shdwlrd

I used Z & X for that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, I think planet pack was KSS10 or something like that. The Toy Planet mod was a bunch parts ranging from 100m to 1.5m in the form of the Kerbin celestial bodies minus the sun. (I did make a Kerbin version of the solar system ship from Andromeda with them.) People have already done the math for Kerbin in the past. The planet would have to be denser than Uranium or Plutonium to have the gravity constant the same as an Earth like planet. (Definitely possible in the grand scheme of the universal unknowns, but not with our current knowledge.)

That's why the whole Kerbal universe is considered a toy universe by some. Unrealistically small celestial bodies.

Betty - What is that? Bill - It's Jeb up to his old tricks. Please smile for the camera. I don't want to be here when he gets here.

A fairing that can be both procedural and manual wouldn't be that difficult to do. If you think it is, you're over thinking it. This is a part level option, not one that would affect the whole of the game. You either choose to create the fairing manually or have the system create one for you. It's not that complicated.

Yes, KSP2 is playable. No, it isn't fun to play. Once KSP2 surpasses KSP1 in features or someone makes an autopilot mod, I won't find KSP2 fun.

I miss the procedural fairings mod. Much less headaches than the manual fairings.

Puzzles won't be good for the more routine day to day science gathering. It would become tedious very quickly. I can see doing puzzles for the science breakthroughs though. I can see it as a small distraction to the routine of the game.

I would say that most in this group do have a clear opinion. They may not choose to share it publicly, or have already shared their opinions without screaming it from a soapbox whenever they can. They may not want to interact with a community beyond sharing cool screen shots, mission reports, and bug reports. Overall, not getting too worked up for something out of their control and (hopefully) enjoying the game in their unique ways.

Yeah, it's kind of a pain. I was hoping you could surface attach things to the wings. One thing I would like to add to this list is the ability to add multiple control surfaces to the wing. So you can have separate control surfaces for pitch and roll.

It was mentioned that they intend on using DOTS for later parts of the game. (Primarily the background resource tracking.) Intercept knows the flaws of KSP1 and intend on not repeating them. (How successful they will be has yet to be determined.)

Love the fact you have to use the polite corporate speak of "It's not happening."

If you're referring to the tutorial screens when you land (crash?) You should be able to turn those off when you start a new save. (Maybe also in your current save, never looked.) They are there to help you not feel bad about crashing and to offer "training" to help you not do it again. Also, who knows how Kerbals deal with death.

I'm thinking of a physicsless part that would mimic a spinning prop.

that's cool. makes me miss the flapjack. any chance to get some fake prop parts for a build like this?

No problem. It's not to bad of a bug. Just annoying to find your test pilot missing. And figuring out that they love the craft so much they want to live there now. (Why? I don't know. There's not a lot of room in a inline Mk1 cockpit or capsule. A Mk3 cockpit has a bunch more room. But it's their choice for now.)

Nope, that doesn't always work. I've lost Jeb, Val, and Bob to the workspaces. I've always created a new workspace for new craft. It will always select the next Kerbal in line unless I physically pull the Kerbal out of the craft prior to closing the workspace.