Kuu Lightwing
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Kuu Lightwing
-
-
Are you saying that all of them were successful? Including 1.0.1 and 1.0.3, which had a lifespan of a mayfly? Or the one which left us with an impressive memory leak for two months? Again, just curious.
You don't understand. 1.0 is 1.0.0 and its patches. The whole thing is sucessful. And if you're interested, 1.0.0 itself was very playable and fun.
-
Incorrect question, because 1.0 is all of them.
-
1.0 was a success. Some bugfixes and tweaks was required, but you won't ever get a bugfree release. Only in a fairy tale with ponies. And yet you think that the community that "was extremely skeptical" and predicted the doom of KSP was right? It was a "bad idea", but yet it worked, and worked fine. So, the only issue is that they "DIDN'T LISTEN TO US!!!" Oh, my! And yet you still don't know what is the real reason behind that decision and if it's physically possible for them to "listen" to forum users.
Also, why do you thing that Squad should provide you some "evidence"? The only proof they need is the successful release of the game on consoles. And really, you aren't even a target audience, because you play KSP on PC and don't care about consoles.
And, what are you going to achieve by threads like this? "Oh, almighty forum users, we were blind, we break our contract with Flying Tiger and do whatever you ask!" - that sort of thing?
-
Why? It was a very inaccurate placeholder...
-
Most modern supercomputers run linux, so a port exists. That being said KSP only realy uses one tread, so the millions of cores won't help.
But you can run a million KSPs!
-
On average, what's the most deadly mission phase in your space program?
"I need to do this surface sample from the zone Alpha contract. Lander landed on the night side about 5 kilometeres off, so I'll just fly there with EVA pack. What mountain?! No-no-no-no-no!!! *puff*"
Also, unstable station launches and some of the landings, but not because of landing gear or something, but because "Delta wing collided with launchpad" a kilometer above KSC.
-
Some people in the Community (I agree Kommunity sounds kind of stupid,
) may know better. It just seems like there were some decisions made that looked completely ridiculous from outside Squad, but they may have made perfect sense from within Squad. Marketing isn't my profession, so maybe it's my perspective that skews things.Some people may think they know better. But still we don't know what's the actual reasoning is behind the decisions they make. For some reason Squad thinks the game should be released on consoles. They also say that PC version will not be harmed by that decision. I chose to trust them and don't worry much. I don't play consoles and don't really care about KSP on consoles, though.
Actually, what bothers me with all those advises is that the decision is already made, the contract with Flying Tiger is probably signed, and the development is started. What would you suggest? Break the contract, stop selling Death Sticks and rethink your life? I doubt that's how things work...
- - - Updated - - -
As for what the community wants, that's not necessarily a wise way to develop a game. Feedback has it's place, but the community wouldn't exist at all if Squad hadn't already produced a solid product, and allowing the clamour of demands to heavily alter that product doesn't necessarily result in a better product. I mean, we'd all personally love a year without taxes, but we wouldn't love the resulting collapse of society.I heavily agree with that. Listening to feedback is important, but they always should have their own plan and guts to dismiss even a popular suggestion if they think that the game would be better without that.
-
How many times has Squad actually taken Kommunity advice on development and business strategy? AFAIK, never.
Implying that "Kommunity" (am I the only one who sees how stupid that word is?) knows better about development and business than a marketing company.
-
I said it before and I'll say it again: Nokia 3310
See? I told ya!
-
On a slightly off-topic note I wouldn't want to go through life with a constant pessimism regarding the things I enjoy.
I tried that. Do not recommend.
-
Honestly, I don't want a vacuum port. Vacuum sucks.
-
Nokia 3310. I think it's even confirmed by Kasper.
-
I think that if we need high thrust high ISP engine, it should be a gas core NTR, like one from Atomic Age mod.
ion engines are already way too powerfull for the sake of gameplay, so no need to stretch that even further. leave them in their niche of probe propulsion.
-
There's nothing concerning about this vessel.
-
No. It just looks bad. We already have some parts that don't look good no matter what you attach to the front of them - Mk3 cockpit and both Mk2-to-Mk1 adapters. Don't turn the new smooth and sleek cockpit into one more of those parts.
