Holo
-
Posts
980 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Holo
-
-
2 hours ago, tater said:
Jool is slightly smaller than Earth. Just throwing that in as a reality check.
A second reality check will reveal that the Kerbal system isn't real, and in fact acts exactly like it would if it were ten times larger in every way except the motion of the point masses.
-
Whenever the game updates, I have to install a bunch of mods just for it to be playable.
-
On 10/07/2016 at 6:20 PM, Firemetal said:
Dude KSP ain't real life. Laythe is Laythe, Jool's moon, Not Io, Jupiter's moon.
That same reasoning could be used to avoid ever altering the solar system. Kerbin didn't need a Mun because it's Kerbin, not Earth. The Kerbal system doesn't need Eve, Moho, Duna, or Jool because it's the Sun [kerbal], not the Sun [sol].
-
36 minutes ago, nikokespprfan said:
I thought I heard somewhere that gas giants do not become much larger when they become heavier, it is all gas, so the higher mass just compresses everything more, until fusion starts happening.
I'm using "bigger" as a synonym for "more massive", because in orbital dynamics where everything is approximately a point mass only mass actually matters.
-
I'd like terraforming, but before we could even think of that we'd need massive orbital infrastructure construction to be implemented, too.
Which sounds awesome. Let's terraform the whole Kerbal system!
-
On 11/07/2016 at 1:33 PM, adsii1970 said:
No, that is not at all what I am advocating. There's nothing beyond the scope of possibility that says we could not have a brown dwarf in orbit of a gas giant in the Kerbin system. It is in the realm of real physics possibilities AND could fit within KSP, even if you decided to make it a "moon" of Jool and at a reduced size.
I think brown dwarves really need to be bigger than gas giants for them to even register as brown dwarves, rather than just rogue planets.
Though that gives me a really cool idea - what about a gas giant orbiting a brown dwarf, at some very far distance from the Sun? It'd be really cool (it's a gas giant! but also a moon!), fit established physics, and add to the game since it works as a difficult endgame destination for crazy youtubers.
-
Jool needs a vast number of minor moons, like Jupiter. Possibly even procedurally generated. It'd be fun to get a Kerbal in an ion chair and hop between them.
-
You know those poetic descriptions of Pluto where you hear about it being really cold and that the Sun just looks like another star in the sky? Something like that in Kerbal Space Program would be great.
And the rest of the gas giants, because just having Jupiter is no fun for anyone. There aren't even any rings, which are like the best part of the solar system! No pleasant-looking blue orbs to hover ominously above retrograde moons!
-
Definitely. I want my screenshots from orbit to look like photos from orbit.
-
11 hours ago, adsii1970 said:
But...wait...remember this is the Kerbin universe where real world physics do have some leeway. If we can have all kinds of parts and craft that breaks the bounds of physics, putting a small brown dwarf in the Kerbol system should surely be possible...
And while we're at it, let's add square orbits, infinite fuel and a moon made of cheese. After all, physics doesn't apply.
-
Yes, definitely. I barely play KSP any more because it's incredibly frustrating to do anything beyond going to orbit without having access to delta-v readings. Being completely in the dark to the capabilities of a rocket isn't fun.
-
Very large space station and base modules. Possibly assembled or manufactured in-situ, though that would require new mechanics.
-
More places to visit = more good. I'm for this.
-
On 08/03/2016 at 2:23 PM, Hannu2 said:
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to fit any sane life support to SQUADs numberless philosophy. You can put 12 km/s dv into a ship and eyeball trajectories and avoid thinking math or physics. But you can not estimate duration of such trips. It may be anything from a year to ten years. Or more including rescue missions. Life support must be practically free and therefore futile or some kind of half baked joke where lack of resources shows only some funny message box instead of killing kerbals and ruining mission completely.
So it may be better than life support stays as a mod. Now there are several different mods from cartoony jokes to severe micromanagement drills for nerds.
Alternately, it could be made easier to judge the duration of said trips by adding new UI elements in the tracking station such as proper mission planning and porkchop plots. ETAs are already displayed during normal missing planning in-flight.
If the player doesn't know something, the solution is to tell that player that - not keeping everything dependant on that information out of the game. It would be like failing to implement the Mun in the days of old because it's hard to visit without using the map, and then refusing to add the map because of a concern thought that players are too dumb to use more than one type of screen in-flight.
-
DLC would be a good solution to this without requiring one to pay for the same content again.
