Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerikBalm

  1. No, I am not saying that at all. You have your opinion, I have mine. I am saying that our opinions different markedly, not that you opinion is dishonest. I just want them to do better. What I have seen is not enough, and I wouldn't want them to think their progress so far is satisfactory
  2. I absolutely agree that the science and career modes are lacking. I was quite disappointed by the "First Contract" update. It remains to be seen if KSP2 will do any better Agreed, the increased terrain detail was one of the things that excited me about KSP2 (I said as much on the giveaway thread). I'm sure the terrain is still polygonal, but I am guessing the "grid size" is much smaller (like arma:cwc's islands being about the same size as arma 3's Tania island, but the original had a height map with a 50m grid size, and tanoa's grid size was 3.75m). I haven't been able to judge that well from videos though. Can't tell how much is due to more detailed geometry vs just textures Not in it's*current state*. I do still hold out hope that it will get good. However I am not going to contribute to any impression that what they've done so far is satisfactory for the price
  3. Can you be more specific? From what I understand: Pros- graphics (debatable vs modded KSP1), paint schemes, procedural wings (are there any KSP1 my DS for that?), And UI (in most aspects) Cons: poor performance, wobbly rockets, fuel transfer doesn't work right, docking summons the kraken, collision detection on celestial bodies often doesn't work, trajectories don't display correctly, maneuver nodes are harder to use (?), No robotics and even old KSP1 style stock-non-DLC rotors don't work, no reentry heating, I'm guessing no com-net, no career/progression mode, very limited mod options... As far as I can tell, it's barebones KSP1, plus some graphics mods, minus a lot of other features, and with major game breaking bugs. I am absolutely not sold on its current state, and will wait for the game to get better and/or the price to come down
  4. So it's not SAS that is broken, but reaction wheels?
  5. You could with the old maneuver planner too I am not, see below Hmmm, well, as the title of the thread suggests, I haven't bought the game - you are correct that I have not touched it. I was unaware of this feature, and given all the videos leading to release featuring stuff that wasn't in the release, I was using (overall critical) videos of the post release product for information. I guess if that maneuver planner is in and works as described, then the complaint of the burn timer not appearing until after the burn starts does seem to be a minor nitpick. Agreed, but I was hoping for it to be possible in KSP2, I expected it to be, it was a not insignificant selling point for me. KSP 1 had virtually no competition- Orbiter would be the closest thing to competition before Simple Rockets. I agree that KSP could have done many things better. There was certainly a lot of room for improvement, so it's not hard to imagine a superior competitor was possible. We all knew it could be improved a lot, it's why we were so excited for KSP2. I still hope KSP2 turns into a great product. It's just not there yet for me.
  6. That's not how ion engines should work, and the time warp factor was not what limits thatm Considering that you need that information to time when to start a burn, and ksp1 gives it to you while KSP2 doesn't, yes it does constitute even worse. No they added thrust under time warp instead of thrust under physics warp. If the thrust doesn't persist when you switch vessels, go back to KSC, etc then it doesn't persist and it's not persistent thrust. And if the vessel can't change orientation while under time warp thrust, then the sort of continuous low thrust trajectories that I was excited about aren't even possible, making this just a way to save time on long burns. All trajectories remain standard impulse trajectories, and it still doesn't allow for accurate modelling of how ion engines should work. A big disappointment
  7. I thought maneuver nodes were even worse in 2 so far, not even showing burn time until you start burning It's 800, so, not a bug... I don't follow your logic here Yes, Lf only tanks are too dense, so are planets. Rapiers and whiplash Isp is too high for kerosene fuel, but appropriate for liquid hydrogen. Aside from the bulk, does it matter? Tank mass ratios are too poor for kerosene or liquid hydrogen Have they though? All I know is that you can time warp during burns. There's no persistent rotation that would allow a solar-ion thruster with realistic thrust to spiral outward. You can't plot a brachistichrone trajectory, you can arrange for a long burn on a craft and leave it burning while you switch to another craft. Sooo.... they provide an alternative to 4x physics warp, with some upsides and some downsides
