Jump to content

regex

Members
  • Posts

    9,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by regex

  1. Daily update schedule incoming...
  2. That's a good point, the time may vary based on what they're working on. Regardless, I'd still bank on 6 months between updates and letting yourself be pleasantly surprised when and if they exceed that.
  3. Personally I'd bank on six months between updates and even that may be too quick. If they're expecting to receive input from the playerbase while development is happening then a six month cadence would at least allow some room to adapt compared to a shorter schedule.
  4. You know he's a sound geek because he's recording random equipment failure noises in the office; never miss an opportunity. That's a sign that the game is in good hands.
  5. I haven't played KSP1 at all for several years now. Well, except for the recent science mode playthrough I did to refresh my memory of the game, maybe twenty hours. I've put, I don't know, probably over two thousand hours into playing and modding KSP1, and I'm quite frankly burnt out on it. That's one of the reasons I'm not buying into the early access right now, there's nothing to really excite me about the gameplay. Sure it's pretty, it's optimized, we get new UI, but how different is it actually going to be from playing KSP1? In a few updates it may be worth my time but not now.
  6. So inspirational! Yeah, I will do me, there's nothing new here for me to get excited about. Maybe a few updates down the line, but not now.
  7. Oh I have. They're incredibly light on details. Which is fine, that's their choice. I just don't really see anything here to get excited about.
  8. No indication of procedural tanks and for now it looks like a graphics/optimization pass on KSP1. Big disappointment here. I think I'm going to have to wait for future updates before I commit to buying this, especially with progression mechanics unknown.
  9. System Shock would like a word with you...
  10. We already have Duna, which mimics our own iconic "red planet", not sure why red is so special here...
  11. They're going to sit in their external seats with a big ol' grin on their face for hundreds of years, just like how they'd do if you left them in Eeloo orbit and forgot about them.
  12. You have a really poor opinion of people who can figure out procedural wings, how to apply custom colors to their craft, and how to change the look of their engines. vOv
  13. Gimme a 1.25m to a point segment, a 1.25m to 2.5m segment, and a 2.5m cylinder, all of my own specified length, and I can make R-7 boosters (and so, so, so much more). If KSP2 can't deliver that I'll have to turn to mods, which really sucks because this should be a relatively easy ask.
  14. The Soyuz parts in Making History aren't very good, the booster tanks are shaped wrong (and for that matter, can't really scale up). KSP's lack of procedural tank shapes means it's really only good at making tube-shaped rockets unless you get crazy with clipping and part counts, and are satisfied with craft that look like they've been heavily part clipped. Procedural tank shapes would be a godsend. For engines IMO a good compromise might be a RD-170 family-alike, with the 170, 180, and 191. You can use the 191 to make a Proton. Also the RD-107/108 (just get them from Making History, but make them look less bland) and an RD-0110 upper stage engine (all the Soyuz main engines having four combustion chambers is kind of iconic). Not sure if we really need an S5.92 for a Fregat-style space engine, we've already got some nice smaller engines for that. That would handle probably the most common stuff. More hotstage decouplers for all sizes would be nice, especially if they support actual hotstaging and we get to see the exhaust exiting the sides. Note that this also helps if someone wants to make a Titan.
  15. You test things in a lab and controlled conditions, not in-flight under ridiculous constraints. And quite frankly I never cared about how "kerbal" something was, that's a useless metric IMO.
  16. Really? I always thought it was something more ... I don't know, realistic than literal rocket fuel. Is the density of that liquid actually stated in-game? Also, you do realize that "keralox" is a portmanteau of kerosene and liquid oxygen, right? Are the seas just a weird mix of both? That would imply that Eve has a temperature cold enough to liquefy oxygen. Liquid methane and liquid oxygen, both in cryogenic conditions? Seems to me that the oceans of Eve weren't ever rocket fuel.
  17. I don't particularly care whether people disagree on the tests, that's tangential to the thrust of my comment (although tests are pretty stupid to begin with).
  18. Uh, no, it's just dealing with lower framerates and janky physics. That's not "difficult", it's stupid. E: and if you want to get pedantic about it OP uses "difficulty" to imply "challenge" (like most people asking for "difficulty"). I stand by my answer.
  19. Because that's not really "difficulty", it's just an exercise in fighting part counts as you need more delta-V.
  20. I'd be for mission-capable fuel switching but only if the type of tank is specifically "any" and pays a (heavy) mass penalty for versatility. Any other tank switching should only be allowed in the VAB. That is, you specify the type of fuel in the tank at the time of building.
  21. Pluto was discovered in 1930, well before we were launching rockets at other planets. I'm all for using telescopes for gathering science or scanning planets to get (actionable) information on them but discovering planets? In other solar systems, sure. However, this is Kerbal Space Program and IMO there should be nothing stopping you from launching a crewed mission to another planet, and using the good ol' Mk1 Eyeball to figure out where to land without having to go through all the rigmarole of progression if you're confident enough. I think, ultimately, to balance probes vs. crewed missions we really need some sort of life support system if we retain the (blatantly ridiculous) penalty on transmitting science results in order to incentivize crewed missions. OTOH, we're getting all sorts of other incentives to send Kerbals places in the new game so maybe we won't need dumb penalties anymore.
  22. Please no, it doesn't look good and it obscures the craft while I'm considering what part to add. If anything, allow the player to configure which side of the screen the picker is on; I prefer right because I am right-handed.
  23. Why would "hydrazine" be more confusing to new players than "monopropellant"? Fuel gets used by engines, engines state what fuel they use under this new paradigm, which is awesome and simple.
  24. That wasn't criticism, I was expanding on what you had written. Also, IIRC, the US has never reached the same sophistication as the Soviets did with kerolox, they were hugely surprised by the NK-33 and -43, and likely the RD-180 as well. And on the methane debate in this thread? I think it's kind of silly, personally. I'm glad they put a name to liquid fuel and I agree with the devs on all their reasons for choosing methane. KSP isn't recreating Earth's history and there's no reason Kerbals can't take a different technological path than we did. It's a real shame they're portrayed as bumbling idiots because they exhibit some excellent technical sophistication. Are we getting a real name for monopropellant as well?
×
×
  • Create New...