Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by DunaManiac
-
-
10 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:
It just is not that widely asked for. Again 44% of respondents use multimonitor. That being said, you are right, this is a AA title, which means that the company will be pushing HARD on deadlines, which increases technical debt exponentially. Please watch that video I linked from shadowzone, he explains this far better than I can. I am not implying that your desire for this feature is invalid, I am clearly stating that it is not a feature that is game critical right NOW. I am sorry if this upsets you sir, but, the bottom line is, KSP2 is a product being designed to make Take Two money, and that means they will push their contracted sub designhouse to finish KSP2 as fast as they can. This will invariably lead to technical debt. Adding a feature to appease less than 45% of players at this point is ludicrous at best. Would it be nice to see AFTER the game is stable, polished, functioning nicely for ALL users in all the correct and intended ways? Absolutely sure. Is it a good idea to take what limited time the developers have RIGHT NOW to push a feature that again, LESS THAN 45% of respondents in the now 4 times linked poll consider using? NO, absolutely not, its absolutely inconsiderate. Its asking that the rest of us accept a lesser job on core features just to again appease less than 45% of people. No. I am by no means a programmer and even I can see the handwriting on the wall of just how impractical it would be. I get that you think its a good idea, I respect that you think that, its just that sadly, right now, youre wrong. I am sorry if I upset you, but, multimonitor support is not now, nor will it likely EVER be a CRITICAL feature needed to make the game work for 100% of its users. It just sadly isnt. Please do not assert that players who do not have a want or a need or the ability to make use of the feature be forced to accept the idea that there is a better than likely chance core feature developmental time will suffer at such a behest. I have absolutely nothing left to say on this.
044907132020
45% is still a significant number. That would be like removing docking mechanics because most players don't know how and KSP lasted for a year and a half without it with no problems.
-
I am all for it if it isn't too much of a performance hit, since I use a single monitor.
-
26 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:
I'm fine with the interstellar drives,you won't be setting up supply lines using those. I worry for gameplay too: hydrogen should be abundant, so the psm drive fuel should be available on most bodies.
So with psm engines, what happens to airbreathers? NTRs? Metastable metallic hydrogen would be so potent that you can ignore energy gained from combustion. Radiation concerns? Gone.
Its simple easy mode for SSTOs. The psm engine would be monotonous gameplay. FWIW, I didn't even come up with the name of "purple space magic", I just liked it and am trying to get a consensus around that name if @Nate Simpson won't have it at least renamed to something generic like "ultra dense energy fuel"
I really want to have ramrockets/air augmented rockets... Like the Soviet Gnom.
Ntr jet engines like project Pluto would also be awesome
We don't know anything about the Metallic Hydrogen Engine in the game... it's probably safe to assume that there will be restrictions on it or to make it extremely end-game.
-
2 hours ago, Nuke said:
given a drive that makes the epstein look like a bottle rocket, ships seem to move extremely slowly and do combat at knife fighting ranges.
Well, that makes sense, it's impulse drive is only a small part of the ship and be hard to spot sometimes.
On 7/4/2020 at 12:09 AM, catloaf said:The most noticeable one for me is that they are ssto's with at least a 60% payload fraction despite being tiny and not having enough dV to orbit IF they had a super efficient vacuum engine (remember that these things have a twr of like 1.5 asl.) So what we can conclude about cartoon rockets is that they have some sort of dual mode nuclear jet engine, so logically it would make sense to take a fairly horizontal ascent profile (which they don't do, likely due to the massive drag caused by their egg like shapes, which means they won't gain very much speed from the atmosphere.) So yes, the people in silly kids shows are currently colonizing other planets and teaching less intelligent species how to do science (so they don't pollute the planet's the kid show people are preparing to invade.)
For me, I can tolerate it because it's impossible to teach rocket science to a 6 year old. For adult sci-fi, not everyone has a phD in physics. I apreciate movies/tv that actually TRIES to be as realistic as possible (i.e Interstellar), but if every movie paid absolute 100% attention to reality, it wouldn't be a very good one.
-
Agree, many cartoon/kid shows vastly dumb down the ship, the "lasers" that they use would be one long continuous beam, not a seperate bolts. Also, lasers would not be visible in a vacuum unless you had an infrared camera because the reason why lasers generate colored beams is because they excite the particles in the atmosphere, and since there is no atmosphere in space, thus the colored light would not show.
On 7/9/2020 at 1:07 AM, catloaf said:At least the crew actually experience gee force's when accelerating and it appears to be mostly mode of fuel.
The only problem, especially with ships such as post TNG Star Trek for example is that apparently a ship can accelerate from 0 to thousands of times the speed of light and feel nothing, while they experience violent g-forces when they get shot at or bump into something.
-
I personally pronounce it like Twenty-Twenty.
-
10 hours ago, JMBuilder said:
- Diverse liquid fuel and oxidizer types. Liquid fuel could be LH2, kerosene, liquid methane/ethane, ethanol, or gasoline. Oxidizer could be LOX, H2O2, N2O, halogens, or even certain acids. Prices, weight, ratios, efficiency, and power would all vary with different mixtures.
But what's the point? Every engine for different fuels would have different stats, so what's the point if the only difference would be in name (Although different fuels for more engines is a given).
-
To me it looks like fine white sand.
