Jump to content

shdwlrd

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,009

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by shdwlrd

  1. shdwlrd
    Why not add and remove Kerbals using the traditional methods of transfers, ship them in or out. Or why wouldn't the BAE have the ability to add or remove Kerbals? (Yes, I'm making an assumption about some of the functions of an editor, but it does make sense.) Just like other games with sandbox, all parts are free and unlocked, but all the other rules apply. They also enable other functions (cheats) you normally can't use in whatever their progression mode is called. (That's one thing KSP1 messed up on.) There's nothing stopping someone from being creative. You may have to jump through some hoops to get what you want. (You have to do that now in KSP1 anyway.)
  2. shdwlrd
    After reading the ideas for sandbox mode, I have to ask, What is wrong with how KSP1 does it?
  3. shdwlrd
    The ability to create a colony in sandbox, blueprint it, and use that blueprint to construct the colony in progression mode.
  4. shdwlrd
    I think you are making mountains out of mole hills. If you ever played KSP with different base and resource mods, KSP2 won't be much different. The only real differences would be there wouldn't be any jank because of the mish-mash of different mod authors ideas for how KSP should work. And you have huge time savings because of background resource transfers so you don't have to manually transfer all resources. Yes, KSP2 will have a larger scope and more places to visit, but the gameplay doesn't change.
  5. shdwlrd
    Does KSP2 need a sandbox mode, no. If the adventure mode is fun and doesn't totally block the ability to compete a task, there's no real need for a sandbox mode. Would KSP2 feel like the old KSP without it, no. You wouldn't get some of the crazy contraptions I like to see in the game. No Farris wheels, no roller coasters, no working mach-ups of turbine engines, etc. That type of creativity is only part of what sandbox provides. You would lose a lot of creative uses not related to rocketry or aircraft.
  6. shdwlrd
    Has anyone considered that you may unlock the small scale torch drives before you unlock the engines for the interstellar ships? It would make sense to start small and upscale the after a certain amount of time and resources are applied to it. It would move them more to a mid to late game engine before you go interstellar.
  7. shdwlrd
    Standardized containers? Just like RL intermodal shipping where the 20' & 40' containers are the standard.
  8. shdwlrd
    With the supposed large scale of construction of crafts, 5m engine wouldn't be out of place or unreasonable. But only when the game is released will we get our answer... unless someone confirms the size of the engine. Cough, Nertea, cough, cough, Nate, cough, cough... ahcoo!!! stupid allergies Just an after thought, I wonder if they have a score card for how many forum users guess the proper stats for the stuff they show.
  9. shdwlrd
    That is my hope for KSP2. Properly designed crafts for the their role. Actual incentives for using the correct type of crafts. I've designed ground to orbit shuttles for both low and high g worlds. I've designed small to huge freighters that are meant to never touch atmo. I would love to put these designs into use consistently instead of a one off use case.
  10. shdwlrd
    I know you're talking about KSP1, but @Vl3d brought up an older interview about resources and how they will play into your progression.
  11. shdwlrd
    The bell itself looks to be 3m, so I would guess it's a 5m part.
  12. shdwlrd
    I hope that is the case. A few formality missions that a veteran player can knock out quickly to get on with things. But the same missions can be used to help new players get on boarded. I think science, in the beginning, will be more physically doing things before it you start having to rely on labs. You have to find the resources before you can start digging them up. You should map a planet before you land on it. You find a specific resource and then you need to find a use for it. I completely agree with that approach. I hated the way KSP1 career and science modes worked.
  13. shdwlrd
    I think a lot of the common low hanging fruit will either be unlocked from the beginning or after a few quick missions.
  14. shdwlrd
    Looks like the whole of T2 is bowing out. No Rockstar or 2K either. All well, doesn't mean that they can't post something outside of that.
  15. shdwlrd
    There are many games where the grind is the base game with breaks where you actually have fun. There is a few games I would enjoy if it wasn't for the grind. (Valheim, Icarus) But for KSP2, I feel that the grind will be something you would do anyway. An example would be getting everything you need to start a base/colony to a location and getting the logistics setup for it. All the true, boring grind is promised to be automated/abstracted away to the background.
  16. shdwlrd
    Does it really matter? We don't know how the devs are going to do the progression for KSP2. All that was said was the career and science modes from KSP1 was scrapped and being replaced by their own progression system. It may include contracts, it may not. There maybe funds, there may not. (More than likely not. I'll explain below.) It may require science, it may not. We just don't know. The only thing that was said about the new progression mechanics is this; there will be no game mechanic induced fail states. So no running out of funds, resources, or Kerbals for missions.
