Jump to content

Laxez

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laxez

  1. now that I remember better, in the ksp 2 trailer, at the end, we see Merbel the frozen moon of Glumo, and there are icebergs! so... it is possible that there are already in the game:
  2. Fun fact, while reading this post I asked myself "does Laythe have icy poles like Kerbin?" so i went to KSP i built a shuttle style plane attached to an obviously giant rocket, and i left for Laythe, after an hour i arrived on Laythe and as i re-entered the atmosphere i noticed that there was a target at the north pole , apparently I had already been to the north pole of Laythe hahaha. An hour well spent.
  3. this open cycle engine is very nice, it's a bit strange to see the engine turn red without the exhaust blaze, I would have preferred it to get "hotter" towards the end of the engine bell, but maybe it was just an asset scene and it does not represent the finished work. Great job keep it up! me every time i see a show and tell post:
  4. I think the sandbox mode is more for new players who might want to experiment a bit before playing the actual game. I started playing minecraft in creative and then I moved on to survival. Sure, starting with poor engines (or wooden axes) sucks a little, but there is that feeling of discovery that you don't have in the sandbox. in sanbox you directly take the largest motor (or diamond axes) and use only that, which makes sense, but it will never give you that feeling of difficulty and fulfillment. but if you are only interested in putting components together and having fun without having to unlock all the components, why not a creative mode?
  5. for the moment I think it is quite infeasible. I know Star Trek may not be the most scientifically accurate series, but follow my reasoning... the maximum speed reached in star trek is curvature 9.9999 or almost 200 times the speed of light, we are talking about 6x10 ^ 10 km / s x 200, the black hole of the milky way is 6260 light years, doing a calculation we obtain that we are at 5.92241727583571000000E + 016 km from the milky way black hole, my calculator can't calculate how long it takes to get there at warp 9.9999, so how should it be possible in ksp2 to get there with a spaceship that can barely take you to another planetary system in half a century, whereas there will be no warp engines? in star trek they have practically never gone beyond the middle of the milky way (with exceptions not due to science). I also remember that although I am using the solar system as a reference, the event horizon of a black hole extends far beyond its actual size, making proximity to other celestial bodies almost impossible. having said that it would still be a lot cool to get close to a black hole, but it is a celestial entity we still know too little about, until 2019 black holes were just a theory.
  6. the "problem" is that the square orbit shown in the video is the orbit of the object in relation to the sun, in KSP the orbit of your object that is shown is relative to the nearest body, so you would see the orbit around in Kerbin, but not in Kerbol
  7. sleeping is actually a time machine, every day sleeping I jump 8 hours of my life, so 1/3 of the day, so technically there are only 2/3 of time left to release ksp 2
  8. They have already said that some very repetitive operations will be automated, including docking in orbit.
  9. the "easy way" would be to do as in ksp1 when you are re-entering the atmosphere and you lose the heat shield and everything starts to explode. but maybe they have foreseen something else, personally I can not think of anything other than the death of the Kerbal, with its space wreck wandering through space (it would be very cool then to go and take it back, in the Alien way), I have no other ideas of what can happen in ksp2 if the anti-radiation shield breaks. in reality, people would begin to die of radioactivity for sure.
  10. this is a great idea, but from my view of ksp2 multiplayer that I have, I imagine my friends and I cooperating rather than competing, some of my friends are better at doing certain things. For example some are better to use airplanes and some is better at using rovers
  11. I am sure I saw a topic in this forum about the VAB HUD that you could see, but I can't find it... anyway, I'm sure I saw a button next to those that indicated the center of mass, the direction of the vector and the center of the thrust, followed precisely by this button with the symbol of radioactivity which I think is exactly what you would like
  12. what is the point of this discussion? I do not understand why some people remain of the idea that ksp 2 must be the same as the original... I keep repeating that no one is forced to buy ksp 2... also no one forbids you to play ksp 2 with the music of ksp 1 in the background open on youtube... again, what's the point of this discussion?
