• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About Gydra54

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. No you didn't, don't be disingenuous. You made claims that Unity is a terrible game engine for KSP and that KSP2 will run into exactly the same performance issues, and you presented zero evidence for this other than the fact that your grandma can make a game using it (????). Obviously people are going to argue with you if you make bold claims with literally 0 evidence and a non-sequitur to back them up. If you don't want to start an argument, next time don't make confident assertions with no supporting evidence.
  2. I don't get this. If I'm reading it right, OP is suggesting player-caused failure, not random part failure, which is what most "part failure" mods do (and that should absolutely stay in the modding community, random failure outside the player's control is terrible game design (EDIT: well not for some people I guess, otherwise there wouldn't be mods for it :P) and is not realistic as it is often claimed). I see no issue with part failure induced by player error. How is it any different from, say, failing to add struts and watching your rocket consequently wobble itself to its doom?
  3. Yeah I used to be so scared of mods like FAR, thinking the realism would make it less fun. Turns out all it changed practically is my rockets actually have less drag (though slightly less stable) and doing 90 degree flips with big ships annihilates them. Like, is it really more intimidating than stock aerodynamics? I doubt newcomers would be scared off by it. If anything, watching your unstable rocket flip over and consequently disintegrate would surely make for good entertainment.
  4. The only solution while keeping patched conics throughout most of the game is to have N-Body physics take over inside the binary system's sphere of influence as a specific special case. I can't understand how else they would do it without janky behaviour near the planets.
  5. You're 100% correct, it is totally unrealistic. But then again, the planets in KSP are all ludicrously dense and evidently don't care much for real world limitations. That said, yeah it doesn't need to be as fast as escape velocity. I just want it fast enough that you are forced to use creative means to stay down on the equator (hooks or burning into the ground). Because if it's not that fast, although it would still challenge unsuspecting players when they try to match surface velocity 10km up only to realise that makes their orbit even higher, landing itself wouldn't require any kind of unique design solution compared to any other planet.
  6. If they include anywhere near the same graphics options as KSP1, you won't have a problem tweaking graphics settings way down. Besides, it's not your GPU limiting your frames in KSP, it's your i3. Lots of physics-based calculations going on.
  7. In general I would love more ship effects. Improved reentry effects, freezing, condensation, sound effects, dirt/dust effects etc. I want dirty, damaged re-entered craft! On topic, I want a retrograde planet, super eccentric comet/asteroid orbits, and a Planetoid rotating faster than its escape velocity, exactly like Inaccessible from Krag's Planet Factory/Sentar Expansion. And finally, I would really like to see a rogue planet in the game; somewhere away from or in-between all the star systems. No light, freezing cold. Would provide a challenge in terms of Solar Panels being useless and requiring lighting on your craft to see what you're doing. They should also disable ambient light boost on it specifically otherwise it's kind of pointless.
  8. I think they mean that colonies don't slowly grow without you doing anything. So you even if you timewarp 100 years into the future, the colony will have the same population. The colony only grows when you supply more colonists or accomplish things in the game.
  9. Major focus on modding, no DRM (for singleplayer at least), way more efficient simulation (high frames and high part counts), massive and vastly upgraded VAB, overhauled planet terrain and axial tilt support, rings with rocks in them, enhanced explosions... the more I read about this game, the more I feel like I'm gonna suddenly wake up and be disappointed it was all a dream... it honestly sounds too good to be true sometimes. I hope it can live up to the hype!
  10. Seems we will be getting a gameplay demo. Wonder if its the same pre-alpha build we've seen or a much more recent one?
  11. We shouldn't forget that we can build colonies on other planets along with launch sites. This means you can get axial tilt as a challenge in terms of affecting launches without having to change Kerbin's tilt.
  12. Well, I guess that would be the point right? To be careful with fast movements. There is already a G-Force option available in KSP1, though I don't use it. I think it would make sense to have rotational g-force accounted for as well.
  13. It's hard to think through something that clearly wasn't thought out well in the first place...
  14. Well, hopefully they would provide you with information about the degree of axial tilt and relative inclination to the equator. That would solve that problem.
  15. I really fundamentally can't understand your position. Do you oppose fuel resources? After all, a competent player would just ensure they have enough DeltaV to go wherever they want. Fuel wastes computational power, slows the game and inflates part count with fuel tanks. Why even have an atmosphere at all? What a waste of computing resources. Actually, what is even the point of the game? Why not just have a big red button that says "do mission" that gives you a nice black screen with comic sans saying "you win"?