Jump to content

StarStreak2109

Members
  • Posts

    782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StarStreak2109

  1. Duh, I almost feel bad for suggesting this. I wish I could help you... But I never touched a 3D modeling program in my life, besides Sketchup once...
  2. And of course, the GSC++ is glitchy when using Rescale, as KKtoSD does not seem to work in the latest version of KSP...
  3. One thing I would like to add though, which has also been already mentioned above: Please make the explosion of an asteroid impact larger. Maybe also add some way to calculate reentry heating for an asteroid to have it blow up upon entry if conditions are right (just size and speed probably).
  4. Much improvement! Like it very much! I would love to see that the previously shown revamped parts would be raised to the same level of quality. It is going into the right direction, keep it up!
  5. Mmmh, just a wild thought here: wouldn't it be possible to convert that rover model of yours into one single part? Minus the wheels of course. Plop a small decouple into the rover bay, attach them wheels to the rover body and then the rover to the decoupler. The rover body could have the usual modules like command, reaction wheels plus one or two experiments. But since the most planetary bodies are rather slopy, I'd guess it would be frustrating to have the rover disappear in the ground all the time or have it floating in midair... Again just a suggestion...
  6. If the rover is a static animation, how does it cope with undulating ground? If the ground is sloping up, wouldn't it go underground?
  7. I don't use SRBs as structural members. I use SRBs as SRBs. But I agree with you, engines should have this option, if only as a safety measure against accidental activation. While we're at it, I also would like to have the option to toggle a preset for the thrust limiter on/off. This would be handy for those multicore rockets where the center core throttles down after lift-off and throttles back up after booster sep.
  8. Hey, actually, I hadn't had much chance to dig into it deeper due to real life constraints... I have not thought of doing the math actually. My findings / prerequisites are still: KER and MJ deliver roughly the same numbers concerning dV for both LFO as well as LH2 engines. When using LH2 engines, the actual amount of dV spent during an in-space manouver is twice as high as stated by the manouver node system. Boil-off is deactivated all the time, so it should not factor in the calculations. I still have to try whether the root part has anything to do with it...
  9. I personally have no problem with (the current) royalty free music at all. Apart from the fact that I turn off the music in most games (which is not the point anyway), I think that the current music in-game is kind of a staple of KSP. So removing or replacing it is IMHO not a good idea. There are three things IMHO that could/should be done: Should be done: Adding more variety of music in the same theme to have less repetition. Maybe even also add event/location-controlled music, as has been discussed above. Events could be reentry, docking, landing, launching, ... Locations could be per planet for instance with a distinction between landed, flying in atmo, flying in space above... Should also be done: The possibility of adding your own music into the "sound track" (disclaimer wrt streaming or uploading to YouTube necessary!) Could be done (optionally): Remaster / redo the existing soundtrack to better fidelity. Re the third point and all others asking for new, not royalty-free music: I do think that the expense necessary for recording better music, non-royalty free music, should better be invested into the games development. There are so many great artists out there (Kevin McLeod, Testshot Starfish, ...) that would probably be more than willing to contribute to KSP's soundtrack that I do not see the need for spending 1000s on a new OST. Having said that: This would indeed be an opportunity for a DLC, however much I dislike the idea. But this would be a way to recuperate costs of an OST, those who want the additional music can buy it optionally, as long as the option to add custom music into the game yourself remains a core game functionality...
  10. I am not really knowledgable when it comes to game engines and game programming. But my understanding is that in order to make the scale of KSP happen in Unity, some pretty hefty hacks had to be employed to allow to calculate the player's ships physics on a small scale and the planetary system's physics on a large scale at the same time. This is also the heritage I think KSP has to cope with even today. On this note, I do not know, if this can be handled better by another game engine, but there are certainly examples of such within Unity, CryEngine or Unigine. Having said that, I still doubt KSP will be a thing, but if it is, I think it will have the advantage that its scope will be quite fixed from the beginning...
  11. I am strongly against that. They are fun in Whatsapp and Discord, but have no place on this forum IMHO. Written communication can be hard enough to understand (and gauge your fellow users "true" intentions/feelings/state of mind). If you add a bunch of "pictures" into the mix, people will start to use them for fun and as pointed out by @Geonovast instead of words... As some people on here already have problems expressing, what they want to say in complete sentences, I am strongly against that.
