Jump to content

Brofessional

Members
  • Posts

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brofessional

  1. Gamescom is where they first announced the game in 2019. Of course they don't necessarily need to appear at any expo to announce a date or other info.
  2. They were filming a new video just a week or two ago, so I'm sure we'll be seeing that soon enough.
  3. I've always preferred the idea of having a monthly or annual funding based on your reputation, with some contracts giving you bonus money. To prevent players from just timewarping to get money you could have your reputation decay over time. I do like the idea of ditching money altogether and using material resources instead though, since that plays into colonies very nicely.
  4. There's no reason they have to die of old age, they could just stop reproducing when the colony reaches capacity.
  5. If it were releasing in April there would be a marketing push already.
  6. From what I've seen personally most players probably never make it to the Mun, much less Duna or Eve. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half never even make it into orbit. That's just how it goes for most games though. Even if you look at a really popular AAA game with a shallow learning curve like Doom Eternal only 35% of players have finished the game, and only 81% have even finished the first level.
  7. I don't expect more than a handful of star systems, but the framework should allow more to be added in the future. Either in official DLC or by mods.
  8. For travel within a star system chemical rockets like methalox engines should still be useful, but for traveling between star systems you need something with higher efficiency and thrust if you want to do it within a reasonable timespan.
  9. Multiplayer adds a social element and makes it much easier for fans of the game to get their friends into it. The learning curve also becomes smoother when you've got someone in-game with you that can help you out. Will all of those people still be playing the game years later? Of course not, but they will have bought the game.
  10. Improved tutorials will definitely help, but I think the biggest thing that will draw in new players is the addition of multiplayer.
  11. It's still going to be more CPU dependent just like KSP1. It's got a lot more eye candy but if you turn the graphics settings down I don't expect it will take that powerful of a GPU to run. Which is good because purchasing a new GPU isn't an option for most people right now.
  12. I've never noticed that, but if it really bugs you there are a number of skybox replacements to choose from.
  13. I'm guessing they'll probably be about colonies and multiplayer. Multiplayer is a huge deal in terms of driving sales so they're gonna want to put a spotlight on that when the time comes.
  14. I would expect something similar to KSP1's IVA, with a tad more polish maybe. If you want fully fleshed out MFD's and what not then you'll probably have to use mods like you do now. VR would certainly be cool, and would give them a good reason to really flesh out the IVA cockpits, but it's a significant amount of work and the VR audience is relatively tiny so it's a low priority feature.
  15. It's a nice idea as long as it doesn't impact the loading time. Half-Life 2 does a similar thing where it's menu screen backgrounds change based on the last chapter you saved in. Above all I want the menu to load fast and be quick to navigate. KSP1's main menu is a bit sluggish and cumbersome to navigate.
  16. I assume this is meant to be a joke. The clouds in the VAB are just a skybox texture. Outside of the VAB the stars are the skybox texture. You need a more complex system of textured mesh and volumetric clouds for KSP because you can go through the clouds and all the way into space seamlessly.
  17. Adding an engine startup delay would just make the game harder and less approachable to beginners. Maybe you could make it a difficulty option but it's probably better left to mods. Gimbal animations could be fine as long as they're still quick enough to feel responsive.
  18. I like the idea of additional suits that you can unlock to facilitate exploration of new and harsh environments, but full on mech suits is a little too far. You could have hardsuits for high pressure, thermal suits for extreme heat, exoskeletons for high gravity, etc. Maybe some combination suits or an all-in-one suit toward the end of the tech tree.
  19. Portions of mechjeb have already been made stock in KSP1. The SAS modes to hold prograde/etc. for example. Putting the telemetry readouts of Mechjeb/KER into the stock game is fine as it's only information, though it needs to be drip fed through tutorials/progression for new players so they are not overwhelmed by all the information. The automated systems of Mechjeb don't belong in the stock game. It makes the game less challenging and impacts the learning curve of the game. Learning to do things manually from the start really helps teach you how and why things behave the way they do, which not only gives you real world knowledge but it also helps you understand how to improve your vehicle designs. I suppose we may see some sort of automated flights that function like trade routes to move resources between colonies kind of like a strategy game, but if that happens I suspect they will be completely hands-off. As in the ships are totally on-rails and cannot be controlled by the player.
  20. Hopefully we'll see something like the StationKeeping mod made stock to help fix satellites into exact matching orbital periods so they stay in sync through long time warps. This will be even more important in KSP2 when dealing with long interstellar time warps. I don't think you'll see anything in regards to keeping antennas pointed at specific targets. Doing so would require the game to track the orientation of all spacecraft at all times which would impact performance. Not to mention the added difficulty it would present to new players. It's something that would be better left to a mod.
  21. I'm still a bit concerned that KSP2 is using Unity which isn't exactly known for great performance in general. From what I understand the newer versions of the engine still have the same limitations that haunt KSP1 (32-bit floats and limited physics multithreading.) I also understand that there are a lot of factors besides performance that go into choosing a game engine for your project though. KSP1 also suffered from massive feature creep as it turned from a simple little game into a full spaceflight sim; no telling how much spaghetti there is under the hood. In that regard KSP2 should be a lot more efficient. Worst case scenario the CPU performance can't be any worse than KSP1.
×
×
  • Create New...