Jump to content

Bartybum

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    278

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Bartybum

    Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    On 9/29/2019 at 6:52 AM, rmaine said:

    Er, in what way do you think axial tilt has any effect on getting into orbit? None that I know of, at least around Kerbin. It affects getting into interplanetary orbits, but nothing before that. Are you perhaps thinking that zero-inclination orbits would end up effectively being inclined by the amount of tilt? Not so. Orbit inclination is with respect to the planet's axis of rotation, regardless of how much tilt that might involve.

    It really depends on how it'd be implemented.

    They could:

    1. Tilt Kerbin, but leave the orbits of the Mun and Minmus the same relative to Kerbin's ecliptic plane, or
    2. they could also rotate the Mun's and Minmus' planes to keep them the same relative to Kerbin.

    I was more thinking about the first one, but you're right in that the second option would only affect interplanetary transfers. In either case, I think the way Kerbin's set up now is good, and makes the game accessible enough from a learning standpoint.

    KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

    There is a lot a space in space to handle such things. So why does paradox need to be prevented?

    Seems to me letting Paradox build up then tasking players to drop in to the timeline to correct it could be an awful lot of fun in its own right.

    It provides a lot of freedom and doesn't end up bogging down the game. User-activated syncing is the way to go in my opinion.

    Life Support system?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    Moving aside all discussion of available developer resources and whatnot

    (Assuming LS is optional of course, when there are those who don't want to have to deal with it)

    Regarding LS on the ship scale, I'm really in favour of a simple LS system ala the Snacks! mod, where you have food, waste/fertilizer, growers and recyclers. To me it's exactly the same as needing to carry solar panels to generate electricity.

    The complexity really comes along when you start thinking on the scale of installations. I really like the idea of having to personally fly a resource supply line with a capable ship, then being able to automate it to fly at optimal dV windows (think porkchop plots). By endgame, having tens of installations is going to be extremely tedious if even if you only have to fly a single resupply mission per station per year, so automated colony management is key imo.

    Bigger part sizes

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    I'd think that this would make sense (the huge diameters are only hypothetical, just to show the pattern):

    0.625

    1.25

    1.875

    2.5

    3.75

    5

    7.5

    10

    15

    20

    30

    From 1.25m onwards, tank diameter doubles every second tank i.e. 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, etc. It's essentially exponential growth, with one size halfway between

    Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    9 minutes ago, Lach_01298 said:

    On Axial tilt, the original planets should have it specifically Kerbin since it teaches you how axial tilt effects launches in real life.

    I'm not sure it's a good idea to give Kerbin axial tilt, since for new players learning how to get into orbit is already a significant task, let alone dealing with the dV losses axial tilt introduces. I think beginning the tilt at Duna would be a good idea instead, since going there is generally the first interplanetary step. The Mun is basically at zero eccentricity to allow players to first handle the concept of orbital transfers, and Minmus then adds inclined orbits. Duna then adds eccentricity, so I'd argue it's also a good case for introducing some light axial tilt. Something like Dres, Eeloo or Moho could introduce greater tilt to spice them up.

    What lore do you want to see?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    15 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

    Adding built-in explanations for how Kerbals got to be where they are now reduces the scope for players to invent their own universes, which ultimately decreases the replay value of the game for them.

    While I don't care for explicit answers (and instead much prefer suggestions which keep me imagining), I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree that it reduces the scope for inventing head-canon/lore. After all, fan fiction is quite popular in all sorts of fandoms, so clearly people find it easy to come up with their own stories/head-canon. It's very easy to ignore lore in KSP because of how physically huge the world is.

    2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

    planets are actually supramundane worlds suspended over black holes using dynamic orbital rings and Kerbol/the Sun is also an artificial body.

    Again, I really think that's taking lore to the extreme. It's like one of those small things in Star Wars that sect of the really hardcore fanbase want in-depth details about, and then it just comes off as reading like fan fiction.

    What lore do you want to see?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    12 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

    I kind of want to have more interesting anomalies, maybe hinting of a precursor race that was previously in the system, like the ufos on kerbin and mun, and the face on duna, etc. But more like perhaps an alien space station that you can reverse engineer a interstellar drives, it would be nice if anomalies had a integral part in the game.

    To be honest, while I really do want some more hints towards a precursor race, I reckon what you suggest might be a bit excessive. I quite like the idea of an ancient station orbiting around, say, some gas giant in an interstellar system, or even a wreckage of a precursor ship on a distant moon, but nothing that you can really reverse engineer into useful tech. At that point, resources need to be devoted to programming that tech, making part files, etc., and the devs have gone on record saying that they don't want to have magic technology. Once you start making interstellar aliens integral to the core game, the game begins to lose some of its special pizazz for those who want to avoid that stuff.

    What lore do you want to see?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    I've seen some people have the attitude that it detracts from the experience, and that "oh, it's all up to the player to make their own lore". To that I say go live a little and stop being so boring :sticktongue: Lore is fun when handled right and non-intrusively.

    I'd really like to lean more into NovaSilisko's ancient Kerbals, but nothing revealing - some small easter eggs found scattered around systems, that when researched via science experiments/samples, suggest things but never really reveal any explicit details. Things like the Dunian face, pyramid and SSTV signal, and the Val ruins were perfect. They have no effect on the game, but provide a basis for roleplaying and imagination.

    Anything more than small snippets would take away from the magic and mystery.