  8. They owe you KSP2 0.2, 0.3, ... 1.0 etc *IF* they get made. That IF is important. I have heard some references/allusions to a dev that basically sold an EA game, and then when it was ready to leave early access, they changed the name and released it as a different game. In such a scenario, I think that you are owed the finished game (since it exists in this scenario). Then we have other intermediate scenarios, that nearly became an issue for KSP1's early adopters. Buying the game in EA doesn't give you the right to future DLCs(KSP1's terms were ambiguous, and they did the non-jerk thing and interpreted the terms broadly instead of splitting hairs). They could take stuff from the roadmap, and release them as separate DLCs. I wonder what would happen if they made a "colonies" DLC, and an "Interstellar" DLC, and EA buyers didn't get them What is this incident that you speak of? They didn't say "more money" overall, but rather it changes the timing of when they get money, potentially allowing the dev budget to be extended I agree, however, the way they phrase things does tend to mislead a lot of people, and I am sure that they know that Yea, I have never gotten good vibes from Nate. I also wonder, what the heck was he looking at. What the heck have they been doing. It seems like its KSP1 with some graphics mods and a planet pack oh and worse performance, more bugs, and other features removed [snip]
  9. "On the community team" Well, aside from sympathy for other humans that we interact with, I think most don't really care- we're worried about how the development team has been affected
  10. Indeed, so far that isn't the issue, just a lack of progress by the dev team. Maybe it has to do with that star theory drama, maybe the star theory drama was because of the lack of progress. I don't know where to put the blame Have we actually seen video of them testing functional colonies? A wobbling base could be made just out of colony shaped parts, functionally the same as a normal can craft I am not presuming, I didn't make this idea up, it comes from here:
  11. As noted, you can make jet engines that run on liquid hydrogen. Simplifying fuel types into "liquid fuel" is not a bug, it's a gameplay feature, and I don't see how it's relevant to the state of KSP2. That said, I do consider it a positive that KSP2 splits it into methalox and hydrolox
  12. Cost-cutting measures? Not a good sign. The early access release shows us that there is a lot of work still to be done. It also is consistent with an idea that the game was released now due to a desire/need for revenue/a cash infusion. Otherwise why release early access in this state. We (the fanbase) waited 3 years, we can wait longer. Apparently the publisher can't, that's the concerning part
  13. Well, for now, I am mostly giving them the benefit of the doubt/ Early Access. They showed us lots of colony models, they showed us planets in new solar systems - those assets exist in some form. Hhowever, giving them the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean that I don't have serious concerns.: Before early access release, I thought they had made good progress on the new (gameplay and star) systems but that they still needed some polish. After release, it seems core mechanics present in KSP1 need a whole lot of work, not just polish, so now I wonder how much progress they actually made on other elements: Do they have anything for colonies other than the 3d models? They have certainly over hyped - they are a long way from slaying the Kraken, it seems like it is a massive step back on that front. I also had high hopes for large optimization gains as they rebuilt the KSP game engine from the ground up. Well, they aren't going to be rebuilding the game engine from the ground up now, and whatever gains they may have made are not evident - but it seems that they recognize that they need to optimize more. We shall see I understand that they have some massively unoptimized rendering calls to the GPU, and the graphics rendering is a problem. Vessels with high part count shouldn't be that hard on the GPU to render (considering everything else that is being rendered). In KSP1 the limitation on part counts was due to the physics calculations being very demanding on the CPU. So the GPU load of KSP2 doesn't really explain the slowness with higher part count vessels. In an interview, IIRC, their performance goals were basically set considering that vessels of 100-150 part would be common. I routinely exceed that in KSP1 by large margins (granted procedural wings could have a large benefit to part count for many designs) - and in KSP2 I expected to make even more complex ships for interstellar travel - so this is also concerning. They say they will optimize-fine let's see what they can do next. They say their goal is to have ~150 part vessels run smoothly enough. IMO that's a low number and even their goal is concerning. It's s early access, KSP1 came a long way, we'll see how far KSP2 comes. - that said, we waited a long time, we could wait more, why release it in this state? It suggests to me that someone in the company demanded that they start getting some revenue for the project. If there are funding concerns, then this is concerning given how much work is still to be done
  14. Surely there are a lot of people like me on these forums that don't have KSP2. I thought a thread giving our reasons might be of interest. For me: 1) A personal reason unrelated to KSP2's content and quality: I don't have the time right now. As I am in no rush, I only buy games right now when there's a good sale. When I have time, I would be willing to pay more. 2) I don't think my computer could run it, or it would run so slow that what little free time I have gets wasted 3) lack of new gameplay mechanics: so far, I haven't seen anything being done in any of the videos that I can't do (and with less hassle) in KSP1. I know it's early access, and this will change, but it's still a factor for me. Anyway I think those are all my reasons (perhaps I am forgetting something). *Edit* I did forget something: 4) the bugs: from what I see in videos and feedback, the bugs are also very off-putting
  15. Welp, that's a possibility I brought up when discussing the mun Arch as evidence of another hidden planet. Rather anti-climactic... Unless the hidden planet comes in a later update, and the mun arch changes with the update too
  16. Oh booo, I hope they fix that, that's a major issue for me. I was looking forward to this type of maneuver with very very low thrust ion/vasimr/mod/ etc thrusters
  17. Dart was not OP in KSP1. It's only use really was as a core stage burning from liftoff to orbit and beyond. To do well at that job, it needs a good thrust to cross section ratio (so it can lift a tall core stack). It doesn't have that, it's even worse now
  18. It's... early access. There's not too much to be excited with yet. It seems like KSP1 with better stock graphics, improved planet detail, and a different UI. The more exciting stuff is in the roadmap. That's fine, that's what early access means. I am disappointed with the lack of optimization. I was under the impression that they were rebuilding the KSP engine from the ground up with an eye on optimization. The engine has clearly been rebuilt from KSP1, but no optimization gains from the rebuilding process are evident. This concerns me, I don't know how much they can optimize it from here. A 10% improvement would not be sufficient. We shall see
  19. I am excited for the detailed planet surfaces, and the ability to do brachistochrone trajectories
  20. After they added Vernors, I never found a need for large monopropellant tanks. Anything big enough that more than a few rcs blocks wasn't sufficient would get Vernors, and then RCS shared fuel with the main reserves. Then you start to notice that the rotation really only consumes tiny amounts of dV. Also, aligning for a burn can be done very slowly -but it's tedious - persistent rotation/ rotation during warp is the answer here. Then you really only need fast rotation rates for landers
  21. Outer planets would make a lot of gameplay sense as an intermediate between the interplanetary voyages of KSP 1 and interstellar voyages. Going to a Sedna analoge would be 2 orders of magnitude farther out iirc There is the "Outer planets mod" and the generic concept of outer planets. The could skip a Saturn analogue, add one Ice giant (still want a Titan analogue, and since they have a method for making rings, a Saturn analogue seems like a good idea) or maybe something intermediate between a gas giant like Saturn and an ice giant like Neptune. Then after that- kuiper belt-like and scattered disk like objects. It wouldn't be an OPM copy, and could go much further. Exploration of Oort cloud objects would be nearly on the scale of interstellar trips anyway. Some predictions have our own Oort cloud extending half way to alpha centauri
  22. Outer planets in the kerbal's system should definitely be there. I worry that they will hold them back as a paid DLC
  23. And if they launch them too, it's MAD. If they are just starting out, and you aren't, you have nothing to worry about. Odds are the first interstellar civilization could colonize the galaxy before another species achieved spaceflight- given the timescales involved and speeds attainable
  24. Well, once you become a multiple planet (and especially multiple star system) species, you become much harder to wipe out. The bigger you get, the less paranoid you need to be. To me, the "Dark Forrest" scenario only works if interstellar weapons are viable, but not really interstellar colonization. Amongst multiple star system species, the MAD doctrine would apply IMO
  25. Look, there are 2 separate messages, this must be accounted for. The first appears to obviously have been sent by kerbal's, with a reference to the kraken of KSP1 (it's humor, ok). It's not from aliens, it shows Kerbin. It's not from aliens The second, depicting 2 species, is the response
  • Create New...