The_Rocketeer

Members
  • Content Count

    2,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,501 Excellent

5 Followers

About The_Rocketeer

  • Rank
    Rocketpack Superhero

Contact Methods

  • Twitter Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,281 profile views
  1. I couldn't agree more, I have been around long enough to remember the disappointment when updates started to focus on improving models and textures instead of adding this much-needed content. At the time, I found myself in the minority... vOv
  2. Agree. Also youtube below: But to tackle the point, part of the reason KSP was so successful was because it focused on gameplay and not graphics. Many of the most fun games are pretty graphically simplistic, just well-executed. It's much more important that they're supporting an immersive engaging game design, and of course it always helps that that design is also well executed and not infested with showstopping bugs - World of Warcraft and Minecraft are outstanding examples. I don't see any reason to doubt Unity is adequate to the task. On a personal note, I genuinely don't care if KSP2's effects are 2nd rate or 10-years-old as long as the game is a genuine iterative improvement on the original in various ways.
  3. I suspect the difference is related to drag occlusion, I seriously doubt there's a more general airflow simulation. This has not been my experience when testing push-pull configs, I've spent hours trimming and re-trimming the tail prop to keep up with the nose.
  4. KSP 1.whatever would still exist for those players. KSP 2 would be a sequel.
  5. @UomoCapra YEEEEEEES! @SudAntares Like distant biomes on other planets, local biomes are reachable by rocket.
  6. Wow, this is a blast from the past! Amazing job! What version of KSP is this in?
  7. 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.
  8. 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 .
  9. 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.
  10. @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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.