LegendaryAce
-
Posts
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by LegendaryAce
-
Eh, what's 2 more years right? I have a sneaking suspicion that once we get 1.2, one of two things will happen. 1) Work on a port for 1.3 will be started soon after, and we'll be waiting for a few years to get it. It'll be a long arduous road, but we'll see it eventually. 2) Squad decides that consoles aren't worth the trouble and the money, and after 1.2, absolves themselves of any further development on the consoles, and KSP on consoles will slowly stagnate from lack of support. Sadly, I'm starting to believe that the second possibility is what's going to happen.
-
Truthfully, this should be given to us regardless. For one, the wheels in our version are completely broken. The TR-2L wheels are absolutely useless. I tried using them for a long duration rover (named Pioneer) which held everything from a Double C Seismic Accelerometer to an M4435 Narrow Band Scanner, to be stationed on Minmus. But unfortunately, due to the wheels being beyond broken, 4 of 6 of the TR-2L's broke at the moment of landing, which was at a landing speed of 1.2mps. So I don't believe that those things being advertised should be the compensation.
-
@SQUAD Any chance we could get this in the console version of KSP? If we're getting a debug (cheat) menu, this'll be great for long duration missions!
-
I'm not dissatisfied with the bug, reports, but I'm starting to feel like it's becoming a wash, rinse, and repeat cycle. Sure, they're finding new ones all the time, but how many non-gamebreaking bugs need to be found before it's stable enough to be released and hotfixes can take over? Surely this current build (as of 1:00AM PST on September 1st) is way more stable than the FTE version. Also, I'm getting even more irritated since now we're rapidly approaching the one year anniversary of the announcement for a fix.
-
Yeah, I know, I know. It's just the lack of any update towards ANY kind of time frame. The least they could do is say before 2018. That way I won't be debating on whether to permanently shelve KSP or not. (I apologize for my mood. This week has not been nice.)
-
So, it seems my suspicions were correct. We will be able to get control schemes similar to that of Ace Combat. That'll make in-atmosphere craft much easier to pilot. However, on the negative side, it seems like there's more and more bugs every week. Don't get me wrong, I love that they're showing progress, but it seems to me that this version may be just as bad as FTE's version. Call me a cynic, but there's more than enough evidence to back me up. (EDIT: Forgive me for being so brash, but does it seem like we're going nowhere fast? It seems like every Weekly we get, we're still no closer to release.)
-
Oh. I guess that's out of the question then, isn't it. I haven't played KSP since February, so what's another year?
-
Do what I do. Don't delude yourself into thinking there will be an update, that way when there is, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
-
Meh. I'll be on Reach or Battlefield if anyone needs me.
-
Well, then here's an idea. You can program two separate default control schemes for rockets and planes. Use Ace Combat's control scheme for default in atmosphere craft (jets and spaceplanes). (I use Ace Combat since I doubt very many console gamers have played IL-2 Sturmovik, Birds of Steel, or any others) RT/LT - Throttle Up/Throttle Down RB/LB - Yaw Right/Yaw Left Left Stick - Pitch/Roll Easy, right? As for rockets? Use the same default control scheme that we're used to. EDIT: Here's a question for the devs that hopefully I can get an answer for. I've already mastered making VTOL fighters and Jumpjets (Harriers, F-35B's, Yakovlev Yak-141, etc.), so I would like to know if it's possible to implement the necessary propulsion systems to make helicopters.
-
If memory is correct, this is the 4th(?) time they've supposedly "changed the control scheme". Here's an idea. Play Birds of Steel, look at its player customizable control scheme, and implement THAT in KSP! Maybe let players CHOOSE their own controls!?
-
Who knows. This whole ordeal has been nothing short of a disaster.
-
Simpleplanes on iOS has pretty accurate astrophysics when you exceed altitudes over 250,000 feet. If Jundroo made it so the atmosphere changes and it looks like space, I'd ditch KSP on the spot.
