Jump to content

MechBFP

Members
  • Posts

    1,247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MechBFP

  1. Because there is no air pressure to keep it contained. It also depends on the shape of the exhaust nozzle, hence why there are vacuum rated engines and atmospheric rated engines.
  2. Probably has something to do with it being a 1.5 hour long podcast.
  3. A generation ship designed to go from Earth to Mars. True innovation.
  4. That is the sound those guys in Quake 2 who shoot rail guns at you say the first time you see them.
  5. The thing I love about this the most is the instant visual feedback it gives to the player regarding atmospheric pressure, as it gives players an intuitive feel as to when they should switch to vacuum engines, or if they perhaps needs to make their booster stage last a little longer. On planets like Eve they will immediately see the effects of high atmospheric pressure as well in their lander, and perhaps appreciate more why their engines (probably) don't work worth a damn, lol.
  6. There is really no need to keep those people interested at the moment, as they will become re-interested once the marketing campaign begins.
  7. Whatever the progression-based mode is. I enjoy solving puzzles presented to me, not making my own and then solving those.
  8. You keep adjusting, obviously. This is why I said stop high above the target, to remove as much manual adjusting as necessary. And no the retrograde marker does not move to -90 while falling at a minimum of 2 m/s. You don’t have “target” selected on the navball, you have “surface” selected on the navball AND have a target selected
  9. The only way to prevent that is to just not hover. You just need to make sure that "surface" is selected and then set SAS to track retrograde and then land going at least 2-4 m/s so it keeps locked to retrograde without oscillating. Therefore the only way to land accurately with this is mind is to put a waypoint marker directly on where you want to land, and then have it selected as the target. It will then appear on your Navball and as long as the retrograde marker overlaps with the target indicator, you will land on the target, at least on vacuum bodies. Its generally easier to try to stop your horizontal velocity quite some distance above the target (2-3 kilometers) and then drop down from above, as that gives you more time to overlap the two markers than you would get during a normal landing approach (i.e. going sideways for as long as possible before cancelling your velocity).
  10. That among other things, like a reliable trajectory predictor, proper air brakes with heat shielding, etc. The difficult part about atmospheric landing in KSP 1 is the complete lack of data and tools needed to do it properly.
  11. Try it with a non-trivial ship.
  12. My only complaint is the video was too short.
  13. Certainly a good question, and I think it will have to without a doubt have some sort of tools to assist the player for the reasons you mentioned.
  14. It would be better to just be able to type in a new value instead of using the inaccurate bar anyway.
  15. Not even a logical comparison.
  16. There also wasn't interstellar travel in the first game, better strip that out. Better graphics? Gone. New parts? Don't even make me laugh.
  17. It is without a doubt is going to be better in the end, not perfect of course, but better. Remember these are test scenes that exist to communicate with the rest of the dev team on things being worked on and we just happen to get to see them as well. Consider them all as a 1st rough draft.
  18. This is somewhat inevitable because of the type of game it is. Showing everything for hundred of kilometres is also going to tank FPS, which people will also complain about. So this is very much a “pick your poison” situation.
  19. If you can, make sure that is moddable. Some of us are more masochistic than others.
×
×
  • Create New...