Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pandaman

  1. Hmm . That could work as a toggled option. But the marker couldn't be too elaborate or the graphics performance would take a serious hit.
  2. Optional original UI? No, not a good idea. whatever one's feelings about the respective styles are, two completely different arrangements to maintain is just plain silly. Making the 'new' UI more customisable is much more practical. Colour options and individually scalable entites (both good for visually impaired) and some facility for repositioning some items etc.
  3. Do I 'want' it to? Yes. Do I expect it to? No. Trailers like that are works of cinema created as adverts, not gameplay (unles it explicitly says so). It's simply unrealistic to expect it.
  4. No idea how viable this is, but one 'possible' solution could be to have 'autoburn' related to pilot skill. Slight randomisation of accuracy at all levels, but much narrower margin for error and more accuracy with more skilled pilots.
  5. I'd be more inclined to say 'unenjoyable' rather than unplayable. As well as the frustrating bugs, it may not yet 'do' what many of us want gameplay wise, but it clearly is playable.
  6. Whilst I see your point, would you rather them give a date they know they can achieve, as opposed to 'making one up' when they aren't sure? There has been enough moving of dates already over the last few years, even if 'specific' dates weren't given.
  7. Yes, I get this too. If you mean the 'Loading Ramp' part it seems to be if your wheels are wider than the central portion, but I haven't experimented fully. Other than that I haven't found a work around other than do something else instead.
  8. I fail to see the real relevance of that metric, other than deliberately trying to paint a gloomy picture. Sure, that number is small, but I (and I assume) many others won't show at all. True, I'm not playing it as much as I would if it were in a better state, but that doesn't mean I have lost interest. And I would guess that many others are the same.
  9. I suspect this is due to them not being restricted to the tips of wings, stabilisers and control surfaces. If other parts generate them then they will appear from wherever those parts are attached.
  10. I am a little disappointed at the prospect of less frequent patches, as I do feel there are some issues that need addressing sooner rather than later, however that wouldn't in itself guarantee that my pet peeves would be addressed in them. Some issues are just harder to fix so take longer, or may be affected by 'future stuff' so why waste time on a non critical fix that will need changing again anyway before too long. Overall I would much rather fewer, but better, patches than more frequent ones that do very little or break stuff. Reducing, patch/update frequency does not in itself indicate slower development, and may even speed it up a little... If you are traveling from A to B and you need to keep stopping to tell your Mum where you are every few minutes your journey will likely take longer than if you just call every hour.
  11. I do like the contrails, and it's a relatively unimportant issue currently, but I agree they could be 'activated' in a better and more realistic way.
  12. Yes, I have been doing that, and it works fairly well, but the ability to work within the new SOI would certainly help. I think any planning for more than one maneuver ahead could only be 'provisional' in nature due to burn accuracy and other variables .
  13. I had this too. But also with 'Goliath' engines, so it's apparently not confined to undercarriage.
  14. Hmmmm. No... But, I do think it's a serious possibility. I think they certainly see it as a long-term investment and intend to give it a good chance, but there are obviously limits.
  15. Yes, Yes, Not satisfied . To be more specific... I think the first two will reach a suitable level, but I can see it being a bumpy ride. As for the third question, realistically I'm between 'Has problems....' and 'Not satisfied...' . Depending on my mood, so... Not satisfied, but still playing a bit.
  16. I expect destructible buildings (including launchpads) will be an optional 'thing' as it was in KSP1. Random part failures I very much doubt will be a stock option, but there will almost certainly be a mod that adds it.
  17. It's not a 'reaction' at all. The Forum Moderators move things to ensure they are in the most appropriate places. They are not game devs, they are volunteers on these forums.
  18. I don't disagree. I suspect however that due to the 'non impulsive' trajectory calculations etc in KSP2 it is probably more difficult to do with any reliability. We do need some way to 'plan/plot' further ahead though, even if it's effectively no more than an illustration of intent.
  19. I agree, but it's an easy handle to grab for those that want to criticise and paint a gloomy picture. Though I suppose it's also the only easily available measure, but it's a very, very rough indicator at best.
  20. I think a little differently, though not massively. Rather than it being a simple blanket 'upgrade' to the standard suit that gives extra capabilities to everyone. I would envisage upgrading as you suggest, to the point where the 'standard' EVA suit is the current one, but without a jetpack as a standard attachment. Essentially as in later KSP1 with the inventory system. Everyone has an EVA suit so they can walk around most planetary surfaces or do tethered EVA in space, but you can save weight by only taking jetpacks or parachutes etc for the few that will need it if you wish. There is also the opportunity to develop specialised suits for harsher environments and, like jetpacks, you decide how many to carry depending on your plans. These wouldn't be assigned to any specific crew, they would be in the inventory and available to all to use as required. Yes it does add some complications and fiddliness, but no more than KSP1s inventory system.
  21. And is that just how the idea plays in your head? I am just saying, instead of focusing on how special you think it's going to make those places feel, why not also play in your head the thought of forgetting a required space suit and not realising until you've already landed... Which is no different to forgetting batteries, parachutes, solar panels, ladders, comms, science experiments etc. Obvious stuff that you will need to take with you in order to do the job you are going for, any one of which, if forgotten, can ruin your day. I do understand your point, and I don't fully disagree, it is an 'extra thing' to think about and take along after all, and I can see why it may not appeal. But that's the mission planning and design process, decide what you want to accomplish, work out what you need to take to achieve it and plan accordingly.
  22. Well, not flavour in a taste sense obviously. See it more of like a specialised tool that you need for certain tasks. and with it not being 'standard issue' or an automatic upgrade (which would be pointless) it would make the environments you need it for feel a bit more special. Certainly not something I would get excited about, or at all upset if not included,
  23. We all find different aspects satifying in different ways. The same could be said about many aspects of upgrading 'normal' tech... Engines, Ladders, wheels, bigger parachutes etc. that you need to develop in order to explore different environments. I certainly don’t think it's a big deal, and I think more than one or two 'specialist' suits would be overkill. But the concept of needing to take a specialised piece of kit (suit in this case) to fulfil a certain task (EVA underwater, or in extreme heat) is not really different gameplay wise to taking a thermometer to measure temperature, or a parachute to land on Eve. No, it doesn't add a lot, but it does add a little bit more 'flavour'.
  • Create New...