Spartan Hoplite
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Spartan Hoplite
-
-
On 7/17/2021 at 2:26 PM, pandaman said:
Rather than taking the 'best' would it not make more sense to take the average as a representation for automated reruns? Or to simplify it maybe just take the best and worst and split the difference?
While I'm not sure why it would make sense to have an average, this did remind me that transfer windows are a thing. This automated system would have to keep track of the relative locations of the celestial bodies that the resupply mission travels between. If the time between the transfer windows are too long, then the resupply ship needs to be larger or there need to be more missions with less efficient transfers.
-
28 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
I will say in my experience with FAR it presents the right tools to go properly engineer a craft and is approachable with limited knowledge on the subject. Also, I looked up one of the videos @Spartan Hoplite mentioned and I find it is brief, enjoyable, and informative.
I'm glad you appreciated the video! I think something similar could be condensed and put into the game.
28 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:I will say though that the stock aero model does at the very least need some very real improvement. I think many of us have gotten used to or were able to overlook its faults but it definitely has many of them.
This reminds me that stock KSP doesn't even have airfoils, just flat wings! Many real wings are designed to generate lift with 0 angle of attack. Also flat wings just look ugly
-
58 minutes ago, The Physics Engineer said:
It won't and shouldn't be implemented in the core game, that's what mods are for. Making it part of the game would ruin gameplay for many players as orbiting stations and satellites would start drifting from their original orbits and would require to be adjusted constantly or could end up being accidentally slingshotted away of the orbiting body, which could be frustrating.
Hypothetical: There will already be automatic resupply. If n-body is added (which I know it won't be), a feature for stations to automatically correct their orbits could also be implemented. The same would apply for if orbital drag were implemented, that way the player would only have to worry about maintaining orbits for craft being currently piloted
1 hour ago, The Physics Engineer said:In a mod this becomes an optional challenge.
I believe the developers should take full advantage of difficulty settings to add optional challenges
-
40 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
That does not sound like fun to me. It may be to some, but if my Panther powered jet won't make 650m/s when I need it, I just won't bother.
Everyone has had to do some research to play KSP, even if it was from watching Youtubers. In-game tutorials could make the experience less of a chore for those that don't like researching interesting topics like I do.
Its not like I had to do any math to understand the topic or to build a craft with it. FAR does all the math and makes it easy to see. This could be made with even better UI.
I'm sure lots of people feel satisfied when building something in KSP makes them feel smarter than they
actually areneed to be! (No one would argue engineering is as easy as KSP)I think difficulty settings are key here. An option to model aerodynamics simply like KSP1 could surely be added, satisfying everyone.
-
2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Those issues are huge, which is why KSP didnt implement them initially.
True, that's why it's ambitious
-
8 hours ago, Master39 said:
...But that's not the point of Kerbal, it's not an educational game at its core, it's a fun game for people that are into space stuff...
That means that when deciding between 100% realism and a more fun and engaging gameplay experience, gameplay should win.
Can you think of any game designed as educational that is fun?
KSP is in a unique position where adding more realistic physics and engineering elements is an opportunity to make it more fun, not less. Besides, having these features as toggleable difficulty settings makes it so people can choose whatever gameplay they want, giving the developers a lot of freedom with what they can add to the game. Players already do this with mods, but having features supported in the stock game removes stability issues and allows for more advanced modding.
The only issues with advanced features are the time required to implement and that the developers could mess it up by not utilizing the features to create compelling gameplay. Turning physics and engineering concepts into a great game is an ambitious idea for ambitious developers.
-
Realistic aerodynamics is not only an essential topic for aerospace engineering, it is absolutely FASCINATING.
I wanted to break the sound barrier with the Farrem Aerospace mod and the Realistic Progression mod tech tree. This led me to spend a whole 2 days researching aerodynamics, including watching the old Shell Oil film "High Speed Flight," which explained all the considerations of transonic and supersonic flight. This included elevator issues, thin wings, the area rule, sweeping wings behind the shock wave so they experience subsonic flow, etc.
