Daniel Prates

Members
  • Content Count

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

306 Excellent

2 Followers

About Daniel Prates

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. ScanSat mod to the rescue! I would love if ksp2 included that kind of scanning from the beggining.
  2. That is what I think too @magnemoe. All this n-body, 3-body etc discussion is cool and all, but at the end of the day would lead to an inexpressive increase in game enjoyment, at the cost of poorer game performance. There are many other, more relevant things, that are still lacking in ksp1 that I would like to see make it into ksp2. Orbit decay for one.
  3. I for one see no point in modelling body orbits so realisticly. Every scrap of processing counts and we may end up with a slower game. Complex calculations are much better used with crafts than planets, satellites etc. Insofar ksp1 has no orbir dacay due to microdrag, for instance, which is a thing I would be much more happy to see in ksp2 than the relativelly small benefits of having planets off their "rails" and into a calculated orbit.
  4. 1.8. update seems cool and all, but where is the flying cat you got me all worked up about?
  5. I feel weird for quoting myself, but anyway, this happened again after the last update. Mods meant to work with KK, in my case kerbinside, are no longer detected and though installed correctly (I can't say if they load or not), appear not to 'kick in'.
  6. Conversation went off-topic because you passed on a mere guess of yours as a hard fact and @linuxgurugamer corrected you, prompting you to try to insist you were right, this time using semantics (which were, again, wrong). A mere "oh, I didn't know that, I stand corrected" would have been gentlemanlier! Cheers! PS: how can it be off-topic, if the merit of the discussion, which you yourself proposed, was to assertain wether w10 would be supported on the grounds of it being popular or not?
  7. Seems indeed unlikely. Even the big asteroids in KSP1 are too small to have anything but negligible gravity. Unless of course they are planning some really big asteroids in an asteroid belt or something, but then, those would more likely be individual bodies with tailored characteristics and not just a part of a broad asteroid gravity feature.
  8. It is my reading of the situation too. We will know that development picked up a pace when something like a dev diary starts appearing.
  9. I wish I had the ability for that, believe me. Is there any good walkthroug for that somewhere that you could recomend? I downloaded blender and always planned to teach myself part creation. There are several guides online which seem good. But now that ksp2 was announced, I have postponed that goal - as a lot of people must have, I imagine....
  10. Maybe simple IVAs for the parts that don't have them yet. They need not be the most intricate thing, just something you can actually see instead of the black placeholders. I know, no small thing to ask, but it would bring a lot of 'closure'.
  11. Joining in late in the discussion. I think you have a super valid point. However I wouldn't tie specific parts to specific milestones or experiments. We still need science to be a "currency" of sorts, to use it with some discretion. However there could be different science points to be used to unlock different parts. Without thinking too much about it, there could be (for instance) three of them, like "physics", "mechanics" and "bio".... or something. Different experiments would yeald different points, and a part like a capsule could require, say, 2 bio + 2 mech, while a truss would require 1 physics..... or something like that.
  12. Of all things still mysterious about KSP2, one that sure is not one of them is "OMG they are only doing it to stop handing out free DLC for alter kampfers". Specially so because developing KSP2 will be waaaaay more expensive than funding new DLC for ksp1 - so that couldn't be the reason. This forum can have some weird discussions sometimes.... even now some other guys are discussing to death, in another thread, how reasonable it is to have space elevators (yawn) on a rocket-building game.....
  13. I too find all those propositions ludicrous for the game, let alone even calling them "near" in real life! Here we have a game to entertain us BUILDING FREAKING ROCKETS and the idea of rocketless travel creeps in - with semi-fantasy tech, no less. Why not a StarTrek-a-like teleporting station, for that matter? Yes elevators are viable on paper but we are clearly waaaaaaay far from it beeing slightly viable. Centuries and centuries in my mind. Rail accelerators too, in whichever form and proposition. Its all more like well-informed specularion than actual, viable propositions.