Jump to content

Luriss

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Luriss

  1. 17 hours ago, sweatbox said:

    Yes, this is exactly how I feel. The launch of EA sounds like they were given an ultimatum to start generating revenue for the project, at least when coupled with the apparent progress of the game up to this point along with the history of this game regarding changing studios and potential mismanagement. 

    If this is what we need for the project to have continued support, and the missing features come in a reasonable amount of time after this release, then I'll be fairly satisfied. However to me this doesn't completely add up and frankly I was also of the expectation from the previous diaries/communications that they intended on delivering a feature complete title at release, not an early-access demo. 

    It just doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the tone and attitude of several of the developers up to this point in their communications. I'll inhale some copium for now, but until we have some sort of timetable for the new features I've lost some optimism for this title. Looking forward to at least trying EA and experimenting with the new systems.

    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. 45 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

    In multiplyer I think colonies should have a lot more of a limit so that one really good player can't make Duna their version of Coruscant. 

    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?

     

    2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    If we're able to build as crazy as we want... Space Elevator from Duna's surface anyone? Also, who needs an orbital construction dock when you can just build a space elevator, put a VAB and Launchpad at the top, then launch from that? Smh, Orbital Construction is obsolete now. /joking

    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. 15 hours ago, Nazalassa said:

    I wonder how many people will just say, "nah KSP2 is just like ksp1 + Parallax 2.0 + DMP + some other mods, I'll just do that rather than spend $50"

    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.

  4. 3 hours ago, TROPtastic said:

    I agree that a lot of KSP1's aerodynamics aren't intuitive, especially for new players given the observations you've talked about. I think Intercept could go a long way to making the aerodynamic system easier to understand (perhaps that's what they want feedback for in Phase 1 of early access?) by getting rid of these inconsistencies and unintuitive behaviours. However, I'd like to address this line in particular as a KSP1 FAR noob:

    I personally found the FAR mod to be a bit confusing to understand, in terms of the different readouts that are presented to the player in the VAB/spaceplane hangar. It's quite possible that most of these statistics were actually just "FYI", but if they weren't and they were indicative of all the stats you had to consider to make a flyable, controllable plane, it might well be too complex for the average player. However, Intercept could choose to implement a FAR-like aerodynamics model and only surface key indicators to most players (and do many calculations and optimizations behind the scenes), with detailed statistics and tuning offered to advanced players at the press of a button. That might be a good way of implementing a complex flight model without turning the game into XPlane or MSFS, for example.

    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.

  5. 19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    People who find it okay, don't say anything, most word comes from the complainers. That's a norm. Bad norm, so let's change that.

    Anyway, back at the time of the article, most people complained how it doesn't look like KSP1 UI (because they're driven by nostalgia and are afraid of change), navball not in the center (where it obscures important part of the view during, oh I don't know, landing?) etc. Hardly valid arguments.

    Here, now, most people have good points regarding clutter, pixels etc. Clutter was acknowledged, not sure about everything else.

    Meanwhile, there was one different style in the latest video that was close to being the best of them all.

    7D5Mbp1.png

    LCD font from previous one gone, navball was clear and simple (maybe too simple, but eh), all buttons and info is there, has modern shapes. Not counting out of place (I think) G or vertical velocity indicator.

    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).

  6. 10 hours ago, Xelo said:

    I actually would have found it quite useful in ksp 1. Originally i thought duna would have the same atm pressure as kerbin fsr, but if that bar was there then I wouldnt have spent a day wondering why the parachutes werent working as well...

    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.

     

    11 hours ago, Xelo said:

    I forgot to mention that the extended stats (like pressure, and w/e )should only be visible (as in toggled) when you click on the bar itself, otherwise its just a regular old bar.

    Ooh, I really like that idea!

  7. 1 hour ago, Xelo said:

    y e s.
    (bar on duna)
    l1.gif

    now higher quality mockup. :D
    I also think it should retract and disappear when there's no atmosphere, but that's probably just me.

