Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rosetta rendezvoued... ren... What the heck is the past tense of rendezvous? IDK. But Rosetta just kinda matched orbits, I think. The problem is, if they have gravity, they have to run on rails (I think), so we can't move them anymore. They become like Gilly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

invisible terrain can appear on pol, this has existed for years, sometimes, your 12 part lander will just explode, kilometers above the ground.

1. Can you land on this invisible terrain?

2. I think that will be fixed when the rest of the Jool system get's a revamp. I was head scratching that some moons like Vall or Bop 'n' Pol where not revamped along with Laythe and Jool. I think Tylo and Eeloo will be tough ones to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, it just explodes, always, because you do not know, where it is.

there is no known alt where this happens, Im scared because my jool 5 SSTO(uses ISRU, but is an SSTO) is orbiting pol, I want to be sure landing will be safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Rosetta rendezvoued... ren... What the heck is the past tense of rendezvous? IDK. But Rosetta just kinda matched orbits, I think. The problem is, if they have gravity, they have to run on rails (I think), so we can't move them anymore. They become like Gilly.

What's wrong with having the huge ones in rails? No sane person would try to move them. And why do the need to be in rails to have gravity? Just accelerate the player towards it. The only (albeit very major) issue I could see with that at solution is that it could cause serious kraken problems with landed ships. Which is probably why gravitational objects are on rails anyway. I was just throwing the idea out there to see if someone could figure out a way to make it work but it looks like it's impossible without rewriting the physics engine to be like principia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kerminator1000 said:

FMaybe more landing legs (Although if they partnered with Space X that would almost certainly be added), and more capsules.

I was thinking about suggesting larger capsules for like 3 diameter and 5 diameter parts. That would be a very nice addition to the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, catloaf said:

I'm pretty sure the largest comets do, as in they can be orbited but have so little gravity that there are no other effects although orbital velocity would be like 1 m/s, since these do have a decent fraction of gilly's mass. Although I do think that only the largest comets should have it. Also, in comets, I think they should appear around planets to simulate minor moons. Maybe 4 interstellar 5 medium and 8 small ones around Jool and 4 small ones around Eeloo (you have to give it more than Pluto to compensate for no Charon.) With gravity for the interstellar sized ones. Also, didn't Rosetta orbit a comet?

I don't care about clouds of they improve the stock atmosphere and water shader. I mean the stock atmosphere and water shader are worse than the one in alpha Minecraft (the world's second worst water shader.)

yea that's true. I joke about wanting clouds but in reality I rarely play with EVE, I mostly play with scatterer. It makes the oceans look so much better, and atmospheres dont look like dead textures around planets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vinhero100 said:

yea that's true. I joke about wanting clouds but in reality I rarely play with EVE, I mostly play with scatterer. It makes the oceans look so much better, and atmospheres dont look like dead textures around planets. 

I would like clouds because anything that is stock is generally better than what a mod can do. I mean mods feel complicated for me. If anything the thing I would want most in a KSP update is just making larger space craft just more possible. I feel like there is a limit of what you can do in KSP when you hit this limit of size, most of my favorite spacecraft ideas die from trying to launch it... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need a graphics overhaul, the little texture changes are fine but it still looks like a game from the 2000’s. Simplerockets 2 looks amazing and it’s graphics are streamlined enough to work on a phone. I think we should get a kerbal version of scatterer. No clouds cause I like to think kerbin has a thin and whispy atmosphere due to its small size but, just water that looks like water and lighting effects.

Edited by SpaceFace545
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2020 at 12:44 AM, catloaf said:

Also a 2.5 meter nerv.

Why not just make it multiple NERVs clustered together inside a 2.5m shroud?

22 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think we need a graphics overhaul, the little texture changes are fine but it still looks like a game from the 2000’s. Simplerockets 2 looks amazing and it’s graphics are streamlined enough to work on a phone. I think we should get a kerbal version of scatterer. No clouds cause I like to think kerbin has a thin and whispy atmosphere due to its small size but, just water that looks like water and lighting effects.

