Scarecrow71 Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Terensky said: Does someone know why 1.875 parts were not shown on the ESA preview? Perhaps because they're part of the Making History DLC? Too bad cause I like them... Without having any inside information, I think this is probably the best guess there is. Could also be that they are there but just weren't shown for whatever reason (like amount of time)? And a new page! Woo hoo! Hype train is hyping! Edited February 21, 2023 by Scarecrow71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 2 hours ago, The Aziz said: Or they never opened it in the first place because the heating is off This give an rear opportunity to see how close you can get to the sun like in the old days. Also drop an probe down into Jool and see that happens. Yes that can be done with heating to but now its just to get an intercept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vl3d said: KSP1 is by far the superior game [snip] It's complete, mature, added onto and modded. Intercept has been clear that KSP2 is EARLY ACCESS, not complete, and Sandbox only at this point. People... please... stop putting unrealistic expectations on this! Edited February 21, 2023 by Starhawk Redacted by moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragorans Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, Vl3d said: It's going to get better. I agree that at this point KSP1 is by far the superior game. But let's see in 3-6 months.. yeah like people are thinking ea is supposed to be a complete game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwightLee Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Vl3d said: It's a little hard to get excited knowing that playing the game will be more work than fun. Some of those bugs.. aiaiaiaia Early access is not for everyone, decide if it is for you before you put money down is my advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gussi111 Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Ekerci said: I'm no one but in my opinion EA is not a game. I watched the gameplay. what I felt was like this is nothing different from ksp1. Actually, I felt like ksp1 is better in terms of graphs. I'm not a graph guy but it lead me to think about the game. what they were doing for 5 years? building interface and flying interface changed. they could just do it to KSP1 as well. roadmap doesn't have any date as well. so we dont know how long it will take to get any features that they were showing 5 years ago. Beside all these bad comments by me, I will buy the game day one and I won't even run(nvida 3070) because there is nothing new for me. I will wait until new stuff arrives. maybe next year. communication is really bad. they tell nothing about the game. there are so many questions but no answers. Early Access - game is not 100% finished yet and players can give their feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Ekerci said: I'm no one but in my opinion EA is not a game. I watched the gameplay. what I felt was like this is nothing different from ksp1. Actually, I felt like ksp1 is better in terms of graphs. I'm not a graph guy but it lead me to think about the game. what they were doing for 5 years? building interface and flying interface changed. they could just do it to KSP1 as well. roadmap doesn't have any date as well. so we dont know how long it will take to get any features that they were showing 5 years ago. Beside all these bad comments by me, I will buy the game day one and I won't even run(nvida 3070) because there is nothing new for me. I will wait until new stuff arrives. maybe next year. communication is really bad. they tell nothing about the game. there are so many questions but no answers. Sorry, but you're wrong. The graphics are so much better than KSP 1. KSP 1's graphics are so muted and the textures are kind of bland. Roadmap doesn't have any dates, because they can't guarentee any dates. Plus, if they were to give dates, and miss them, the community would be upset. There is new stuff. New graphics, new UI, new parts. Everything about the game is brand new. The only thing the same is the name of the game and the planets and maybe a handful of parts. Other than that, it's pretty much a brand spanking new game. We got answers yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow71 Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 15 minutes ago, magnemoe said: This give an rear opportunity to see how close you can get to the sun like in the old days. Also drop an probe down into Jool and see that happens. Yes that can be done with heating to but now its just to get an intercept. Or slam into Eve's atmosphere without worrying about exploding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragorans Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 minute ago, GoldForest said: Sorry, but you're wrong. The graphics are so much better than KSP 1. KSP 1's graphics are so muted and the textures are kind of bland. Roadmap doesn't have any dates, because they can't guarentee any dates. Plus, if they were to give dates, and miss them, the community would be upset. There is new stuff. New graphics, new UI, new parts. Everything about the game is brand new. The only thing the same is the name of the game and the planets and maybe a handful of parts. Other than that, it's pretty much a brand spanking new game. We got answers yesterday. I disagree, the game has less content than KSP1, there are no robotic parts, for example. The game currently only has better graphics, which I don't consider content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOmer Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Wings are procedural but why not tanks and decouplers...etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Dragorans said: I disagree, the game has less content than KSP1, there are no robotic parts, for example. The game currently only has better graphics, which I don't consider content Wrong, it's not just graphic. There are new parts and new mechanics too. Yes, some parts are missing, but it's Early Access. Stuff is going to be missing until they add it. But I would consider KSP 2 a better game than KSP 1 simply for the new mechanics alone. ANd new parts like procedural wings and the fresh updated textures, etc. Just now, CanOmer said: Wings are procedural but why not tanks and decouplers...etc? Because not everything needs to be procedural. Edited February 21, 2023 by GoldForest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcAbaddon Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 After watching the latest Matt Lowne video, another thing I honestly find concerning is that KSP 2 exactly reproduces the annoying veering to the side you experience on the runway with tricycle planes during takeoff from KSP 1. Fixing and improving wheel physics was one of the most commonly mentioned wishes for KSP 2. That Matt did have to point out how to change the wheel setting to avoid it by adjusting friction doesn't really help. Seems like something the dev team should have been aware of. So I do see some nice features in KSP 2, but at the moment the physics simulations seem as wonky as always. Additionally, the way his plane spun wildly in orbit (despite integrated reaction wheel in the cockpit) wasn't great either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 15 minutes ago, GoldForest said: Because not everything needs to be procedural. But it would help a LOT with physics of larger ships. Why I need to stack 