Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pthigrivi

  1. I don't know I just feel like all of these problems are being created by an insistence that the mechanic relies on overly harsh stick-based punishments that mostly only very hardcore veteran players want. If life support is more about bonuses and carrots its no different from science experiments or resources being harvested over time--its just a time-based reward with engineering implications. That seems perfectly sensible and doesn't create all of these other gameplay problems. Permadeath especially either creates some weird grisly questions about what happens to dead kerbals and the vessels they're in or they just go poof, in which case players will come back to find their vessel simply empty and be confused about what went wrong. For me--maybe hold hibernation for hard mode because others are right there is some rescue-mission utility there for those who want the challenge. Leave permadeth to very hard or mods.
  2. No, hearsay is a re-telling of something you heard from someone else. If you told someone else you heard from me that I had a better experience with Macs that would be hearsay. Me telling you exactly what I've personally seen is not. That said I think we're well off-topic at this point.
  3. Haha well Im telling you that over 20 years and dozens of machines that have gone through our office the PCs have limped and stumbled along and eventually failed while the Macs worked pretty flawlessly for 8 or more years until they simply became outdated. That may be hearsay to you, but its my direct experience.
  4. You can just google it. The experience I've had and the businesses I've worked for have had over dozens of machines over decades isn't hearsay, and its a pretty widely accepted trend. PCs have a lot of pros--out of the box performance/dollar, broad compatibly, better for gaming, etc. For work though the down-time created by constant restarts, hardware failures, troubleshooting software issues and high machine turnover just wasn't worth it, at least not 5 years ago and certainly not 15 years ago.
  5. Its been my experience, historically, that the Macs I've owned have lasted much longer and hand many fewer issues over time than the PCs I've used. The business I work for used to use both--PC's for some tasks and Macs for others--but over 20 years or so the PCs had problems and disrupted productivity often enough that we phased them out and run PC only tasks on Parallels. Again though tough to know if this still the case.
  6. Im sure Im not going to repeat the Mac vs PC debate. We can leave it as I prefer them
  7. For my part I do prefer the interface, but mainly it comes down to stability and reliability as I use my laptop both for fun and for work (our firm all runs on macs.) This advantage was probably more pronounced in decades past.
  8. So, Im a pretty strong advocate for stock LS even for newcomers to KSP. As Im sure you've experienced there are inherently tricky factors in the game because it's not Starfield, it's not NMS, we're contending with a simplified version of real physics. This comes up pretty early as players start to understand delta-v, rocket efficiency, TWR, + ISP, and gravity turns. Thats all coming at players in the first 10h of gameplay. There are more complex maneuvers after you've achieved orbit and start thinking about how to intercept and land on the Mun. I 100% agree up to this point players really shouldn't be worried about LS at all. There's plenty enough to think about. But if players have stuck with it this far and are looking at how much delta-v they'll need to go to Duna and beyond they've already shown a pretty keen appetite for cool engineering puzzles. Fortunately as part of KSP2's planned features there's going to be an intermediary stage building your first space station and establishing starter colonies. These are a kind of interim bridge where players are thinking about more complex kinds of delivery systems, probably sending their first exploratory interplanetary probes, etc. To me thats the kind of player space where you're considering long-term habitation--even 50 or 100 days or more--when the idea of not just traversing space but living in space could become a real gameplay element. Even then I disagree with many other commenters that lethality or even hibernation are needed as a consequence, certainly not on default-normal difficulty. It looks like we have a science system in which surface samples are a factor, possibly other roles for kerbals themselves, and since science is the central currency with which you buy access to parts I think its a strong incentive lever. I think the safest and strongest way to introduce LS is to say to the player--Kerbals are plants or whatever and they're resilient, but they're much happier and more productive if they have food over long journeys. We can assume that oxygen and water are being recycled by the capsule, but food is a different story that requires a little bit of thought and planning. This becomes like most other elements of KSP--a simplified, toy version of real considerations in space exploration and long-term colonization, and like those other elements it can be considered in engineering terms. You could provide greenhouses and rehydrators to produce and extend the amount of food available and thereby keep your kerbals happier for longer. And if you don't, no biggie! It's just a points bonus that allows you to unlock tech and mine resources faster than you would otherwise.
