Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


557 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Grumpy Tech

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Delayed a couple more times, released buggy and unfinished, probably. If we're lucky.
  2. I'd say there may be a plausible reason to block KSP1 mods which could make it look or play similarly to (or better than) KSP2.
  3. From the top of my head, RDR had this issue. I'm sure any "enhancement" mod of an old title will have the same problem when there's an upcoming rerelease. We're talking about a company which in the past sent thugs to a youtuber's home over some stupid twitch thumbnails, a company which just recently attacked "It Takes Two" developers over the name trademark, because obviously it's a reference to "take two interactive" and not to "it takes two to tango". /s The only saving grace for KSP is that it's a relatively small, niche product. If it ever turns into a cash cow, the same will happen to it as well.
  4. No, that's just for rendering. He's talking about positional precision there, so I'm guessing it's basically SOI reimplementation. Probably splitting interstellar space into more manageable chunks, not even necessarily spherical.
  5. Ok, that's more helpful, thanks. Nothing specific, but singular "scene graph" kinda does imply seamlessness. No idea about implementation though, especially the "spatial" part of it.
  6. "Playable area" is so vague of a term that it may mean anything. Even if "seamless" was implied (and afaik it never was), it could mean additional planets in the original system. It definitely could just mean additional system(s), but not necessarily as a single continuous area. It _could_ mean empty interstellar space, but it doesn't have to, especially when it would present almost no meaningful gameplay and a whole lot of potential issues. Hence the question. Without speculation or wishful thinking, what did devs actually say (if they ever did)?
  7. It kinda depends on distances and planned level of realism, isn't it? That famous Douglas Adams's quote is right on the money, and unless developers are planning to go into Star Trek space magic territory, it's kind of a problem. Wait times, required time warp levels (which may break local orbits), required precision (you may correct your course by 0.1 m/s in current KSP and miss the rendevouz if you're far enough, imagine the same at distances thousands of times farther away)... So I can easily imagine interstellar travel being implemented kinda like this: you build a ship which the game considers sufficient for interstellar travel, you launch it and point it at predefined point and you press a button. That's it, the game simply assumes you will hit your destination, stores the vessel and tells you it's "in transit, ETA x years". When it "arrives", the game informs you about it, and if you switch to a vessel in another system, you get a loading screen. To each system - its own map. So unless developers explicitly stated that there will be controlled interstellar travel, I'm not holding my breath. And if they did, I'd certainly like to know more about implementation details.
  8. Did developers ever actually state that there will be actual transit between systems? For all we know, it may end up being implemented as a "warp speed" loading screen with a He-Man theme playing in the background.
  9. It depends on whether memory supply issues are going to be fixed or not in time for release. PS4 may still be a more prevalent platform than PS5 this time next year for all we know.
  10. Ah, my mistake. Icarus and Daedalus were descendants of what I meant. I was talking about this idiocy.
  11. Micro- or macrotransactions of any sort. Exclusivity. Denuvo or any other always-online or virtualization-based DRM. Especially if Linux version isn't in the plans for day 1. Windows-specific hacks and quirks in the code - for the same reason. Stupid Unity wheel implementation: torque drop should be replaced with constant torque (and consumption) and increasing resistance. Icarus crap - it's idiotic in principle and has no place in Kerbal universe thematically.
  12. Long time ago, when dinosaurs were still roaming Earth and KSP was in Early Access, there were interesting examples of explanations for problems and solutions for core stuff. "Here's how we sphere the cube", "here's how we approximate trajectories", "here's how we're dealing with precision errors" and so on. War stories about beating various Krakens would be way more interesting than what they're showing now. Even if some Kraken hasn't been defeated yet, formulating the issue in written form may actually help developers themselves.
  13. It's kinda weird that developers are posting pretty pictures if what they're busy with is "creating a foundation". This message (and the delay itself) tells me that the core isn't in place, and yet somebody wastes their time on kerbal mood ring. Also, I would advise against using "never been done before" argument, for obvious reason. Oh well, at least it's not crowdfunded, so let's hope for the best.
  14. Not in this case. Big fish sets the price, and you either like it or get nothing and kiss your business goodbye. When the hell did you change your name? It's weird. Change it back. /jk
  • Create New...