This came up about a year or so ago but my response to any cosmetic changes that substantially raise the game's hardware requirements is a definite "no". KSP is already a tough enough nut to run with satisfactory performance on old hardware as it is.

Should there be mods that make the game prettier? By all means, people whose rigs can take the nicer graphics should have every bit as much fun with the game as everyone else. Make it stock and lock people with potato rigs like non-gaming laptops out from being able to play at all? Hell no. Touching up the planets' surface is fine and I think the skybox should get a touch-up too, but no making the game require 2-3-4 generations newer video cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How ‘bout engine shroud variants? Making orange rockets is fun, but having the standard white/gray shroud kinda ruins it.

5 minutes ago, Fraktal said:

 and I think the skybox should get a touch-up too, but no making the game require 2-3-4 generations newer video cards.

The sky box got a great overhaul in 1.7, so and there really isn’t much that it can be improved upon

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fraktal said:

Why not just make it multiple NERVs clustered together inside a 2.5m shroud?

This came up about a year or so ago but my response to any cosmetic changes that substantially raise the game's hardware requirements is a definite "no". KSP is already a tough enough nut to run with satisfactory performance on old hardware as it is.

Should there be mods that make the game prettier? By all means, people whose rigs can take the nicer graphics should have every bit as much fun with the game as everyone else. Make it stock and lock people with potato rigs like non-gaming laptops out from being able to play at all? Hell no. Touching up the planets' surface is fine and I think the skybox should get a touch-up too, but no making the game require 2-3-4 generations newer video cards.

This wouldn't be scatterer level, just replacing the layer of plastic around Kerbin with something that looks decent. Plus, the potato community will always be angry when people suggest a feature that raises the minimum requirements above their I2 duo's and 2 gb ddr2 ram. I think a reasonable minimum requirements for the game would be a somewhat modern cup (Intel I3 or equivalent,) able to run on integrated graphics on said cpu and 4gb ddr3 ram (admittedly with the minimum requirements you would expect 30fps 720p lowest settings, but that's expected for this kind of "entry level" hardware.) But the games normal or high setting should be able to be raised to at least ps3 graphics, with support for modern dx11 capable gpu's and features such as color grading and anti aliasing. The stock atmosphere and water shader are abysmal though, just adding scatterer like water (just the texture and animation, not the extra bells and whistles,) make the stock sunflare less underwhelming, and add an optional high quality atmosphere setting, and the stock graphics could be massively improved for little to no performance impact. It's also about time ksp raise its requirements from "raspi 2" to " entry level laptop, " since that would help most of the playerbase and only effect 500 people.

Just to clarify, most of ksp's lag is from cpu not gpu, so graphical improvements likely won't cause performance problems for the vast majority and may cause dram drops for a very small minority.

Edited by catloaf
Chanfed soelling like later instead of layer and eases instead of raises
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see is:
- Ability to fit more then one part on a single attachment node.
- Ability to set absolute and relative orientation of parts by typing. Because when putting landing gear or engines on wings or slanted parts it can be very hard to align them. And creating hab rings etc would become more easy.
- Passengers of one passenger contract all want go to the same destination, and sometimes in much bigger groups.
- parachute drag increases less more gradually when opening completely. I think that could make them more exciting at lower altitudes and less neck-snappy.
- Mainsail and skipper compact variants fit on 1.25m parts; the models are practically screaming that they fit, but then some nice pipes are sticking out, and I assume the drag also handles it like 2.5 meter.
- 1.25m ion engine :). Wait does that make sense?
- 2.5m NERV.
- plane Mk3 to 2.5 meter adapter with only liquid fuel.
- 2.5m RAPIER. (the real life sabre engine would have had a thrust of around 2000kN according to wikipedia, vs the RAPIER's 105kN). With the sabre engines just two engines would be enough to put a large spaceplane into orbit, but with the rapiers we need like 12 engines for a plane of that size.
- Flaglike parts that act as ablative heat-shields.

