Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


67 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We’ve seen the “lapat” file which has trees and grass, and which is presumably a different planet. The vegetation also looks similar to Kerbin, indicating that the planet orbits a similar star and that evolution took it down a similar path. Perhaps the kerbal universe was populated by panspermia and the end game will be to find an origin planet, hence the kraken which will presumably be pointing to another planet in the third secret message. I’d be fine with having actual moving animals as long as they are stuff like the kraken, where interaction is limited and it is not taken as a serious species but rather as a mysterious plot point.
  2. I’m pretty sure this is also a feature in KSP 1 with rigid attachment. You can enable it by enabling advanced tweakables in settings or through the editor extensions redux mod.
  3. Wait, in that photo it says "cost/stock" which I think means that you can keep the parts when you recover a craft and use them to rebuild the craft! So on top of all of the other design optimizations, you can try to go for low cost by recycling parts from other missions! This is already kind of derailing, but that is so cool.
  4. I don't know if anyone has done this before in here, but the cinematic trailer showcases a lot of parts, and I want to discuss them. First, the bad stuff. I didn't notice any radiators that looked different from KSP 1. the biggest engines just had a whole lot of the same small radiator, and they were all the same material. If we are going to have small craft with high-power engines, I would like to see a small but powerful endgame radiator. Also, unless some serious optimization has been done, all of those small structural parts are going to seriously lag out the game. Next, the good stuff. Colonies can have absolutely immense parts, and ships share some parts with colonies, as the Daedalus ship had the exact same tanks as the dock it was attached to. Solar panels have a larger maximum size in the last colony, and there are absolutely immense dishes for long range communication. There are larger tires than before, and they don't have long attachment sections which means they are more customizable. There is also a new pod for rovers, which has a sort of hexagonal profile (not sure if this will be expanded into a whole "rover" size class but I'd like to see at least a cargo bay and battery section/probe core with the same profile) which is shown with a large stick antenna and the new storage containers, which are hexagonal. (still not sure why sci-fi has settled on the hexagon when a sphere or cylinder contains more volume for the same surface). Now, the sort of overlooked stuff. The rotating habitats don't appear to be one pair but actually a collection, with a center rotating section and an outer ring, which can be attached to the center by multiple points, indicating that the way that attachment works is going to be different than KSP 1. Or it could just be one part, but it doesn't look that way. Second thing, some ships have comms dishes put on spokes far from the central body. I'm not sure why this would be, unless it had something to do with interference and radiation, but then wouldn't keeping the dishes close to the craft, safe behind the radiation barrier be better? Anyways, that's all I found interesting. If there are more things in other gameplay clips that provide more information, put them below!
  5. This is without skybox dimming, right? Because the moon in both of those shots would apparently overpower the stars by a significant margin. (in both shots a piece of the moon that is sunlit is visible, and from the rociante shots we know that even a sliver of light is enough. Also, even if the craft was orbiting with the moon eclipsing the sun, they would still not be able to see stars as demonstrated by images of Pluto taken at high exposure where stars are not visible due to a halo effect.) I agree with Delay here, that mods will implement many options that a dev would not have the time for, but I would still like to see some sort of dimming feature. However, I don't want it to be fully realistic, as I think those two images quoted above look great, and a fully realistic sky dimming feature would remove those.
  6. Depending on how they manage dynamic loading, the RAM at any one time can probably be kept down to roughly the sum of the textures on screen, which is one planet+ probably 100 different part models, which could theoretically fit into 2 gigabytes, if they recycle textures (I don’t need to have a different texture for different sized blocks of metal, I can just have a “metal” texture)
  7. Essentially, the system does just that. It has calculations to see if it will collide with objects within a certain time interval (sort of like a hitbox elongated to a certain time interval, but more optimized) and then in the tick that has the collision in it, it makes sure the vessels are in the right place to collide (this actually takes an extra tick, as you can see in the video, the red capsules are frozen for a tick all stuck together, which allows the collision calculation to happen) and then the calculation of which parts go where happens and things fly back off.
  8. If this is implemented, having API hooks to connect it to other things via mods (I don't expect the devs to implement cameras on monitors in IVA but a mod could do it) would be nice.
  9. Ok, so not to jump into whatever semantic argument is going on here, I feel like you (@PDCWolf) are having a different discussion than the other side. You are arguing, as far as my understanding goes, that the sky around a celestial body near, or even far from, a star is black, and therefore this should be implemented in the game. You have proven multiple times now that on the day side of any celestial body or orbiting far from the night side, the light from the sun will overpower the stars, even at ocular dynamic ranges. You have also proven that light reflecting off a craft is also enough to do so. The only time that you should be able to see stars is looking from a window away from the star and landed on the night side of a planet with a clear/nonexistent atmosphere. Done, you did it. No more need to prove that the sky is black in space. (don't pick the specifics of that, you know what I mean.) In your mind, more realistic effects= better visuals, and therefore sky dimming is a must. But this is not true for everyone. Many of the opposing people are not arguing that the sky shouldn't be black, but instead that it is not good for visuals. Before you argue (or avoid this argument as you have done for the last few posts on the matter, once again you know what I mean, don't make me enumerate all the posts), consider that this is a purely subjective stance. I may want the sky to be black, someone else might want the sky to have stars. There really is no ultimate argument to defeat an opinion, because it is an opinion and not a fact. So, how about instead of arguing whether the sky should dim for realism, which has been proven multiple times already by you and others in this thread, try either (a) closing this discussion with a request for a sky dimming option or (b) debating over whether a black sky looks better rather than whether it would exist or not.
  10. This sounds really cool, but can someone post a link to any spot where a KSP 2 dev mentioned VR? I'm not sure it is actually planned or even potentially planned as of now.
  11. Is there a mod to toggle every joint to be rigid in flight? As far as I am aware, that data is stored inside the craft file so it should be possible. The use case that I want this for is to rigid-ize my space stations because they keep wobbling out of control. If anyone can find the mod, thanks.
  12. I’d like to second this. The LV-N is extremely nerfed and unbalanced in KSP 1. A lot of the balance “fixes” really just made things worse. And the LV-N, despite having a high isp, is one of the worse engines in the game. But that is not the case for KSP 2. With persistent thrust through time warp, the LV-N does not need a thrust augmentation and it actually fits the balance pretty well. If you want the KSP 1 LV-N fixed, then ask the KSP 1 devs to update it.
  13. I’m sure the rings are randomly populated as you approach them so some Bradley Whitstance video video down the line will have a spacecraft fly through a ring that took 100 attempts to not collide with just to save a hundred m/s
  14. unrefueled Grand Tours are going to get much harder
  15. It is confirmed that rings will have particles in them, from the trailers we have seen so far it looks like they are somewhere between 2 and 200 meters in diameter and are incredibly densely packed, making rings a real navigational obstacle and something that will completely wreck your ship if not planned right.
  • Create New...