Jump to content

cfds

Members
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cfds

  1. Well, the SP is for "Space Program", and the aspect of managing a space program is severely lacking in the base game. So it would just move the title from 66% wrong to 100% wrong, which makes this not really a compelling argument Personally I will go with 2.5: The Kerbals are not integrated well into the game, going kerballed you gain some small bonuses and have to pay with only adding some seating to the craft, but they are not actually detrimental. They do add a tiny bit of flavour, but that (together with the "kerbally" part descriptions) sometimes adds to weird mood missmatch
  2. The problem with ground anchors is, that including them naively just introduces another node with an infinite force to the graph.
  3. At best, they have trademarked it, as you cannot "copyright" a three letter abbreviation (otherwise you would have violated their copyright twice in your response..) . And using "NFA" in any context that is not flight academies does in no way violate a trademark...
  4. Well, the bug is classified to have "low" severity in the tracker, so my best guess is that they are actively trying to introduce it into the KSP2 code base as well...
  5. The probability that a SQUAD implementation of atmospheric effects (or any feature at all) is less laggy/buggy than an existing mod is unfortunately close to zero...
  6. Why the "vessel categories" are hard coded and not fully configurable is one these weird decisions of KSP development that will never be answered...
  7. A few problems regarding a Space X collaboration: Space X is a launch provider, not a space program. The previous collaborations were with NASA and ESA, not ULA or Arianespace. Space X cannot be disconnected from Elon Musk. [snip] so do you rally want to have him associated with KSP?
  8. Exactly. Career and science mode feel like they were the exact minimum they were told to add by the corporate lawyer to make the description text ("Create and Manage Your Own Space Program") on their main page not a clear cut case of false advertising. There is barely and aspect of managing a space program in the game, they should have been honest and call it "Kerbal Lolplosion Simulator". And don't get me started on the mostly pointless chained rigid body system and all the tacked on "solutions" to prevent it from glitching crafts apart...
  9. 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...
  10. "Dude", 1.0 was the update were a Mk1 capsule could not reenter safely...
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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".
  15. 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...
  16. Makes sense, I always call scientists instead of pilots when I need furniture moved...
  17. 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...
  18. 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...
  19. Because the robotic parts are not really what I would consider a core feature.
  20. 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".
  21. Hmm, looks like it may be actually worth it to download 1.7.1...
  22. [snip] Well, knowing SQUAD they probably get both: a delayed crap sandwich...
  23. Then what is your point? To me it sounds like "The barn is absolutely great, just disregard the actual implementation." It's a bit like saying "The mission designer is brilliant, since it would be very useful if it were interfacing with career mode."
×
×
  • Create New...