Commander Zoom

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

629 Excellent

About Commander Zoom

  • Rank
    Starfighter Pilot

Recent Profile Visitors

2,512 profile views
  1. I've seen videos where the Blizzard devs discuss the process of developing new zones. The proto-maps of those zones are basically whiteboard diagrams and flow-charts, only slightly prettied up, and that tiny bit of polish is only (I'd guess) because they're made with shape drawing tools, not sketched by hand with pen or stylus. They are not at all representative - except in the loosest, most conceptual sense - of the finished design. Does Star Theory need to slap "Pre-Alpha" on everything they release? Would it actually help, or would people continue to jump to conclusions and/or speculate wildly based on the thinnest of "evidence"? (My money is on the latter.)
  2. And xkcd boards the Hype Train, full speed ahead.
  3. Looking good. I had some concerns that you'd be greatly changing the look of these worlds, but now it seems you're just (greatly) increasing the resolution and detail... thanks!
  4. Bumping this thread rather than starting a new one; if I should do the latter, let me know. My pet peeve with the M.E.M. is, to me, obvious at a glance: the scaling. (Fourfa said as much at the end of their OP, too.) There are lots of reference images for how big it should be relative to the Mk 1-3 pod (the Apollo CSM), so why couldn't the part designer get that one basic thing right? The actual part looks fine, IMO, so it bugs me to a possibly irrational extent that they'd spend so much time on the expansion and then get something so simple and immediately visible wrong. At this point I've given up on SQUAD putting out an official fix, so does anyone know of a mod that does it, or even a set of Tweakscale numbers to bring it up to the proper size?
  5. Not gonna happen, man. I'd be surprised if you got even 10 other people (besides yourself) to go with your arbitrary craft-numbering scheme, let alone "everyone". Let it go.
  6. Reminds me of this...
  7. Nice! Bold concept, great execution, interesting craft/component designs. Could you list the music tracks you used, here or on the Youtube page?
  8. So you're asking for a stable but "dead"(end) version, and then a new one where all the features you've been wanting will be added? Why would anyone - okay, scratch that, there will always be some, but why would most play the former, when the latter is available? Why do you expect the (even more ambitious) development of the latter to go any more smoothly than what we've seen so far? You don't like the development process, including broken saves, and the fact that the vanilla game will likely not ever include all the features and/or mods that any given player wants. I get that. It's just that my response is a shrug. You want ongoing development, and cool new features, and possibly a new engine, which will itself sometimes be updated. But you don't want broken saves or having to replace mods. Well, you know, I'd like a car that doesn't require fuel or maintenance, but guess what... There are ways, even now, to keep the game from updating itself until YOU are ready. I nursed a single save through three versions and the addition of a whole new game mode. If you want a stable version / environment to fill the Kerbol system (stock or expanded) with flags and footprints and orbiting junk to your heart's content, copy everything into a new folder and keep it around as long as you like. ... but then you won't get the new stuff. You want the new stuff, but you don't want it to break your games in progress. Right? If so, all I can tell you is, "It doesn't work that way."
  9. I used to edit AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files. Because I had to, not because I wanted to.
  10. Oh hey, thread bump. The two that I remember were a Mun mission where, on the return leg, I had to get out and push (with a jetpack) in order to get the periapsis within Kerbin's atmosphere. Just a little short... Then there was the time when my Duna mission arrived in orbit, and while checking through the various ships, I was startled to find that the outbound burn(s) had nearly emptied the tanks of one; out of a full orange Jumbo, only 15 units of fuel (and 18 of oxidixer) were left. Fortunately, that was the one that was going to be broken up for parts anyway; the hab, lab, rover and lander would all be going down to the surface, either under their own power or by skycrane.
  11. I understand that this is meant as a compliment/assessment of its quality, but fan/derivative work doesn't work that way.
  12. Well, first you're going to have to come up with an answer to the question of why all of these undesirables are getting a free ticket off-world. Lifting even a single kilogram into orbit costs a lot of funds; a firing squad is much cheaper, and other methods cheaper still.
  13. Nah, it's that the ascent stage is too small. This is known.
  14. Would making the MEM larger help with any of these issues? 'Cause I've thought since this DLC went live, and finally came here to post (and see if anyone else had), that it's just plain out of scale next to the CSM.