• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Klapaucius

  1. I did not hear anything in that interview that they have not already stated in previous interviews and articles. Feature creep can be a problem, but based on other interviews, I am not at all worried about that. My take away is that they wanted to go interstellar and to do that in a plausible manner involves adding a colony element. There is no point in having interstellar travel if all we do is send out a ship, fast-foward 500 years, land and plant a flag. We do that now in the Kerbol system, except in shorter timeframes. Finally, I have a feeling colonies can be as simple or complex as you want them. Plenty of KSP players now create massive bases or space stations with no actual play value other than the fun of creating them. I think the whole new aspect of colony creation and architecture is actually a somewhat unexpected consequence. Yes, it was in the plan, but I think Nate himself was surprised at how much fun he was having with that. I liken it to me building planes like this: pointless and inefficient but oh so much fun to see just what I can make fly:
  2. @rextable Wonderfully stated. I'd give a like if my like button was working.
  3. https://nordic.ign.com/kerbal-space-program-2-xbox-one/29231/interview/kerbal-space-program-2-interview-with-nate-simpson-creative-director-at-star-theory
  4. Wow! With all the KSP2 stuff going on, I completely missed this until a reference to it appeared on my Youtube today. https://www.fig.co/campaigns/homeworld3
  5. I was not specific enough. It escapes Gilly and goes into orbit around Kerbol.
  6. @klond made a pogo stick. I don't think it is uploaded anywhere, but you can find it on page 2 of this challenge. I made this hydraulic to orbit craft. It only works on Gilly, however.
  7. I'm doing my first ever career playthough. I've tried numerous times to get a science junior in orbit and safely landed back on Kerbin, but despite using a heatshield, they overheat and explode. Any suggestions, or do I just need to unlock more tech before this is viable?
  8. Thanks for the update. Sorry I did not see the other posts.
  9. This is not a game problem, but a forum problem. Suddenly it seems I am unable to like any posts. I thought maybe it was a browser issue, so I tried a different browser and still have the problem. Could I have accidentally changed a setting somewhere? Ideas? Thanks :-)
  10. I don't think huge time intensive challenges qualify in my book. Absurd just needs to be, well absurd. A crazy idea that is doable. I actually think one of the best fits for this category is a current challenge: @ManEatingApe's Catapult Challenge. Not absurd in a "why would I do it?" but absurdly, wonderfully Kerbal.
  11. That's how I try to think about the Star Wars prequels and Alien 3. I'd prefer not to have to play those mental gymnastics is KSP.
  12. Nothing. I turn off the KSP music and listen to Kerbal squeaks and jet noise. I'm a huge music fan, just not in KSP.
  13. My answer to that would be: KSP is not for them, which is fine. I enjoy stories, but it is NOT at all why I go to KSP. I am someone who can create his own lore, and if you look at some of the mission reports, like @purpleivan's Lost On Laythe, you realize that personal story creation is a big part of the game. (To be fair, I am making assumptions about another player here, but I am sure he will set me right if needed ) If I want lore I can go to Homeworld. If I want a story slowly revealed to me, I go to Subnautica (which I am about 20 hours into--so no spoilers please!) But when I want to build stuff, test it and create my own reality, I come to KSP. We have characters--amazingly strong characters--but it is up to us to fill in the blanks. Reading all of your post, I realize we are probably pretty close in opinion on this. I just wanted to highlight the point.
  14. I was trying to figure out my own views and then read your post. I think you nailed it for me. I absolutely do not want built-in-lore. Mysteries need to remain mysteries. Artifacts are fine (and I think fossils might even be cool), anything more and it becomes a different game. I think your plants suggestion is excellent.
  15. I feel truly privileged to have played a small part in this most Kerbal of adventures.
  16. Really? After all that fiddling with helicopters? You have the tinkerer gene for sure.
  17. Are you opposed to the original idea or are you referring to it being a DLC?
  18. The most facepalm moment for me was taking a bunch of tourists on a scenic flight around Kerbin. I had the KSP forum open in another window and was reading and not paying attention to what I was doing. The plane flew into the side of a mountain and killed 28 Kerbals. The thread I was reading: "What crimes against Kerbin have you committed?" As for total fails--so many.... Yeah, but for me there is still pilot error.
  19. How do we know that Kerbals are not actually Androids with a little internal nuclear reactor that gives them a lifetime supply of power. They have no need for traditional life support...Kind of like Data in Star Trek. I mean, we don't actually know what the content of snacks are. Maybe it is deuterium.
  20. I think an engine design building would make an excellent DLC, though probably too much for the base game. Nate Simpson says he hopes KSP2 will have a long lifespan, so once the base game is released and kinks have been ironed out, there will be scope for addons. I imagine DLCs will play a role there. I do think there could be more limited tweaking in the base game itself.
  21. Hmm. I actually like this idea. In essence, it is what we are doing now in the Breaking Ground DLC with props. We don't get a prop engine out of the box like Simple Planes, rather we have to construct it. You are correct that we would need to achieve a balance between too much detail, but there is huge potential in the idea. What if it is something as simple as: New Elephant Engine (making this up.) has TWR of X and consumes Y fuel per minute. After doing more research, you can now bolt on a new part called the Supercharged Kerfficiency Aerospace Module (SKAM). Adding the part gives a 10% boost in efficiency and a 5% boost in power. By keeping it as separate parts, that should still allow for sharing, which I do think is very important. Actually, I think you have generated a good discussion. I've seen @Brikoleur's comments on a lot of posts, and he is not someone who just dismisses stuff out of hand. What I see here is a back and forth and some evolving ideas on how to solve your initial issue while taking into account the needs of other players. The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to this. It is just a case of getting the implementation right. There is perhaps also room for doing a lot more with the advanced tweakables. PS. Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. Perhaps post asking a moderator to clear out the off-topic material so the thread can stay focused on your original point?
  22. My bad, should've read down the thread more before commenting. Still, you kind of painted target on your head with that one. The Panther has probably the best acceleration (from a standing start) of any of them up to about 300 m/s, but lacks the top speed of the Whiplash--which does way better above 400 m/s. While I often turn it off, it also has the most radical gimbaling. Those two features make it perfect for stunt planes and general barnstorming. I also paired Panthers and Whiplashes on this plane (https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Shirley-high-performance-drag-and-distance-racer) for my own drag race challenge. The combination makes for brutally fast acceleration up to 1000 ms/.