  9. Ahhh I heard. We'll see. I wish at least there was a workaround for the black-sky bug in KSP2. I've been losing myself in Factorio for the last few months but the number of other PC games I want to play has been mounting up. Maybe I'll see what I can and cant do when Frostpunk 2 releases next year.
  10. I don't think it should be introduced till the resources update since players should really be able to produce it offworld. And to the latter question again I think it should always be on but apply to bonuses only. That way any player in a multiplayer group can either use it or not depending on their personal speed and preference. If players are on higher difficulties with hibernation I guess it would apply to their vessels only? There are probably a bunch of issues around difficulties and multiplayer that go beyond LS.
  11. This has be pretty sad, and has had me locked out of playing for a few months now Given how far behind Mac has fallen in the gaming world Im going to have to ditch them for a PC next year after being a pretty loyal customer for 30+ years. It sucks.
  12. And yeah having a mission planner with transfer window calculator that lets you set alarms and establish dV budgets just needs to be in the game no matter what. Absent those tools we'll see very few players going interplanetary, and when they do they'll be doing it like Vl3d, launching to orbit and then time-warping for months or years waiting for phase angles at best or guessing arbitrarily at transfer maneuvers at worst. Once you have a proper mission planner, which we need anyway, estimating flight durations with a comfortable buffer is no biggie.
  13. This is also why I think structuring LS as a non-lethal system that provides bonuses to science and ISRU is the best route for default difficulty. It's kind of optional because you can just collect the standard rewards without it, but it's not something you switch off at the beginning of a save and lock yourself out of those parts. People respond pretty well to incentives and if you can get 25% more science out of a mission with a little extra planning I think a lot of players will dig into it. If players want to flirt with the potential for hibernation or death those should be left to higher difficulties.
  14. It was pretty interesting to see life support emerge as one of the most popular requests for unannounced features. A number of folks seemed to want to chat about it and rather than clog up the Top 10 thread I thought I'd start new topic. I've written my own proposal on how it could be done but this is a community and Im not an N of 1 kind of person. What are your thoughts? I know some of the devs are skeptical but I think there are some really cool opportunities here.
  15. I mean the larger point is also just being ignored here: that there is a difference between being an embodied pilot physically within the cockpit and viewing your flight space through a horizontal monitor. Here's the typical field of view for a person. Notice you have an aspect ratio thats roughly square and biased downward. If I had a square screen I'd probably also want the navball centered below with other flight information to either side. All of these design considerations are important. Both, my dude. We're using both sources of information.
  16. Hmm. Im not so sure. They each have their own navball and they could have just put the instrument panel directly in front of Armstrong's face with a center window they could both look out through. I think it has to do with having a clear vertical sense of alignment when looking out. Heres another image of a helicopter cockpit with the central view through the windshield and the navball just off to the side. I think its just that when a clear view of the ground is absolutely critical that clear vertical real-estate becomes more important. After all the navball isn't responding to parallax, it shows what it shows no matter which angle you view it from. Looking at an environment does however, especially when in 3rd person. When you drag to shift the view of your vessel off to the right you're no longer looking straight through the center of the vessel and using that information to assess alignment with the terrain below is much more difficult. Of course what would be amazing would be a HUD overlay showing your present trajectory and marking the landing spot on screen similar to the trajectories mod. That would be gold.
  17. I also found this which is interesting--the LEM cockpit. It's a little hard to see but each crewman is standing side by side lined up on the window. You can see the joystick set for the right hand and aligned with the Navball. Again I think this is because having a visual reference as you guide yourself into a nice, flat, debris free LZ is so important. They'll also want to know speed and range and staying level obviously so they're glancing right to left to maintain awareness of all of that information. You'll also notice the crewman optical alignment site which is primarily used for docking.