-
18 hours ago, sal_vager said:
Well if you would like random failures there's some rather good mods you might be interested in
But I don't want random failures. I want a reason to not use experimental parts in ordinary rockets that isn't arbitrary or contrived.
-
1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:
And when you raise it enough you have none? I understand where you're coming from with this statement but technically you're incorrect.
What you're talking about are landmasses, not continents. Continents are determined by tectonic plates. And tectonic plates won't disappear when you raise or lower the water level.Continents aren't defined by tectonic plates. That would have Siberia be part of North America, a large "continent" that's wholly water in the Pacific, Eurasia all being one thing but India and Arabia being their own separate continents, etc. You might be fine with that, but very few people use continent in a way that means that.
-
[quote name='Astrofox']Changed my sig ahead of time...[/QUOTE]
Don't lose hope! Join the resistance! -
[quote name='Commander Zoom']If past evidence/incidents were not enough, several recent posts of people freaking out because OMG a piece of their LIFE is going away!!! indicates that yes, some people [i]do[/i] and [i]have[/i] over-invest(ed) in these activities. One well-known rocket builder has said that he doesn't view this as "pretend" - he's been fully immersed in the [b]role[/b] that he was [b]playing[/b], for a few hours a week over several years.[/QUOTE]
Well we better get rid of the whole game of KSP then, because I bet you a lot that people would start freaking out [I]a lot[/I] if they found that Squad announced that updates were going to stop, or (though there might not be any people left around at the end of it :P) if everyone found KSP gone and replaced with a refund.
And, well, it's not really pretend. He was playing a few hours a week over several years. That's a lot of real hours, so he probably got quite good at it, and spent a lot of time at it. If you flipped Gary Kasparov's chess table, he'd get pretty annoyed at you, even if you kept insisting that it was just a game and that chess didn't really matter.
(Different example, since Gary gets paid for it: the guy we're talking about has probably invested more time in rocket builders than I have on the novel I'm doing for NaNoWriMo. If you tampered with [FONT=Book Antiqua]the Neat 9[/FONT], I could get away with anything if I could assemble a jury of NaNoers, even though I'm doing it totally for fun with no intent of ever publishing.) -
[quote name='Foxster']Really? 37 pages discussing a forum migration?[/QUOTE]
A forum migration.
And a subforum removal.
And an opportunity to change features in the forum without being too disruptive.
So yeah, really. Why would you expect anything different? -
[quote name='ezequielandrush']I am a sysadmin and I support the idea of migrating. I understand the difficulties of having old software and keep it running smoothly. The security issues are really a concern. Sometimes it's a headache just keep things working in a world where the only constant is change. Everything needs to change and everything will change eventually. So embrace it. Fight it just make the thing worse.[/QUOTE]
I'd be fine with this, if all they were doing was moving to new software. But they're not doing that - they're removing the Rocket Builders subforum (for reasons I disagree with) and blogs (for reasons I don't know). -
I'm just glad that you're holding roleplaying away from we plebeians. We are all too foolish to handle the responsibility that comes with it, so it's fortunate that you're able to step in and intervene before any of us idiots get hurt.
After all, it would be awful if people were to play games on a game forum. We might start mistaking fiction from reality if we were to indulge in even the slightest interaction with it. It's why I also prefer not to play Kerbal Space Program - I simply can't trust myself to avoid believing that I am a green man living on Kerbin, and I believe many others like me feel the same way. -
What is the difference between that and what we have now? If you aren't actually doing anything, why add anything at all?
That's like asking why we have building upgrades, when fully-upgraded buildings do the same thing as buildings used to anyway.
The key areas that life support will change are medium-duration missions; typically interplanetary flights. There, a lot will change - spaceships will need to consider the life support and space requirements of the Kerbals, avoiding the ridiculous case right now where you can send a Kerbal to Eeloo on a command chair.
-
You know what is also a great challenge of space exploration? Leaving Earth. I guess we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals past the Mun in KSP either, huh? Oh wait, I almost forgot, it's a game. I'm sorry but trying to draw parallels like that is a fallacy. There is a balancing point between simulator and game, Squad has made that balancing point clear. They have said again and again they do not want to add life support.
No, we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals beyond the Mun...
...without the life support systems that would make it possible.
adding multiplayer
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Not really. But the person who only wanted realtime was talking about planes only. You're not going to get to Eeloo in an atmospheric plane flying around the KSC ever.