    Hopes and Wishes for KSP 2

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    17 hours ago, GoldForest said:

    Just thought of something that KSP needs. Longer tanks. 
    We've heard about the 2 new sizes, though we don't know what they are, but I feel we also need longer tanks, I mean, we have a super double length 5m tank, so why not super double length other tanks? And longer struts. 

    I think we should have at least twice the length of some tanks now:
    FL-T1600
    FL-TX3600
    S3-28800
    Jumbo-128

    Triple length wouldn't be too bad either.
    FL-T2400
    FL-TX5400
    S3-43200
    Jumbo-192

    Absolutely, holy crap. I'm sick of Jumbo 64s

    Worried about KSP magic tech, unrealistic orbital mechanics, and lol-explosions

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    24 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

    And so what if they do?  What business is it of yours what other people do in the privacy of their own single-player games?   If they want to play the game as if set in the Star Wars universe (which is what you describe here), and you instead want to play it like it was 2020 here on Earth, and you both can fulfill your dreams and enjoy the game the way you want THAT'S A GOOD THING!  Besides, even you might want to take a break from harsh reality someday, and will be glad you can :) 

    I love this community.  It's the friendliest, politest place on the whole web.  Except for this 1 thing.  This tendency to mind other peoples' business and trying to force their opinions of what the game should be on everybody else.

    Bear in mind though that everything takes time and resources to develop - that's time and resources taken away from something else the user may actually want. I don't want OP/far-future tech engines in the game because that would mean less time was spent adding realistic/near-future tech engines.

    While it definitely sometimes does (hell I'm probably guilty of it too on occasion), it doesn't always stem from minding other people's business.

    KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted

    47 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

    https://www.videogameschronicle.com/features/interviews/an-in-depth-conversation-with-the-creator-of-ksp2/

     

    Is it just me, or does that sound like multiplayer won't be in the game at launch? 

    Sounds to me like they will get the core code down for Multiplayer, then release Multiplayer later so that they can release the game in March. 

    I'm honestly okay with this. Multiplayer is a big thing that's drawing me in, but I'd be willing to wait and get a singleplayer only game in march, then an update for multiplayer down the road. 

    Same - the issue of MP + timewarp is going to take a while to solve, and I'd like to see them not rush that out

    How will interstellar travel work?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    40 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

    It isn't an intended feature, and you can only really do it if you are aiming to do it. The velocity difference between going to a planet, and escaping Kerbol, is vast. In the new game though, it's an intended feature, and you will be aiming to escape Kerbol anyway, so if you miss the star you are aiming for, boom, you're in the void. You miss a planet in KSP 1, All that happens is that you orbit Kerbol.

    Ohh, I think I understand - you're referring to what happens if you escape the sphere of influence of either star, aren't you? In that case, my apologies for the condescending reply :sealed:

    It's a good question to be honest. Realistically, I can see a few options (that really depend on how the interstellar group will be modelled):

    • The stars all orbit a black hole: this would be problematic as over time, the systems' relative positions are going to change, therefore changing the difficulty of interstellar travel. If you miss a star, you end up orbiting the black hole.
    • The stars all orbit a black hole at the same orbital SMA, but at different inclinations, eccentricities etc.: This would be simple, but kinda weird and unrealistic. I could potentially see this happening. Same thing - miss a star, you orbit the black hole.
    • The stars all orbit each other (a barycentre): You'd need to employ some sort of N-body calculations.
    • The stars are all frozen in space, and you're taken along a straight path to the next SOI. I see this as the likeliest option, since interstellar voyages are likely going to take on the order of decades, and to make that feasible you'll want to get to the next star as fast as you can. They'll probably space the stars far enough to be approximated as relatively stationary, since your motion is going to be orders of magnitude greater than that of the stars. In this case, you'd just keep going in the same direction, which makes sense since you're outside of the significant sphere of influence and hence your path isn't going to be changed much at the speeds you're going.

    Life support and/or habitats?

    in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Bartybum

    I really can't see KSP 2 without life support. That being said, it absolutely needs to have some sort of user-controlled automation, expecially for orbital spaceports and stations that can't resupply themselves like a colony can.

    3 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

    The idea of an automatic resupply mission that record the player's actions is pretty interesting, since it would have to (in the sandbox spirit of KSP) go beyond that. The problem is that, well,  let's say you have an orbital station and you change the orbit. The exact same flight is not going to be possible. The game would have to be pretty smart to scale the players' actions and repeat the mission. But at the same time, a few of the core game mechanics in KSP2 would help facilitate this, as multiplayer means the game will already be built for multiple vehicles being controlled at the same time.

    Regarding automatic SP supply missions, what if for a given station/orbital spaceport:

    • the game calculates the dV required for a resupply mission using a launch window from either the KSC or the nearest sustainable launch-capable colony (Mechjeb can already do these calculations with porkchop plots),
    • it tasks you with constructing a resupply vessel that satisfies the dV and resupply requirements.
    • you instruct your KSC/colony/etc. when to launch the mission, and the game then executes a simulated launch that adds the resources to your station after the mission duration has passed i.e. the simulated resupply ship has made it to the station.

    This way there's no physical ship being launched; it's all just numbers in the background.

    Bear in mind though that this is user-controlled automation and therefore it's entirely optional - you're still free to fly your own resupply missions if you want to tackle all that. The idea is to help take a lot of the burden off players that don't want to perform the repetitive and menial task of constantly resupplying large stations.

    Colonisation and life support go closely hand-in-hand, and I think something like this could (in theory) work.

×
×
  • Create New...