• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About MKI

  • Rank
    Mission Officer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. its pretty early to tell. So early for me I still need to get home and download the update. I do know the last 64-bit version wasn't stable due to Unity4 issues. Since we are at Unity5 Id ASSUME things would be inherently more stable. How much more I can't say.
  2. Theres a huge hole when it comes to "alternate propulsion" systems in this game. Theres chemical and xenon, thats it. Not only is that boring but it leaves xenon with very few part options. I like the idea of more solar panels, we are getting a few extra parts with the next update (Asteroid day integration brings flat big panels) and more ion or alternative option engines.
  3. But what defines a success, failure, mission, or objective. Yea you can get to orbit, but what if Jeb EXPLODES upon re-entry? What if that was YOUR GOAL. The game currently wont judge your failure (Or evil success) it just gives you data upon return. The headlines would obviously pick the death of a Kerbal, but what if you don't care? They are expendable to you, all your headlines would be terrible and basically become spam to a very sadistic player. I also don't see how this "news headline" would become any better than a boring standard screen. It still gives you the jist of what you literally just did, but with a generic news twist to it. I'd like more hard data to review my flight than visual flaunt.
  4. I like the idea of changing the name of crafts and the type from the map view. Image opening every file in a text editor JUST to change the name, same idea and same inconveience ESPECIALLY if your "doc" is thousands of lines of code that needs to be loaded just to change its name. Couldn't this be a mod or a set of options inside of the game files? I use a lot of software that is configurable through text files or in-game settings. A lot of them require software restarts. I can imagine Squad could allow us to change the color of the UI in some aspects, but making a GUI that updates the UI in real-time sounds like an unreal fantasy, especially for complex in-game rendering.(which is currently still getting the Unity 5 treatment)
  5. Isn't allowing the player the option to land anywhere and "cheap" cash return kind of beating the point? I could technically land my SLS first stage on land half way around the world and use this system. Yea I'd need to save a little fuel to get back, or a lot if you want to make things complicated and force me to save "enough" fuel to "logically" make it back to the KSC, but if that saves thousands of cold hard cash for almost 0 work then why not? I always thought the penalty to recovery was the recovery of those objects. As far as I know Kerbals are cheap, they will re-use parts until they explode, things are reliable enough they will work forever if treated correctly. Id also ask what do you define as "The area" to recover all from, since the game will already auto-recover everything on the launchpad and the runway Id assume you mean elsewhere across the world, which means defining a whole new set of tools to deal with what is basically wrecks haha. I just don't see much of a difference between "recovery teams" and our current system. There are already strategies that can assist in recovery options to make more gameplans viable. I'm also an advocate for just adding more runways/launchpads which are already somewhat in the game. This would allow the landing of other-side SSTOs within reason, and open the door to more sophisticated launches from different places around the world.
  6. I have that feeling too. Personally the Electrical system in game right now is pretty basic. Batteries and Fuel Cells are both very different than how they work in real life. I like the idea of getting more use out of the Fuel Cells since currently they are very basic input-output systems which is nice and simple but not very practical or realistic. I am always a proponent of changing the electrical systems to be more logical, even if that makes things a little more complicated logic wise, but hopefully not part wise. I dislike the idea of having extra tanks just to make this system work.
  7. I doubt the current engine would support caves where the "ground" curves to be basically on top of each other. Aren't rovers already useful for Specialized contracts where you need to gather information in a small area all on land? They don't need to come back, don't need to fly, and need to move. So Kerbals, planes/rockets and landers are out of the question.
  8. Probes are going to get "nerfed" next patch once they add Remote control and what not. Lose your connection to your probe and your mission will fail. So using probes would be good for close range missions, but further out requires more planning. Defiantly enough to make Pilots better. As said above currently Engineers are the least useful. They are needed into endgame, but only are needed if you screw up. Nothing a little quick load wont fix most of the time. KAS or other similar mod would make them the most interesting IMO, but only if you need their skills for the mission at hand. Scientists pretty much print money late game. They get you extra science through their abilities and late game when the tree is done that science can be transferred to cold hard cash. So really Scientists I find are the most useful during the tech tree, and are still the "cargo" of most of my manned launches. Even into end game, where I just really care about cash. So their usefulness is really based more on the difficulty setting into late game. So KAS integration makes Engineers useful even if nothing is broken, the new patch will nerf probes and thus make Pilots a good choice for important missions, and Scientists' usefulness is based entirely on if you need money or not.
  9. Why stop at just the KSC2, Why not just add a bunch of other "space ports" that can be bought in the game? Landing strips, and launch pads would make things far more interesting.
  10. Yea this sort of change isn't actually very hard to add. I also believe 1.1 should bring this change, or at least set the groundwork for more changes like this.
  11. What prevents using other parts to build your floor? Adding in this change as said above would screw up 2.5m parts in space shuttle configs or other things.
  12. HAHA YES! XD I wanted to wait for a sale when I played the demo... found myself buying the game the next day XD Isn't the demo still like version .26? The lack of better landing legs is hardly the only thing the demo needs in that case. EDIT: Apparently there is another newer demo out, does anyone know the version?
  13. What about using it at Laythe and as far as I know Eve/Jool doesn't actually have oxygen in its atmosphere and jets don't work.(last I checked, things could of changed) Or does this concept just us gases in general? (Didn't get much out of the wiki) You could throw the Nuclear Engine using magical liquid fuel and I can say nothing tho haha.
  14. The volume thing is an OK suggestion, no problems to that. I have other problems with the default level of volume anyways, but assuming thats fixed a master column should be available. But the last date played wouldn't even help most players since Steam keeps track of that anyways. I can't think of many games that have this feature, cuse its kind of a throw away thing that is kind of "big brother like". Especially for a single player game.
  15. There are two main decisions I feel keep things from changing. At least for now, as implementing a lot of these changes well requires time. 1. Never thought about it, Can always delete, create a new one and change it that way. But thats just a hack. Rightclick Menu to edit the descriptions? Not a killer game breaking thing, but defiantly something that should be changeable. 2. Unity 5 GUI update Ill be using this "excuse" a few times simply because it brings a whole new GUI. Which hopefully fixes long standing bugs. 3. Deliberate design decision throwing trees in around the KSC would make rockets have to fight for GPU and CPU time because theres a bunch of trees lying around for looks. Maybe the birds are just on the KSC chilling? Theres no wildlife in this game, I thought the bird noises were just to make it so I don't hear nothing. 4. Add this in, Ive found it annoying when your on SAS or having your ship controller (Kerbal or Probe) aim at a direction and it seems like they are REALLY twitchy. 5. I assume deliberate design decision Small engines kicking up dirt is meh compared to big rockets making plumes. CPU/GPU time can be spent elsewhere instead of trying to impress me with some flying dirt. 6. Upcoming changes to Rocket parts to make them fit with the new SP parts I remember reading that they will be working on the texture/models of the rocket parts to make them look better. 7. Probably will be changed in time. They have been working on the jets latly, but I feel they will be working on particle effects once the migration to Unity 5 is complete. 8. Nuclear is unknown technology lol..... Same as above, everyone is on GUI, Unity 5 will probably change a few things. 9. Can't you already do this? I've always been promoting that the whole GUI to choosing crafts needs updating. Need labeled folders and searches, since its such a key feature of the game. I could of swore that it creates its own version automatically once you load the craft in the other building.