  12. I guess the issue is that real world "science" is not limited to point measurements. It is often long term observation and data analysis to "gain science points". There is one mod, that properly emulates that, and that is ScanSat, which forces you to have satellites in specific orbits, which observe the planet below until they have covered 100% of the surface. Another mod that emulates real science quite well is this telescope mod (forgot the name). But in the real world, we do not do "biome hopping" or the likes. Again, emulating a real world approach would be to have a satellite in orbit, which would then identifiy "science potential". This could be quantified for instance by certain geographical features (cliffs, ancient river beds, ...). These locations could then be targeted for a ground mission to exploit the "science potential" and gather "science". But grinding science by visiting every biome of every planet, and be it ever so lifeless and void of interest, is IMHO simply not realistic. IRL we also wouldn't drive a rover through the endless wastes of Mars, just to have been there. We would make a decision, which "biomes" would be interesting and land there. Further thoughts of game mechanic: Define objectives, what you want to learn about a specific planet (e.g. its history, potential for life, possibility for colonization / ISRU, ...). Based on the selected objective, regions with "science potential" must be identified via orbital scanning. In these target regions, landing missions or dedicated orbital analyses via more specific satellites are used to gather specific "science" that counts towards resolving the selected objective. Once your science count is high enough, the objective is fulfilled and you receive the information requested. Some of the information might just be used to expand the lore and others could be used e.g. as a basis for planning your ground base (e.g. what ECLSS requirements exist for that planet). This would also require that for instance you do not initally know e.g. the atmospheric make up.
  13. No, absolutely no. Then we get a third (fourth?) playmode. Besides, career is an integral aspect of the game (a core feature). I don't see this as a potential DLC. Also I don't want it to be a DLC, because as it is a core feature, I paid for it. They can add as many "bonus" features to the core game as they want, as long as people are willing to shell money out. But core features do not get to be DLCs! I think the "SimpleRockets 2" argument is only valid to point out alternative techniques when it comes to ingame rocket design mechanisms. Just calling out to "dump KSP and buy SR2 instead" is simply pouring out liberal amounts of salt without the intend to contribute something worthwhile to this discussion. Fully agreed. I don't think the point is that everybody is clamoring to have KSP all "porkjetified". A homogenous art style is what is definitely required. We then can discuss whether this is "good", "ok" or "bad", always giving reasons why we do find said art style to be "good", "ok" or "bad". It is understandable to a certain point. Community feedback has been submitted, yet no reflection on behalf of Squad was apparent. Plus a certain frustration with bugs not being fixed, not even talking about the console mess. And of course there are also people who feel passionate about the game. I think it is worthwhile keeping in mind what you wrote, @Lupi. Everyone can state his/her opinion in a civil manner. We can react to that opinion in the same civil manner. That applies for opinions stated versus @SQUAD as well. 50% agreed. Yes, we should not state criticism for the sake of criticism or with the intent of making @SQUAD feel bad. I have no problem with modmakers showing off their artwork with the intent of showing how it can be made better. I see this as a professional courtesy from one artist to another. That's one way how we learn. But OTOH, I believe that @SQUAD are professionals that are being paid for their work. If they can do better, they should and not be sulky because someone said that they could do better... (as long as that has been expressed in a civil manner). At the end of the day, I do not know nor understand why @SQUAD put so much emphasis on revamping the artwork of the game. Whilst having a homogenous artwork is definitely desirable and overdue, fixing the game and revamping some of the gameplay issues like science and career modes, game balance and so as has been said multiple times in this thread and others, seem much more worthwhile to me. Finally to wrap up this wall of text some wisdom I like to live by: First one is for @SQUAD: "Do some good and talk about it!" (unknown). Second one is for all of us: "Act according to a maxim which can be adopted at the same time as a universal law." (Immanuel Kant), or in more layman's terms: Treat you fellow user how you want to be treated...
  14. Can you elaborate? You know, we talked about constructive criticism...
  15. TBH, I never fully understood the need for KSP on consoles - from purely technical points of view due to the limited input features as well as technical limits of consoles. I could never imagine building a rocket with an XBox controller. Same I never could imagine playing Cities Skylines on an XBox. I can understand the business decision - creating a bigger clientele. Well the decision surely has bitten them in the backside, but is now irrevocable. And that part of the forum user base is going to continue to pour salt in liberal quantities, so something has to be done about that. I don't know anything about the plushies, I never interested myself in those.