-
Ahh. So vague. Just what I'm used to. Would it kill them to give an estimate on how much is done? Not even when they'll release, but how far percentage wise they'd guess. Oh, on a side note, next Wednesday marks 400 days since release.
-
*If. I'm still rather pessimistic.
-
I can quote the first sentence almost verbatim. "In other news, work on the console build continues at a good pace..." Perhaps we'll see this update before the end of the year!
-
Awesome! Now if I want to, I can explore the Jool system with an Aerospike powered SR-71!
-
That's what I said.
-
@Red Iron CrownWell, to each his own I guess. Just figured that this "debate" was degenerating into pure anger. No harm in trying to play Peacekeeper, right? @Everyone Let's just all agree on the following: 1) The current state of the console version is abhorrent, and NEEDS to be fixed. 2) Squad has said they will fix it, and release a working version. 3) Fighting amongst each other and/or Squad staff is NOT productive. 4) Venting and/or ranting is acceptable, in moderation, and when not attacking others. 5) Squad WILL release the PS4 version when the new port is finished. 6) Take everything Squad says with a grain of salt. They obviously cannot give solid details regarding release dates. Is it so hard to follow these? I've already started to, and I was vehement a short while ago.
-
@Jumba83Dude, you really need to stop. All this hostility and fighting pointed at both the mods AND the devs is counterproductive. You expect Squad to give you a fixed game, but at the same time you're all but crucifying them. Ever hear the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Trust me, I'm still quite livid at the state of the console version, but I've learned long ago that there's NOTHING I or you can do to fix it. All we can do is sit here, and hope that Squad makes right with the console community. @Red Iron CrownWhy even fight with this guy? It's not even worth the energy. Sure, I've gotten into disputes with mods, yourself included, but it doesn't help. As "Global Moderator", shouldn't you be more upstanding than this guy? He's obviously never going to be satiated, so don't give him the pleasure of upsetting you.
-
I can't help but agree with that. If you wanted to find that out, this is not the place to ask, as it is dedicated to console. Also, @Red Iron Crown, I agree. Though I'm still particularly irritated, it's not very prudent to take out your aggression directly towards the devs, especially when they actually give you a detailed response.
-
Why not hand it over to me? I could get it to happen no problem!
-
To answer your questions: 1) Don't outsource your work if you want it done properly, or make sure to vet better. 2) Debug through the typical way a gamer plays and a little harder. The extremes in gaming are asking for trouble. (i.e. 1 rocket with 200+ stages activated at once). 3) A reasonable time frame would be less than a year since the release, and not so long that fans abandon my game. 4) I would trade some smaller bugs for a faster update. I much prefer a hotfix two weeks later than a re-release a year and a half later. 5) YES. I AM! A working base game is better than being told of future updates that will never work unless the game is fixed. 6) NO! Because that's EXACTLY what Squad did! 7) When you can run an open Beta and players can play for more than 4 hours? And we console gamers have EVERY right to criticize anything about this game. Does this answer your questions?
-
Sorry, new to this topic, but three things. 1) I honestly prefer the Raptor, since A) it's a great looking plane B) It's PSM ability is a first for a Western Fighter, and C) it's powerful Raytheon AN/APG-77 radar system combined with its AIM-120C missiles make it deadly. 2) Are fictional fighters allowed in debate? If so, I'd go with the X-02 Wyvern. 3) If we're going with WWII fighters, there's a few that stand out. The Heinkel He-162 was a pretty cool plane, though sadly built in low numbers. It's top mounted jet engine was quite unique. The Soviet Yak-3 was a real effective plane, and when not in the "Tank Destroyer" arrangement, could take on almost ANY fighter below 5,000 feet. And lastly, I could say that the P-51 is my favorite American WWII fighter, but that honor goes to the Bell P-39Q-20 Airacobra. While not as illustrious as the Mustang, the Airacobra was nevertheless a very useful plane, and it's unique 37mm cannon was a real behemoth.
-
How about a working product released in a REASONABLE TIME-FRAME?! "Early 2017" turned into "Mid 2017" and now possibly "Late 2017". Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was delayed until 2018!
