Jump to content

intelliCom

Members
  • Posts

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

312 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    10x in a row winner of the Annual "Darwin Awards"

Recent Profile Visitors

1,262 profile views
  1. I'm not thinking about completely flipping planets or moons on their sides or anything. Very slight tilts to be more realistic. Beyond Kerbol, we can get Uranus-like tilts of literal 90 degree angles.
  2. This is what I was mainly referring to, heat through conduction, like what would most likely happen on Io. But heat through atmosphere is also pretty interesting to deal with. Both would be interesting.
  3. True, then again Io barely has an atmosphere to speak of. Come to think of it, trying to deal with a truly Venus-like planet would be really interesting. Hellish heat, and ridiculously high atmospheric pressures.
  4. Oh I'm sure they'll be doing ice giants. They have the ringed Glumo, and the super-heavy Ovin. They'll do an ice giant at least once. I've been looking forward to a truly volcanic celestial body like Io. Hot enough for temperature guages to show up all over your craft just by landing there, perhaps destroying parts if you land somewhere that's just a bit too hot. Maybe Rask and Rusk might have this, given the glowing rocky parts from their mutual gravitational pulls.
  5. I don't think any of us have to worry; assuming they have experience in game development, and are definitely targetting an early 2023 release, then they'd know how to organise their development and not introduce things that are too big. If anything, they're likely using this forum to get much smaller suggestions right now, then use it in the future for more suggestions once the game has released and people can make suggestions directly related to the game's current content. As an example, let's say rotation is still cut off in time warp. Someone could present their case for why it should be in, citing examples like Juno and other space probes. I believe they implemented some simple rotation without applying physics to parts, but maybe they didn't. We'd have to see. As another example, I recently made a post on axial tilts in KSP 2. Axial tilts are a very important part of planets and space. Uranus is entirely tilted on its side because of this, instead of facing "directly up", as all the other planets are in KSP 1.
  6. I suspect they might be going with an Eris reference here, since that was discovered way beyond Pluto's orbit. Since Eeloo is the Pluto analog in KSP, Eris getting an analog seems likely.
  7. In KSP 1, all planets were perfectly aligned, such that their rotation never changed angle; all were facing straight "up" in the game's sense. To get around this, RSS had to alter the entire solar system so Earth would have an appropriate axial tilt relative to everything else. If KSP 2's planets should have axial tilt, should the axial tilt of already existing planets and moons be changed? (e.g., Gilly being given a tilt to match its tilted elliptical orbit around Eve?) I don't think it would add too much challenge to the game, and would add an additional factor to take into account when launching vehicles off a planet's or moon's surface.
  8. In map view, the planets should appear quite blurry, how they would if they were only modelled from Kerbin Telescopes. Duna would have approximate detail, Jool would just be a green sphere, and Eeloo's orbit isn't visible at all until the tracking station is upgraded. Once these places are visited at an appropriate distance, (not just skimming the SOI) they appear in the map view as normal.
  9. I think the word PCDWolf should've used is bland or uninteresting. For it to not be "barren" by Wolf's definition, it needs actual geological landscapes instead of a bunch of smooth hills, which KSP2 has already shown.
  10. Think more sylistically than in sheer amount. Take the navballs on the LEM, for example. They have white tops and black bottoms. The small switches could be put next to "SAS" and "RCS". It would only carry over individual elements of the control panel being copied.
  11. Either the skybox doesn't change at all from different star systems, or, to allow for parallax, the starfield only updates when it is no longer visible (i.e., within a planet's atmosphere, on the daylight side of a planet, etc.) The players would barely notice. Means you only need one skybox for each star system. Although, each star system is obviously going to have its own parallax anyways, so I don't think we need to worry about all of the other "background" stars. Thinking about this, I suspect we're going to be within a "local group" of star systems, hopefully around 5 or 6 (systems, not stars, binary star systems count as one).
  12. Be nice to get animations of Kerbals actually leaving their capsules. Should only take about 2 second to play such animations, wouldn't want to spend too much time on them. Perhaps such animations can be turned off in settings in favour of kerbals instantly being outside. To take this even further, perhaps IVA animations depicting Kerbals getting bored over time. Trans-Munar travel results in mild boredness, Interplanetary travel is extreme boredness/insanity, and interstellar travel is just... this, basically. Broken, blank, dead-eyed. Alternatively, perhaps they always remain entertained through stranger and stranger means. I remember an old sci-fi space film that actually demonstrates exactly this.
  13. Well, we're certifiably going to get our standard LF + LOX, Xenon, and MonoProp. Metallic Hydrogen fuel is also required, nuclear fuel is necessary for the "orion-type" engines, fusion fuel for the "Daedalus-type" engines, and potentially antimatter for the torch drives. I think we have all bases covered, except for three standard rocket fuels, and two standard nuclear fuels. I don't think it's that complex if you understand how the fuels work. Maybe organising them differently might help?
  14. I feel like if there's going to be so many, they need some categorisation. Perhaps by two primary uses (construction and fuel), then divided by tiers (sorted by a combination of difficulty to attain and how technologically advanced the particular material is). Please feel free to reply with your own suggestions on what I should add to these lists, and also if you feel that a particular material should be moved to a different tier or outright removed. Construction (of both rockets and colonies): Fuel (for both rockets and energy):
  15. I'm not sure any celestial body really deserves any sort of hate. I might be inclined to hate Bop and Gilly for having gravity that is so weak, it's actually annoying if I want to timewarp to the surface. Pol's an exception to this rule because it looks so wacky and interesting compared to those two. Dres is (theoretically) just the Mun, so it's not really hateable. It (theoretically) even offers easy access to lots of asteroids too. (if it existed, that is). Eeloo has nice aesthetics to it, although it hasn't aged great in KSP1. KSP2 Eeloo looks goddamn beautiful though. It's flat, so landing isn't a hassle like what often happens with the Mun's hills. It's also a nice end-game challenge alongside an Eve return mission.
×
×
  • Create New...