Jump to content

cfds

Members
  • Posts

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

302 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Where does KSP take aspect ratio into account? Flexing is just a function of number of joins, not the length of the parts.
  2. The real problem with this discussion is that the devs should have had it five years ago. Even looking from the outside, it was clear that the main problem with KSP 1 development was the constant uphill battle against Unity physics. It was a mess of band aids, cludges, and hacks, and tended to break in surprising (and difficult to test) ways. That they still decided to go with it shows that they either did not believe that they could find a better solution or that they actualy believed the idea that KSP is a lolplosion simulator first and foremost. Neither is good news for the more serious players. Unfortunately, there are probably more than enough people perfectly happy to spend 50€ to spend a few hour crashing stuff around the space center to validate this approach...
  3. Well, this at least answers the question whether they plan a native linux version...
  4. The problem with visible bending is that it is not just a visual effect that gives the user feedback: It has knock-on effects on the physics computation, leads to offset thrust and incorrect heading/bearing values, especially if the satellite inside the fairing is the "control point" for SAS. The current single joint simulation has nothing to do with how materials behave in real life, and the "feedback" the user gets is not helpful: The problem is never that the rocket is "unrealistically skinny", the problem is that the rocket has too many joints. The only way bendy rockets would be sensible is if the underlying physics simulation were a lot more complex: At least joints between parts would have to be some form of triangle lattice, ideally the parts themselves as well. KSP 1 did not do this because they simply did not have the capacities and we (begrudgingly) accepted it because of "small team of amateurs". That excuse does not fly anymore when a professional studio is doing the development.
  5. So a relative deflection of 0.3% to 0.4% (depending on the height of the sensor on the rocket and assuming no flex in the launch platform or the clamps)? Also known as "not visible to the naked eye"? Zero flex may not be entirely correct, but is far more correct than visible flex. Which, again, is not an intentional feature but a limitation of the engine.
  6. The wobbling of rockets is a direct consequence of the use of the Unity chained rigid body system, that Squad introduced because they did not know better and Intercept kept because they prioritize visuals over substance. There is no intend to "teach" or "punish" players for unrealistic designs (otherwise a stack of four 0.5m tanks wold have the same wobble as one 2m tank), there is just an engine that is not suited more than a very basic single stack rocket. Unfortunately, there is far more money to make from a horde of "casuals", who spend two hours crashing Kerbals into the space center, than from a handful of "core player", who want to have a robust game that allows them to explore the system to their heart's content...
  7. I meant to express that they skipped the "souposphere" model that was used in the early days and went to the less bad one immediately.
  8. I think there is litte disagreement that KSP 1 is a janky mess that somehow (mostly due to volunteers who cludged their fixes onto this mess and maintained it tthough update after update) became a success regardless. We kind of accept the problems with Unity PhysX because we realize that a team of amateurs had basically no other option to get the game of the ground. We accepted the bad and slightly less bad aerodynamic models, because there was FAR to fix it. The "space program" part of "Kerbal Space Program" was only reluctantly tagged on on not very well thought out, but mods kind of helped there as well. The art style was all over the place, but again mods fixed that. We were annoyed when every update brought a whole new set of bugs (and broke all our mods), but after two or four rather quick hot fixes there was an improvement over the previous version. The weird thing is that the devlopers of KSP 2 either believed that the jank is part of the charm (some remarks regarding the wobblyness of rockets point that way) or are simply not able to provide a better product. The graphics are way better, but that is the thing that mods fix the most easily. They started with the slighty less bad aerodynamic model, but obviously it is just as easily broken by updating things as the one of KSP 1. They use the same chained rigid body system that KSP 1 already showed to be a liability. Orbital stability and SoI changes seems to be actually worse than KSP 1 ever was. We have yet to see if the "space program" part will be implemented in a better way. It just looks like after multiple years of development with much more than "Indie" budget they just have the same rotten foundation as KSP 1 has, but with nicer graphics.
  9. This is correct, but creating a predictable flight model should also have been done ways before thinking about any kind of release...
  10. If I got a dime every time - a version of KSP changes its prize to $40 - a version of KSP is released with aerodynamic problems on the basic capsule that show that nobody bothered to test flying a basic rocket to orbit and back I would have $0.20, which is not a lot, but it is strange that it happended twice...
  11. So KSP2 is sold for $20 and developed by a small team of enthusiastic but inexperienced developers without the backing of a publisher?
  12. But "missing content" is absolutely ok for early access. Content can be added easily, fixing a broken foundation is way harder.
  13. It is not weird if you consider two points: * People who can create an engine that acts as a solid foundation for future development are more expensive than 3D modelers and animators * Engines that act as a solid foundation for future development do make far less flashy promo materials than 3D models or animations So if you want to create a good game, you start with the solid foundation and add the flashy parts later. Otherwise, you create a flashy game, sell it to the hyped masses, and hope that the problems of a wobbly foundations magically vanish (or are excused by the aforementioned masses high on copium).
  14. I have the nagging feeling that the Steam EA rules apply only to indy developers, not to publishers who could remove the Civilization or GTA series from Steam..
×
×
  • Create New...