FlightSimXManiac

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FlightSimXManiac

  1. That would have been the better way to do it. I'm not sure its possible to change a poll, that would be weird, but I'll add some stuff the original post. If someone would be kind enough to point out the bias, that would be greatly appreciated.
  2. Not sure how I missed that. Only goes to show I need more coffee (and less ignorance) I like to think this one is a bit more specific. Much of the discussion right now is career vs sandbox balance, since the parts in career could be balanced by their cost. The same isn't true for sandbox. However, balancing for both is a more difficult task.
  3. I don't think that's what I said. This is more to get an idea of what people want, in one place instead of 30-something pages.
  4. So far, there have been several threads discussing the performance of the new parts. It is obvious there is a chunk of the community that is displeased with how the new parts perform compared to the older parts. I figured its time to get some data on what the community thinks. If you want to post your opinion, do so in a constructive way. By balance, I mean balancing the parts against other parts, not any real life analogues. For sandbox, the balancing would mean only balancing the new parts to fit to a general curve of performance of the existing parts. For career, the balance would include the budgetary value and performance. Since money isn't yet implemented, this would require reevaluation once money is introduced. Balancing for both modes would be something in the realm of a mixture of the above two options. Feel free to explain how the blend should work. (Ex: Higher cost, slightly less efficient or Exorbitant cost, no change in efficiency) I realize this may not the best way to word the poll.
  5. KerbMav: I honestly don't think these are all the 3.75m parts that will be in the game. Just because they were first introduced in this update doesn't mean that is all we'll get. Yeah, they are pretty powerful in sandbox right now. That is a fact. I'm still on the fence if any drastic changes should be made. I'm not sure who that last part is directed at EDIT: looking back, it wouldn't be unrealistic to think there won't be any more, or many, size 3 parts added.
  6. That makes sense, I didn't quite think that first part through. The stats do seem a bit godly, but I still maintain that if content for these size 3 parts was made, much of the "OP-ness" could go away. As it sits right now, they overshadow the other parts in the role as a lifter. Really, the only reason to use the other parts is for a challenge or desire to not over-engineer. I'm not using Alpha as a scapegoat, but it might be Squad has stuff lined up to utilize this increased capability. If not, a minor rebalance of the new parts would not go amiss. Side note: I'm sure people would object to stupidly powerful parts. Parts that powerful would just be, well, stupid. However, the sls parts are nowhere near that level of performance.
  7. I'm not sure how something can be OP in a gamemode that has no goal. It is a mode to do whatever you want, including not using the SLS parts. However, I do understand that they very much simplify launchers. I wouldn't be surprised if Squad did nerf the parts, but I imagine it won't be by a lot. I think the main issue behind why the SLS parts are considered OP is that, while they can carry huge payloads, we just don't have that much stuff to put on top. Yes, we could split an interplanetary rocket into 2 parts, instead of 3 or 4, to be assembled is space, but that isn't enough of an increase in weight to justify the sls performance. If new content, 2 or3.75m science lab and materials bay or other parts, with an increase in mass proportional to the SLS parts' increase in performance, this issue could be remedied. Basically, we don't have heavy enough content for the SLS parts.
  8. I'm not sure why everyone is complaining. Personally, I'm, reserving judgment until a budget is implemented. If the SLS parts are too cheap/OP, then I will engage in negative discourse. Until then, I will enjoy building rockets that actually look like rockets, thanks to the SLS parts.
  9. Just going to pipe in and say that is how a plane is supposed to land in a crosswind. Getting the upwind gear on the ground first, then worrying about the others. This minimizes the chances of getting flipped by a gust of wind. Granted, this was a hard landing. It just goes to show the skill of the pilots .
  10. KSP has community-made mods integrated into vanilla... For me, to be able to trade with another player established base/settlement would be cool.
  11. This update works perfectly for me. I'm also loving the fact you can climb to the top of the VAB! I have also been to the Mun and Duna, and the terrain changes are refreshing. Its nice to have stuff to look at.
  12. Welcome! I suppose X Planer fans are welcome
  13. Thanks for this guide. It is very helpful, but now I want some pizza.
  14. Congrats on getting this started! The layout is awesome and I'm looking forward to seeing its development.