• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,491 Excellent


About The_Rocketeer

  • Rank
    Rocketpack Superhero

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Too old, thank God.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,069 profile views
  1. The_Rocketeer


    Wow, this is a blast from the past! Amazing job! What version of KSP is this in?
  2. The_Rocketeer

    Prioritizing Bugs in the Bugtracker

    I mean, you're right... but that's why the bug tracker was set up like 3 or 4 years ago. The fact that it has taken this long to get to a point where they are making noises about actually using it themselves is simply a massively unappreciative and incompetent slap in the face to the people who have actually been doing their work for them by using it. Nobody ever expected Squad to trawl through the forum for bug-related issues, but bug-hunting and especially bug-squashing are kinda basic requirements of being software developers. Even with a helluva lot of user help - 1300 unique bugs! - they just really haven't bothered.
  3. The_Rocketeer

    Prioritizing Bugs in the Bugtracker

    This bothered me enough that I had to reset my password to say something - new computer, infrequent login etc. So my takeaway from this announcement (and Vanamonde's support of it) goes something like this: Squad now aim to prioritise bugfixing on the basis of a popularity contest for a minority of extremely highly motivated players who are also aware of this thread, plus a tiny number who already habitually visit the bugtracker and have figured out the upvote/downvote thing on their own. Someone please draw me a venn-diagram of exactly how marginal that group will be. I draw two conclusions from this: a) it won't matter how severe a bug is just so long as it's (un?)popular, because the dev team don't have any vision for or sense of their product's functional identity b) despite the playerbase doing all the hard work of identify, reporting, cataloging bugs and even making fix or workaround mods for years almost nothing has been done with this info, and now that they're finally thinking about it they want more of our collective unpaid labour to work out where to start. So uncool .
  4. The_Rocketeer

    Propellers Please?

    If it's motive technology and I can build it, I want it in the game. I'd love a real transmission system that you could stick a wheel or a drill bit or a propellor or a rotor on the end of. I have made these in stock, the only disappointment is the outrageous size and mass of the things, which really is the biggest thing that currently makes them useless for putting on top of a rocket and sending... well, anywhere.
  5. @Snark I think you're both missing and making the point. Increasing TWR with 5 boosters instead of 4 is pointless if you no longer have enough dV to reach mission destination due to added dry mass, but if it doesn't it's clearly benefit. Designing peak performance depends on knowing how your TWR/dV balance looks, and the only most user-friendly way to know that from the editor is with a dV readout.
  6. The_Rocketeer

    Next DLC; Planetary Exploration?

    Hi @StarStreak2109, I invite you to read my later post where I discussed what constitutes 'improvement', it really speaks directly to everything you just said about my earlier post. I really don't think immersion is lacking in KSP, and using immersion as a justification for polish is both irrational and unnecessary. In my opinion, everything that's been added that steers into space administration and away from space exploration has been a mis-step. At its purest and best, KSP is a really good caricature of a realistic physics sim, that makes learning about physics, aerodynamics and space travel, fun. Science desperately needs an overhaul, but what it really needs is an overhaul that makes it educational and fun. Likewise for planets. Currently science and planets suffer from the same problem - they're soulless props designed to fulfil a practical need for demonstrable progress. They (with perhaps 2 exceptions) do not inspire any wonder or enrich the game experience (or even better enrich the player) in any significant way. If an overhaul or a redesign is ever on the cards, that aim must be at it's core.
  7. The_Rocketeer

    Next DLC; Planetary Exploration?

    I don't think you've understood me. I'm describing the character of the game, where the goal is not to reach anywhere in particular, it's simply to do better than last time by applying what you've learned. Doing better just requires another run at it, and it definitely doesn't require new parts - those are usually just gimmicks to keep people talking about the game. There are 3 kinds of 'improvements' to my mind: Aesthetic/"quality of life" improvements Features/parts that make difficult things easier Features/parts that make impossible things possible I strongly advocate 3 because this allows the player to become better at more things, and continue to derive satisfaction from applied learning. I strongly discourage 2 because this breaks the cycle of trial and error - you're not learning to walk if someone hands you a mobility scooter, so how can you take pleasure from learning how? I would not encourage 1 until there was no more 3 that could realistically be delivered. This is just polish, and as Atari taught us long ago, games can look crap but still be addictively fun. So if applied learning is the best model for KSP as the way to make planets fun, what do I see as the stumbling blocks for investing in KSP planets? The starting point is always on Kerbin at KSC, and the rinse-and-repeat learning curve is just too time intensive to be fun. To get around this, I suggest adding a way to 'send' a deployable start point to a planet as part of remote base mission. Once deployed, planetary excursion vehicles could be launched, reverted to launch, reverted to editor and recovered to this point. You still need something to learn about. Most of us expect to be able to drive a rover without too much bother, so where else could KSP take this? This is the hardest question to answer, but finding the right answers to it would be by far the bst way to make KSP addictively satisfying again for experienced players, and it's about the only DLC I can imagine actually being worth the price.
  8. The_Rocketeer

    Next DLC; Planetary Exploration?

