ElJugador
-
Posts
267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by ElJugador
-
-
It's fair to dislike the interstellar focus of KSP2 - I am not among that number - but I get a strong feeling that OP is confusing their highly-modified experience of the base game with vanilla. KSP is not and has never been about managing complex resources and radiation. At its core KSP1 is an orbital mechanics toy with some aerodynamics as a treat. That's it. It's the bare minimum. How would Intercept Games "streamline" the experience any more than KSP1 already does? Other than reducing career mode difficulty, which, well... a lot of people barely even touch Career mode.
-
On 11/13/2021 at 3:00 PM, FaceRiver said:
Titian's oceans are frozen on the surface and are made of up of salt and ammonia. Laythe's oceans are pretty similar to Kerbin weather that's because of greenhouse gases is really up in the air. Eve's oceans could be very well be mercury or anything really. My point being that they don't have to be based in reality.
Just for clarification, this is incorrect. Titan's lakes are made up of methane and are liquid at the surface.
-
I'd be fine with some alien plants and grasses as terrain scatters, and encountering intelligent life/remnants as easter eggs or anomalies.
-
On 4/9/2020 at 11:57 AM, Kerbart said:
Reasons people continue to play KSP after a first few encounters:
- This is so much fun!
Reasons people don't play KSP after a first few encounters:
- I didn't know it's so hard to get into orbit!
- Why can't I choose between closed-cycle and open-cycle rocket engines? Why can't I define my own fuel mixtures?
The people who complain that the game isn't hardcore enough right now: there's a mod for that. What I'd really want to see is that the game is so easiily moddable that something like RSS is just a matter of dropping in a single mod pack. Since KSP2 supposedly has multiple solar systems, an easy definition of solar systems and the option to choose your starting point would seem relevant.
Is KSP's lack of realism holding off the hordes of real fans? Why did Orbiter never enjoy the succes KSP had? No cutesie green aliens there, just pure hardcore realism.
Mostly that Orbiter is more of a spacecraft operations simulator than a spaceflight simulator; there wasn't terrain before Orbiter 2016 and you can't even crash or burn up without installing add-ons. It's also frankly poor as an educational tool; past me (~10y ago) tried to learn spaceflight using the Go Fly In Space tutorial several times and none of the orbital mechanics clicked, because it was all so removed from what I saw going on in the actual virtual cockpit. On the other hand, watching MechJeb do some runs to Mun and Minmus a few times helped me to intuitively understand orbmech.
Although, the KSP1 devs got too in love with that idea of learning to build and fly rockets through trial-and-error; they failed to provide good tutorials and we wound up with the current situation where barely anyone leaves Kerbin orbit. Most people can get to space by trial and error, some will make it to orbit, a lucky few will reach the Mun -- but you can't go interplanetary just on intuition alone. Same applies to RSS, but make the fractions far smaller. Earth missions are far more demanding than Kerbin. I don't think it'd be impossible to reimagine the stock system into a truly real-scale world, RO and x10 exist after all. But it would be a troublesome change of pace for the current fanbase, and an even greater barrier to entry for new fans.
-
I hope it comes out when the developers are ready to give it to us with the features promised and no sooner.
-
17 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:
Yes, I realize that. If you want to teach science, however, you absolutely need to stay on top of those things. MetH2 was a risky shot. Yes, they're not scientists, but they are taking upon themselves a mission to show people the future of spaceflight (they said as much in the video). This sort of thing is severely needed, but it has to focus on things that, you know, actually work. The general public is already clueless and misinformed about science in general. Feeding them myths won't improve this. Generally, when a scientists tells you something can't work and a game dev tells you it can, most people will believe the dev (silly as it might be). This is why we need devs and so on to say the same things scientists do. KSP2 could do a lot for nuclear propulsion in particular (KSP1's NERV already has people asking "hey, that thing's awesome, why don't we have that?") and power. That is the future of spaceflight.
For my part, I just dislike how they focused far too much on the metallic hydrogen and gave everything else short shrift, especially torchdrives... those beasts deserve better than a vague throwaway line.
-
22 minutes ago, klesh said:
Who cares? Its a good thing I don't validate my opinions by comparing with those who feel the same way. I'm far too old for hyyyyyyyyyyype from a videogame, lol.
I'm just pointing out that, well, you are likely to be very alone in your concern. Who cares, indeed? I certainly don't.
Moving on: I'm mostly disappointed they spent most of the video's runtime talking about metallic hydrogen and giving other engine types short shrift. Torchdrives especially deserved better than a throwaway line.
-
7 minutes ago, klesh said:
This next gen future tech is what I am looking forward to the least about this game. I'm totally not interested in Orion drives and science fiction. I just want a KSP 1 to not look like it is a decade old.
You are nearly alone in that, I'm afraid. hyyyyyype
-
15 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:
No, because it isn't claiming to be teaching anyone anything (except an odd moral of the story). Star Trek is pure fantasy. KSP2, on the other hand... well, just watch the video if you have any doubts. The devs make a big, big deal about sticking to real science... while working off what is basically a recently invalidated model. I do hate all the peddlers of pseudoscience and quackery. If the devs wanted to add cold fusion to KSP2, I'd react the exact same way.
See a few posts up, then think a little about it: why, exactly, would hydrogen be metastable in first place? The answer is, of course, there was a somewhat far-fetched, but valid theory that predicted such behavior. This theory had been disproved, because we're not seeing metastability where it said we should.
This sort of thing is not the normal way for anything to behave, and depends on certain unique properties of hydrogen. It turned out not to work like this. Those scientists are not poking around and see what they can find. They're testing a scientific theory that someone calculated. Point me to a theory that correctly predicts the recent discoveries and allows for metastability somewhere else, and you can have your MetH2. I'll wait.