I spent 2 days excitedly researching, but I had also taken both incompressible and compressible flow courses. Think of all the fun I would have had if I were to discover those aerodynamic principles for the first time!
If the developers want to make a game marketed as being a fun way to educate the next generation of engineers and scientists, they should go all the way and implement realistic aerodynamics so players can try to break the sound barrier and optimize the aerodynamic profile of their spaceplane for supersonic flight.
Procedural nozzles could even be added just to experiment with optimizing engine efficiency for different atmospheric pressures (future update?). Make the game the ultimate sandbox of aerospace engineering!
(The same goes for including realistic n-body gravitation like in the principia mod! But while it can and should be implemented I know it probably won't be...)
-
When doing a resupply mission, instead of just saying you've done it so now forget about it, make it so it always follows a "milestone mission."
This would allow for these gameplay features:
1. Make repetitive missions as optional as the player wants, as planned by the developers
2. A way to set a cost to each automated mission so that they aren't simply ignored
3. Incentivize efficiency and creativity for all skill levels
4. Introduce almost endless compelling yet optional challenges for players of all skill levels, increasing replayability of KSP2.
The uniqueness of each location would determine how fun optimizing these missions would be. They would be optional regardless, so it can't hurt the game for anyone, only improve it.
-
1 hour ago, Dientus said:
I would hate to switch between them and come back to one where the mission fails because I forgot to buckle Jeb up.
I agree, thats why the toggle button is the perfect compromise
-
I think it would be very simple to have a single vessel icon that shows a list of crafts that are docked to it, either by hovering over the icon or by showing a submenue under the main craft in the craft list. I think this is a very important feature for any space station.
The whole thing could still load as one craft, but you should be able to edit the places where the craft is divided into separate vessels. At least set a station craft so that its docking ports serve to divide vessels automatically.
-
I would just want them to move around the ship /station instead of sitting in place. Move to the eating place to eat, the artificial gravity place to exercise, even bounce around the interior if they don't strap in a seat in time.
This could be an toggle button that clears kerbals to move around or warn them to rush to their seats when you want to fire engines. It would be fun to abuse this by causing kerbals to bounce around the interior or leave them hanging off the side of the craft!
Anything that allows using kerbals for role-playing would be fun and is an opportunity for the developers to bring more life into the game.
-
The Kerbal news agencies report on all colony channels that Scott Kerman's vessel suffered critical failures, jeopardizing his mission. Some fear starts spreading through Kerbal society (along with causing a big distraction), reducing colony productivity somewhat (i.e. resource production, construction, science research).
Later it is confirmed that Scott Kerman has gone MIA. For the Kerbals that know what this means, they become fearful of spaceflight, reducing population growth of the colonies, especially the one that Scott launched from as well as nearby colonies. Like an opposite "boom event" caused by player actions.
This would be a difficulty setting to introduce consequences that require more safety features and margins for each mission. This would make the game more challenge and allow the developers more opportunities to make unique mission types and locations.
Adding news reports would increase the player feeling of their actions being consequential to their Kerbal interstellar civilization, as well as allow for more humorous Kerbal reactions in the game.
TLDR; Killing Kerbals is reported on Kerbal news, triggering an event making kerbals less likely to want to travel to new places in space for a while, reducing pop growth.
Power Beaming and Surface Crawlers
in Prelaunch KSP2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Seems like a great reason to create a moon base, if the technology is actually possible. I'm not so sure a robot could create cells, lay them flat, and wire them. Then beaming the power to a receiver is a whole other challenge.
In KSP2, the crawler cost, speed of cell production, cell efficiency, and micro-meteoroid impacts (which would require replacement of cells) would vary depending on each body. Would only be possible on certain bodies where the regolith can be made into solar cells.