Jump to content

Rejected Spawn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

221 Excellent

About Rejected Spawn

  • Rank
    Unpaid Researcher

Profile Information

  • Location
    Marginally above floor level.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. First up, I haven't been sacrificing every moment of my life to the Kraken by browsing the KSP forums day and night so maybe this stuff has been covered in some post I've somehow missed, should this be the case then I guess this thread is far less relevant. WIth that out of the way let's delve into my suggestions. Would much appreciate some thoughts from others on how appealing these things would be. 1: Panel shape variants - rather than always being flat and straight edged they could be rounded, inverse rounded, curved and domed. Example of 90 degree rounded and curved on the right below
  2. Finally I'm back to clear up the confusion I caused, this current global fiasco has kept me occupied with some other tedious stuff. First off let me just state the obvious: I was dumb enough to pounce on a half baked thought based on 10 minutes of badly sleep deprived wikipedia browsing, that's bound to be a very incomplete level of knowledge to stand on and produce low level stepping stone thoughts at best. Second I totally failed to specify the type of craft I thought this would be a good option for, that was silly considering that some craft in KSP2 will be very large. Third I complete
  3. Haven't seen any mention of this yet, if I simply missed it then sorry my bad. Was reading up on attitude control mechanisms for spacecraft and came across the mention of small ion thrusters being used in place of common verniers on some craft, now as much as that's terrific and all they are made of pure weaksauce and they do run out of propellant after some time but that's when I had this idea; since thrusters only need to provide a little puff every now and then to make minimal adjustments it wouldn't be unreasonable to run them on just about any gas you happen to have on hand at the cost
  4. I think I did this pack and link thing right, only included the "persistent" files to unbloat the thing. Save me! The science was done a while ago on that profile but it also has 115 kerbals, every single one rescued from orbit, also 65 million pocket money. The entire KSC was fully upgraded before day 2 started, science maxed before day 10 started, just now plucked the last one of these 115 kerbals from orbit and landed about 7 minutes before the start of day 15. More observant folks may have already noticed but yeah, I was going for a speedrun measured in Kerbin time instead of play tim
  5. Seems like a fun challenge I probably cleared by coincidence some time ago, at least if Mun+Minmus are OK destinations, which I figure they are due to the wording. Used some DLC stuff and gonna have to see if I let some debris hit solar orbit at some point though... uuh, how do I see that again? Never bothered to dig around in the KSC more than I absolutely had to since I never had the blood pressure medicine needed to deal with the excessive load times, can't for the life of me find anything other than the science buildings archive of data... that one says zero data for solar stuff so does th
  6. I find it quite charming to see such characters and their backstories, though be careful not to get our hopes up dear Squad - you probably know full well what a greedy bunch we can be and adding a "software engineer" might lead us to believe more intelligent or even semi autonomous probe cores are in the works!
  7. If you make me drool any more you'll need to send me a bucket, this update wasn't of all that much interest to me at first but with each bit of more info I find the wait exponentially more unbearable!
  8. I really don't want to add fuel to a fire that is not proven to be warranted but there is just one thing that strikes me as very "big publisher up to no good" in the whole story we have so far: T2 has not made an official statement explaining all of this. Not saying all the blame lies with T2; not saying it's all on the former Star Theory; not even saying it's both. What I AM saying though is that even after something like this the former ST employees are likely still bound by law not to disclose exactly what happened, the only entity that has full legal rights to shout from the rooftops what
  9. As title says, SAS seems incapable of applying reaction wheels correctly on the roll axis so I keep getting rockets and stations that wriggle back and forth anywhere between a near invisible amount and up to several degrees, typically waaaay worse the bigger the craft is. Could only find quite old threads about this but none of the ones I read had any actual solution, nor has the game been patched to fix the issue. CLARIFICATION: The squirming will self agitate from the slightest fraction up to a certain point, even if a craft looks stable for several minutes it can start wriggling more and mo
  10. Wouldn't that completely miss the point because it reverts the entire challenge to "build an SSTO that can bring a payload to Duna and back" just that the payload is slightly different from what's been done a thousand times? Anyway wow this challenge is... is it even possible? Love the idea but after a number of attempts I've lost almost all hope of coming up with anything that even gets close to LKO while still being able to get around on EC in the atmosphere... That chopper thing obviously works but my sense of aesthetics would never allow me to build something like that, if I ca
  11. Something that turned a lot of players off about KSP1 was just how hard it's always been to overcome the initial learning curve before being able to really go somewhere and do anything memorable - it's like making it to Mun is the turning point at which a player sees the light and becomes a long time player while those who fail to get that far in the first few days drop the game forever. Those of us who did overcome may not feel that the hurdle was that bad but I do know some who never managed to climb that mountain far enough to see the view from the top and it's a real shame. So without furt
  12. Regarding throttling I like to think of it as a gamey way to compensate for us not having any ship computer assistance in firing the engines; real life rockets can be wired to count the milliseconds of a burn and automatically turn on/off but we have no choice but to whack away at a keyboard all "oldschool" like, fully manual burns at all times. Any burn is simply meant to make a speed alteration, 100 milliseconds at full throttle or 2 seconds at an impossible 5% throttle end up with essentially the same result. Sure it's crazy how many times the rockets we build can reignite by that logic but
  13. I'd like to get in on this with the main reason I'd prefer not to have any black hole in KSP2. Now it really is pretty simple if you think about it; it's not that much fun from a gameplay perspective. We can't portray what's going on near it because we can't real life check it out and we never will, doesn't make sense trying to portray it in game either then because it would be based on nothing more than pure speculation. I'm all for having the "visitable" systems swirling around a common center (static stars would murder the realism to death but having overly complex movement would be quite h
  14. I'm guessing not even Star Theory knows at this point, it's abundantly clear their original roadmap was too optimistic to the point they can't even keep up with their plans to drop us little bits of info every now and then. My personal bet would be between june and november this year. What they gained through the announcement was the potential for thousands of long time players to help them come up with anything they might have missed that needs to be in the core of the game, before it goes live and some alterations become very difficult and it turns into the same patchwork mess KSP1 d
  15. Self proclaimed generally knowledgeable and logically adept guy here. There is little wrong with your argument if seen from a Generic Game Development perspective but you're applying the wrong logic to the wrong game and in the wrong way. "There's a mod for that" is essentially your closing argument to excuse not putting options in a game but that's not how it works. Steam Workshop functionality and other integrated systems that let players browse and use mods with no knowledge of how installation works have in recent years made the mod scene more appealing for the general audience that o
  • Create New...