You need to relax and realize those findings were made very, very recently. ST has probably been working on metallic hydrogen while being totally unaware of whatever it is is making you so certain it's useless as rocket propellant.
-
NO! DO NOT!!
-
On 1/16/2020 at 2:08 AM, mikegarrison said:
The basic problem has always been simple: when you get to these other worlds (and especially when you just get to orbit), there is nothing to do. Click a few buttons, plant a flag, and go home. Breaking Ground tried to fix that, but it's kind of a band-aid.
It doesn't help that without life support requirements, time is meaningless.
The science lab at least gives a reason for bringing some scientists and staying at a place, but it still tends to feel unsatisfying.
At it's heart, KSP is about building and flying rockets, not base-building. Science has always felt like a tacked on way to progress through a tech tree. I'm not sure there is really anything to be done about it.
I used to uncritically agree with it, but now I'm really confused when I see this request for "more stuff to do on planets". Like what? Survey contracts in base game give you a reason to use rovers. Breaking Ground is a further step in the right direction by giving you an incentive to use EVA characters, but I was very disappointed to see any interactions with the larger features limited to those infuriating rover arm contraptions. No, the real problem is that KSP's worlds are basically these paper-mache balls that you can't inherently add much detail to. Rovers must handle more or less the same on every piece of land (namely like they're skidding on buttered ice) and planes... can actually have really varied performance but only fly on four worlds, maybe five if you do a suicide dive into Jool. But in the end, you can't create real volcanos, real cliffs or real dunes and beaches. Actually looking at collections of points stitched together to form 'surfaces' that mildly resemble such is inevitably going to be a tad disappointing.
Creating more varied terrain would certainly be possible if, say, KSP2 moves away from the simplistic giant array of surfaces model.
-
Incidentally, have any modders figured out how to add Breaking Ground-style terrain objects yet?
-
Blech, looks wrong. Now they have gigantic hands and feet.
-
Ha, so this isn't just a quirk of my terrible booster engineering. Yep, this happens to me constantly especially on 1.25m flights, and on larger ships it can get very bad very fast if the boosters aren't far enough from the core.
-
To the devs: I hope all the bodies ingame have reasonably unique/interesting features like these to visit. The new ones are so compelling I might actually go to Duna again for once.
-
What I'm going to say is: oh, you poor man. I sent a whole mission to Moho in a modded game, but with the stock engines. Even with 7-8km/s in the tanks, I still wound up completely running out of fuel when I tried to exit Moho and had to send two full tankers the same size as the original ship to get it home. I'm not sure but the LV-N probably doesn't have the muscle to pull off an efficient landing; try using the huge Mk3 LF spaceplane tanks only, using about seven or eight engines and bring a tiny lander to undock from the mothership when you get into orbit, with about 2000m/s in the tanks. That should be easy with only 1 kerbal to deal with. Good luck.
-
I used to be very against the idea of DLC or expansions for KSP as well, but seeing the example of Paradox won me over to the other camp. What it comes down to is, Snark much earlier in the thread is exactly right. Whatever you may believe, developers and their time do not come cheap, and even millions of dollars can disappear with shocking speed when you're paying many people yearly. The base game probably only gets a trickle of sales now, and another cashflow is needed. If they can make the expansions consistently good and it helps the game continue into the future, then I'm all onboard.
-
54 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:
Hoping the ground experiments will be something more than "click, wait, get science points," like the MPL tends to be. But also hoping they're not too grindy, like the "take readings at 5 points" contracts. I guess I don't have a good idea about make ground science entertaining within the constraints of the base game mechanics, but hoping they've figured it out.
The robotic parts alone look like they're probably worth the cost, though, so anything else is gravy.
The surface survey contracts are probably the flat-out best in the entire game, because they're not too wildly spaced apart to be boring to drive between but far enough to be a nontrivial distance from each other. Giving you a real reason to use rovers, which are probably my favorite method of getting around on the surface of a world.
-
56 minutes ago, Fraston said:
Really? I want it to be less than 5$ so I can buy it with the meager four dollars and two cents I have in my steam wallet, but this thing is priceless! STOCK [snip] HINGES! OMGOMGOMOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOHMYGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm the lucky *B* that bought the game in 2012, so I get this for free on release day... all that's killing me is the wait. At least they did us the mercy of waiting until it was almost ready.
-
Yes, the fabled 'Stuff To Do On Planets' people have been asking for since forever ago! AT LAST
-
Sorta. It's partially my fault since I never could figure out how to work the EPL stuff the way @The-Doctor was implying he needed. I ought to keep trying someday.
-
Aw yesssssssss. That was one hell of a satisfying twist. I can't wait for whatever's next.
Also, couldn't you have used Alternis Kerbol or whatever for the gas giant moon...
-
Oh man, the press-ganging, boffin-purging, flotilla-flying, Pathfinder-using maniac is back! Augh yeah. But just one question: have you increased the part failure rate DRAMATICALLY here to have a more entertaining/realistic explosion frequency or is this BARIS' normal behavior as regards maintenance because if it's the latter, I'll have to reconsider getting it. No offense, Angel.
EDIT: One other thing: is the part of your exploits where you went to Sarnus recorded because I'd love to see what you did.
-
I c-b-a to check if this question has been asked before, but have you thought of covering the OPM planets, interstellar possibilities, or anything else of the sort?
Free KSP2 Giveaway!
in Announcements
Posted
I'm looking forward to being able to build actual colonies smoothly without depending on mods. No offense, but even the best ones are quite finicky and RAM-gobbling at times.