silent_prtoagonist
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by silent_prtoagonist
-
-
I second (or sixth) this. Numerical entry as an alternative to sliders should be basic design in all software that has them.
-
Patch 2 limited the behavior of maneuver plans:
QuoteManeuver plans are now constrained by available fuel and will no longer provide false projections that extend beyond vehicle's capacity. R.A.P.I.E.R. engines must be set to Closed Cycle mode to allow accurate orbital maneuver planning.
I think this is a bad decision for two reasons:
- There are legitimate reasons to make maneuver plans that a vessel can't actually execute. For example: you can use a dummy probe in LKO to plan out a complicated mission in advance, and then use that information to help design the actual spacecraft to complete the mission, select an optimal parking orbit, etc.
- It relies on the built-in delta v estimation to be accurate at all times; if the game ever gets confused and thinks you have less delta v than you actually do (a common problem in KSP 1 that was never fixed, it's even worse currently in 2), then maneuver plans will be effectively disabled. This also applies to craft that have more complicated propulsion schemes than "burn all available engines all at once" as well as dual mode engines, as already mentioned in the patch notes.
I think a much better option is to simply copy KSP 1's behavior: warn the player that the current craft won't have enough delta v to complete the maneuver, but allow the maneuver to be planned anyway. At the very least this limitation should be togglable in settings.
-
15 hours ago, Jarin said:
On the topic of the big rovers, I suspect the long-term intent is to have them built in place at colonies. Just like huge interstellar ships are to be built in orbit. Much easier to handle physics there, too.
Yeah I think orbital construction in general will relieve the biggest use case for robotic parts--fitting very un-aerodynamic craft inside a fairing. There are, of course, tons of other interesting uses for robotics, but the inability to make folding spacecraft is the one that I've missed the most.
-
I can also confirm incorrect conic-patching at Duna. My craft entered Duna SOI from a wildly different direction than the predicted orbit, although the predicted periapsis and inclination at least seemed to be accurate. And now trying to leave Duna again I seem to be unable to plot a return to Kerbin, with any escape orbit resulting in an increase of Kerbol SMa, as though I had left Duna prograde, regardless of what direction I align my escape orbit.
-
I think the tech update will change perspective on the nuclear engines. NERV won't seem so underwhelming when it's (along with ion) the only alternative to methalox available to you, and SWERV won't seem so OP when you're choosing between it and Orion.
-
5 hours ago, Tapeta said:
I think nobody is reading parts descriptions. SWERV is suppose to be a "GASCORE" nuclear engine. Solid core nuclear thermal engines were tested in RL, but nobody knows how the heck will gascore reactor work without spewing its intrails all over current orbit.
SWERV is completely different league than NERV.
I think the SWERV is a closed-cycle gas core , aka nuclear lightbulb, design. The fissile fuel is a gas, but it's still contained inside a sealed container made of transparent, high melting point quartz crystal. It cuts the specific impulse by about half (which is why I'm assuming it's this design, an open-cycle would have an ISP of more like 3000s), but it's slightly less insane and slightly more likely to ever actually exist.
We can leave the true Kerbal-level insanity for the Orion and nuclear salt water drives that are planned.
-
I'd like to see KSP 1 style, per-part context menus as the default behavior, with the all-in-one parts manager as an alternative launched from the app bar.
-
4 hours ago, Schafsviech said:
I really wonder how you guys go so far in this game. Orbits are not visible some times. I lose parts in flight. Maneuver Nodes are incorrect. SAS is spinning all the time. Its impossible to get somewhere in this game for me. Damn EA -.-
In short, stubbornness. My personal record is only a single total mission restart due to bugs. Usually it's more like 2-3. It's a crap-shoot but eventually you get lucky.
Today I'm working on a Kerbin SSTO/Duna Lander/Tylo ascent stage for a possible easter egg grand tour.
-
Alternatively, cut out the middle
mankabbage. Make Kerbal photosynthesis canon: They can survive on just light, but they need extra calories (in the form of snacks) for more strenuous activity, like piloting spaceships or constructing new colony modules. -
Keep in mind that if we're ultimately supposed to have multiple colonies spread across multiple solar systems--and use high time warp to travel between those systems--then the colonies will need to require basically no babysitting to keep them alive, or it will become a micromanagement nightmare.
Probably a simple system like: You need 1 greenhouse per x Kerbals, which just sit there and do their job, and you need y water per greenhouse per munth, which can be found locally or shipped in with automated shipments.
-
Specifically, once the worst of the bugs and performance issues are addressed, and once the colonies update hits, adding the first feature beyond what's available for KSP 1, then I'll feel comfortable recommending it to non-KSP-fanatics at the current price.
2 hours ago, Fluke said:This is a VERY well written poll. Thank you. I hope this can give some insight to the CMs and Dev team.
Agreed, a rare example of a well written forum poll. Props to OP.
-
Did a Kerbin SOI Grand Tour. (Easter Egg Spoilers)
Spoiler
Only had to restart once due to bugs (the lander tank drains first bug this time). Also the first time I've bothered to return the crew home.
