Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Luriss

  1. Personally, I think it seems pretty clear that this game has gone through some level of development hell; between the studio change shenanigans, Covid, and the like I think it's a miracle that we're getting anything at all. It might just be me seeing things that aren't there but if you compare 2019 Nate with 2022 Nate it looks like the poor guy's aged a bit from the stress of it all. My expectations are basically this: The game will release to early access with a steam review score somewhere in the 50-60s range with a lack of features, bugs, and poor performance cited as issues. After a wave of bug fixes and the like in the first month or two we'll start to see the first roadmap features come along 5-ish months after release minimum. The full game will probably be out by early 2025 at the earliest. Now as a massive KSP fan I'll be buying into this thing no matter what (something I've never done before, and probably shouldn't do but eh) because, well, 1) it's KSP 2, and more importantly 2) I believe that in the long term KSP 2 has a decent shot of being lightyears ahead of KSP 1 in gameplay, scope, potential for growth, and most importantly, performance, once everything is ironed out. Release however? Yeeeaaahh nah she's gonna be bumpy.
  2. In all honesty I disagree. This might make sense in some sort of public lobby but if you're just playing with friends, turning Duna into Coruscant might be the goal. KSP is fundamentally a sandbox game, why limit it? I really want to see this sort of stuff actually. Not necessarily cheesy, infinitely tall trusses or something but definitely stuff like Space Elevators, Launch loops, and O'Neill Cylinders. I'd imagine megastructures like these will probably be added by mods however. Furthermore, a late game space elevator/launch loop upgrade for the KSC perhaps?
  3. Happened* Considering KSP 2 is going to have animated tutorials this is bit of a moot point.
  4. On paper this makes sense, however the realities of doing so in KSP 1 make it impractical at best and outright impossible at worst. As an example; I loaded a developed, extra-solar MKS colony on a heavily modded install. Note that this was before parallax 2.0 on version 1.7.3. It ran at 3 FPS. And if that wasn't enough, there's a decent chance your colony will phase through the ground and explode each time you load it.
  5. FAR isn't that bad, its like KSP 1 aero model; as long as you know the basics you can make a plane fly. More importantly, the difference between FAR and stock is night and day. The KSP 1 aero model severely limits creativity for the reasons eekee mentioned and FAR fixes all of it.
  6. Judging by the monitor this was taken on July 13, 2022. What's a bit odd however is that UI seems to have a closer resemblance to the old one as can be seen here: https://imgur.com/e9UB8tm I think the UI we saw in the feature video is newer (personally I prefer that one, but that's just my two cents).
  7. In all honesty I didn't really consider that. I figured it was obvious what the atmosphere of a given body would be like; that's not really a fair assumption to make, especially for new players. Ooh, I really like that idea!
  8. Ooh, I really, really like this, but seeing this mock up makes me question what information the bar really indicates to you and if its really that useful. Displaying the atmo as a percentage of Kerbin atmo is nice, but what useful info does the really convey to the player? Knowing the atmosphere percentage relative to Kerbin's doesn't really help me fly my craft - I probably already know the atmo I'm expecting before I start flying. Knowing what section of the atmo you're in is also nice and useful for getting a rough idea of where you are, and in the case of KSP 1, whether new experiments are available or not. But can't we use the display to convey more? The little arrow indicating your exact position, what info does that really give you beyond removing ambiguity? Hence the following: Should the bar also be used to indicate the altitude where air breathing engines will flame out? Some horizontal line indicating this point perhaps? (This also makes the arrow more useful imo). As an extension of the idea above, displaying max Q might be nice too. Showing pressure seems a bit pointless despite being a nice QoL thing. It's info I don't think will be used and will just clutter the display as a result. In place of pressure, maybe a read out displaying the craft's terminal velocity/maximum speed would be useful.
  9. I don't think we're on the same page. All I'm saying is that using a multiplayer server, it's possible to do a career game in real time.
  10. I'm still not sure I follow. You're not using a server to do calculations, you're using a server so you can run the game 24/7. If you try and play a real time career game in single player you'll have to leave your computer on all the time, and the moment you turn it off or the power cuts the game stops.
  11. Mm, we will have to wait and see. And who said anything about only having one Daedalus engine?
  12. Maths when you're tired is always leads to fun results lol. Being a video game, I guarantee there will be meta ships that go to 0.99999... c. I also expect that a lot of normal ships will hit those higher velocities (+0.5c ish), especially on longer voyages. And even those lower velocities like 0.12c and 0.3c will cross a 0.4 ly distance in 3.33 and 1.33 years respectively.
  13. Ah, sorry I misunderstood. I must admit I don't really understand your question; are you asking why have real time restrictions only in multiplayer?
