Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mcwaffles2003

  1. The video shows the rocket separation in space though
  2. Base it's tech level out of the tech tree. Early stuff requires more weight and has higher ablation speeds and as the player advances material cost goes up but they are lighter/have slower ablation rates. I dont every part needs to be based out of specific materials for rarity.
  3. Really hoping KSP 2 gets this level of scatter
  4. Analogies don't need to be one to one like that... This game is already sidestepping a lot of SoL delay side-effects and this seems like a weird one to stick to, in my opinion. SoL delay affects space program research but not craft communication? It's just not my cup of tea man.
  5. Why add this infrastructural complication to the game which offers no gameplay benefit that only serves to make the game more difficult to understand? Really, what does delaying science updates add to the gameplay experience? Feels a lot like having to simulate walking to the fight from home in street fighter Morty's indignance is my own in this matter.
  6. If we aren't including general/special relativity or even input delay to probes then this shouldn't be considered. It's just convoluting.
  7. in the twitter thread " How many new systems: "Multiple." " Minimum 2 new systems for the people saying only 1 new system, first time I've seen this info.
  8. Maybe this matters on a per fuel or per engine basis then as looking at footage of the merlin engine, the plume is very dim while I agree seeing the Rutherford engine on the electrons second stage resembles the video better. Though the fuel argument in this case doesn't work as both engines run with RP-1, maybe nozzle material or combustion completeness? Either way, I see what you are pointing out, thank you.
  9. Anyone else notice the less noodliness of the rocket? But is it just me or are the plumes really vibrant in space? I get if its a bit of fiction for game aesthetics, Im just comparing against how spacex vids and RP1 have shown me.
  10. If you are in space, so long as the nearby star is not in your vision, the light from it does not matter as none of it is being reflected back to your eyes to ruin your night vision. The sky would appear brighter than if you were stranded on a remote island in the ocean at midnight. In my experience, just a bortle 2 zone, the sky is very vibrant. Same can be said about a body with no atmosphere so long as you are looking away from both the sun and the surface.
  11. I think we will se a lot of different resources and I'm hoping they're strategically placed for gameplays sake. I imagine we will start with kerosene and move on to hydrogen and methane, touching in a bit on uranium and Xenon. I think it would make sense to have players build their first mining colony on Kerbin as to make it simpler to teach the mechanic so maybe Uranium, Xenon, and possibly Argon or Krypton (depending on dev interests in ion thrusters) will be walled off from the KSC but still on Kerbin in rare amounts comparatively to some of the rest of the games worlds. I think the Mun will be the first place we find usable quantities of H2 and H3. Enough to start a fusion ship program but not enough to fully develop it. I think in general heavier elements should be found in higher concentrations on both planets nearest their star and asteroids while lighter elements will be found in higher concentrations among further celestial bodies. I'm guessing metallic hydrogen, if it is able to be harvested, will be found among gas giants and we will need ways of pulling it out of their cores from orbit. I get the feeling the devs haven't told us of every technology we will find yet and have suspicions that antimatter will make an appearance and perhaps we will either need to build a tech to create it or hopefully it can be harvested around exotic bodies with a bit of skirting reality for gameplays sake. Speaking on resources other than fuels I think some planets may be fuel barren but rich in metals required to build engines giving players the puzzle of creating a space logistics network capable of providing fuel to necessary metal harvesting colonies that can not harvest their own fuel to ship those precious metals. Overall I think the resource system will be deep enough to drive players to seek new worlds and harvest their resources while also streamlining the system so it doesn't take TOO much from the core gameplay. I like Factorio and wouldn't mind seeing some of its elements in KSP 2, but I don't want space Factorio. This kind of system can help prevent players from never leaving Kerbin's SOI by leaving carrots for players to chase after while also making the whole space program feel more rooted in reality helping people understand why humans may one day benefit from expanding into space.