  18. The other thing that I do all the time in KSP1 is set a lander or new module down just a few meters from an existing base. In that instance one of the biggest worries is landing physically on top of your base and having that clear view below your vessel is really important. With colonies and collidable terrain down the road this kind of thing is going to be more and more important. As players you really need BOTH pieces of information, and given that standard monitors are wider than the they are tall this means you get the best viewing area for each by putting them side by side. If I could rotate my monitor vertically that might even be the best solution, but on a laptop thats just not an option. But again this whole conversation is kind of silly because it's a clearly a matter of personal preference and it should just be adjustable, all agree.
  19. Thanks, Alize, for your perspective on this. I think this kind of accessibility is incredibly important in games and why allowing UI configurability is so key. Interesting to hear about making the UI smaller in some cases. This is unintuitive for folks who would think larger and more readable text would make things easier but it makes sense as you describe it. For some folks bigger might be better be but obviously accessibility isn’t a one size fits all thing. All of these tools are important. I super appreciate your thoughts and don’t hesitate to come and give feedback. And damn, 20k! I thought I was a vet with 6 or so.
  20. Nah bruh. Mine fertilizer on the surface and turn it into snacks with a greenhouse. No way these resupplies need to come all the way from Kerbin. Check out my thread. Im talking a few tons to keep them happy for years. It wouldn’t be hard to overbuild and give yourself flexibility. Learning to think about time is exactly the point. And if not no biggie, its just a bonus. So long as there’s no punishment its no different from mining or experiments taking time.
  21. So many good ideas yall^ 1) Life support! I know its controversial but I think it can be done in an enriching yet forgiving way. I made a thread about it. 2) Flight Planner with a transfer assistant and alarm clock that adds up a dV budget leg by leg to a destination. Bonus points if this can be appended to vessels in the VAB and in flight. 3) Trajectories factoring drag and visible in flight mode. This could be unlocked after performing an atmospheric analysis of a given world. Super important for aerocaptures and precision landing. 4) Scanning and Mapping. This is such a gimme for the science system. The SCANsat style method of building maps was really instructional and overlays for altitude, slope, biome, and later resources would be amazing. 5) Make Kerbals Important at colonies and maybe even on vessels. There should be real in-game benefits to science and resource processing for having more of them and there could be some really simple ways of autofilling job slots when you have lots of them. 6) A Simple habitation mechanic at colonies to increase kerbal productivity. 7) Stage recovery. I think it's possible to use the supply route system to rate subassemblies as recoverable. We've chatted about this in the past. 8) Solid tools for resource flows. When the resource system comes around learn from Starfield's mistakes. Without some basic tools managing resource flows you run into a lot of frustrating issues. 9) 1.875m parts. I know its a bunch of work but man I miss these. 10) Ballutes! Last but not least. These would be amazing for aerocapturing big complex vessels where the center of drag is difficult to manage.
  22. I love this question. I usually bias my view on launch viewing from the south with the rocket heading west to east/left to right. Angle wise this would probably make bottom right the best place for the nav-ball on ascent. But ascents are pretty forgiving for me at this point. The bigger challenge is usually landing and whether easy-peazy minmus flats or precision atmo landings Im still viewing from the south watching the landing coming in west to east. From this angle the bottom left is the best place for the nav-ball as I can maximize the viewing angle diagonally from upper left to lower right view as I come in to land. Either way in those last critical 100m you're heading pretty much straight down and maximizing your vertical screen real-estate becomes paramount.
  23. Id love to see a challenge where players put craft paper over their entire monitor except the nav ball and try to land on the Mun.
  24. Listen everyone knows the correct place for the nav ball is exactly in the center of the screen both vertically and horizontally. Can’t miss it. In fact we should just get rid of all of the other UI and graphics. Kerbal Navball program. Think of the performance boost!
  • Create New...