And even if you make avionics hub fit, there's no other part that would look good in its place. Just no reason to spoil PorkJet's design.
-
Ariane V doesn't seem to have any problems with exponential TWR of SRBs according to this graph:
-
Back in 0.9 my standard launcher was a skipper, two orange tanks, up to 10 ton payload I think, TWR was around 0.9, 4 of the large SRB to get this up and running, an smaller version had 1.5 orange tank and two SRB. This worked nice and was cheaper than an rocket SSTO because of the fuel cost of an 4 times larger rocket.
Well, but this configuration closer to Atlas 5 or Delta II - you use some SRBs to provide enough thrust at liftoff. I did the same thing for my orange tanker (I used more SRBs, though)
SRB since 1.0 has been too weak and too expensive, main use is just too compensate for low TWR at launch, not really to work like an first stage like on Shuttle or Ariane.Well, but you see, they didn't work like that earlier too, because even the largest SRBs are way weaker than LFO engines.
-
I hope they spec it more like the Trent than the GE, 3 tonnes is an awful lot more weight to be carrying...
I mostly hope we'll get big wings to mount this beast under
-
What's the deal with bigger SRBs? I see every other person saying they want them, but I hardly ever use the things and when I do I find that the big ones are way overpowered. Perhaps they'd be of use in RSS, but that's not SQUAD's department.
o_O
One of the rocket configurations IRL is a high-ISP cryogenic hydrolox engine with low thrust plus huge SRBs for early thrust (up to 90% of thrust!) That's Ariane V, Space Shuttle and SLS (in development). In KSP we can only do something like Atlas 5 or Delta II/IV with relatively weak SRBs, and our boosters look way too big for that.
-
Nosecone removal = nope. We get 0.625 nosecone later than 1.25m cockpit, so what would I attach there? A chute?
-
I'm referring to common designation of the old cockpit as "Fighter cockpit", and I don't quite understand why it's called as such. As I understand inline Mk1 IS a fighter cockpit compared to this one. Add an intake at the front - and you have a base for Sabre or MiG-15. Add NCS adapter and a nosecone - here's the nose of a modern fighter. The old Mk 1 is just "some sci-fi cockpit" I think.
-
Why do you even think it's a fighter jet cockpit? Is there any fighter jets with cockpits like that?
-
It would also be cool if it sounded like GE90! The real thing seem to have a very distinctive low-pitch noise.
-
Not to be mean, but why are you calling it a GE-90? Why not just call it a large turbofan? Or do you have to be that pedantic to call it a specific engine though it's obviously based on general large turbofans and is not an exact replica of it?
Because it's an enormous turbofan... And it looks pretty close. Real GE-90 has a diameter of 3.5m. I'm pretty sure that kerbal parts are downscaled a bit compared to real life counterparts, so, I guess 2.5m engine is most definitely a GE-90 version...
Like... do you see this? The only problem that the current airliner wings we have, belong to 737, not 777... They are a bit too small.
) may know better. It just seems like there were some decisions made that looked completely ridiculous from outside Squad, but they may have made perfect sense from within Squad. Marketing isn't my profession, so maybe it's my perspective that skews things.
An Open Letter to Flying Tiger Entertainment
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
And yet it was playable, had lots of cool new features and main issues were fixed relatively fast. It was rated good by reviewers and even regex liked it
So, the decision to go for the release worked fine.
Why should they do "announcements" about their business plans and strategy? Because some forum people want to know? I don't think that's enough of a reason to justify doing so. I'm pretty sure there's also some rules inside SQUAD that don't let employers do that.
Also, "protesting" against a decision that was already made and set in motion is meaningless.
And no, that's not the same as toroidal fuel tank - that was a relatively minor thing which is easy to change and that was all about the game itself.
Much of the community doesn't care about consoles, so that's just none of their business. It's weird to see people demanding every single piece of info about console port development when they don't even plan to play it on consoles.
And it's quite strange to assume that community knows more about what's good for Squad and cares more about Squad's reputation than Squad is. I would like to see a reasoning behind that statement. People may feel whatever they... feel, that's not necessary true. I bet most people in the gaming community before KSP would say "A game about realistic rocketry? No FTL drives? Orbits? That's just boring - who would even play that?!" - that sort of thing.