    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.
  8. 5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

    Why would someone use a server to play a career game in real time of the server supports time-warp for non-multiplayer gameplay? Real time on a server would be used to keep multiple players in sync.

    Short answer: the server would not care if you leave a vessel on-rails. It would track it like everything else that's on-rails.

    On-rails calculations are deterministic, using formulas and inputs. There's no need for the server to do anything in real-time.

    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.

  9. 4 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

    Whoops, typo. Forgot a 0. KSP Daedalus should be 0.03, not 0.3 lol. 

    We'll have to wait and see. Realistically the only limiting factor to speed is time and fuel. If you have enough of both, then yeah, reaching just under C is theoretically possible. Then again, Daedalus would take 4 to 5 years to reach 0.12C, so reaching 0.99 will take around half a century. 

    Mm, we will have to wait and see.

    And who said anything about only having one Daedalus engine?

  10. 1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

    Ah... well okay then.

    I don't know where I went wrong.

    1/10th the distance of a lightyear = 9.46 trillion kilometers / 10 = ~946 billion kilometers

    Times four for distance of Debdeb (Speculated) =  4 LY (Debdeb distance) = ~3.784 trillion Kms

    3.784 trillion Kms / (946 billion kilometers * 0.03) 

    ....

    ....

    Ah, I see my problem. I used the DISTANCE of a lightyear and not the SPEED of light.

    Whoops. 

    But I'll just take your word for it that it is 13.33 years and not 133.34 because I'm getting tired of doing the math and messing up lol. 

    Well, IRL Daedalus' top speed would have been 0.12C, though that's because it would have to save fuel and turn around for a decel burn. Realistically, with enough fuel, Daedalus could go to 0.99C. In KSP 2, I imagine that KSP Daedalus will only reach 0.3C (25%) before having to turn around and slow down. I imagine it's the same with other engines like Bussard, Epstein, Orion, etc. We won't be able to exceed a percentage of C due to time. 

    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.

  11. 1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

    By your own math 1/10th of 33,328 systems is 3,332.8. Which is still far. 

    Btw that 33,328 figure is in 1/10th scale already. It's uh... quite large.

    1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

    You can't really 1/10th the speed of light, just the distance the light travels. C should remain constant, even in a video game I feel. So 9.46 trillion kilometers / 10 = ~946 billion kilometers * 4 LY (Debdeb distance) = ~3.784 trillion Kms.

    4 trillion KM journey between Kerbol and Debdeb? Yeah, that sounds good enough. Daedalus at 0.03C would take... dear god... I hope my math is wrong. 3.784 trillion Kms / (946 billion kilometers * 0.03) = 133.34 Years..

    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.

  12. 2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    Hmm, you may be right.

    Just did the math for Daedalus at 25% speed. Daedalus was 0.12C top speed, theoretically. At 25%, iirc that's the irl to ksp conversion for thrust, that's 0.03C. 0.4C / 0.03C = 13.34 years. 

    Hmmm. Shortened lightyears is making more sense

    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.

  13. 4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    0.4 lightyears is nothing and can be done with chemical rockets.

    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.

  14. 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?

  15. 59 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

    ...and a series of cheat codes to unlock all tech, ignore resource costs, etc. for players who just want to mess around.

    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.

  16. 1 hour ago, Master39 said:

    No, it's someone saying that can't wait for a mod to add the possibility to simulate the economy of an amusement park and me pointing out Roller Coaster Tycoon or Planet Coaster. It doesn't matter how talented a modder you throw at the problem, KSP (either 1 or 2) will never be as good at simulating an amusement park as one of those two titles. The same goes for war and combat.

    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.

  17. On 7/20/2022 at 4:54 PM, Master39 said:

    Those are all things you could do with KSP, but that are done 100% better by other games.

    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.

  18. '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.

     

  19. 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...