Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shdwlrd

  1. If you do decide to adjust wing angles, do the main wing only. Adjusting the horizontal stabilizers will only bring grief. I primarily use the deploy angle override for trimming my craft. You can get finer control and quicker control inputs compared to using the built-in trim settings. (The over sized PAL window gets annoying while doing this though.) KSP really needs an auto-trim function for planes. In all reality, all of the control inputs are either too much, too little, or too slow for keyboard flying. It wouldn't hurt if the devs made the whole stabilizer part move when you trim out your craft so you don't lose any control authority or increase the maximum deflection of the control surfaces. I typically try to keep the fuel tanks around the CoM to minimize the CoM shift. But there are times where you can't to that. (Cough, cargo/passenger planes, cough)
  2. If the SAS was working good for you before, consider yourself lucky. The current SAS has been flaky as hell since release for me. @Icegrx is correct with his assessment of the situation and how KSP handles planes. I'll add that you need to balance your plane with both full and empty tanks. It's surprising how much your CoM can shift between full and empty tanks. Don't rely on the trim completely. As your speed changes and your plane gets lighter, your trim will need to change. (Alt-X resets your trim) Another tip is use the fine controls for twitchy planes. (Fighters and acrobatic planes.) Caps Lock is the toggle for fine controls. If you want to know all the current keybinds, they are in the KSP2 dev update section of the forum.
  3. What problems are you having? The only real issues I have is the lack of lift with horizontal stabilizers. Easy enough work around, just make them bigger. (Sometimes it will destroy the look you're going for though.) The rest is just KSP being KSP.
  4. Reading the "again" in ShadowZones voice. Hopefully this is the last fix for the orbital decay issues.
  5. I've encountered this with the lightyear landing gear. In some cases if you clip the gear too far into the structural part or fuel tank, you'll get the warning. In other cases if you move the gear into the wing, you'll get the warning. In all cases, it seems to happen if the animated part of the model or the wheel collider hits another collider, you'll get the warning. Unfortunately it's very hit or miss when you'll get the warning. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
  6. I'll add that smaller sizes would be good too. Probes and satellites can make use of RCS too.
  7. There is a way to do so now, I don't have the time to find the thread now. You have to edit the settings files directly to get a joystick to work. Found the post...
  8. AMD Ryzen5 5600G, Radeon 7800XT 12GB, 32GB ram is very playable at 1080 or 1440. Can't say much with 2k or 4k since I don't have a monitor with those resolutions.
  9. As someone that hated the science mode in KSP1. I do find Exploration mode quite playable. After the first couple unlocks, there's really nothing stopping you from playing your way. (Outside of reentry heating.) Now they just need to add joystick support (without monkeying with settings files) and some flying aids, I would be very happy to get back playing KSP regularly.
  10. Was it the inflatable heat shield? That one is bugged. There is no heat tolerance to it.
  11. Don't know if you were playing KSP1 at the time 1.0 released. But in the early days of the release, reentry heating was very brutal. You needed shielding for any part that was exposed to the air stream or it would explode. It was changed because noone wanted to learn/try new reentry profiles to minimize the heat buildup. I'm glad that the devs went this route. Reentry it just as tricky as any other part of flying rockets.
  12. This is a usable idea to free up some space. My biggest gripe is with the Flight UI. The lack of consistency with the fonts and a 16 bit color palate makes it really hard to read. The ability to change the colors for the nav ball and tapes would go a long way to help with the ease of deciphering what they are displaying.
  13. There's 3 different camps for LS. One where the player doesn't want LS in any shape or form. One where LS is even more punitive than screwing up your DV, TWR, or EC calculations. One where LS is present, but not a hindrance but a boon. We know that IG is leaning more to the 3rd camp. Having to worry about life support is for the survival genre of games, not a light hearted but difficult space exploration game. Some of you want LS to be a nasty game mechanic without thinking of the game play. I understand that some of you think KSP is too easy. Good for you. But for the rest, it's difficult enough without having to worry about tanking a mission because you forgot to click a button.
