Acid_Burn9

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

1 Follower

About Acid_Burn9

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. kinda true about stock wingset. unplayable. for this reason Airplane Plus is pretty much stock for me. i really hope procedural wing will be implemented in ksp2.
  2. I mean FTL was mentioned only once, while whole discussion went to the weapons direction. And i mean it makes sense. While perspective of having weapons in KSP is worth debating, FTL, warp drives and other magical stuff objectively has no place in a realistic simulator. There is just nothing to discuss about it.
  3. Yes that's what i wanted. Localized MJ version is very confusing. Thanks for the help.
  4. we still don't have a confirmation for will servers be even a thing. there is very little information about how multiplayer will actually be implemented, and there is a huge possibility, that it would be just steam based, session driven multiplayer, where you will be able to join your friend in his local save, but that's it. (although i really hope that community servers will be supported) This one is fairly obvious. To have the only game out there with realistic-i sh orbital mechanics and combat. There is not a single space warfare game out there, that has both an actual orbital mechanics and all the goodies from KSP, and warfare with ability to make your own battleship/fighter/missile and use them for their purpose. Not in any reality KSP would become a "yet another space-fantasy warfare game", if weapons would be added. Just because they would (or would not) add weapons, doesn't mean realism and orbital mechanics will disappear from the game. I play with BDArmory installed for ages now. And it never influenced my Mun landing mission or an SSTO to Duna and back. It never influenced the fun of building a space station above Laythe. It never influenced designing an SSTO shuttle for said Laythe station, that is able to de-orbit itself, land anywhere on Laythe, refuel and get back to the space station. All of the vanilla KSP experience is still there and nothing has happened to it. But you know what BDArmory did influenced? It provided me with ability to replicate F-22 Raptor, that actually works. It provided me with ability to carpet-bomb living hell out of KSC, when i'm bored. It provided me with ability to put x12 152mm Howitzers on my plane and see how will it fly. It provided me with ability to desing my own attack helicopter and test it's performance against AA units, and later re-purpose said helicopter for scanning surface features on Kerbin by strapping scanning arm it's nose. It provided me with ability to design a fighter, that will not only look good, but will actually perform good in combat. It provided me with challenges of balancing between more wings for better turn rate and less wings for better high speed performance. It provided me with challenge of picking the engine for the fighter where Panther will be ultimate choice for close range dogfights due to it's phenomenal thrust vectoring, and Whiplash and Rapier would compete for the best engine for hypersonic interceptor, where Whiplash can push me to 1400m/s at ~19km altitude, just on the edge of overheating cockpit, with relatively good fuel efficiency, while Rapier can push me another 200m/s faster at the cost of poor fuel efficiency and extremely high overheating risks. No other game can provide me with all of that, but KSP with BDArmory. And as for does KSP 2 needs weapons or does it not - i am aware, that devs are considering it to be a huge no-no, because it "doesn't fir the genre of peaceful exploration". Even tho i disagree with that position - IMO having weapons in the game will not affect exploration in the game, but rather add new possibilities for players, i still find it fair-ish enough. Having said that i am 98% sure, that there will be no weapons in vanilla KSP 2. HOWEVER we all know that modders would instantly fix that, so the thing i expect from KSP 2 devs, is to provide as much basis for the modders in this area as possible(they've talked a lot how they will build a game with modding in mind from the ground up), and to be exact i am talking about explosion physics. I really hope, that in Kerbal 2 explosions won't be just "part destruction animation", and that detonations would have their shockwaves modeled, as well as all the heat, generated during said detonations. And at this point i want to remind you, that in KSP 2 we literally have an engine, that spits atomic bombs out of it's nozzle, so the devs don't really have an excuse to not implement proper detonations in the game. And as far as i'm concerned, that is already a solid enough basis for weaponizing stuff. And modders will definitely take it on the new level.
  5. that's not how software versioning works. the "2" in the KSP 2 has nothing to do with version of the product, but with franchise and branding. it is just part of the title. ksp 2 is a new product and separate piece of software. it has its own separate versioning most likely being 1.0.0 at release. if you have a hard time understanding how this works, i recommend reading about software versioning on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
  6. The automated supply routes, once you complete supply mission once, are literally confirmed in KSP 2. Read PC Gamer article.
  7. Heads up display became non-transparent since KSP transfered to new Unity version. Green indicators on it still work correctly once you power display up, but they background is filled with gray instead of being transparent. Everything else still works fine even on ksp 1.10.
  8. Yes i think, i should've elaborated, that i was talking about the missions that are at least "get to orbit" complex. Of course nothing should stop you from strapping a chair on the rocket as soon as you start your game. And very good point about planes. I would really like to see the planes being available from the start. Getting to space before being able to build a biplane? Nonsense!
  9. Who says you won't be able to do something like this? A little hibernation capsule below the space-chair, couple of chocolate bars, oxygen cylinder, requisitioned from a scuba diver and you are good to go! Have some creativity! So true! I always play with CommNet and G-limits for Kerbals on. So much fun!