-
For what it's worth, I'm expecting ~6 months per milestone on the roadmap, if/when they can settle down into steady development cycle again. So final release in 2-3 years, maybe. This is based on nothing other than gut instinct and experience with other EA titles.
Sadly, my honest advice is that if you have to ask the question "Should I buy KSP 2?" the answer right now is "No." If you aren't
stupiddedicated enough to buy into it just because it has the name "Kerbal" there's not enough game here to really enjoy, especially not for $50. I don't regret buying it, personally, but I'm also not getting $50 of fun out of it (mostly just frustration at this point) and I recognize that it's not guaranteed to get better. Wait and see if it survives long enough to become good before parting with your cash. -
I can also confirm that reloading a quicksave sometimes resets the flag textures.
Easter Egg spoilers for those who care:
Spoiler
-
A very minor bug/missing feature: Flags should have their texture reversed on the back side; as though there were a single pattern showing through both sides of the fabric.
Current Behavior:
Spoiler
Expected Behavior:
Spoiler
-
Finally battled through enough bugs to land on Eeloo:
Mothership got yeeted out of orbit when I wasn't looking, though, so there'll be no return trip...
-
Agreed, wobbly rockets are amusing once, and just frustrating every time after that.
-
While I agree that the sensitivity on the keybinds could stand to be turned down, you can also just grab the throttle with the mouse now, which allows for very fine adjustment.
-
Yeah I'm hoping they add Persistent Rotation/SolarSailNavigator functionality relatively soon, but it's a lower priority than bug fixing and performance optimization at the moment.
-
The workspace system is a bit of a mess in general right now. Autosaves generate a new workspace every time, and it's very easy to accidentally delete a workspace you actually want while clearing out the clutter. There's no "Save" vs "Save As" so you have an opportunity to accidentally overwrite another workspace every time you safety-save. There isn't a way to merge individual vessels to a new workspace; you can only merge whole workspaces. Etc.
-
Built and tested a small vacuum lander today, then used it to go visit an old friend.
Spoiler
-
Yep I also used ions to go to Dres first thing. There are some bugs and limitations: you can't adjust your attitude during warp which makes spiraling out from Kerbin difficult, the integrated maneuver nodes are nice but behave strangely sometimes, etc, but it's very workable. Makes low thrust craft actually fun to use.
-
Don't know if KSP 2 has one built in, but if you're using Windows you can use the Snipping Tool (Win+Shift+S) or the Game Bar (Win+G) which has many functions including still and video screen capture.
-
Reposting this here as this seems like a good catch-all thread.
19 hours ago, silent_prtoagonist said:System Specs:
- CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50 GHz
- GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 980, 4 GB VRAM
- Memory: 16 GB DDR4
- Storage: HDD
- OS: Windows 10
- Display: 2560x1080 @ 60 Hz
-
Settings: 2560x1080/Lowest
- See note below on ultrawide resolutions.
Results:
- Main Menu: 100+ FPS
- Space Center: ~30 FPS
-
Assembly Building: ~60 FPS
- Parts initially load with missing models/textures, resolves after a couple frames.
-
Tracking Station: ~60 FPS
- Celestial bodies take a bit to load in.
-
Flight:
- With very small part count: ~20 FPS looking at ground, ~50 FPS viewing space and vessel only.
- Performance degrades as expected with increasing part count, have not tested large craft past ~50 parts.
- Noticeable hang-ups whenever a new asset is loaded, e.g. bringing a new building into view, engine ignition, etc.
- Performance similar viewing other planets, not just Kerbin/KSC. (Tested at Minmus)
-
Loading Screens:
- Loading times are long. (Expected with HDD)
- The exception is assembly building -> launch, which is very quick.
- "Pumping Sim Once" is going to become a meme, you heard it here first.
Verdict: Playable, but not a particularly pleasant experience.
- GPU limited in pretty much all cases.
- Biggest performance bottleneck appears to be rendering planets, hopefully this will be relatively easy to optimize.
- When not looking at a planet in flight mode the game runs surprisingly well. (But then looking at planets is kind of the point.)
- Aesthetically on minimum settings the game is comparable to KSP 1 with moderate graphics mods. Some things are prettier (mainly the rockets) some things similar (low clouds are not volumetric) some things worse (aliasing, etc). I have not yet experimented with optimizing the graphics settings.
- For me I think it's good enough to play around with/provide feedback, but I'll need a hardware upgrade to really enjoy playing for itself. I'm probably going to wait for the latest-gen low-end GPUs to come out and reevaluate then.
Note/Workaround for Ultrawide Resolutions:
The game does not appear to natively support resolutions for aspect ratios other than 16:9, however you can apparently "trick" the game into doing it by setting it to borderless window mode and then back to fullscreen without changing any other settings.
Revert the maneuver plan delta V limit
in KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
Posted · Edited by silent_prtoagonist
Awesome, I hadn't seen that.
I agree that being able to plan maneuvers without a parent vessel would be ideal. Especially if you could set planets themselves as the "parent" similar to TranX MFD from Orbiter.