• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

238 Excellent

About cfds

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hmm, still do not like the sustainer engine look for the mainsail. The throat is far too narrow for a true first stage engine. By now I am pretty sure that the SQUAD graphics team is swapping the looks of engines optimized for high and low ambient pressure on purpose to troll us...
  2. "Dude", 1.0 was the update were a Mk1 capsule could not reenter safely...
  3. Looks to have the typical SQUAD quality: sensible base idea good details on the new object questionable texturing choices (why is a "cooled lava flow" painted orange?) no effort whatsoever to integrate with existing parts of the game, in this case the planetary surface. It looks like a "alien organs" loot drop from a 2000s space rpg.
  4. Thinking that you, personaly, are fine with paying more for KSP is completely ok. Comparing it to other forms of games (like cards or 5thHorseman's board games) can be valid. Comparing it to movie tickets is pointless.
  5. Could we please stop using this kind of comparison? Or at least be honest about it? If you compare KSP to a movie, you can only count the time you played scenarios created by SQUAD. If you count the time of enjoyment that you created yourself, you have to compare the price of KSP to a set of dice or a deck of cards.
  6. I did buy the game when it was still called an alpha (and paid more than what it now costs on steam...) and there was some hope that it might actually turn into a game that lets you "create and manage your own space program".
  7. 1.0 is setting a very low bar, though. Yes, there have been improvements, but you can also argue that a lot of these improvements the developers a giving us from the goodness of their hearts are actually just bringing the game to a state that can be considered "released". And we still do not have a career mode that is worth the name...
  8. Makes sense, I always call scientists instead of pilots when I need furniture moved...
  9. How would a scientist standing next to a system that observes a goo container with a camera improve any gains? The whole "character class" system needs to be either dropped or actually implemented...
  10. The intended audience is the Steam homepage. You do not earn the money by selling a DLC to the existing players, you make the money by getting your game (with a nice discount) on the Steam start page and have people buy the game and then not play it...
  11. Because the robotic parts are not really what I would consider a core feature.
  12. Putting stock robotic parts behind a paywall is completely justifiable, but surface science on the different bodies is not an extension to the game play, this is definitely a missing core feature of "creating and managing your own space program".
  13. Hmm, looks like it may be actually worth it to download 1.7.1...