Tweeker
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Tweeker
-
-
9 hours ago, anwitars said:
I think that is a good idea. It sounds like "progress for habitats and colonies on a planet". Even though probably it would be better not to think as a progression "on one planet", but "for one colony". So then it is allowed to create more than one per planet, and they would progress individually. But of course, it also brings the question: "what if we want them to 'support' each other?".
Depends on how deeply you want to get into that aspect of the simulation, a Civilization style map for each planet? {remember Empire of the Fading Suns}
But I think you could still have a celestial body level of unlocked project progression available via a series of structured contracts such as:
1) survey the Mun,
2) land on the Mun and return,
3) Build a habitat on the Mun, {which would require resupply missions}
4) build a farm colony on the Mun {which would reduce the amount of resupply require}
5) build a mine on the Mun {which would further reduce the amount of re-supply}
6)build a factory on the mun, with a VAB and launchpad {allowing rockets to be built on the Mun.
Do a similar progression on Minmus with ice mining and fuel refining in place of building rockets.
Then once both those are up and running unlock a orbital assembly yard around the Mun or Minmus, or both.
-
That tusswork tank reminds me of the N-1,
3 hours ago, FishInferno said:I posted this in its own thread, but it's relevant to the reply I made earlier. Here's how I imagine procedural tanks would work:
-
25 minutes ago, anwitars said:
I (almost) completely agree with you, especially with beginners in mind. Although on a second thought, your approach might be a bit annoying for a bit more experienced players. There are people who played hundreds or thousands of hours only in career (and I am pretty sure not in the same save), and they would go through the exact same process again, and again. Of course, this issue kind of was in KSP 1 as well, but you could gather many science with analyzing samples on a planet or moon.
I suggest to combine both. Your approach could be a "main source of research points via exploration", but I would also allow players to gather science (or research points) with the "old methods" (or even "modernize" these methods, as I will try to give ideas later on).
There should be 2 main ways to gather science / research points: the exploration way, and the "scientific way".
The exploration should be the way to get the most research points at once (for example, the "first orbit" would give you 100 research points), and the science way would continously give you small amounts (for example, analyzing a sample would give you 20 throughout 1 month). The second approach has to give you really small amount, because you could have many "research labours". Maybe colonies could also research something, satellites would give you data that you could process to research points, and so on. I have not been thinking about any balance yet, but I think this way even if we can not avoid, but we could help the "just achieve the same milestones to get the same amount of research points every time" problem.
Maybe later on they could also add minerals to the game to analyze, build spaceships of (in career), and even a basic network of colonies and stations. The potential is unlimited. This does not mean they should make this game into a colony simulator, but I think giving the foundation to make mods (or expansions) that could be a huge hit (for a player like me who really enjoys these challenges).
Mods are a really, really big potential of this game, and I think the right way to develop the foundation of research gathering and research tree is to make it reliable and moddable, but also enjoyable vanilla.
I remember the Kethane mod quite fondly.
Maybe one way to use what we know as science in KSP1 is to use it to unlock abilities at each planetary body. Retrieve 500 science from the Mun to unlock ISRU at the MUN. 1500 to unlock a Mun habitat, 5000 to unlock an assembly facility on the Mun. And so on.
-
58 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:
As someone who has played ~1300 hours of KSP 1 at this point and maybe 5 of them in sandbox, because I really enjoyed the gamefied career mode and the science system behind it. Still I agree with you and hope that the exploration system will end up being something like what you described.
I played a game once where I did no science, other than the science you get from "return of a ship from "XXXXX""
-
Since Science is next up on the roadmap I'll repeat a suggestion from the past. Untether the tech tree from "science", it is not sensible for the the "science" that you get from Mun rocks, or taking temperature reading to result in better engines, fuel tanks batteries Etc. A much better system would be to earn "research" or some other resource based on milestones like launching your first rocket, reaching the upper atmosphere, reaching orbit. In addition to these milestone that were in KSP there should be new ones such as burn 10 tons Methalox, burn 100 tons Methalox, Keep a Kerbal alive in orbit for one day, accumulate 3600 seconds of runtime for "XXXX" engine. Gaining "research" or "engineering" in this way is not only more realistic it fits with the learn by doing ethos of the game. In this way even failed missions earn new knowledge.
-
While this is funny to watch, I'd be quite disappointed if I'd paid $50 for this sort of experience.
-
22 minutes ago, Nuke said:
of you found that bug too. that has been bugging me all day. for some reason fuel will skip over a decoupler if there isnt also an engine in the way. ive always preferred side mounted engines on landers.