  12. I'm not miserable... and I think its fair to say most here on the forums aren't either. Infact most people have been chanting "take as long as you need". Also, you've never posted anything here that's not bashing the devs but rant like they owe you something. It comes off as very entitled, jsyk.
  13. I prefer there be no lore real stated. I like when the world exists and people are left to draw their own conclusions or lore from it. Dark Souls did something this amazingly well giving little hints and tidbits through item descriptions to a greater story that I found more compelling than most any other story since learning it required investment and digging. That's not to say I want this exactly in KSP 2, Dark Souls is an RPG where you act as a character dropped in the middle of a greater overarching conflict where as KSP is a simulator with some cute characters. I like that they lack stories and lore as that leaves me room to project onto them with how I feel and look at the world as opposed to having that all given to me. Having little bits though like lore of Rocketdyne would be fun.
  14. Dude, we have 2 sections of the forum dedicated to releasing news about features with the game and it's progress (Show and Tell & Dev Diaries). You're being a bit hyperbolic.
  15. You say this like a DRM on a single player game wouldn't have a crack out within the first week. It just inconveniences the people who actually bought it. And in my case where I play KSP on planes a lot without internet I would be screwed out of playing during the times when Im most likely to play.
  16. If it wasnt harvester it was at least by the large majority of the community.
  17. Its not a problem with the density profile of the atmosphere since a linear slope on a lin-log chart is the only sensible way for an atmosphere to be modeled, it's just a lot of over simplifications. the game would need to include a lot more niche factors like thrust profiles vs relative wind speeds for engines as well as a more voxel based drag model. For instance, a scramjet cant turn on with an engine at 0 m/s nor even just mach 1, its just not in the cards for that type of engine since it relies on forward motion to compress the air instead of a turbine, yet in KSP 1's world a scram jet would be able to be used at takeoff with the type of modelling KSP 1 does, as I understand it at least. I think something like this could be solved by simply including a thrust profile vs relative wind speed for any air breathing engine that moreso matches real world performance without going into all the CFD bs to do a genuine simulation. As for other aerodynamic qualities like wing/air interactions the cube drag model is overly simplistic and would require a finer approach with some more sophisticated simulations including transonic and supersonic regions similar to how FAR works (and proves its method can be effective in real time). Also, ever notice how a plane with 0 AoA flying upside down still gets lift pointing up from the ground and not relative to the aircraft its self? These kinds of things should be taken care of.
  18. Early on Nate claimed the game will be DRM free so it may just be in the same way as KSP 1, but the exact method wont be answered by a forum goer.
  19. It's not bugged, its working "correctly". If i have 5 jars and only 1 jar has a marble in it then that jar has 100% of the marbles. If I then place a marble in every jar, that 1st jar now has 2/6 of the marbles. So the percentage went from 100% to 33%. I personally just feel like the multiple choice voting display mechanic is dumb here as it mirrors the single vote display mechanic. But in single voting the choices compete with one another where as in multiple choice whats normally looked for is how many people agree. So from my earlier example I think the jar with 2 marbles should show 100% as 100% of people agree and the other jars each show 50% as 50% of people agreed with those. As is though, don't look at percentage, look at the number on the far right and compare it to the total responders. As it is now it compares against total responses. EDIT: There is a way to tell how many peicked the same responses but it requires voters be selected as public instead of private and I've tried doing so before, but the forums community doesn't appreciate that as it can make things "political"
  20. are we inventing things or talking about the state of the game? I liked you're post and was using it in my recent comment to illustrate why I wasn't satisfied with @Vl3d's response. Reactor fuel is the only thing that's confirmed. I'd like life support but that hasn't even been eluded to yet and boil off is a realism overhaul feature that I do not expect even slightly to exist in stock.
  21. You've just argued that in game time matters because when things move faster in game they are done quicker in game... As what was posed earlier: So whats stopping anyone from timewarping until they have enough instead of building fast and efficient resource gathering methods? You still haven't presented a negative consequence to timewarping through things
  • Create New...