  10. There were plenty of discussions about life support on this forum already. From my understanding, community is currently divided in two major groups. First one argues, that life-support will be a cool mechanics to add into the game, and another argues, that it's not necessary. The major disagreement between these two groups lies in will life support be too complex to have. But the thing is - complexity of life support is almost entirely depended on the way of implementation. There might be countless amounts of parts and resources, required to keep Kerbals alive, which truly might be too complex, and might be just a single part called life support with only 2 resources inside - oxygen and snacks, that drain over time, which is no where near "too complex". My point here is, that there is no reason to argue whether it will be too much for the stock game or not, while we have no idea of the shape on life support, that will or will not be implemented into the game. I want you guys to think about it from a different perspective and be open minded. While discussing possible improvements in KSP 2, a lot of people have talked about how sending a manned missions before drones makes very little sense(i'm talking about the missions that are at least "get to orbit" complex). I agree. Original Kerbal Space Program does not represent the level of complexity included in manned missions, compared to unmanned ones. There was no point in sending reconnaissance and testing missions to your destination. First reason for that is, that all the information about celestial bodies, necessary for the missions, was already available in the Tracking Station. It can easily be solved, by removing all the info from tracking station, and integrating process of collecting said data into the progression system. Necessity of observing the Mun(or any other celestial body) with telescopes, researching acquired data, in order to calculate size/mass/orbital velocities, and sending probes to it, in order to clarify data, instead of blindly sending Kerbals roughly in the direction of the Mun(or any other celestial body), without any idea what will happen, should be essential and even fits well with the concept of progression system through missions in the "Adventure Mode" PC Gamer article talked about. The second reason was, that in KSP 1, in order to send manned mission you only need 3 parts. Crew module, fuel tank and the engine(You don't even need the parachute these days! Every Kerbal has his own!). For the unmanned mission however, instead of crew module, you need drone core. But that's not it. You also need a power source, to keep it running. Solar panels, fuels cells, RTGs, you name it. You also need a decent battery reserves, for your probe to not die, once it enters the dark side of any celestial body. And don't forget about antenna! You have to keep your up-link with KSC in order to control your vessel! Do i even have to mention necessity of relay satellites for the deep-deep space missions? All of that makes unmanned missions 10 times more complex, than the manned ones, which is precisely the opposite of how it should be and how it was and is IRL. And this can be solved precisely with introduction of life-support. Necessity of having to put oxygen tank and supply of snacks on your rocket, can be the answer on why you maybe should pick unmanned mission over the manned one, for a simple survey, that can be done autonomously and Kerbals are not even necessary for. Inability to produce snacks and oxygen for kerbals in mid-flight, while being able to produce electricity for the probe with solar panels, can be the answer on why you maybe should pick unmanned mission over the manned one, for a mission to a distant destination. Importance of sending unmanned survey missions also benefits from presence of life support, because of ability to measure the temperature/radiation levels/gravity/composition of the atmosphere, in order to use that data to understand, can Kerbals survive there and which type of life-support will they need. And have you noticed how i mentioned temperature/radiation levels/gravity/composition of the atmosphere? That's right! All the science experiments, from original KSP now suddenly have AN ACTUAL PURPOSE, other than just collecting some magical science points, that will unlock new engine for you, which once again fits very well with announced progression system through missions. And since we are talking about progression system through missions - life-support can enhance even that. Think about how you would have to perform test-flights with experimental hardware in order to develop more advanced life-support systems. Don't tell me it won't be fun. Some examples: When you start your game you have nothing. * After you complete your first high-altitude flight and discover, that there is very little oxygen there, you unlock a oxygen cylinder, like the ones, that divers use. * When you complete your first sub-orbital flight and experience zero-G for the first time, you unlock tubes with food for your Kerbals, so you can actually feed them in zero-G and perform flights, that are longer than just couple hours. And so on and so on. Possibilities are almost limitless! And suddenly replicating X-15 flights now also have a purpose! In conclusion i want to quote myself from my post about career mode. KSP is the game all about challenge of getting to space. If you are already enjoying original KSP, you definitely will enjoy new challenges of getting to space in the sequel, once you master them, just as you already mastered the challenges of original KSP. Don't be afraid of complexity. And remember, that this won't be boring by definition, but can become boring only if designed poorly. And just because it can be designed poorly, doesn't mean it will be. Having said all that, i am certain, that life-support will be a good addition to KSP 2, and i have faith, that Nate Simpson and all the guys from Intercept Games are capable of implementing it in the way it will be fun. EDIT And don't tell me how Jeb Kerman, orbiting Kerbin on a Space Chair with scuba diver oxygen cylinder attached and some chocolate bars in his pocket, is not in the Kerbal Spirit.