27 cube structs instead of procedurally make a single long one? It is simply Bad for EVERYTHING to need to stack a zillion units of small cubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwightLee Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) Putting dates on the roadmap would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. You want to release a feature set when it ready, not by some arbitrary calendar. Once they give a project an even projected possible date, gamers will take that as a cross your heart and hope to die promise. If one thing has been proven over and over is that gamers are not mature enough for conjecture information that is not absolutely cast in stone. Edited February 21, 2023 by DwightLee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 4 minutes ago, tstein said: But it would help a LOT with physics of larger ships. Why I need to stack 27 cube structs instead of procedurally make a single long one? It is simply Bad for EVERYTHING to need to stack a zillion units of small cubes. Yes, and it would stifle creative thinking to solve problems. Which KSP is kind of about. I agree that procedurally parts would be nice for certain items, but not everything. It might do more harm then good. If you want procedurally parts, wait for a mod to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, CanOmer said: Wings are procedural but why not tanks and decouplers...etc? (some) Tanks and trusses should be procedural step-wise by length. Edited February 21, 2023 by Vl3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, Vl3d said: (some) Tanks and trusses should be procedural step-wise by length. Basically that. Things that you simply stack several to get a larger one have no reason to not be procedural. There is no creativity in stacking fuel tanks or cuboid struts. The rest is not a problem, but these not being procedural is basically LAZY and bad for game performance. 11 minutes ago, DwightLee said: Putting dates on the roadmap would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. You want to release a feature set when it ready, not by some arbitrary calendar. Once they give a project an even projected possible date, gamers will take that as a cross your heart and hope to die promise. If one thing has been proven over and over is that gamers are not mature enough for conjecture information that is not absolutely cast in stone. True, the best we could hope for is "Next stage is nto before X months, where X in secrecy is 2 times more than the time they expect to take" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, Vl3d said: I don't agree with this part. Don't let your emotions sour a good opinion. Ooo but it is lazy.. not a factor of lazyness of a specific person but as of a bad usage of priorization. This would cost 1/1000th of the man hours that any of the fancy graphics you desire so much. This is a professional project so I expect professional solutions ( things that cost very little to develop and improve the product should be prioritized.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Procedural parts are lazy to the player's. It doesn't encourage creativity or problem solving. Individual parts do. Procedural parts should only be used to solve problems that would be a real problem like the million part wings. Anything else would be pure laziness just having procedural everything, imo. Tanks shouldn't be procedural, because you have several lengths, even long ones that are fine being stacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcAbaddon Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) If your tank is a simple cylinder with a simple procedural texture, than yes, just making tank design procedural is simple. But if you want to add some details and stuff it becomes a lot harder, especially if you want to make it look nice. The more structure and details your part has, the more complicated it becomes. To give a simple example, you can't just procedurally scale a one-family home to get a skyscraper. Tanks are just on the border where it might make sense, while I'd say that with engines you definitely want to keep them non-procedural. EDIT: at the same time I think the laziness argument is bad, especially with fuel tanks. There's plenty of creativity in KSP 1, but little comes from sometimes having to use 2 FL-200s since you do not have the 400 unlocked yet. Edited February 21, 2023 by MarcAbaddon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 8 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said: If your tank is a simple cylinder with a simple procedural texture, than yes, just making tank design procedural is simple. But if you want to add some details and stuff it becomes a lot harder, especially if you want to make it look nice. The more structure and details your part has, the more complicated it becomes. To give a simple example, you can't just procedurally scale a one-family home to get a skyscraper. Tanks are just on the border where it might make sense, while I'd say that with engines you definitely want to keep them non-procedural. EDIT: at the same time I think the laziness argument is bad, especially with fuel tanks. There's plenty of creativity in KSP 1, but little comes from sometimes having to use 2 FL-200s since you do not have the 400 unlocked yet. Oo tha I agree. Engines are not my target here.. mostly I hate the dumb aspect of.. always stack 5 tanks in the first stage.. or stack 12 of this cubic struts in a straight line (THAT HAS ZERO CREATIVITY on the part of the player) so I can connect that antenna without colliding with that other part, and get a wobbly rocket (that is the dumbest part of KSP for me) that eats my performance for no reason. The structs issue is the exact same one as with wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 I don't think tank lengths should be separated in tech tree anyway. Widths, yes, because it's a different step. But then there's no clue how the tech tree will look like so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilkoot Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 1 hour ago, CanOmer said: Wings are procedural but why not tanks and decouplers...etc? There's an argument that tank sizes at least should be unlockable via the tech tree, which is why they need to be discrete pieces in the VAB. In a progression game, it would be odd have immediate access to 9m hydrogen tanks, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just now, The Aziz said: I don't think tank lengths should be separated in tech tree anyway. Widths, yes, because it's a different step. But then there's no clue how the tech tree will look like so.. Ye sit is the lenght that is an issue, specially when you need to transfer fuel and you need to click on 11 tanks (and forget one) when it could be very well one or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, tstein said: Oo tha I agree. Engines are not my target here.. mostly I hate the dumb aspect of.. always stack 5 tanks in the first stage.. or stack 12 of this cubic struts in a straight line (THAT HAS ZERO CREATIVITY on the part of the player) so I can connect that antenna without colliding with that other part, and get a wobbly rocket (that is the dumbest part of KSP for me) that eats my performance for no reason. The structs issue is the exact same one as with wings. Cubic strusts I do agree with you there, but fuel tanks, no. Once auto struts are reintroduced, stacking 5 tanks won't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts