Jump to content

KerikBalm

Members
  • Posts

    6,178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerikBalm

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. I am excited for the detailed planet surfaces, and the ability to do brachistochrone trajectories
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Outer planets in the kerbal's system should definitely be there. I worry that they will hold them back as a paid DLC
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Source? *Edit* there are only 3 mun arches, so that lines up */edit* I don't remember the exact phrasing. I thought there would be more than 2 new ones, but that 2 new ones would be introduced first along with interstellar travel, not ruling out future additions Yes, I am aware that it was an audio signal. It would take a lot more to encode more than on/off, so color is unlikely. Anyway, we agree the color coding presented in this thread is not evidence of anything
  17. Are they? I thought that color coding was done by someone posting their analysis, and wasn't present in the original message
  18. Indeed, they are 2 separate messages. So a message and response is highly plausible. I almost feel like this should merge with the thread on that/those message(s), since they each reference the other so much
  19. Perhaps the "5 dots" are meant to depict a constellation as seen from the Kerbal's system. So, the kerbal's look for a group of 5 stars, roughly forming a square with one at the center, that is 22 "units" away, and that's where the aliens are? Iirc, wasn't that something similar to how destinations were encoded by stargates in the movie Stargate? The new Easter egg seems reminiscent of a Stargate, so there may be a connection Also I don't think the aliens are the kraken, I interpreted that as a warning about the dangers, or an explanation of what they encountered. Granted, the bottom of the alien face could be depicting a Cthulhu-like tentacle beard ... Interestingly, the message does not depict any planet 8 Perhaps each mun arch depicts an explorable system, and they only revealed the kerbal's one. *Edit* we can't overlook the fact that these are 2 separate images, combining them into 1 may not be proper. The first could be a message from kerbal's, perhaps: we come from the 3rd planet, and the Kraken destroys our rockets. I don't know what the top row of dots is, nor the bottom row with 1 vertical line segment instead of a dot. The second could be a response from aliens to the message, perhaps: Hello, we are in this system, in this constellation, as viewed from your star
  20. Could be anything... Maybe it's like the voyager plaque, trying to depict where the builders are from and where they went. Could be that the "8th planet" gas moved to another solar system in KSP2 As I said in previous posts, I would be happy if they kept the old KSP1 planets, and added some new ones to the Kerbal system. I just don't think that this teaser is specific enough to be evidence for the claim
  21. I fail to see how a partial schematic of the kerbal's system, in which planets are presumably alternating from the left to right side of "Kerbol" (as judged by the lack of Moho, Kerbin, and Dres, and Eeloo, but the presence of Eve, Duna, and Jool) indicates that there is an 8th planet. Why can't there just be 4 on one side, and 3 on the other
  22. GP2 was just an idea of one squad employee, and it likely wasn't implemented because of limited resources. Now they have more. Furthermore, adding more planets/bodies beyond Jool is hardly a Squad specific idea, and is certainly not dead Well, using that reasoning, we certainly shouldn't have entirely new solar systems that are orders of magnitude farther away from Kerbin - yet we are getting that No, have you somehow missed all the arguments that have been made for why an outer solar system analogue would be desirable? Even from a gameplay perspective, having Sedna/ kuiper belt/ Oort cloud analogues would provide an intermediate challenge before going interstellar. The learning curve jump to interstellar would be a bit softer. Again, it's not about completing Nova's concepts. The question was if they were viable. I say they are viable, along with many other concepts that would expand the Kerbal's home system. I am not saying they must keep every idea that Nova ever expressed. In fact, I am expressing a view in which more modification to Squad's original system is acceptable. I wouldn't even complain if they took the oceans away from Eve, and made Eve not purple. I am not hanging on old words of "Squad" or elevating Squads version of the system to scripture that must not be altered. I want an outer solar system for reasons that have nothing to do with what Squad or one of it's employees said.
  23. No We have been saying that expanding the kerbal's home system to include a proper outer solar system is a viable and good idea. Scattered disk and kuiper belt objects, perhaps even an Oort cloud - this goes far beyond KSP 1 ideas for a second gas giant. As for specific planet ideas left over from Nova Silisko - I could take them or leave them. What I said is that the idea is still viable
  24. I just bought it on a steam sale, but the CDE forums look a bit dead. I was hoping to connect with some players here
  25. Yes, the idea has merit, no that doesn't mean it will be in the game. Personally I feel like they would be making a huge mistake by leaving out exploration of outer solar systems and just going straight to interstellar after exploration of the planets from KSP1. They did say something like that they wouldn't change the KSP1 system other than to update the bodies. I hope there is enough wiggle room there to mean that the old KSP1 bodies are brought into KSP2, as the inner solar system, but that it doesn't preclude adding an outer solar system. Really between things like outer planets, the kuiper belt, scattered disk, and port cloud, there is so much more to solar systems than is depicted in KSP1. KSP2 should try to depict this, and visiting a Sedna analoge (or even a putative planet-9 analogue) would be a good intermediate step between going to Jool, and going to another star
×
×
  • Create New...