice of the pie? FSX is considered good graphics now? What is going on? Did I accidentally step into some time portal where that game is considered good looking? Am I on candid camera? People of 2012. Behold, I bring graphics from the future! Wonder and be amazed! I think we're done here. Good luck with 10 year old graphics card in the upcoming years. I for one will be shifting to better looking games.
  9. 1. You are lying. You said exactly: 2. I didn't refute the argument because there is minimal engineering to learn in this game. It's hardly realistic when it comes to many things. This game is to engineering as Lego is to building things. Very basic. The aspect is there but it is hardly something that will make you win some Nobel prize. You're exaggerating. 3. KSP is not related to Minecraft not even by the widest stretch of imagination. To prove me otherwise please use your engineering skills to draft a nice graph to compare side by side. I am interested in the resource gathering and the crafting parts the most but you are free to add others on top. 4. Congrats. However, I am getting tired of hearing this argument. The game was not built to handle very big ships and models. The fact that you push the limits of the game to satisfy your own curiosities, that is on you. I use smaller models and more simple structures and it gets me through the game just fine. Also, as an engineer, isn't the golden saying "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"? Fine, you can build anything you want. However, I am more interested in you saying exactly how allowing higher spec hardware handle more graphics details a detriment to your play style. You can stay on minimal settings. But I, as the player that plays the game within the normal parts limit, that has learned to design ships in such a way that is not game breaking but gets the job done, I would like some eye candy, please. Is that a deal or is there something in the last part that I said that just bothers you so much that you think such a thing is blasphemy? And while on the subject, tell me, all of the people that replied to me disgruntled that I dared asked for better graphics: How come revamped parts which mean improved graphics and more detailed models that require more processing power and VRAM are ok and applauded by you, but the idea of improved graphics is something that is crossing a line too far? One might think that you are engaging in doublethink.
  10. The engine itself has proven to be crap when building large ships. So what's the solution? Upgrade the engine to something that can handle the load or lower your expectations. I, for one, don't care about large ships. I can play the game fine and dandy with average sized ships that do just the things I need. You want mega structures? Buy a mega computer for all I care. Or ask for upgrading of the game engine. If you think that enabling better graphics for hardware that can handle it is wrong, then I would have to question if you're not somehow envious of those with better hardware? You can play at the potato level as much as you want. Heck, you can play at the potato peel level if that if what you want. I'm sure there are mods that reduce the textures to insulting low levels. I don't care for equity in game experience. But I do care for equality of opportunity. Allow me to freely use my ability and capability as free as possible by measures of hardware meritocracy and don't hold me back [snip] A capisce? Post some specs. I don't buy AAA games. I am married. I don't live with my parents. I upgrade my hardware to modest levels every few years. I have a PC and not a laptop, because I understood that the worst deal you can get is a gaming laptop, due to constantly needing to replace it as a whole every few years. So instead I did the smart thing and went desktop, having to upgrade partially every few years instead. And by upgrade I mean last year's mainstream thing. So you see, I don't spend money like a dumbass, I buy mostly affordable or used parts. My CPU was just $65 and my video card was just $120. And the funny part is? I don't even live in the US where these things are definitely more affordable. I live in Eastern Europe. I just save a few bucks every month and then when the time comes I upgrade something. I don't smoke or drink, in case you're wondering how I can afford to save, but we're not here to talk about lifestyle choices or bad habits and nor am I insinuating you are doing any of these. Get off your high horse and don't try to subtlety insult me thinking I am not gonna catch on. You know nothing about me and I wasn't talking about your life choices or your lifestyle.
