• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1334 Excellent


About The_Rocketeer

  • Rank
    Rocketpack Superhero

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Too old, thank God.

Recent Profile Visitors

2760 profile views
  1. Then why would you want it to be stock instead of mod dependent? On, it would appear, is not on.
  2. Turning off launch plume smoke helps with slowdown during launch, period. Whether that's because something else is eating up all the system resources is moot, because there's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is build rockets with fewer, bigger engines, which reduces the amount of smoke. During re-entry, presumably any part that gets hot enough will generate re-entry plasma smoke. This is a significant difference between a launch plume and this feature. If every part during launch produced a smoke plume, you might find the slowdown affecting your game too.
  3. Because answering questions from the fans would be a full time job for a much larger team, and would have a negligible effect (if any) on their key directive, which is to produce, test, release and support the game. Chatting about hypotheticals to make the fans feel loved would be a monumental waste of professional time. You're right to draw attention to things you'd like to see take a higher priority in development, but it really isn't justified to criticise the dev team for not talking about these things with you right now just because you want them to. I think this feature looks good, tho I'm more impressed by the distance shots (red streaks) than the close-ups (little puffs of pale gold). I'm also concerned about tanking performance on large or complex ships. Not every descent is just a pod on a chute. SSTOs, surface and atmospheric vehicles, bases - these are a bit more involved than that.
  4. Banoffee.
  5. Actually I heard there's a KerbalCon every year, held on the Moon. I know its a bit of a hassle to get there, but c'mon guys. A) you are ALL rocket scientists, and B) you don't even need to go interplanetary and C) your smartphones have more computing power than Apollo. Get to it!
  6. I've seen the effect after surface impacts - Mk3 parts do it very well as they have excellent impact resistance, so the parts don't pop. G-force, like impact force, is still force - you just exceeded the structural limitations of the joints. Personally I think this is awesome. I'd like to see a lot more distortion of parts and joints, and less total-destruction of parts. Makes surviving a crash landing and attempting a recovery far more interesting.
  7. Perhaps it would if Mars was 90% liquid water ocean... like Laythe. [Insert withering water-related pun].
  8. Last time I checked, space included oceans, and space exploration included the search for available water, and the search for life sustained by available water. Your explanation does not wash.
  9. I'm not sure how you define the scope of a vehicle creator/sandbox interplanetary exploration game without allowing that it's totally up to the player what vehicle they want to create and which parts of those planets they want to explore. Boat parts are long overdue in my opinion and well inside the scope. Given the lengths Squad went to to overhaul buoyancy and submersible depth issues (used to despawn at -600m), I don't think there's a lot of evidence they agree with you.
  10. +1 Rover Proving Ground +1 Dock - stock seaplanes and submarines are definitely viable these days. I also support the wind-tunnel idea, but I'd take it a step further and make it a 'local conditions simulator'. I envision a facility that allows you to load up a spherical-body (think 1990s-era visuals) of the same size and with the same atmosphere and gravity as any body you choose, either in an orbital re-entry scenario, or as a surface launch. Why not HyperEdit? Too cheaty, breaks immersion, can get Kerbs killed, can be saved. It isn't a simulation if it uses virtual magic to make persistent changes to the game.
  11. For solar, the visual representation of darkness-time is less useful that a read-out of how long it will last per orbit. That sort of information is critical for minimising cost for EC storage and charging parts, or for critical power depletion issues on other crafts traversing the shadow.
  12. This could have been suggested before but IDK. In the manner that it indicates closest approach and ascending/descending nodes, I suggest the orbital trajectory line in Map View should also indicate where and when a vessel will move into the solar or communications shadow of another body, or at least of the body that it is orbiting. To keep the path from getting to cluttered, I propose the orbital line should change to a darker hue to indicate a blackout zone with a detailed tooltip of duration and source on mouseover. This would really help manage unforeseen upcoming power or communication issues and give the player a little in-mission time to plan around them.
  13. Well, semantics, y'know? Who'd have thought humping something would be called twerking in 2017? But it's ok, I will accept your correction. My attempts to style it out have clearly failed. I'll go back to my hole.
  14. *looks at @Tex_NL extremely skeptically* What, you're omniscient now? ()
  15. *looks at @Tex_NL very skeptically* I'm sure it used to be Hoffman...