aruoch
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by aruoch
-
-
one of the issues i have with extremely complicated junk in this game is that when you're trying to design a component to use several times on a larger vehicle you sort of have to build it out of place on the end of the stack or something and then fiddle with the attachment nodes for a hot second to get the right one attached.
and moreover, the only way to keep re-using what i'll call "design motifs" is to modify the craft file that already had stuff built.
so i'd like an editor mode that makes components you can add to a component list in the parts menu. these would be any conglomeration of parts you save in the component mode.
this would generally speed up the process of craft construction as you could begin to create standardised compositions. like if i just made a shuttle i can just copy/paste my buran launcher i saved from a different build as a component without having to rebuild it
-
6 minutes ago, VITAS said:
I see it more like lego.
Do i need a triple curved hindged piece or can i do the same using simpler parts.
as you did by using nosecones and such for legs.
Would have been haf as complicated if there where "mech legs"
by mech legs i just wanted like a really powerful hinge
-
Just now, VITAS said:
Another question would be: does adding mroe and more parts to vanilla take away from the challenge to do more with less?
you see, the objects in the game are like the paint and the paintbrush. if you only give me 5m tanks, i'm painting with a wall brush and bright red paint.
if you gave me mk3 to mk2 connectors as small as the tweakscaled ones im using on that mech, i can make all sorts of weird shaped stuff that's also pretty small. a smaller more articulate brush, painting with a mixed fine paint.
-
Just now, fulgur said:
I was thinking more like: you build a craft with pieces to build your base, the game flies it to the location based on dV requirements, transfer windows etc and it arrives on the surface, where you start assembly. You have to make it self sufficient and also make the KSP profitable if you want supplies sent in from home. I was thinking more of a resource management and base expansion game, with multiple factors to make up for the absence of actual flight. I was also thinking you could be able to launch craft from your base.
for it to make sense you have to be able to manufacture parts at the base... so that would mean you have to do mining.
maybe like if you're in a space colony you get an asteroid spawning close enough for a shuttle you start with to get to to get some extra resources idk
otherwise you'd just send out miners and gather mats
-
Just now, VITAS said:
At least it looks cool
yeah honestly i just wanted to overuse the robotic parts lmao
-
7 minutes ago, VITAS said:
I build heyapod walkers with legotechnics when i was 11 or so.
They worked with motors and gears.
bouncy mechs sound funny.
I still would wish for a kerbalcon to exist.
this guy... i made it's leg system a bit like metal gear REX, but when i was testing it it had a constant kraken acceleration backwards, and the body constantly bounced up and down, making it a perpetual motion machine
it's basically a frog on wheels.
-
Just now, VITAS said:
Hmm ksp would need two factions to make competition even possible.
Basebuilding could also be against "nature" itself (like its now where its against gravity)
i was thinking make it more like an age of empires type thing where you have at least 8 different nations, but taking away the way KSP moves stuff around would remove skill base and just clicking to order is part of RTS standard game design. but i guess even if they did that they could keep the VAB because it'd be taking stats of stuff you make like a ksp vehicle. i mean ksp already gives you a price for everything.
the reason this is a great idea for an rts is that it turns something like starcraft, where there is only 1 option for each team for unit types, up to basically unlimited diversity in unit composition and unit types. there's no preparing for what could come in a fight against you - people have made fully functional metal gears! and what are you going to come with, a puny tank?
you see my point. this would start the ultimate arms race just like KSP started space race and delta V dick measuring.
____________________________________
yeah i agree about that with basebuilding, i was thinking life support unless you're smart enough to set up on laythe, food, heating and fuel mining, water, metal. but if you set up on laythe you have options for wooden houses etc but you might get eaten by dinosaurs. so then you'd have to hunt and domesticate the dinosaurs, because we're PG-13 so we're using tranquilisers.
1 minute ago, VITAS said:Hmm ksp would need two factions to make competition even possible.
Basebuilding could also be against "nature" itself (like its now where its against gravity)
also if they made a base building dlc it should be accessable on any location by anyone, IE space, asteroid base, any planet, any moon etc. just so there's no skill cap for activating the dlc. it'd just be way easier if you can fly out a full mission with mining equipment up the wazoo beforehand.
-
15 minutes ago, VITAS said:
many people invented meny things just for fun ang giggles in ksp
check out n-body physics for ksp (Principia).
We have some very bright minds in this community who do things to relax i couldnt even do while fully commiting to them.
the best thing i've really made is a bouncy mech, i just want to make them relevant really lmfao.
-
Just now, VITAS said:
Its more about: you could but should you?
You can build missiles in vanilla ksp but should you encourage it?
It boils down to: should the ksp universe get violent?
would that game be RTS like anno ?
Singleplayer or multiplayer?
Turnbased?
idk the more you talk about it planetary invasions are really boring, the base building is a better idea
-
Rather than release an entirely new game here is 100% what KSP should do in the future with a new game or large expansion.
1) everything starts with KSP. add in a new item to KSP that's called a Base module munufactorum, which will allow extraplanetary launches, but more specifically sets up a colony, and missions to deliver colonists. this can occur anywhere - on the muun, laythe, on space station, on an asteroid. each will offer different challenges.
