Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TackleMcClean

  1. One of the prominent bugs for me is when going EVA on a simple mun lander, it will trigger a phantom force as well, jumping the lander up in the air. Anyone happen to know if this is an already reported issue? I would assume so, but I might be failing to see which one it is if it's a broader issue.
  2. @Dakota/dev team, are you able to give any thoughts on the overall timeline of the remaining development? I've gathered that the roadmap presented with the EA announcement still stands. With the PQS rework and the current development speed - as much as an outside perspective can tell that is - I have a slight worry on the time it will take to achieve the complete roadmap. If I would have to guess, I'd bet my money on the science update being released, and perhaps tweaked/bug fixed into something stable at december 2023. From there it becomes harder and harder to predict of course but it would perhaps spell out that the full roadmap won't be met within 2-3 years at least. Since there's a bunch of us that has bought the game already and are eager to enjoy a more playable and moddable product, would it be possible to get some info on the development team's view on what's reasonable to expect time-wise?
  3. Excuse rookie question - what are "PID"s?
  4. You had this quote about EA from Steam: Looking at the early access announcement video and how they phrased it, it kinda seems like they are strongly contradicting that guideline. To me at least, I guess it's open for interpretation. But the gist for me that I took away from the video was that "we release as early access, you will get presents in form of updates, you can buy in now and you WILL get all these things later". I haven't read every single post in this thread (sorry) but I take it this was contested? Well there's my two cents on it. Do I personally think it's wrong though? Do I think the game should not be released as EA at all? No, but it hinges on delivery from the dev team, and if it's lackluster, then I'll of course be disappointed. I think it's probably good for the game to be put through the wringer of public opinion, as long as the team is open to shape the game after said opinion. Which the team has said they will, so I'm optimistic! There were at lot of problems with the release, the biggest one for me was probably seeing literal ads for this game online to boost sales. This should only be bought with a strong disclaimer that you are taking a gamble as a customer on that the team will deliver. Most die hard fans probably know what they're buying into. A new player should hopefully be warned by the current reviews to fully understand what they're buying but it's not fool proof. In that sense I would argue that them selling the game in its current state is not 100% "unproblematic". So naturally, there are complaints about the state of the game. It is in my opinion self inflicted by the publishers/developers combo. Personally I'm rooting for the game and I think the devs are basically doing and saying what they can currently, putting their heads down and doing the work. Will the team eventually deliver? I think... yes. Hopefully we'll see the first shift this tuesday! And if it's delayed, no biggie, cause that's development and how development works.
  5. Speaking of looking at the code, has there been any theorycrafting regarding the `ReplayFeature`?
  6. Thanks for the update, to me it sounds like the right decision and we'll hopefully see better and more performant graphics.
  7. You have this thread here about player count: And this thread about layoff: Maybe considering asking a mod deleting this thread? I see no value in this post.
  8. Oh wow, I didn't think that was possible! Great! But this wouldn't be buildable in the VAB then still, I guess. Would you guess that's something modding would allow for eventually, or could it be too tied to the core mechanics to change?
  9. I have trouble formulating my question, but basically a system where parts aren't necessarily a tree-structure, but more like a free form graph of some sort I guess. Maybe there's already a concise term for this in the community I've missed. Imagine you're making a space station and you're docking a module via two docking ports. This works. Now imagine you want to dock something that looks like an L, having two docking ports, together with the existing station also shaped like and L. So you connect two sets of two ports at the same time. This, for reasons of station stability, and more importantly creative freedom. I was asking about this on Discord and got an answer like "DUH of course you can't do that, parts work like a tree structure". I was hoping KSP2 could mean a good opportunity to revisit and revamp the basics of the game, but currently it feels more leaned towards doing most things like in KSP1. With my limited knowledge of Unity's physics engine and the game code in general I'm curious if perhaps modders have a perspective on this, could it even be done?
  10. Autostrutting is a band-aid to a symptom of a problem further up the line. Please don't keep the rockets so noodly-wobbly. It's novel and "fun" about 1 or 2 launches, after that it's just frustrating and the gameplay of designing rockets is not made more fun by this approach.
  11. Could you expand on this? I haven't bought the game and haven't read anything specific about the EULA. The modding is the backbone of the game's longevity. Has there been any change that could jeapordize this?
  12. While some may enjoy the challenge of battling the Kraken/flexing crafts, I think it's not something that should be strived towards if it comes with performance cost.
  13. I think if the development team wants good feedback, then the players deserve a good explanation of the current physics system - good and bad. How was it built, what can we expect etc? Is it basically KSP1 physics? Is it written from scratch? It's not good use of people's time to second guess everything. It's better to put all the cards on the table so both developer and community can focus on making the best possible game. I hope the current community worries to the bad performance wont hinder them from being honest and clear about this, IF the goal truly is to get good feedback and improve the game.
  14. To be asking the devs to implement autostruts seems like such a bandaid treating only the symptom and not the actual problem. Why should the player care about struts? How should it care about them? When? All of these are questions that better have a thought out design choice behind them, and what we've seen so far indicates the development is recreating KSP1 physics - quirks and Kraken included - rather than starting with a clean slate and asking such game design questions. Sure there might be some "charm" to wobbly rockets in a "oh you silly Kerbals" kind of way, and a game with this kind of following will definitely draw out the nostalgia in people. When it comes to personal preference though I am strongly in the corner of realism over quirkiness. The most fun I've had with KSP1 is in RO/RSS designed reusable launcher designs and not wobbly rockets. I hope the development team can steer this in the right direction, even if it is VERY worrisome that what's shown so far is a very similar to KSP1 but with abysmal performance. My current hope lies with the modding community to fix a lot of these issues but they can't fix everything at the core level.
  15. It would be very useful to be able to define your own presets based on procedural wings (and hopefully tanks as well).
  16. Currently I plan to buy the game. From what we've seen so far I would definitely not boycott the game, especially out of respect for the developers. All these worry-posts without solid ground only serve to derail the developers, and I sincerely hope they find the peace and quiet they need to focus on their jobs.
  17. Maybe a stupid question.. but I've been scanning Duna with Scansat looking for biomes, and it only seems to be 4 different ones. Low, mid and highlands + ice caps. In vanilla it has like 14 different. Is Duna simplified or am I just blind?
  18. Hi there, I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue I have after updating RR to latest version. I had to update to make Kerbal Atomics work, but I'm getting this error even without Kerbal Atomics: Installed mods: Ah never mind, solved it. I should not have TankswitchExtras.cfg installed. Removing it fixed it for me.
  19. I did indeed have an older version of RR. Updating that, and installing kerbal atomics again, renders me this message upon game launch: ' Do I have wrong version of partswitcher, or lacking some extras from kerbal atomics? Tricky stuff Also, relevant log section, I think:
  20. I installed this and started having following problems: - NERV engine calculated dv wrong, sort of saying it had 1000ms delta v left while in reality it only accounted for 400ms. - NERV engine now has three engines in one (?), you can choose which one to activate. Not sure if intended or not. - My ksp.log got super hammered with error message: [EXC 22:23:09.671] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object MultiModeEngine.get_normalizedOutput () ModuleAlternator.FixedUpdate () [EXC 22:23:09.689] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object MultiModeEngine.get_isOperational () FXModuleThrottleEffects.FixedUpdate () Not using any of the extra patches. I removed the kerbalatomics mod from gamedata and it worked fine again. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, maybe a collision with some other mod? Dump of my gamedata folder structure:
  21. Has there been any official word on multi-core cpu support for the new engine? I've tried to extrapolate the status from different interviews etc but it seems to be somewhere between a no and no comment.
  • Create New...