-
11 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:
There is? I thought the dessert was just kinda bumpy
I'll try and get a screenshot of it when I'm back on the PC, but I guess do to the way the desert space center was put in, a large circle surrounding the dessert airfield is completely flat and devoid of ground scatter.
-
1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:
Earth has many of them and they are great for landing craft because of their nearly flat and hard qualities. I think these should be implemented because we could have a Kennedy space center and a Vandenburgh or White sands analogue.
We have one right near the ksc, there's also a flat area near the desert space center.
-
15 hours ago, catloaf said:
After the April fools Jool I thought about other planets that could be Orange and realized that Eve would be a perfect choice. An orange Eve would be more interesting and realistic. EVE and scatterer support would be nice (I think you could use modified spectra or avp textures provided that you credit them.) I know this will probably not happen but it would be grand if it did (I think it would be easy but I don't know how these things work.)
Why not a mod that makes ALL the planets orange?
-
17 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:
If you're that worried about your PC not being able to run KSP2. Since it would be released 3rd-4th quarter next year. Start saving money now and worry about upgrading or replacing your PC after it's released.
Actually, I did the math. If you take away 4 or 5 dollars a day out of your income, then by September 2021 then you'll have enough money to buy a decent gaming PC.
-
18 hours ago, Relonsk said:
I just took all the research i would like to take from these moons now i want to go further, which planet/moon i go?
Probably Duna/Ike, a slightly modified Mun lander works well on Duna, just give it extra fuel and parachutes, and also make sure that it has enough TWR to get off the surface.
Alternitavely you could go to Eve, Gilly is the easiest moon to land on and it's pretty easy to land on Eve, but not return back to orbit.
(Believe it or not, the first planet I ever went to was actually Jool because of a chance encounter with it)
-
On 7/2/2020 at 1:14 PM, kpdavatar said:
I found a crack in Minmus's crust.
Not a cave, just a texture/ model bug?
Don't go in. You go BOOM.
That's actually a pretty well known bug, I think it was listed as an easter egg on the wiki at one point...
I'm pretty sure this happens often on smaller planets, and I believe there's also one on Gilly.
-
25 pages, even at one page per day you would get around... well, 10,000 days, or, well 27 years. But hey, it's fun to post here anyways.
-
1 minute ago, BIB♠ said:
yes I know that my hope is hard to realize but imagine an expedition with kerbals who have limited oxygen and have limited ressources. Then We would be forced to add to our vessel an equipement for cave exploration...
Personally, my take about it is that it's Kerbal Space Program, I suppose it could be a small feature, maybe procedural caves like ground scatter, but not the main focus of the game/
-
It looks like we are going to have a suit picker like in 1.10, but even more diverse, or possibly different space suits for different kerbals, as evidenced by this picture:
-
33 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
That's why people like me are irritated with purple space magic in KSP2, because there's no lack of realistic alternatives that are just as easy to use and make interplanetary travel just as easy.
In order for the devs to go into so much science into Metallic Hydrogen, they must have had a VERY good reason for it, and they probably knew that it wasn't very realistic, but why are we talking about realism where we have fuels called "Liquid Fuel" "Oxidizer" and "Monopropellant"? If they simply picked it because it sounded sciency then why didn't they include more magic tech like Warp Drives and Antimatter? They evidently have had a lot research on the subject and I simply refuse to believe that they picked it for no reason at all. Sacrifices must be made in the name of game play.
-
Kerbol is scientifically proven to be a laser pointer, you can't see the laser pointer, only the laser because it constantly points right at your eyes. -
I wonder if the thread can really take 10,000 pages. The forums might actually melt.
-
I say yes to more fuels, because it adds a little more variation, but only that it adds restrictions. For example, X is cheaper but Y can be ISRUed, X is more efficent but Y can be ISRUed etc, I don't see the point of multiple fuels if their in name only. Also, for the sake of simplicity each engine should be able to run different fuels, because different engine stats usually do the work for multiple fuels.
Life support is fine as long as it's an option, it dosen't kill the kerbals, but reduces their resource output, that way that you don't strictly need life support, but those who want the challenge/want things done faster can do it.
-
14 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:
@Moach ok
“Mad” was closer to “ocd-inducing” without insulting people with ocd, and sounds better than “crazy” imo. It’s my thread lol.
also, that curse word thing: totally agree. I have not sworn once in my life. Like seriously …
I rarely do as well, when I do it's usually involuntary.
-
5 minutes ago, doggonemess said:
That sounds about right:
Gilly
Physical Characteristics Equatorial radius 13 000 m I don't think this is possible even with mods. I'd love to see it, though!
Scott Manley actually made a video of what it would take to de orbit gilly, and well, you need it to be the size of Gilly.
-
1 hour ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:
Page 22!
Page 22, the final frontier. These are the voyages of "Let's make this the Megathread", it's 1 and a half year mission, to reach 10,000 pages by the time KSP2 releases. Too seek out new records and forum users. To go where no thread has gone before!
*Theme song plays in the background*
Silent Turboshaft Engines
in Breaking Ground Discussion
Posted
Honestly, if it were this easy, the developers would have already been added. Besides, even if it were, it might not have been added for reasons other than general incompetence or laziness as you seem to imply, it may not have been added for budget/time constraints, lack of usefulness etc.