  13. I don't want to open a discussion about whether Windows or Linux is better, I just say that Devs already have enough problems developing 3 versions of the game, if there will be versions on Mac or Linux in the future, so much the better for these users, at the moment it is not my problem and I would understand perfectly if the Devs should never make versions for Mac and Linux, for various reasons. ksp 2 is not the first and it will not be the last game that does not come out for these operating systems, no one has ever died for this, I myself would have liked to play several playstation's exclusive, but not having one I have always done without, it works like this
  14. Just don't buy it, but I find it absolutely useless to open a discussion about why to buy something or not
  15. ok, nothing to say what are you talking about? people eat with money you know? free stuff will never be as good as paid stuff.
  16. but why are you so sadistic to use mac or pc with linux to play? anyway, i looked at some statistics online, i can't find ANYTHING that indicates that the players from windows are less than those on mac or linux, where did you see this thing? also consider that in addition to PC, KSP 2 will also be released on console, let's say that DEVs have other problems about bringing KSP 2 to 3 different platforms already ...
  17. It would be like saying "why do I have to buy a new car?" Maybe my car of 2005 works perfectly, maybe I even customized it, this is what I thought of my first car, then one day a friend of mine accompanied me with his new car, it is incredible to see how unlike a few years between my car and that car has brought so many improvements, I think Ksp 2 will be like that. Ksp 1 has nothing wrong, but first no one forces you to buy it, and second I'm sure that once you try the second chapter you will fall in love as in the first, just as I fell in love with the new car I bought. And no one will be able to steal my memories of my first car, like memories of ksp 1. You have no idea how crazy it is getting to find the most suitable color combinations for each celestial body in the game.
  18. the fact that they are not identical is due to the copyright combined with the fact that ksp wants to be as sandboxed as possible, also I invite you to go and see the videos of Matt Lowne like the one that I share below, where he builds rockets as you would like to build them: sure then it makes use of mods to place the parts, but the parts are the stock ones.
  19. Well... better than nothing... immagine sending a ship every week for 50 years... is not efficent, but better late than never
  20. Once I read in an article that it is not at all easy to build a space elevator, the main problem is the angular momentum that the elevator should withstand, essentially the elevator should be in an orbit that starts from the earth and ends in geostationary orbit, which is practically impossible to achieve. A geostationary orbit is around at 42000km above Earth...
  21. the "problem" is that KSP is inspired by reality, the game came out in 2011 (1.0) the post shuttle era, since then there have been no such significant missions that have involved the creation of new rockets by NASA and others, because Space X as well as other private agencies have not been integrated into the game. I believe that KSP was made to be as sandbox as possible, even with the DLC parts belonging to rockets from NASA, ESA and the Russian space agency that have been using the same rocket since the 60's are added. the futuristic parts you speak of are part of a possible near future, but none of those components have ever been made so far. That said, nothing is yet known about a possible tech tree, but I deduce that the flow is practically the same as in the first chapter. however I would like to remind you that there are components in ksp that belong to sputnik (1957) as well as parts of the shuttle (1981-2011), I would say that a generation gap larger than that ... only the wright brothers' planes are missing. just to make you understand, this is the timeline: i believe at least 1 component of any space mission is present in ksp. in short, we are very slow in advancing in space technology
  22. If you are interested about custom made controller for kerbal, you can find on youtube, even i have made a custom controller! here is my video: (is in Italian, so...sorry for that, but...i'm Italian ) is a prototype, but hey, kinda works... and it cost me about 40€ and you can build it as you want, and on Amazon you can find the button for arcade machine with microcontroller and free software for fully custom option, and NO arduino is needed!
  23. I'm sorry to say you are wrong, but maybe you have lived on Dres for a long time... here we have seen several gamplay videos
  24. in reality, absurdly, a rocket with jet engines would make sense on Ovin, always assuming there is oxygen, but in the first trailer of Kerbal 2 we see a plane traveling in the atmosphere of Duna, so I deduce that there is an engine capable of go without oxygen. Or maybe it makes more sense to make a rocket that is launched from a plane.
×
×
  • Create New...