2) once the colony has been filled and the base module deployed, the KSP base-building simulation can be started, although since it'd be a new dlc or game entirely, this can be started on it's own, but will then not link back to your KSP save file.
3) the new VAB for this mode doesn't really focus on vehicles and rockets, although most things are still available, it focuses on surveying, mining and base module construction. expansion cannot occur without getting more resources. there's a high focus on living space, and if there is no air, on life support systems, on food. rather than being vehicle based it has to be more kerbal based in a lot of ways. maybe if you start or land on laythe, there are animals that can attack or be domesticated and plant life that can be farmed or expoited. other places would need special bays to grow food rather than just having farms.
4) back in KSP this can be expedited with other missions to gather asteroids or pre-arrange mining vehicles, or fully delivering pre-constructed modules.
5) once the base is complete, colonists can expand and it becomes more like a population sim. maybe it's like spore past a certain point and everything goes up in scale so to speak.
6) once the population sim is over, the new base can be used the same as kerbin with no resource constraints, as all the mineral fields are being exploited.
7) when the colony becomes a new kerbin-tier planet technology is unlocked, and the colonists will gain a bonus to re-colonisation efforts of other planets of some sort.
__________________________________________________________
the biggest work required for this is vastly improving the quality of every planet. if people are going to set up in space they don't care about the scenery, but personally i think every planet needs a lot of work adding significant features, especially on kerbin and laythe. kerbin still has no towns or cities of any sort and it's just odd at this point. laythe has no plants other than green floor. same for kerbin. just do it like a flight sim game and itll still be okay.
-
5 minutes ago, fulgur said:
The point is not that they are pointless! The point is that death and destruction are in themselves inherently pointless and evil. I do not understand why people would wantonly add in destruction to a peaceful game. The only time I would ever agree with that sort of thing is in self defence, when all other options are expired.
And I am not making ICBMs. ICBMs are designed to explode and kill. My rockets and (when I have RAPIERs unlocked) spaceplanes are designed to explore the Kerbin system + whatever planet packs I have. No rocket built by my space program is designed to kill any kerbal and I hope none will.
Also, we are now off topic. I would prefer not to have a spinoff game, but I would not mind one where you manage a base or station in different places in the stock system. It should be equally mod-able so you could tie it into KSP if you had, say, OPM or TAC-LS.
KSP's game concepts and game loop might be peaceful but whenever you design a rocket that can reach space you're designing something that can take a warhead to another continent and even without the warhead kinetic kill weapons are just dropped from space with no warhead. it's a game that is heavily involved in simulating high altitude jets. the one most people think of is the SR-71 blackbird, a basically invulnerable in it's time warplane. that's why a KSP aerospace spinoff would be neat, because it's already halfway there
>"Also, we are now off topic. I would prefer not to have a spinoff game, but I would not mind one where you manage a base or station in different places in the stock system. It should be equally mod-able so you could tie it into KSP if you had, say, OPM or TAC-LS."
i totally agree a more base-oriented game would be sweet - perhaps if in KSP we drop off a base module, then the new game takes a snapshot of the planet it's on and you start from the snapshot, similar to how you could carry over your character in mass effect
-
Just now, VITAS said:
I think its because games are about trying out things you arent be able to do in reality.
And most people able to play ksp today havent been close to a conflict zone.
I accept Stuff like BDarmory as a mod but it would break my heard if kerbals would get officialy send to war.
if it makes you feel better i'd considered suggesting KSP Kerbama, the quest to create the perfect drone to find kerbsama kebladen
-
Just now, VITAS said:
You havent checked out dmp havent you?
wait a loveing minute, this mod invented relativistic physics for KSP just so they could use timewarp?
-
Just now, VITAS said:
Multiplayer...woooh
mutliplayer would probably not work so well on ksp as it is now.
1) map size and scope of space means unless thousands are in 1 instance it'll feel empty as excrements even compared to elite dangerous or something
2) long construction times mean it'll feel more dead still
3) space junk from thousands of players
4) unplayable for low end systems because of models like halycion carrier inevitably being spawned
edit: i suppose if they added more ship-board content you could make it more like "coop splitscreen" style just over the internet or something, or also add part count limits and limit the map scope based on what content is being used
-
48 minutes ago, KSK said:
Personally I find the armory mods depressing but each to their own.
yeah, me too, mostly because they're totally pointless in singleplayer KSP with no actual reason for them. would be less tragic if i could actually use them for something, like.
Just now, fulgur said:yea you're making ICBMs in KSP hate to break it to you pal.
-
2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:
??? Boston Dynamics specializes in autonomous systems, obviously with military applications.
The robotics part in BG much more mimic what ABB (Asea Brown Bovery) does, which has much more of a civilian angle and not necessarily defense related (I'm sure there are ABB robots which are used in military applications, but it's not a military contractor (or to-be) like Boston Dynamics). So saying that it's a no-brainer that a spin-off would be military is, at the very least, disputable.
why are you trying to make this more complicated than it is
sell mechs to weebs is like sell water to desert
-
the only way they can expand this game past what it is is to enable extra-planetary launches and colonisation and maybe actually represent colonies and have colony missions.
interstellar is a stupid idea until theres extraplanetary really
-
7 hours ago, VITAS said:
" the same as KSP but it's multiplayer and you're making defenses and vehicles for a kerbal civil war "
What i especialy like about KSP is that it doesnt need guns, fighting and killing to be entertaining.