  17. shdwlrd
    It's still fun to try and do. As for mods, some of the helper mods, FTL mods.
  18. shdwlrd
    We'll have to see what the devs have in mind for their progression mode and see if there is a true sandbox mode first.
  19. shdwlrd
    This could be a fun mini game even if it's and unofficial forum based game.
  20. shdwlrd
    I've been trying to think of an counter argument for this. But in all reality, I can't figure out a good logical counter. Let me explain. Drawing your train line is the quickest way to create one. But there are examples of single players taking on huge tasks themselves and completing them. (Too many examples seen within Minecraft, Satisfactory, Space Engineers to count.) So both schools of thought hold true and is dependent on the individual player's own goals. Without KSP2 in our hands and knowing what the capabilities of the game are, there's no real way forward on that front. Most would be guessing and assumptions. I don't really want to do that. So at this point in time, we'll have to agree to disagree.
  21. shdwlrd
    Your suggestion would make running the lines quicker and easier. That style is more akin to running networks in a city builder. That is not the brick by brick building feel that KSP has. If the rails were procedurally generated between two points, that could be easier. Then you think about creating curves between the two points, that can get messy. (Thinking about shifting around the networks in Cities Skylines or InfraSpace and how much of a pita it can be to get a clean, smooth curve.)
  22. shdwlrd
    Yes and no. Placement accuracy really depends on how the models are made and what specifically you're trying to do. In this case, nodes are your friend. Surface attachment wouldn't be recommended. In real life rail networks, the tolerances aren't that tight. The interface between the wheels and rails are fairly loose to give the cars the freedom to move around on the rails. (The reason you can see trains going down poorly maintained tracks without much issues.) This applies to all types of rails, standard rails, mono rails, maglev, roller coaster. This where I disagree. I'm not thinking of a full fledged train recreation of what you would see in RL. I'm thinking of giving the players enough to make a usable train in KSP. So that is the tracks, wheel assemblies, someplace to spawn the engine/cars, something to allow the loading and unloading of cars, and someway to build the tracks. Everything else would be the standard stock lineup of parts to actually build the engine and cars.
  23. shdwlrd
    That would make things easier, but people will complain that you're limiting them. The best option is have the construction stay in the SPH like a rover or plane. Make the wheel carriages an assembly and able to be positioned anywhere you would like. They should have some way to line them up. When launching, there should be a building or rail length for the craft to spawn at. Hinges and decouplers are tricky in Unity. They don't like connecting to other hinges or decouplers without a rigid body part between them. You can try to abuse the colliders, but I can see that flaking out. You can also try using a flexible connection with a decoupler, but it will behave weird. (Rubber banding with heavy masses.) I have no real good solution for this one. Again, you'll be limiting people's creativity. The amount of torque the wheels provide should be based on how much power can be generated and part settings, much like the KSP1 wheels and robotic parts.
  24. shdwlrd
    I can see some potential problems with the rails being physics objects with colliders. None of which can't be easily solved. (Hopefully anyways.) They can't be directly on the planet colliders. I can see sections going boom when the physics is loading. (I don't believe that bug will be completely solved by the devs.) So, the rails will have to be raised on pillars. (Similar to the colony buildings. Don't need to be too high, maybe 1m off the ground.) People will want to build their own engines and cars for them. So, the rails will have to be designed to accept the stock wheels. Or have wheel carriages (boogies?) designed for each type of rail and only that wheel carriage can be used with that rail. (Probably be easier to use all around with this option.) There will need to be a way to get said engines and cars onto the rails. There will need to be hinges and decouplers for multi-car trains. (Let's face it, a single car isn't going to be good enough for a large operation.) There will more than likely be more design problems that I'm not thinking of at the moment.
  25. shdwlrd
    Are you asking about the whole length of rail or each track section? I was thinking about it for a few minutes. Building the line seems to be good candidate to abuse the BAE. You will still have to bring resources to the area you want to build. There will be stock procedural parts. You can have some options for the type of rail you want to use. You can stretch and bend them to your hearts content to fit what you're trying to do. The real questions are the rails actual physics objects? Do they need special rules regarding physics range and colliders? Will you be able to use player made cars on them? Or will the whole system be abstracted away like the interplanetary transfer system is suspected to be?
×
×
  • Create New...