Short and wide,
Like a hockey puck.
-
More like clippy and Navi had a baby.
6 hours ago, Skorj said:
You thought Clippy was dead. You thought him forgotten. But he was just waiting.
-
I wholeheartedly second this.
-
14 minutes ago, TheOtherDave said:
How do you tell which fuel an engine burns just from looking at it?
By the engine looking like, and being described in a similar way to a particular engine that burns a particular fuel.
What engine does the Vector look like?
What engine is it titled similarly to?
What fuel does that engine burn?
It doesn't take thousands or hundreds or even tens of hours in KSP to know these things, or to make the connections.
-
The problem with the new engines they are adding is they haven't fixed the legacy engines from KSP1, and are just slotting new engines in around them. It's adding to the root problem, rather than seizing the golden opportunity to make these changes inbetween KSP1 and KSP2, We can see from the previews that many of the engine have similar stats to KSP 1, @mcwaffles2003 even made a chart showing the specs of KSP1 vs KSP2 engines. So it's not speculative to say that the engine stats are very similar to KSP 1.
Honestly I'd have rather they rebalance all the legacy engines they're moving from KSP1 to KSP2 than to add new engines.
5 hours ago, GigFiz said:While this is not an invalid argument, in this case I totally disagree. KSP is a wonderful game but there are tons of under the hood quirks, problems, and bugs, an inconsistent art style, and tons of underdeveloped gameplay elements and many clear potential gameplay systems that are absent entirely. Taking the core of it, improving and tuning it for performance and qol, and improving, adding, and building out gameplay systems and loops (not to mention interstellar travel, which is huge), which is, by all appearances, what they are doing, is pretty much exactly what KSP2 needed.
And complaining about the engines and parts being the same (which, we will see once it's out. YMMV, I suppose) would be a much more compelling argument if they weren't adding a ton of engines and parts, and if we didn't have EA for them to take feedback and tune things. Plus, they fill valid needs, so even if they got rid of them, they would still need new ones that filled the same approximate roles, just with a different look, and then then the issue just rolls back around to tuning.
-
The argument is and always has been the same, the engines they've chosen to put in the game are simulacra of real world engines, just as the planets are simulacra of real world planets. Kerbrin is blue and green with oceans, mountains, and other biomes similar to Earth. The Mun looks like the Moon.
It would be no different than if Duna were green and someone said it should be red. They've done something with the Vector that is obviously not right, and they should fix it.
-
Either solution would be good, Fix the vector, or remove it from the game. This is the worst of both worlds, the Vector is in the game but it's obviously wrong. You can use it to build real-esque looking space shuttle, but it both because of the fuel it burns and the performance of that fuel, so it end up breaking the illusion.
-
39 minutes ago, intelliCom said:
Willingly glossing over everything else they need to develop, I see.
I can advise three paths:
- Make your own mod to fix the fuel ratios
- Become popular enough to land an interview with Intercept Games, ask them why the fuel ratio is different
- Nag someone else more popular than you to ask Intercept Games why the fuel ratio is different
Genuinely and seriously, something like fuel mix is inconsequential and a trivial thing to worry about. If you're lucky, they might just change it to 3.6:1. But this is no important feature.
Not glossing over the other things, but point out that they've done something wrong that needs to be fixed.
-
7 hours ago, snkiz said:
One more time. There is a place for that feedback, it's here. But really man it's gonna get old real fast. Why don't you just revisit it closer to launch since you clearly have no interest in beta testing.
7 hours ago, snkiz said:I think you are missing the point. EA is just a public beta. Those feedback channels are for contributing to the beta. Bug testing, suggesting tweaks breaking the game. You can't do that if you don't own it. No one cares that you aren't buying it because the fuel ratio is 'worng'
Bit of a mixed message there.
-
For various fuels it's more about the fuel than the engine. There is a specific chemical ratio that each fuel type will burn best at, the stoichiometric ratio. Additionally rocket engines run fuel rich, meaning more the oxygen:fuel ratio is lower than stoichiometric. It's not necessary to look as specific engine to know what the fuel ratio should be. For MethaLox the ideal ratio is slight less than 4, and the practical ratio is around 3.6 As you said Raptor uses 3.6:1, BE-4 in testing did fuel ratio sweeps from 3.5 to 3.8, So again 3.6 or 3.7 would be appropriate.