I usualy direct people who want to kill helpless creatures towards minecraft. :>yeah well in reality you're simulating an aerospace company and the game just added boston dynamics as an expansion pack.
the fact is that the only reason boston dynamics doesn't mount weapons to those robots is that they aren't ready yet
the armory mods are pretty ubiquitously popular and considering the game lets you make literal mecha, had an entire expansion for it it seems like a no brainer direction to go in
-
maybe the best places to use the fuel helicopter parts are on things that are pretty aerodynamically potato and massive, and can replenish their fuel. for instance like if you sent a superheavy mining operation to laythe you could put a giant rotor on it that folds away, and it wouldn't matter that you'd used a bunch of fuel every time you moved it because it's constantly mining more at each deposit for your exploration vehicles to use.
basically i'm imagining a huge block that would fall out of the sky if it was lifted by jets
-
On 7/10/2019 at 7:47 PM, VITAS said:
Hi,
related to my "future" thread:
Another question:
What kind of spinoff Game would you like to see?
(e.g. RTS)
the idea of KSP's building system has the capacity to go in radically different directions to what it does right now.
so, the same as KSP but it's multiplayer and you're making defenses and vehicles for a kerbal civil war. alternatively it's single player still but there are a bunch of hostile kerbals trying to attack you with various wacky contraptions.
this would lead players to make ever more complex and powerful tanks and mechs to fight eachother
people start long term servers and claim some real estate on an instance of kerbin, start to defend it.
features like the space center and cities are part of the game, and capturing a space center allows the player to use some of the KSP parts to make satelites.
-
1) tendons
one of the things that's a staple in a leg is a muscle to move a joint. because of the way attaching things works in ksp, the only way to make a "muscle" to articulate a hinge is with a strut connector, perhaps adding a more solid way to attach a "muscle" hydraulic would be a good idea.
2) input binds for KAL
one of the issues with KAL seems to be a bunch of pressing play on them, maybe i'm just using them wrong but i'd like to be able to keybind a KAL controller that's set to walk forward to W, and left and right to A D.
3) feet pivotrons
infernal robotics had unpowered free pivotrons, which would be useful for creating free-rotating feet. i'd suggest maybe having a system that activates a traction lock on the foot when it hits the floor.
4) mech hip servo
one of the issues i had with using the hinges was that the larges one is too wide to be used on anything but the largest construction, and the smaller hinges seem to bow under stress of carrying a fully constructed mech, making rolling a better option than walking. so i'd like a more expensive version of servos and hinges specifically designed for use on mechs rather than on mechanical arms etc, with high weight tolerance for a small size. this would allow people to make mechs that don't bounce like the legs are suspension modules.
-
On 6/28/2019 at 9:48 PM, Pds314 said:
I've found that forcing Breaking Ground telescoping pistons to one length and deleting their motors makes a great, if somewhat wobbly, structural part.
Though I would love it if we had more sensible objects and the option to toggle bare or not. Like the longest parts in the game should not be tankage or wings but long structural elements that are thematic for aircraft and rockets.
On 6/25/2019 at 7:53 AM, KerikBalm said:So you want something thats like, nothing?
Its not very clear what you want. I guess you want a cube shaped thing instead of a cylinder shaped thing, and don't want the part count penalty of using the flat panels to build a cube?
Other than that, I think many of the structural pieces are too heavy. Some have very high impact tolerance, but I'd love a lower mass version with lower impact velocity. Perhaps make it tweakable, like how the rotor mass varies depending on how big the motor is (ie, you can make it lighter by moving the slider to give it a weaker motor).
yeah the common theme here seems to be "we have plenty of structural stuff, look at this giant metal beam"
not exactly an elegant solution
-
problem with a lot of the structural/aerodynamic parts is that they're all like, something. you have trusses that look like metal girders, wings that are wings etc.
but there's no "rather light weight structural fuselage box that's square", unless you count the square drone cores, one of which is way too wide to be useful and the other is way too small.
most annoying part is you cant tweakscale the square drone cores lol.
-
2 hours ago, Azimech said:
I don't agree.
Just learn to build better propellers ;-)i mean i have no problem personally with using the airplane control surface for props but really they're too big for small craft when you're not using tweakscaled blades.
-
KSP2 - civilisation simulations
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
so one of my absolute biggest gripes is that you're going from nowhere to nowhere. which i suppose is the point to a certain extent because there isn't anything where you're going - but if i were to send a colony ship with a ton of kerbals on it to laythe or something, it'd be great to see them actually be able to do something and expand on their own.
similarly the kerbal homeworld needs cities that you can do stuff to improve. stuff is a relative concept but i'm thinking a sub-orbital transport system. the cities could probably grow like the space center does in the original game.