9 hours ago, Fraktal said:

Why not just make it multiple NERVs clustered together inside a 2.5m shroud?

Because the amount of parts it takes and the flames are less cool than with a larger engine. It would also make it closer to the real life proposals.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kedrednael said:

Because the amount of parts it takes

Hence why I said make the single part be a NERV cluster. We already have multi-nozzle engines and one of them (Poodle) is even a vacuum-spec high-impulse engine, so there's a precedent.

7 hours ago, catloaf said:

only effect 500 people

Which is still 500 people too much in my books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Fraktal said:

Hence why I said make the single part be a NERV cluster. We already have multi-nozzle engines and one of them (Poodle) is even a vacuum-spec high-impulse engine, so there's a precedent.

There are at least two mods which have that that I maintain, and i think there is at least one more

40 minutes ago, Fraktal said:

Which is still 500 people too much in my books

So you think that the minimum required system should never be changed?  You do realize that this type of decision also affects the top end of the player base? And that top end is much larger than the low end?

Every time a decision would have to be made, they would have to make it on the basis of not affecting that 500 (orless) people.

Than yoy, but no thanks.  There comes a point when you have to make a hard decision, and a low number like 500 pales to insignificance compares to the over 1,000,000 other players out there 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You do realize that this type of decision also affects the top end of the player base?

In what way beyond what they already have with mods? You already have what you want as an optional feature from the community, why insist that it must be compulsorily shoved down on everyone's throats?

4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

There comes a point when you have to make a hard decision, and a low number like 500 pales to insignificance compares to the over 1,000,000 other players out there

We could have an entire galactic civilization's number of KSP players on the high end for all I care. I refuse to frak over anyone and "there's more of us" is not an excuse.

I know what I said is controversial among players who have the means to own high-end hardware, but let's not start tearing into each other over it because this isn't a democracy where whichever camp yells the loudest wins it all. The decision over whether to make such an important change ultimately rests with Squad, not the community. We can ask them for features but they're in no way obligated to comply, just like how they haven't yet made life support stock despite unceasing demands to that end every couple of months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fraktal said:

In what way beyond what they already have with mods? You already have what you want as an optional feature from the community, why insist that it must be compulsorily shoved down on everyone's throats?

Not everyone wants or knows how to play with mods.  Mods are haphazard, some are well written, and some are not.  I can attest that most mods I've adopted have been inefficient to a certain extent, some more than others.

Also, no standards are followed by mods, so while mod A does something one way, mod B does it another way, etc. 

2 hours ago, Fraktal said:

We could have an entire galactic civilization's number of KSP players on the high end for all I care. I refuse to frak over anyone and "there's more of us" is not an excuse

So why aren't there any game supporting the old IBM AT & similar?  The "more of us" is not an excuse, but business reality.  Someone has to pay the bills, and I don't see the ultra low end getting any larger.  If anything, it is getting smaller, and putting in the effort to ensure that the game will continue to run on the older systems becomes too expensive to justify spending the money.

While I do have a high end system, I also have laptops which would classify as low-end, and I use those laptops while traveling.  So I am very well aware of the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other issue with mods is how unstable they can be and how they react to updates. EVE and especially scatterer often have crashes and scatterer has been at least a little buggy since it has existed (although it is a lot better now.) Plus EVE and scatterer break almost every update, and are usually not available for at least a month. And then there's also the fact that squad is adding quality that looks out of place (and cannot be fully enjoyed) without mods:

40044fa93f5a36ee540e2e85842ba748001018d1

Notice the high quality terrain and disgusting atmosphere. Even a simple haze effect and color rebalance on the atmosphere would improve the image by orders of magnitude while having little effect on performance.

And then there is the opposite problem:

OIP.LZ0qF1OxLzBjaYA8X74j5gHaG_?pid=Api

If there was a simple optional haze effect you could tell that Kerbin actually has an atmosphere!

Also, not sure if this is true, but wouldn't a stock implementation of EVE and scatterer be less laggy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...