Bej Kerman

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

109 Excellent


About Bej Kerman

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

738 profile views
  1. The camera rotates and you can quite clearly see it's not a blue star bent into the Einstein ring. Black holes also do not have a blue glow in the middle.
  2. Lens flares tend to concentrate closer to the light source, the closer it is to the center of the FOV.
  3. It isn't in the center of vision, the star is the big glowing thing to the left.
  4. By the logic of ablated wings being toggleable making the game harder for everyone, even with those with it disabled, adding heat shields makes it 'more confusing to the players' because there's one new slider for ablator.
  5. How would it? I recall they asked for an option not a forced 'CAN'T SAVE VESSEL, USE ABLATOR'. I also recall that they wanted to SURVIVE re-entry, not have the deadliness increased.
  6. The Google definition of 'hacking' is "the gaining of unauthorized access to data in a system or computer". How would Squad unauthorize themselves to edit the shaders?
  7. Agreed, Squad should unify the parts in one update instead of having this middleground like right now where it's just a big jumble of old placeholders and new parts, and some other new parts that don't have variants for some reason, like the S4 fuel tank series.
  8. There's also a great lack of engines for 1.875 and 0.625m cross sections, which I think proc engines would fix. Or Squad unifying everything with 1 update instead of only adding boosters.
  9. Simple - just don't handle ANYTHING like KSP did. KSP is garbage at handling literally anything that's not a plane or a rocket. KSP 2 is already getting interstellar travel, mega space stations kilometers across, a complete overhaul of timewarp, etc. I don't see why Star Theory should have the same physics of KSP 1, the same UI as KSP 1, have a physics bubble like KSP 1, etc. But then you have to look at everything that anyone wants in KSP 2 like it's going to have the same trash of a physics engine that Squad is happy with for some reason. I mean, you say that the engine wouldn't be able to handle large structures, but we're getting massive space colonies that should run decently on most computers. You say that such large structures wouldn't be compatible with a physics bubble, but why would KSP 2 want to use a physics bubble system? You say that the UI complexity would be unbearable, but KSP 2 obviously isn't going to use the same UI as KSP 1. For Kraken's sake, stop going on about these things like KSP 2 will use the same crappy alphabetti spaghetti code as KSP 1.
  10. Would you like to go into the reasons anyways?
  11. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't say it'll be easy or hard to implement, because you appear to be suggesting you aren't a programmer.
  12. Thank you! Btw, if you plan on making tutorials, I'd highly advise you choreograph these so you're not spending viewer's time on messing with the UI and correcting mistakes.