  14. My wishes are... 1) proper selection of ground vehicle parts. I'm sick of using rocket parts for every type of ground vehicle. 2) a stock autopilot. 3) an instrument landing guidance system for both planes and rockets. Take the guess work out of landing 4) stock fuel switching for the tanks. Remove the fuel tank spam 5) stock EC calculator 6) different tank profiles. Why does everything needs to be a cylinder? 7) return of the square wing pieces. Never thought I would miss those. But they were too handy. 8) make circular construction possible in the VAB without struts 9) unit switching for velocity 10) surface attach for the procedural wings
  15. The R&D complex does have an observatory with a huge telescope pointing to the sky. (KSP1) So a space based telescope for discovery of the Kerbol system is unnecessary. The Kerbals know what celestial bodies are in their solar system. They should know the general properties if each celestial body already. Space based telescopes is better released with the interstellar update. If any telescopes are released with the FOR SCIENCE! update, they would be the ground survey type.
  16. It depends on the reasoning for the telescope. If you need a telescope to discover a planet in your solar system, that's stupid. You should see the planet transiting across the night sky. You know it's there. If you want to use the telescope to get a better view of the planet, that's cool. If you want to use a telescope to do a ground survey before a mission, that's up to you. But using telescopes for anything in the Kerbol system should be optional and not a requirement for any discoveries.
  17. It was the only real method of doing 3d games at the time. (Think the original Doom or Micropose Flight sim era of 3d games.) Some of those old tricks could still work for KSP. The planets are hand created and decorated. It wouldn't be difficult to but some rough sprites in at certain areas and altitudes for terrain features and scatter. It's the LOD transitions that will make or break the effect though. If not set right, you will see the sprites move, disappear, or 3d objects growing out if the sprites. The sprites will have to stay long enough for the 3d models load, but disappear when you would expect to see the 3d transition. Example would be flying around Kerbin. You don't really need to see really detailed sprites on something 50km away. Just that something is there. You really should start making out the details at around 3-5km away. You would expect to start seeing 3d details at around 1km getting sharper as you get closer.
  18. This would make sense. Many old school flight and driving sims used this style of props for scenery that you didn't need to directly interact with. As time and tech progressed, this use of scenery props changed from almost all props to the props where it didn't matter if it was 3d or not.
  19. So much this... Don't get me wrong, auto struts was useful in certain situations for experienced players. (Ex. Large to huge space planes.) But it doesn't need to be a crutch for bad design choices.
  20. All command pods, probe cores, and inline stabilizers have the option to turn off or reduce the torque from the reaction wheels. They are in the parts action menu.
  21. If you're spending most of you play through in space, I can see the allure of increasing the size of the solar system. If you spend any good amount of time traveling on the celestial bodies, they seem big enough. I'd rather fly a couple hours at Mach .8 to go from the equator to the pole than what's considered a regional flight in the US.
  22. Where I'm at the consumer protections are weak at best or non-existent. Only out right fraud will get a strong response. Yes, you still have a refund period with Steam. With KSP though, (or most games for that matter) 2 hours really isn't enough to get a good picture of the state of the game. It's only enough to figure out if you like the game play or if it's completely non playable for your system. But that is a gripe about Steam’s refund policy. Not so much about KSP.
  23. To be fair, Nate did say the game was in "rough shape" before it released. But didn't elaborate on his definition of "rough shape." So he didn't properly manage expectations for the game. This is a case it's was like buying a car sight unseen that the seller said it only needs some mechanical repairs and all the fluids changed out. But you receive a project car instead. The seller didn't correct the expectation of the buyer. Unlike the car scenario, a game (as long as it isn't canceled) will eventually be completed. Back to the point of the thread, IG didn't properly manage expectations in the beginning. They tried and failed since then. At this point, I agree with @Periple that the best thing they can do is go silent, get some quality patches out, and then start talking again. Because right now, talking about new and upcoming features will be poorly received. Talking about general dev work will garner a negative response despite the overall progress they are making.
  • Create New...