Jump to content

intelliCom

Members
  • Posts

    651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by intelliCom

  1. On 7/19/2023 at 8:42 AM, magnemoe said:

    Interesting idea but does Mars has enough oxygen to this to be viable? I assume oxygen is an trace gas there like co2 is on Earth. 
    And always thought the extract co2 from earth atmosphere plans as very stupid as its an trace element so you get it from the exhaust of the gas turbine. 
    Extracting co2 from atmosphere I would use plants, yes it could work if you had an gas turbine near the gas field, extract the 10% something co2 and inject back into the well for back pressure. 
    Today you mostly use water coming up from the well, its cheaper to re inject than clean it enough to release. 

    Electrolysis, maybe?

  2. 1 minute ago, septemberWaves said:

    You are answering a question that was not asked. The question was about what the science system will be like at the time that update is released. I am aware that it will not be in the game on launch; what I want to know is whether there is currently any clear idea of what it will be like once it gets implemented.

    No idea. I recall it being mentioned that the technological advancements will have more relevance to the science experiments performed. However, given how long it will take to develop, any comment in the past (or even recent present) is probably going to be superseded by whatever ends up being presented in that update.

  3. 10 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

    Is there a clear idea yet of what the science system will actually be like in KSP 2? I hope to see long-term experiments and something more interesting done with the way labs work.

    7 minutes ago, Anth12 said:

    Look up either Matt Lowne or Scott Manley videos uploaded in the last day. One of them has something about the science system being different and better in KSP2. Can't remember specifics.

    Science mode isn't in the game yet, and probably won't be for a few months.

  4. 21 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

    I'm ok with enhanced textures, more diverse and richer colors and detailed terrain mesh because KSP is very poor in that department, but from what I have seen so far, all planetary bodies in KSP2 have nothing in common with KSP ones. Large geographical features seem to be completely gone. I can only recognize Kerbin's features.

    This means some of the long-established lore is lost. That's not good. :/

    1. Learn how to mod
    2. Learn how to do textures
    3. Make your own "retrofication mod" for KSP2
    4. Profit!
    4 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

    Dres got a ring but otherwise looks the same

    This is the only point I have to disagree with, significantly.

    Dres looks way different, and way better.

  5. 7 hours ago, Tweeker said:

    I'd much rather they had put effort into getting the basic stuff like this right than making sparks shoot of when you snap parts together and  maneuver nodes go "ping" when you mouse over them.

    Willingly glossing over everything else they need to develop, I see.

    I can advise three paths:

    1. Make your own mod to fix the fuel ratios
    2. Become popular enough to land an interview with Intercept Games, ask them why the fuel ratio is different
    3. Nag someone else more popular than you to ask Intercept Games why the fuel ratio is different

    Genuinely and seriously, something like fuel mix is inconsequential and a trivial thing to worry about. If you're lucky, they might just change it to 3.6:1. But this is no important feature.

  6. 3 hours ago, Tweeker said:

    ...the fuel ratio for Methalox in KSP 2 is  ~4:1... It should be ~3.6:1... Please fix this.

    It's close enough, and better than the 11:9 mix of Oxidiser and some obscure "Liquid Fuel". There are far bigger issues that Intercept Games has to solve than what the fuel mix is.

    For example:

    Spoiler
    • Bug fixes
      • Collisions
    • Optimisation
      • Fuel crossfeed
      • Physics calculation
    • (Relatively) barren parts list
      • More advanced engines still required (Metallic Hydrogen, Orion, Fusion, etc.)
      • More sources of power besides one nuclear reactor and a second RTG
      • Radiators required
    • (Relatively) barren feature set
      • New game modes.
      • Heat still needs to be implemented (yes, literally, heat.)
    • Changes to UI
    • Tutorials
    • Colonies
    • Interstellar travel
      • How does approaching 0.99C work?
      • Creating missions to encourage the player to do it more
    • The can of worms that is Multiplayer.
      • Reducing latency.
      • How does timewarp work?
      • How does physics calculation work? Is it peer-to-peer?
    • Other solar systems, other planets and moons
    • Modding

    Especially that last point. Because changing a mixture ratio is such an inconsequential and minor thing that, if you want it "fixed", a mod could handle this for you without wasting developer time on the above features.

    Also, fuel mixes can be different for different rocket engines. Why does it have to be 3.6:1? I know that's what SpaceX Raptor's fuel mix is, but that's the only Methalox rocket engine with a known mixture ratio (to my knowledge). I tried to check BE-4's mixture ratio, but couldn't find it. Beyond Methalox (Hydrolox and Kerolox), you have a large variety of different fuel mixes for different engines. I don't think there's any reason reason why 4:1 doesn't work for Methalox.

  7. 4 minutes ago, Profugo Barbatus said:

    Colliders are hella expensive, and parts wobbling into each other would basically stack a collision every physics frame.

    This assumes that the parts of a single, contiguous craft in KSP2 are now automatically self-colliding. They didn't self-collide in KSP1 without turning on "same vessel interaction" for the parts that needed to collide.

