Jump to content

Daniel Prates

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,261

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Daniel Prates

  1. Daniel Prates
    The github download indeed works, engine textures appear correctly if github file is installed.
  2. Daniel Prates
    Sure looks cool tho.
  3. Daniel Prates
    You mean the mod Restock? Curious, I don't have it installed.
  4. Daniel Prates
    @blackheart612 this missing textures issue is a thing, it happened to me too. All my prop engines appear entirely light-grey, I assume the textures are missing. Now, I installed via CKAN. Maybe that's it. I'll try installing manually to see if it makes a difference. CKAN can mess some things up. EDIT: went and did it. It made no difference, prop engines still appear without textures.
  5. Daniel Prates
    Cool. Well... what we are really missing is a good modular boat/ship hull mods. The kind of thing that allows you to build different ship hulls from blocks. Years ago there were some good mods like that but they are today all outdated. So... wink, wink.
  6. Daniel Prates
    <Snip> Ksp already has its own lore, much more interesting at that btw.
  7. Daniel Prates
    OH DAMN, what a great idea. I have always thought this should be built in stock game, since when you eventually exhaust all research there is still lots of science to be gathered all over the Kerbol System, and you always end up not having anything to spend them on, except for the strategies (which I never particularly liked as a game mechanic). Exactly. Better materials generating better efficiency.
  8. Daniel Prates
    Cool that you should know stuff like that. Care to share some lottery numbers as well?
  9. Daniel Prates
    + 1
  10. Daniel Prates
    I for one am sure by now that having the stars move in relation to eachother is indeed too much. Fixed in place is good enough for me and, I am guessing, 99.9% of people.
  11. Daniel Prates
    This. Exactly. @mcwaffles2003 you are overthinking a bit what I said. Yes, a complete gravitational field is too much, people will try to travel (fall inside) the galactic baricenter. We dont need that. And I agree, the baricenter can be a mere placeholder (but I insist the visual thing to be painted in the skybox, towards the direction it is supposed to "exist"). And the space between the stars can have limits. We need not travel higher or lower inside the galactic baricenter than necessary, parhaps there can be an altitude limit. It only gives us enough room to interestellar travel, beyond that its blocked... or something. But it is unavoidable. The space inbetween stars HAS TO function as if it is a gravity field emanating from some baricenter. Even if at the actual baricenter there is nothing modeled. Even if we cant go anywhere near it. Even if the space modeled and traveleable ia limited to a rectangle between the stars. Even if the stars are fixed, which btw, I don't care either. I would care tho, if the interrestellar travel is a mere straight line. That is all my point is.
  12. Daniel Prates
    I don't think we need a visible, palpable, interactive baricenter for us to click, see, interact with etc. That is indeed unecessary. It would be ridiculous anyway, a map where we can interact with three (or more) close stars, then a colossal blackhole or something like that far, far away. I don't mind only seeing in the map our own star and it's neighbours. But for calculation purposes, it will have to be taken into account. There is just no other way, interstellar travel will have to be in some body's gravity field; orbiting from one star to the next just has to be an orbit around something. If that body is not shown, fine, but the orbital mechanics will have to be modeled as if it was there. For it not to look too weird, maybe it can be drawn in the skybox, in the direction of where it should be. I would be glad with that. Edit: that would be cool. When flying midway from two stars, looking towards your radial side and seeying that colossal black hole in the distance, feasting on the fact that it causes no computer lag whatsoever because its just a bunch of pixels, no 3d models, no nothing. It is only in the direction of what the baricenter is judged to be at by the orbit model. I guess mostly everybody would be happy with this solution!
  13. Daniel Prates
    There simply HAS TO be a galactic baricenter. Not for the mentioned reasons, but for a far more simple one: travel in space is nothing but ballistic orbiting around some baricenter. Without it, what happens when you leave the Sphere of Influence of Kerbol? What happens in the void betwern Kerbol and the next star? You travel in a straight line? I don't mind if the stars remain fixed in relation to eachother, as they drift very slowly, to the point of it being irrelevant. But a galactic baricenter has to exist, simple as that. Although..... What I fear the devs are going to do, is to make the SoI of a star ending just where the next one begins, which would (unrealisticly) remove the need for both stars being under a larger baricenter that dominates gravity in the void between them. I would hate that; besides, what if there are 3 stars? What to do with the triangular empty space inbetween the intersection of three SoIs?
  14. Daniel Prates
    ScanSat mod to the rescue! I would love if ksp2 included that kind of scanning from the beggining.
  15. Daniel Prates
    Oh my...!
  16. Daniel Prates
    That is what I think too @magnemoe. All this n-body, 3-body etc discussion is cool and all, but at the end of the day would lead to an inexpressive increase in game enjoyment, at the cost of poorer game performance. There are many other, more relevant things, that are still lacking in ksp1 that I would like to see make it into ksp2. Orbit decay for one.
  17. Daniel Prates
    I for one see no point in modelling body orbits so realisticly. Every scrap of processing counts and we may end up with a slower game. Complex calculations are much better used with crafts than planets, satellites etc. Insofar ksp1 has no orbir dacay due to microdrag, for instance, which is a thing I would be much more happy to see in ksp2 than the relativelly small benefits of having planets off their "rails" and into a calculated orbit.
  18. Daniel Prates
    1.8. update seems cool and all, but where is the flying cat you got me all worked up about?
  19. Daniel Prates
    I feel weird for quoting myself, but anyway, this happened again after the last update. Mods meant to work with KK, in my case kerbinside, are no longer detected and though installed correctly (I can't say if they load or not), appear not to 'kick in'.
  20. Daniel Prates
    Conversation went off-topic because you passed on a mere guess of yours as a hard fact and @linuxgurugamer corrected you, prompting you to try to insist you were right, this time using semantics (which were, again, wrong). A mere "oh, I didn't know that, I stand corrected" would have been gentlemanlier! Cheers! PS: how can it be off-topic, if the merit of the discussion, which you yourself proposed, was to assertain wether w10 would be supported on the grounds of it being popular or not?
  21. Daniel Prates
    Seems indeed unlikely. Even the big asteroids in KSP1 are too small to have anything but negligible gravity. Unless of course they are planning some really big asteroids in an asteroid belt or something, but then, those would more likely be individual bodies with tailored characteristics and not just a part of a broad asteroid gravity feature.
  22. Daniel Prates
    Is that the red sea?
  23. Daniel Prates
    It is my reading of the situation too. We will know that development picked up a pace when something like a dev diary starts appearing.
  24. Daniel Prates
    I wish I had the ability for that, believe me. Is there any good walkthroug for that somewhere that you could recomend? I downloaded blender and always planned to teach myself part creation. There are several guides online which seem good. But now that ksp2 was announced, I have postponed that goal - as a lot of people must have, I imagine....
  25. Daniel Prates
    Maybe simple IVAs for the parts that don't have them yet. They need not be the most intricate thing, just something you can actually see instead of the black placeholders. I know, no small thing to ask, but it would bring a lot of 'closure'.
×
×
  • Create New...