simonh

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Excellent

About simonh

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The original KER hasn't been updated since May last year, but there's a fork that's being actively maintained and has 1.4.x compatibility here: https://github.com/jrbudda/KerbalEngineer/releases The talented, heroic, ever popular developer jrbudda is active on this thread. Simon Hibbs
  2. This is a really nice idea. How would it work though? You'd need to be able to specify the destination on transmitting science. * How would valid destinations be registered or discovered? They would have to both be able to store science, and also be reachable from the current vessel through the comms network. Does the comms system API provide the information that would be needed? * Would all possible reachable stores of science be selectable? That could be a lot. If not all, how should the system choose which ones to present as options? One way to do this would be to provide a new science transceiver part that can receive transmitted science. Then when you transmit science if no such transceiver is reachable it just goes 'home'. If one or more are reachable then a dialog pops up with buttons for 'Home' and the names of each reachable vessel with a transceiver (or 'MyVessel Transceiver 1; MyVessel Transceiver 2', etc if more than one transciever). The science goes to the transceiver part, then you switch to the vessel and transfer it to the science lab or whatever. Its not necessarily trivial. BTW you should really use a more descriptive subject line. Even just 'Science transmission mod suggestion' would have been a thousand percent more useful. Simon Hibbs
  3. I think DLC that simply extends the existing game as it's played by most players is weak sauce. Mods and refinements of the core game fulfil that role already. I do think many of the things currently provided by mods should be added to the core game, such as more parts, joints, visual enhancements etc because that way they will be fully supported and updated along with the rest of the game. That's not enough to justify paying for it though. Most of the ideas suggested so far are just tweaks to existing gameplay. That's not enough to justify a further price tag. IMHO paid DLC should be reserved for things that fundamentally change the game experience and enable new ways to play. DLC should provide entirely new, extensive game play modes along with parts and game mechanics to go with it. E.g. A whole scad of new/alternate planetary systems, maybe customisable or randomised, which provide new kinds of challenges and parts or gameplay modes to accompany them. Maybe Interstellar travel along with the above, with resource harvesting to manufacture parts and ability to construct VAB like assembly sites in a new system or take one there. Whole-game riskins such as a thorough going steampunk redesign of everything, far beyond just re-skinnng of the standard parts. These should include entirely new parts sets from scratch, plus new themed planetary systems. Steampunk is obvious, with Victorian space-romance takes on the planetary system. Another might be an all robot alternate reality game where you are an AI and design and build your own robo kerbals with their own parts and tech tree as well as a new themed rocket parts set. Its got to be dramatc. The downisde risk of this sort of thing though is that major gameplay changing DLCs will each only appeal to subsets of the player base. It's quite likely they will stick closely to the core game to stay appealing to a broad audience, but that sort of conservatism will constrain the possibilities quite a lot. tye upcoming expansion is at the conservative end. It does offer new gameplay and mechanics. So it does pass that test for me, but only just. Even so I wish them well, it's a worthy project. For further expansions I'd like to see more ambition and therefore value. Simon Hibbs
  4. I don't understand the logic of tying this app to a purchase of KSP. Why would Squad want to do that? If they made the app free to owners of KSP then letting anyone use it could be useful advertising without sacrificing any revenue. Personally I think such an app would be a more viable project if it was sold separately. That way it wouldn't draw development funding and resources away from work on the main game. But if it's going to be free, what's the point of an unlock code? What's it there to prevent, that would harm Squad or KSP? Simon Hibbs
  5. The idea of a Goldilocks Zone is of limited use, we've learned a huge amount since the idea became popular. Back then we didn't know about the biomes supported by ocean floor volcanic vents, or radiation resistant bacteria, or many if the other extremophiles that live in environments on Earth previously considered completely inimical to life. The core idea that an earth like world requires liquid water and that the 'habitable zone' is the best place to find it in an arbitrary planetary system is sound, but it's not the whole story anymore by a long way. Since then we've discovered a liquid ocean on Europa, geysers indicating pockets of liquid water on Ganymede and a few other possible hideouts for life far outside our solar system's 'habitable zone'. if your looking for the most likely planets to support Earth like planets and technological civilization the Goldilocks Zone is still a useful rule of thumb, but we've found so many exceptions to the rule in our own solar system that it's no longer the prescriptive limit for life it was once thought to be. On that score it's really not very useful anymore. Simon Hibbs
  6. There's no way to do that on the iPad, maybe on Android. They could make it free I suppose, after all it would be no use without KSP but might get people interested in flying the things they create. I wouldn't mind paying for it though. It's not for me to tell Squad or anyone else what they should or should not do for free. Simon
  7. Full on KSP for the iPad would be fantastic, as long as it could avoid the stability issues with the console ports, but I'd like to suggest a more limited and perhaps intermediate project. Flying actual missions requires a variety of precise control inputs, I prefer FPS games on a computer because I find the imprecision of console controllers too frustrating. I'm concerned that on an iPad I'd find controlling KSP equally frustrating. I would greatly appreciate extending some of the KSP experience to on-the-go play. In particular I think an app implementing the VAB and Spaceplane Hanger would be a huge benefit. Since vehicle construction is not time critical, the control situation should be manageable. As long as input is precise enough, having to toggle input modes shouldn't be an issue. I'd love to be able to work out designs forlaunchers, Duna landers and rovers on the train and try them out when I get home, making maximum use of the limited time I do have to play at home. My concern is just how much of a market there would be for something like that. But personally I'd drop £10 on it in a heartbeat. Simon Hibbs
  8. Agreed, stock KSP is very close to becoming the ideal version of itself. Simon Hibbs
  9. It'll be difficult to fly without a Pilot (maybe add a probe core?), but you only need one Engineer. Pick your most experienced one, they give a multiplier on the production rate. Simon Hibbs
  10. The moment when you realize the reason you can't dock to to that Clamp-O-Tron Sr on the space station, and keep bouncing off, is because the docking port is attached the wrong way round. Simon Hibbs
  11. Come on, this is a great video and not everyone knows about Scott. New players get into KSP all the time. Plus of course KSP has marginal physics issues, it's just a game. In many cases they're not even bugs, just pragmatic compromises such as SOI instead of n-body physics. Let's celebrate the game for what it is and encourage Squad to make it a better example of that thing - a game - rather than complain about things just because we can complain about them. Simon Hibbs
  12. I haven't been to Minmus for ages as I got bored with it. It's just too easy - no real challenge. The last few career/science mode games I've played I ignored Minmus completely. Simon Hibbs
  13. Is there actually a way to assemble things outside the VAB in stock? I suppose you could use the claw to attach things, or use a ring of landing legs as 'grabbers'. Simon Hibbs
  14. Visual Enhancements.. That's it. I'm serious. I routinely install KER and Kerbal Alarm Clock, but I'm quite happy to leave those sorts of functions as mods. Maybe add them in if the alarm clock got a major feature trim, but that's really it. The core game is about done IMHO. At this point I'm much more interested in what Squad might come up with for an expansion pack that adds major new game play elements and objectives. But such a thing would have to be pretty epic - more than could be achieved by any mod. I'm not sure what that would look like. Simon Hibbs
  15. KAC does look a bit cluttered, but I've not had any stability issues (I'm on 1.2) and it's done everything I wanted it to do very well. It's usually the second mod I install, right after KER. In fact those two are the only mods I really consider indispensable. Any others are just nice to have. Simon Hibbs