Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ember12

  1. Thanks for the clarification. To be absolutely clear about what I meant: In many languages, if a syllable does not have emphasis, it is pronounced differently. For instance, "instance" is pronounced "IN-stuhns" not "IN-stans". If Russian, if the letter ё (yo) is in a word, it is always stressed. Just how the language works. In other Cyrillic-using languages, this may not be the case. So, while ё is pronounced fully in Russian, it may be pronounced differently in other languages where it is not necessarily stressed. So I thought that the clarification as Russian might be helpful.
  2. The ambiguity is always in the part between the L and the V. The Russian letter is ё, which ALWAYS says "yo". As far as I know, the only reason why anyone writes it as "Korolev" is because the letter looks like an e. Korolov is okay, but it omits the y sound. Devs: If you use something like this, please spell it with a yo! As you may have gathered, this is something of a pet peeve of mine.
  3. One issue is that, in KSP, planes aren't that useful unless they go to space. You can putter around Kerbin and get a bit of science from each biome, but it's a tiny amount and the flights are long. In many of my career & science mode games I don't even bother with non-space planes. One way to encourage use of atmosphere-only planes would be if certain resources were much more highly concentrated at locations far from KSC. The player's first automated transports could be subsonic airplanes delivering ore and fuel from remote locations on Kerbin.
  4. What I meant was, with what was suggested, it would be harder to create an orbit-capable spaceplane, and some players might want that to be easy.
  5. I think this might tap a bit into the old "how hard should planes be" debate. Personally I find plane design just as interesting as rockets, but from what I've seen a lot of people don't. I love this idea and I think it would be fun for me to play, but many others could feel differently.
  6. We know that there will be automatic supply missions, and I can't imagine how those would work without scripting.
  7. When the second N1 rocket crashed back onto the launchpad, it was exploded with around 7 kilotons TNT of force. The rocket was a bit smaller than a Saturn V, and only around 15% of the fuel was consumed in the blast. With some KSP2 rockets which will be much, much bigger, we're talking Hiroshima-sized (15 kiloton) or possibly much larger explosions. That might get a bit tricky to simulate.
  8. One could have a basic sorting system for assemblies, like the "Prototypes, structures, planes" thing you proposed, with players free to create their own subcategories. I'm not sure this is a good idea, because changing a design without seeing what the change did could cause issues. Like, if you give a booster taller side stages, they might end up inside a wider upper stage. This would also be nearly impossible without a root part mechanic
  9. I think a weather system would be great, but not a complicated one. Wind that blow planes around, fog that impairs visibility, and rain that makes ground slippery. I don't think any of those would need anything too hard.
  10. I think that what you meant by that (hilarious) image that is that expressing weather effects is fairly simple. I would disagree, because a lot of these effects are very complicated to create. Wet during rain- Does this mean everything gets darker? More shiny? Both? Dry and Shadow On Ground- pretty much already exist. White on top- I don't think that making every upward-facing surface white will look like snow. To look realistic it would probably need some depth, at least a few centimeters, and then you start getting into the physics of driving through the stuff. Can't See Stone- Fairly simple I guess, just blur and whiten more and more as the object gets farther away. Swinging Stone- now you're getting into the complex realm of fluid dynamics. Stone Gone- Like above but more so. I think that implementing all of this would definitely take enough resources that it would detract from other parts of the game. The question is is it worth it, which people seem to think is a "no".
  11. Even if all the problems mentioned above (and more will no doubt be posted below) were overcome, I can't imagine this as anything more than an oh-yeah-that's-kinda-cool thing. Probably, no one would even look at it more than once or twice. Not at all worth the difficulty of implementation IMO.
  12. This has been brought up before, but: Managing surface colonies will he hard. If any significant fraction of all players are in the same game, equatorial land on every world will be snapped up very fast, so most people will have to make do with high-latitude land. That assuming the game perfectly prevents colonies being built in the same place in different time-warps. Plus players would probably have to wait for launchpad access on Kerbin. If KSP2 does go with big server groups, I think they should be kept at a few hundred members at most. It's still a lot, but these problems should be more manageable in a smaller server, while still having enough players to keep things interesting.
  13. Imagine the range of an asparagus-staged Daedalus ship...
  14. Kerbals are already immortal (at least they don't die of old age) and I don't think they'll add a kerbal aging mechanic. Plus:
  15. If it's a tailwheel arrangement, yes. But with a tricycle setup (like on airliners), leveling the wheels works best in my experience.
  16. I don't think they'd line it up with that. It was sort of sad, the last time people would walk on the moon for 50+ years, and I think most people (including myself, before I saw that message) don't even know when Apollo 17 was.
  17. Maybe thin lines that come out of CoM/CoT/CoL indicators in all 6 directions, to help line things up.
  18. I love the idea of an MMO, but it would require the game producers to set up a server powerful enough to run 20,000 KSP2's at once.
  19. Given the level of detail we've seen in the KSP2 graphics- especially planets- I'd expect they'd cost rather more than 3$. Maybe closer to 6 to 10 per system.
  20. I agree, if this feature is included, it would be best if it struck the balance of "you can play fine without it, but it can do some cool stuff".
  21. Walkers might be more of a sandbox thing though, because no matter what they will be less efficient than wheeled vehicles, and probably slower.
  22. According to most sources, the Kerbol system will probably not include any new bodies, just texture revamps for the ones that exist. Of course there will be lots more planets around other stars.
  23. On the topic of centers of mass, thrust, and lift- right now they appear only as spheres, but it might be really helpful to have thin lines emerging from all 6 axes. This would be really useful for lining up CoM with CoT for unbalanced payloads.
  • Create New...