    1. KSP was better when it was less complicated, with fewer parts and fewer reasons why to do anything. Intuitively learning how to do something hard (and the subsequent incremental success) was its own reward. 2. Planets will only become properly interesting if they start to teach us things we didn't already know, but the cost of not knowing things in KSP is usually mission critical. When one has invested hours of planning, design, testing, launching, manoeuvering and transferring just to discover that Eve's atmosphere is all-but-inescapable, this is an exponentially greater cost than discovering 20m above the launchpad that your parachutes have deployed because you forgot to set your staging properly, or even 100km up that you didn't attach any RCS thrusters. 3. Teaching us things about planets that we don't already know is kinda hard - we've lived on a planet our whole lives, and we kinda get it. The variables that make planets different sit somewhere on a scale of mundane (atmosphere/no atmosphere, water/no water) to cataclysmic (extreme pressure/temperature, toxic/corrosive atmospheric chemicals, inescapable gravity wells), with most of the more interesting being very difficult to implement because they require engine improvements (e.g. tectonic activity, cave networks). A less intensive workaround would be to introduce surface science minigames, but frankly nobody wants that at all.
  9. The_Rocketeer


    I simultaneously disagree and agree with this statement. For me, making VTOLs and stock propellorcraft has been an exercise in self-education, and a way of better understanding RL engineering. My dad passed away in February, he was formerly an aerospace engineer for Rolls-Royce, but I never really discussed his work with him and the closest my career has brought me to his was tuning in a friend's Spitfire (Triumph, not Supermarine). Building engines in KSP hasn't taught me any more about what he did, but it has made me appreciate more the skills he had. For me, that's more than funsies and bragging rights. But when it comes to a stock bearing part, or even a motorised bearing part for propellors, well I can't say that would have had anything like the same effect. Firespitter gives a range of propellor parts, if that's your goal. Build-a-burger propellor engines don't interest me much at all.
  10. The_Rocketeer

    2.0 indirectly announced?

    Probably deliberate secondary intention of the banner. Primary intention being to hire talented and experienced staff, secondary being to suggest to the playerbase that the game is still in active development without explicitly saying so. Both the banner and this message are teeming with implications, so I'll deliberately state at this stage that I mean only what I've said and nothing further.
  11. The_Rocketeer

    Landing effciency - Prograde or Retrograde?

    Landing from a prograde orbit is more efficient, for the same reason that taking off into a prograde orbit is more efficient - there is less difference between your starting energy state and your goal energy state, i.e. you need less delta-V to match actual velocity and altitude with desired velocity and altitude (or in layman's talk, your starting motion is more similar to your finishing motion if you're flying round the planet the same way it's turning than if you're going the other way). For a frame of reference, let's take a planet that isn't rotating noticeably at all. To land you need to match speed with the surface, or in other words, by the time you've descended to the ground, you need to have come to a dead horizontal stop. If the planet is spinning in the same direction as you are orbiting, you don't need to slow down that much - you still need some horizontal motion, enough to equal the speed of the surface's rotation. If the planet is spinning in the opposite direction to your orbit, you need to slow down more - in fact, you need to pass a dead stop and gain motion in the opposite direction. The only time it ever really makes sense to go retrograde is when you want to cash in your orbital speed for a big payout in altitude, and even then only if altitude is the only desired criteria.
  12. The_Rocketeer

    Career-mode and Mods

    Having given this some thought, in the majority of cases I'm gonna go with any height at all. I should set out my stall by saying that to start with stock Career grinds my gears a lot, but by far the worst thing about it is how much I want it to work. So I'm trying mod/career combinations to try and make it a more compelling, more rewarding and all-round more satisfying experience. The mods I use/that I'm talking about aren't supposed to be shortcuts to anywhere or anything, they're supposed to add depth - in many cases actually utilising their parts ought to make the game a little harder by increasing your payload costs. As such locking that depth away up the tech tree is just frustrating. The broader, underlying point is I just don't like how stock Career plays out. Goodbye imagination, hello budgetary constraint and dictatorial mission parameters. Adding mods ought to help, but when they're keyed into the same system of constraint it just doesn't work. And just to clarify, I've been around long enough to know that there are a lot of ways I could try to help myself (I know this because down the years I've tried many of them). My question here is deliberately narrow.
  13. The_Rocketeer

    Career-mode and Mods

    Does anybody have a successful, persistant stock/"non-cheaty" Career-mode save that includes game-altering/feature mods like KAS/KIS, LS or functional parts packs? I always feel like my expectations are dashed whenever I try to start a new career game integrating some sort of mod - the features are locked away too high up the tech tree and I'm railroaded into playing someone else's way to unlock them. Am I missing something, or is Sandbox just the way?
  14. The_Rocketeer

    Any veteran tips for the docking inept?

    A great tip I wish I'd been given early on is, make sure both ships are aligned parallel with the north/south axis of the planet, i.e. the docking port of one ship should point due north (note: not point at the north pole), and the docking port of the other should point due south (note: not point at the south pole). Then use translation thrust and the stock aids on the navball to get the target in front of you, and just close in at a gentle speed. It makes it much easier to find your initial approach position and know your docking ports will be facing each other properly when you get close, not on some crazy impossible angle where you have to translate/rotate around to get there.
  15. The_Rocketeer

    6 hours of creating an space station

    Squad. But it should be noted they're nothing like alone in this. The "kraken" is a community term for a whole diversity of bugs that only really have in common that they tend to have something to do with the limitations of the physics model. They may or may not actually have anything to do with each other, and fixing even one slight kraken bug would probably mean code-changing levels of fixing, each change potentially bring a raft of new problems. So we're stuck with it. Kraken, it turns out, is an apt name - like the mariners of old, we navigate its territory never knowing when it may be about to strike, utterly powerless in the face of its awesome presence... P.S. glad u fixed ur station