  11. Are you trying to say that only the poor are buying KSP? It isn't exactly cheap. Also, if you are somehow stating that the people with good hardware are not to be considered for new purchases, then aren't you just confirming my theory that people with capable hardware are put off by the outdated graphics of the game and decide not to buy it? So then wouldn't it make sense for SQUAD to update the graphics? Is this not logic to you? Yes, statistics are more than numbers, and I would know because I studied them in college. So, by your theory, what disqualifies the majority of good hardware people from actually playing the game? If I am to study the numbers and assume a blunt representation, I would expect that since the majority of hardware is above potato level, then the majority of KSP owners would fit into this category as well. Unless you have some numbers to show that most of the owners of the game are from the potato hardware portion? From this there can be only 2 outcomes: 1. There is a equal representation of potato vs good hardware, which would mean that more KSP players have above potato level hardware -> KSP should upgrade the graphics; 2. There is a higher representation of potato hardware than good hardware, which means that more KSP players have potato level hardware so the question is why aren't more good hardware users buying the game? -> Well, they probably don't see the game as worth it because of the graphics, which means that KSP needs to upgrade the graphics. Now, by upgrading the graphics you can keep the minimal settings as they are. But offer the option for enhanced graphics for those that can handle it. This is why I say I don't understand why the good hardware players need to be held hostage at the current level of graphics just because some people have potato hardware. Let the potatoes play at potato level and then let loose the good hardware to have as much extravaganza as they can handle. If someone can explain to me why upgrading the graphics would cause harm to the game then I am willing to hear it. And before you say that it is "coding time" and that costs money, well, revamping the parts also costs money, but you are not getting the same amount of bang for your buck. Because potential buyers won't see the level of detail that engine has, they watch "gameplay footage" and they cannot see those nice rings on the engine shroud. They will see excrementsty terrain textures, no atmosphere effects, missing lighting realism... They won't bother with micro graphical details. They will look at the game as a whole. Fite me, brah, prove me wrong! (Debate wise, of course).
  12. I need about 10 mods and I rather need none. I don't need the extra features you mentioned. I just want the flight data (altitude, angles, speed) and had to resort to Kerbal Engineer for this, which is never updated on launch day. So now I will just need one less mod. I still rather do the maneuvers on my own rather than have the computer figure everything for me. If the computer does it all for me then I might as well watch Matt Lowne play because my input is reduced to pressing a button (same as playing a video on Youtube).
  13. Two things I want to approach. The "turning off on your machine argument". According to the Steam Hardware Survey attached somewhere earlier, more people than not, are not running potato hardware. So in essence, the majority have something that can benefit the visual improvements. I don't think the capable hardware folks should be held hostage to the potato hardware. Upgrade or turn off settings. Don't limit users, let users limit themselves. Also, I bought the DLC and I am still a stakeholder, and not legacy. If they put out new DLC guess what? I will buy it if the game will be worth it. So until the game development stops I will not be legacy. I am still a potential customer, as shown by my previous two purchases. Not to mention that the fact that just because you don't demand the same thing I demand, has no authority over my arguments, so I'd say your argument is the void one. Why are so many people shy to criticize SQUAD? I don't get it. Why are people so happy with the bare minimum on a product that they payed for? Do you think that bought early access bought it to be minimally happy about the way the game was or were they supporting the game so that it gets better later? If you actually believe that then I'd say you have a real issue with making your reasonable demands. I expect KSP to improve. I am not happy to see it stall.
  14. While you're still waiting on your mods to be updated I'll be playing as soon as the update is complete. In the end that is why the most common mods need to be integrated. Because waiting for 2 weeks to get a mod updated is a big no-no.
  15. Everything you said is wrong. The game does not teach you math. It can make you use math, but to use it, you have to know it. The only thing it does is teach you some basics about orbital mechanics, but nothing more. Everything else is broken in the sense that it does not make scientific sense. I have a G4560, a budget dual core CPU, not even close to your i7, and the same video card. I max out on all settings and run comfortably (60 fps) any ship I designed (including the ones in my signature). I can record and post it here to prove it, I'll use MSI Afterburner to show the numbers. I mean I don't know what you're doing wrong on your pc, but that should run better than what you're describing. You gotta invest in some ram, in case you're still running 4GB, because this game is so poorly designed it just gobbles up all your ram. So there must be something wrong with your ships. Mine never have issues with performance. I usually limit my stuff to around 300 parts with minimal clipping. Again, that because I learned that the code is garbage and causes huge amounts of ram to disappear when you start building ships too large or too complex. If an i7 cannot keep up with your ship design, maybe it is time to rethink how you build. And also, KSP is anything but minecraft in space, that sentence makes no sense. Minecraft is a resource gathering and item crafting game. What resource do you gather here exactly that allows you to craft? If you're going to say credits, then that means any RTS, city builder, or whatever game that involves credits is minecraft. Surely, they aren't. If you are looking for a minecraft in space experience, I would say Astroneer is what you're looking for, a game that, by the way, is running on the more demanding Unreal engine, is also kinda poorly optimized but I can still run at 60fps.