  14. Btw that 33,328 figure is in 1/10th scale already. It's uh... quite large. I'm not sure I follow, 3.784 trillion km (which is 0.4 ly) at 0.03c is about 13.33 years. 4 ly at 0.03c is 133.34 years. You're in luck, I think your math is wrong lol. The problem with that 0.4 ly figure is that I wouldn't be surprised if ships got up to 0.5c (very realistic possibility) that trip becomes 10ish months. Hence why I argue that the speed of light be 1/10th scale. The distances remain uniform with the rest of the KSP universe and the time taken to go places also remains 1:1 with reality (8 years at 0.5c rather than 10 months). Edit: When I say 0.4 ly, I mean 1:1 scale, not 1/10th scale. Although now that I think about it, the speed of light at 1/10 scale also means that saying a distance is 4 ly is technically correct despite being 0.4 in 1:1 scale light years.
  15. When you say shortened do you mean 1/10 scale or light years based on a Kerbin year? I'd personally argue 1/10 scale is sufficient and more importantly remains consistent with inta-system distances. Also, another option is making the speed of light 1/10 scale as well. In that case a 0.4 ly trip at the 1/10 scale 0.03 c becomes a 133 year trip. In other words, 1/10th the distance but 1/1 time scale.
  16. I think you're really underestimating the true scale of even 0.4 light years. The orbit of Eeloo has an apoapsis of 113,549,713,200 ((1.1355x10^(11)) metres, let's say this is the rough radius for the Kerbol system. A light year on the other hand is 9.461x10^(15) meters, 0.1 ly being 9.461x10^(14) meters. When you put that into perspective, that 0.4 ly distance is 8332 33,328 kerbol systems in a line. I personally think kerbal scale will be more than enough. Edit: Did a dumb, forgot to multiply by 4. The distance is actually even larger.
  17. So you can have a server tick away for months on end without needing to have your PC running KSP 24/7.
  18. All this discussion of time warp in multiplayer has got me thinking; depending on implementation, would time warp be optional for servers? There might be circumstances where its useful. Also as an extension of that, would anyone be crazy enough to use a server to play a career game in real time?
  19. Small thing, but I find it sorta odd that when the engine bell is glowing red from heat, the connector struts between the bell and exhaust remain completely 'cold' as it were.
  20. Isn't that just sandbox mode with extra steps? Rather than having people put in a bunch of cheat codes, it'd be easier to just let them select sandbox mode when they start a new save.
  21. A mod I'd love to see, although ambitious, would be a megastructure one. I think O'Neill cylinders and Dyson swarms would be quite fitting considering KSP 2's colonization system and far future tech.
  22. Again, I'd argue that you're missing the point. Sure, I could go and play Planetary Annihilation if I wanted a solar system wide PVP strategy game and yes, it would be better than any recreation in KSP. The thing is I don't want play Planetary Annihilation; creating that experience in KSP is the whole point and I don't want to get a better experience elsewhere. Some of the most fun I've ever had playing KSP was doing things that were completely impractical and borderline dysfunctional with the use of mods, trying to push the game as close to the limit as possible. As an example my crowning achievement was figuring out how to make a semi-functional floating colony in Jool's atmosphere. As for time warp, I feel like this point is overblown. We don't even know how the system works yet, and even then work-arounds are possible. For example, a group of friends might decide that they will time warp in 1 month chunks to represent a turn in their space race competition. Maybe a server that lets you design fighter jets and dogfight has just disabled time warping entirely. Perhaps someone just decides to overhaul the time warp system to their own preferences through modding.
  23. I think that sort of misses the point on why warfare mod(s) for KSP 2 are an attractive idea. Sure, Children of a Dead Earth lets me simulate fleet battles down to the composition of the armour on my ships and the ratios of fissile material in my nuclear warheads. However, what if I want to interact with the planet I'm orbiting? In KSP 2, I could decide that I want to use my fleet to bombard a surface colony from orbit. Then, I might decide that I want to use a landing craft to drop in and deploy tanks so I can seize the colony. It might also be possible that this is taking place in a multiplayer game with a few friends, and one of my friend deploys his tanks to defend the colony. After winning the battle, I then use the colony to produce resources and ships to help in the solar system sized (or interstellar!) war against my friends. Basically, I'd argue it's a trade of detail and quality for scope, and KSP 2 promises a very, very large scope.
  24. 'Ello! I've been attempting to use this mod to build a working space elevator to some success as seen here: The problem however is that launch clamps, which are used to secure the elevator to the ground 'flop' or let go entirely of any welded object when a kerbal uses a ladder within load range (weird I know.) Its the only thing that's stopped me from building a (practical) working space elevator and to be honest I'm stumped. Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated! Using version 1.7.3 (1.4.2 version of UbioZur.) Parts welded are from KSP interstellar.
  25. In light of the new KSP 2 development update video I'd like to make a request for the consideration of whomever may be porting BDa to KSP 2. Please, consider revamping how BDa calculates targeting in KSP 2. From what I understand, BDa relies on a surface based method to calculate targeting. This works fine for the most part, but, it makes space to space targeting impossible. Two ships shooting each other in space cannot correctly target each other with this flaw. I have suffer no illusions, this a big ask. But with the implementation of orbital construction and planetary bases, it would be amazing to see space combat function correctly in KSP 2. Thanks for reading I guess. Have a good one!
  • Create New...