4:1 would be too oxygen rich and would burn up the engine. I'd be better to have it be 3.5:1 than 4:1
I'd much rather they had put effort into getting the basic stuff like this right than making sparks shoot of when you snap parts together and maneuver nodes go "ping" when you mouse over them. And I'd rather they put effort into fixing this sort of thing now, than putting in an eyedropper so you can paint your rocket better.
QuoteAlso, fuel mixes can be different for different rocket engines. Why does it have to be 3.6:1? I know that's what SpaceX Raptor's fuel mix is, but that's the only Methalox rocket engine with a known mixture ratio (to my knowledge). I tried to check BE-4's mixture ratio, but couldn't find it. Beyond Methalox (Hydrolox and Kerolox), you have a large variety of different fuel mixes for different engines. I don't think there's any reason reason why 4:1 doesn't work for Methalox.
-
The problem isn't they are using Methalox, it's that they are using simulants of real engines that aren't Methalox engines. If they want to use Methalox that's no problem, If they want to have booster sustainer and orbital engines, no problem.
The problem comes in when they start using simulants of real world engines, that are visually and thematically designed to look like an equivalent of a real world engine . It's very easy to look at a Vector, or any other HydroLox burning engine, and know it's burning the wrong fuel. And knowing that it's wrong detracts from the game.
-
Oh, believe me, I noticed.
But one thing at a time.
4 hours ago, GoldForest said:
Tbf, methane turbine engines do exist and are being made and tested today. Methalox RS-25 wasn't even considered afaik.
-
Just now, snkiz said:
I think you are missing the point. EA is just a public beta. Those feedback channels are for contributing to the beta. Bug testing, suggesting tweaks breaking the game. You can't do that if you don't own it. No one cares that you aren't buying it because the fuel ratio is 'worng'
If they aren't willing to listen to feedback what's the point in giving it?
-
2 hours ago, Empiro said:
For the same reason that there's no HydroLox or MethoLox in KSP 1 (or even RP-1 since "Liquid Fuel" doesn't exactly have a real-life analogue). It's basically not a area where the developers want to increase complexity in. I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that add fuel types for enthusiasts who want the most realistic and customizable experience.
There in lies the problem, they added MethaLox to the game.
Before is was "Fuel" and "Oxidizer" which was not any specific thing, and therefore not specifically wrong for and engine. Now it's CH4 and OX which is specifically wrong for this particular engine. especially in light of the fact that they also added Hydrogen.
-
13 minutes ago, snkiz said:
Pretty sure that isn't the feedback they are after. Besides isn't there enough of that right here on the forums, Steam communities? I hope you are joking and not planning on wasting valuable EA channels with your whining. Were I a dev I would not give a hoot about why someone isn't buying my game, if that complaint is just making my beta a flame war.
I am quite serious, Why would you go to the Suggestions form and tell people to submit Suggestions somewhere else?
-
From some of the game play videos it appears that the fuel ratio for Methalox in KSP 2 is ~4:1, visible here in the lower right hand corner. It is 5.2 CH4 to 20.8 OX. It should be ~3.6:1 or 5.65 CH4 to 20.35 OX. Please fix this.
-
Quote
How can I give feedback on Kerbal Space Program 2 while it’s in Early Access?
Kerbal Space Program has many places where you can provide us feedback on your experiences with the game. The Kerbal Community Team will regularly be reading and sharing player feedback heard among the Kerbal community channels with Intercept Games.
In the game’s launcher, which can be accessed through the Steam and Epic versions, there will be a permanent feedback button where you can share your feedback on any topic. Periodically there will be topic-specific surveys from the team, which will help us concentrate feedback and ensure no one's feedback is missed.
This is quite concerning, It sounds like you are saying that if I want to give you feedback I have to buy the game, and submit feed back thru the launcher. You mention vaguely defined " community channels", but only specifically mention feedback thru the launcher. You came to the suggestions forum, where somebody would presumably give their feedback and ideas to tell people that they should submit their ideas thru the game. That does seem to suggest that you don't want people giving their feed back here, or that you aren't interested in feedback from here.
I hope that is not the case, but it is a bit of a head scratcher, How should someone go about giving you feedback about why they're not buying the game when the only specific place you mention to give feedback is thru the game?
-
6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
But... they did rebalance the engines...
blue= ksp1
orange = ksp 2That not a re-balance, it's a slight tweak. Almost all of those are very close to each other, and many are right on top of each other such as the Twitch and Spark.
China's moon lander.
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
From the press event a few weeks ago, here is a mock up of China's planned moon lander. They are planning to use what they call "staged descent" It looks like the descent stage will take the lander most of the way to the surface, then be jettisoned. Then the lander will land {duh} and ascend after the mission.