JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I know there's some concern that we don't have any robotic parts during the EA. But we had them in KSP and we're gonna need them in 2. They're gonna have to give us the ability to fold stuff up. Otherwise - we're left with this: ...which is just hideous! EDIT: Oops notice. I goofed in the top picture. That's just a Large Cargo Bay. Mea Culpa. Too lazy to go back and FIxit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequence Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I've been able to fit largish rovers inside the biggest fairing. But you're right, making them foldable so they can fit in a cargo bay is much more fun. Really hope robotics are in the works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Isn't this part of the game? Engineering your way around problems with available tools? Not to mention that the stock rover design is weird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Sequence said: I've been able to fit largish rovers inside the biggest fairing. But you're right, making them foldable so they can fit in a cargo bay is much more fun. Really hope robotics are in the works. You could simply has suspension who fold in like the rover wheels from making history. They was also nice for avoiding jump after time warp. Yes I obvious want robotic parts anyway. Edited March 21 by magnemoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 KSP’s history, including the micro-history of version 2, is full of “should have but doesn’t” subjects. That alone is not a viable source for “it will be there.” However, someone will mod it, and it will be DLC either to beat the modders to it (unlikely) or to cash in on the proven demand for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 43 minutes ago, Sequence said: I've been able to fit largish rovers inside the biggest fairing. That Eve rover was in an absurdly bobble-head faring. 40 minutes ago, The Aziz said: Not to mention that the stock rover design is weird My TR-4 testing explains it; can't climb without a rocket on its as butt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequence Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 23 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: That Eve rover was in an absurdly bobble-head faring. My TR-4 testing explains it; can't climb without a rocket on its as butt Yeah, I've not managed to stop things wobbling out of large fairings no matter how many struts I add. I've been putting the xs radial mount engines on my rovers and turning on infinite fuel as a work around for now. I really love the look of the TR-4's but they just have no power on a slope. Hopefully it'll get fixed in the next patch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 8 hours ago, Kerbart said: KSP’s history, including the micro-history of version 2, is full of “should have but doesn’t” subjects. That alone is not a viable source for “it will be there.” However, someone will mod it, and it will be DLC either to beat the modders to it (unlikely) or to cash in on the proven demand for it. Yeah agreed. Expect it as DLC rather than a 1.0 feature, if KSP2 ever makes it that far. They already promised more than they could deliver back in 2019 with the same things that are far in the future on the current roadmap. Expecting such a large thing to be added either before or after the roadmap is finished, for free, is unreasonable levels of hopium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 19 minutes ago, RocketRockington said: Yeah agreed. Expect it as DLC rather than a 1.0 feature, if KSP2 ever makes it that far. They already promised more than they could deliver back in 2019 with the same things that are far in the future on the current roadmap. Expecting such a large thing to be added either before or after the roadmap is finished, for free, is unreasonable levels of hopium. I can accept it as a DLC. Presuming they get the core stuff working as intended and the Roadmap underway. Science is likely make-or-break for me. I'm hoping for some nice changes and having a progression system again will make it a game - not just a Sandbox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 28 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I can accept it as a DLC. Presuming they get the core stuff working as intended and the Roadmap underway. Science is likely make-or-break for me. I'm hoping for some nice changes and having a progression system again will make it a game - not just a Sandbox. Yeah I was surprised they released without it. I don't have any idea how they expected to ship without all these caveats (as Intercept) back in 2021, and now they don't even have a bare bones tech tree system. Guess we'll see what they come out with, whether each new feature added comes out as a bare-bones EA versions of the feature or whether significant work is done and they come out as more finished features. If they do come out as just bare bones EA features though, it'll be a further indicator that they've been BSing about things for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 6 minutes ago, RocketRockington said: bare bones tech tree system That's a concern I did not have back when they announced EA. I figured Sandbox would have some proofing and balance work to do (nothing this bad)... but then Science would introduce a revamped (and hopefully interesting system) with a part of the new progression system. Prior to that a WHOLE LOT of us got into a bunch of lengthy discussions and suggestions for revamping Science to make it interesting, relevant to science-interested-new-players and relevant to the game, without being 'crew report on Minmus to unlock aircraft engines). But they have been SILENT on what Science is going to be. Clearly their excitement is reserved for Colonies and etc... but I'm still crossing fingers for Science to be worthwhile. ... But... Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 9 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: But they have been SILENT on what Science is going to be. Clearly their excitement is reserved for Colonies and etc... but I'm still crossing fingers for Science to be worthwhile. ... But... Yeah. Yeah I think it will be a good guage of the quality of their design team. The current EA release has very little gameplay design to it. Some design went it the UI - for better or worse - but I think that had a specific UI/UX designer on board. And obviously there is some high level design to what they decided to keep or change from KSP1, but for the most part theres no gameplay at all to judge by, it's all juat a copy of KSP1 with prettied up graphics and unnoticeably tweaked tuning. This will be the first 'new' KSP2 thing (probably, if it's a copy of KSP1 science that'll also be indicative). And this is also the first place no one can claim the Star Theory thing forced a reboot - the same core design team was there from Uber entertainment days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 "not until 1.0" Oops :v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazooka Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, The Aziz said: "not until 1.0" Oops :v Is this a quote from the AMA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarin Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 6 minutes ago, Tazooka said: Is this a quote from the AMA? Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazooka Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 22 minutes ago, Jarin said: Yup. I've just read it all. Damn, not even rotors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarin Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) On the topic of the big rovers, I suspect the long-term intent is to have them built in place at colonies. Just like huge interstellar ships are to be built in orbit. Much easier to handle physics there, too. Edited March 24 by Jarin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow71 Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 43 minutes ago, The Aziz said: "not until 1.0" Oops :v Correction: Not until AFTER 1.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent_prtoagonist Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 15 hours ago, Jarin said: On the topic of the big rovers, I suspect the long-term intent is to have them built in place at colonies. Just like huge interstellar ships are to be built in orbit. Much easier to handle physics there, too. Yeah I think orbital construction in general will relieve the biggest use case for robotic parts--fitting very un-aerodynamic craft inside a fairing. There are, of course, tons of other interesting uses for robotics, but the inability to make folding spacecraft is the one that I've missed the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 Man this OP aged well. DLC... De ja vu? Is the only 'new thing' colonies and resource management? Science is the same and interstellar is just moar difficult, but the same... 8/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 29 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Man this OP aged well. DLC... De ja vu? Is the only 'new thing' colonies and resource management? Science is the same and interstellar is just moar difficult, but the same... 8/ And multiplayer, that I have the feeling they're pretty clueless on. I don't think they really knew what they were biting off in terms of gameplay, much less the tech side, when they decided on a multiplayer feature. I can't imagine the average user wanting to sort out 'timelines' with their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow71 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 35 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: Man this OP aged well. DLC... De ja vu? Is the only 'new thing' colonies and resource management? Science is the same and interstellar is just moar difficult, but the same... 8/ Yeah, it is a real bummer that we won't get robotic parts as part of stock. Looks like the modders have some work ahead of them on this front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted March 26 Author Share Posted March 26 21 minutes ago, RocketRockington said: And multiplayer, that I have the feeling they're pretty clueless on. I don't think they really knew what they were biting off in terms of gameplay, much less the tech side, when they decided on a multiplayer feature. I can't imagine the average user wanting to sort out 'timelines' with their friends. I've never been positive about MP. Not really a priority for me. But for a game with the legacy of being a 'science introducer' - that is a core feature they should have worked on. MP is a business boondoggle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketRockington Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 18 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said: Yeah, it is a real bummer that we won't get robotic parts as part of stock. Looks like the modders have some work ahead of them on this front. If you read that open letter, a lot of modders don't want to jump into this mess for a while either. 1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: But for a game with the legacy of being a 'science introducer' - that is a core feature they should have worked on. MP is a business boondoggle 100% agreed. Given how much they talk about connections to the science community, I would have loved to see a more genuine science system, with a gamified spin. Even if they were just stealing ideas from Kerbalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandaman Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 Personally I'm not as enthusiastic about this as many of you . I found the robotics, as implemented in KSP1, much too fiddly and glitchy to be practical for a lot of what I wanted to do Craft would dance around and destroy themselves simply because I had a connection through a single piston etc . So I tended to find I couldn't trust it to behave when I needed it to and found it more trouble than it was worth to me. That said, it did (in theory) open up a lot of possibilities and there were many fascinating creations from a lot of other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.