  8. I suspect the problem may actually lie with fuel crossfeed, at least based on one case.

    When Everyday Astronaut played it, he set up an onion stage of 8 boosters with aerospike engines, each booster having 4 fuel tanks. Once launching the rocket, the frame rate came to an absolute crawl, with the game running at half speed. The moment those boosters were jettisoned, the performance immediately improved.

    The thing is, if physics is a source of performance issues, why would performance issues disappear on stage separation, even though the boosters are still there, still having their physics calculated?

    EDIT:
    Some of you may remember that fuel crossfeed was actually a performance issue for KSP1 as well. Stratzenblitz encountered it in his video; "Building a 1 Million Ton Rocket", where he had to optimise the rocket by giving each rocket engine only one fuel tank, minimising performance losses from crossfeed calculations. I suspect a worse version of this is present in KSP2 at the moment, requiring development time to hopefully resolve it.

  9. I'm excited to just enjoy the journey of seeing this game get more developed with time.

    I got KSP1 years after it first released, so I never really experienced stuff like 'red Moho' and 'solid water' until I watched a video showing these things off. I think watching development from the very beginning will be a nice, one-in-a-lifetime experience.

  10. 12 hours ago, Gargamel said:

    I do not know the answer to your question though  

    Spoiler

    "MSK" (Moscow Standard Time / моско́вское вре́мя) is explicitly referred to in this official timezone chart for release.

    So, yes, I think you will be able to buy KSP2 in Russia.

    1360081015_KSP2_ReleaseTimeline_V61.png.

    EDIT: As @Gargamel rightfully mentioned, it may not actually happen due to... events. After all, Russia is not the only place to share the MSK timezone.

  11. 5 hours ago, Tweeker said:

    What were they thinking? Do they even know their audience?

    Do you know KSP 2's audience? Do you think every single person who buys KSP is just a serious spaceflight nerd who wants everything delivered in a serious way? For a game that has funny cartoon green people?

    KSP became popular because it was fun to blow stuff up (See: Any of Markiplier's gameplay, any of JackSepticEye's gameplay, etc.).
    It's survived this long because of the nerds, yes, but did you stop to consider the fact that maybe they didn't all start out as nerds?

    2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

    Maybe appealing to the existing user base would be a good  approach? 

    KSP 2 existing and having interstellar flight in the future already appeals to the existing user base.

    Also, I'm confused about why the tutorials are even an issue to begin with. Dub over the tutorials yourself if you think you can deliver them in a way that's 'less condescending' or 'bratty'.
    It's meant to be a friendly voice, and I think it accomplishes that role just fine. Besides, if you don't like it, just don't watch them???

    36 minutes ago, cfds said:

    Also keep in mind that you pay the $50 for the game that you see exactly now. The publisher could stop the development next week without any legal repercussions. You get no right to any completed game whatsoever.

    On top of this, many KSP content creators recently did early reviews, and they seem quite honest about things. There shouldn't be any nasty surprises (See: Cyberpunk 2077), and some have made the point that certain features from KSP1 are missing. The honesty alone makes $50 sound alright. It's not some gamble or anything, you're not being fed a product with false expectations.

  12. 9 minutes ago, WelshSteW said:

    A bit off topic, but why can't they use one of the benchmarking programs / sites, and say "your CPU needs a score of XXXX, your GPU needs a score of YYYY....." rather than using model names and numbers?

    I like to think of myself as fairly computer literate, but the model names and numbers leave me baffled sometimes, even within a manufacturer, let alone when comparing Nvidia with Radeon.

    This is a fair point. Then again how do you define "score"? Sometimes certain cards will perform better in some games, but worse in others. Good example is Intel ARC cards performing badly at DX11

  13. 1 minute ago, purpleivan said:

    BTW... when I started writing up my test suggestions, I wasn't considering using game saves as a way of standardisng the camera view. Therefore my suggestions were a bit on the lightweight side (so no "Engine Cluster's from hell"), but if we make use of saves, then we'd get the range of tests that we'd want and reliable results.

    Do saves require specific craft files to be downloaded, or do the crafts just exist with all parts there? We're still unsure of how they work in KSP2.

    I'm certain sharing craft files is still a thing, hence why I included that in my test cases.

  14. Just now, purpleivan said:

    One of the main points I wanted to make in my previous post, was that the camera view when FPS times are noted is going to be critical for the usefulness those FPS numbers, hence my including that in the my test descriptions. That's going to be a key factor in determining FPS in scenarios that include visual FX , as well as the time since effects started for things like enging plume FX, as these build up over time, affecting FPS accordingly.

    I was considering having "aim the camera straight down" as part of the test. However, that wouldn't resemble the usual gameplay that a player has.
    That being said, if  @MARL_Mk1 is up to discussing how to prepare some benchmarking data collection (Google Forms, test cases, craft files, etc.), then him, you and I could discuss the test cases more heavily.

    Also the VFX point is why I had the "Engine Cluster from Hell" test. Every single engine brings out every single kind of engine plume. If there are huge performance dips when there shouldn't be, one of the engines could be causing performance issues for some reason.  So it doubles as bug testing.

×
×
  • Create New...