  16. Thanks for sharing that. I think we all appreciate that it is virtually impossible to find a solution that pleases everyone. There will always be some special interests that one cannot satisfy along with the odd trouble maker that pours out salt just for the sake of general saltiness (is that even a word?). I believe it will be a good thing if it can be shown to the forum how the community feedback has resulted in an improvement, you know, just to raise morale a bit. Finally, if I may add to @JadeOfMaar's post, I'd also suggest you devote some time in the next KSP Weekly to share some insight about how things will progress concerning the console versions. I have the impression there are some seriously disgruntled clients of yours, who feel abandoned, because literally there is no info on how their issues are being dealt with. Again, I have expressed some doubts about KSP's future, as based on my recent observations here in the forums, I would be extremely happy to be proven wrong. Especially since I am still enjoying KSP on an almost daily basis!
  17. I believe that there is a certain potential for salt also in the non-console version. But as I have said before, at least we have a working version with mods, which is at least playable and enjoys further development, which apparently cannot be said about the console version. I believe also that whoever is working on the code has to first and foremost get a handle on the code base, which I have the impression may not be easy, as KSP is definitely not within the original scope (way past it), so it's bound to be a (more or less) undocumented (hopefully not) mess of code written by dozens of people. No wonder that the amount of bugs is not decreasing...
  18. Okay, that part eluded me. I would be mega-salty if I were stuck on the console version... Regarding the communication with the developers. I agree that this used to be better in the past. I guess it is the normal circle for an ex-indie game, which used to be developed by a single guy / small team. Now it is still a small team, but virtually none of the original guys are left, so I sometimes wonder, if what they are doing, is "just a job" or whether their heart is really in it like it was with Harvester and his initial core team. The way things are going right now, I fear KSP is on a slow but certain decline, which is a shame considering the potential this game still has. I would definitely love to be proven otherwise. Regarding the game's development cycle, I do hope that we will one day get a mostly stable version, which may be the last iteration ever, which would be a solid base for modders to work on to continue improving the game with new toys. It would then be of less importance if there will ever be a KSP 2... (or some other spiritual successor).
  19. Now now, that is a bit strong, isn't it?!? First of all, yes, the game has bugs, some more apparent than others. Would I love to have them all fixed??? Why yes, of course. Are they game breaking? Not for me anyway and I see way more people enjoying the game than people giving up because of the game's frustrations as you are implying for yourself. Let's be clear, were it not for the awesome community and all the mods (not moderators, but those are good too, mostly... ), the game would be pretty dull, and I would have given up on it as well... I cannot however support your statement that Squad are deliberately not supporting the game. I mean yes, they make the appearance of a somewhat overwhelmed, sometimes disorganized team, and the recent diaspora of the original game's devs hasn't probably helped either. But they are churning away at those bugs ever so slowly. Maybe not always those we would have preferred, but at least they are still sticking to it. Of course it would have been a great thing, if the 1.4 update hadn't introduced so many new bugs... Now you say that you see SimpleRockets 2 as a worthy successor to KSP. That is your prerogative of course, I however have only seen a handful of teaser videos and screens on Steam, so I can't confirm that it's scope can indeed replace KSP. There I fact some things I like about it, for instance the procedural rocket building process. I have found no info on it's Modding capacity, so I have to take your word for it. However I can't support your opinion that Squad does not support mods, with mods being what makes KSP what it is today. So yeah, if SimpleRockets 2 is your thing, then have fun, personally I'll stick with KSP for the time being...
  20. As someone who knows next to nothing about texturing: Yes, the new models / textures are an improvement over the originals. But what is it with the flat looking textures, looking like the SRB was dipped in bleaching agent???? When compared toomodels by @Nertea these look quite bland... Especially the business end could profit from a bit more love, detail-wise...
  21. As the others have said, I would retain the following items: All the science parts; Fuel lines; Struts; Landing gear; Landing struts; and Batteries; (and optionally) (Mk2 plane parts). For a more complete experience, also to fill up late game experience, I would add (some) of the following mods: Coatl Probes Plus; Near Future suite of mods, alternatively / along with Angel-125's mod packs (DSEV, Pathfinder, Buffalo, ...); For space plane purposes either OPT or B9, both accompanied by B9 procedural wings
×
×
  • Create New...