Jump to content

Chibbob

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    33

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Chibbob

  1. Chibbob
    I meant it was unrealistic because they couldn't be tracked in real life (that is what I thought at the time), not that the concept of rogue planets are unrealistic.
  2. Chibbob
    So are you saying that I am claiming that rogue planets are unrealistic?
  3. Chibbob
    Went through the list, and found that the overwhelming majority of the rogues in the list were brown dwarfs... The closest one being 7 light years away and the furthest one being 30,000 - 180,000 light years away.
  4. Chibbob
    Either way it would go against ksp 2 being realistic. You wouldn't be able to track them, so they shouldn't be on the tracking station. I know they emit infrared light but we haven't found any in our world.
  5. Chibbob
    Yeah but…
  6. Chibbob
    Do sinkholes require to have water? Could it be some other liquid?
  7. Chibbob
    The mohole is a sinkhole or something.
  8. Chibbob
    I mean difficult decision as in the planet would be unnecessarily hard to get to and won’t be worth the challenge.
  9. Chibbob
    Fine, fine. I guess you would have the whole config on one part of the screen but you will be able to see the object change when you type things in.
  10. Chibbob
    Wise people would wait an extra day or two for the reviews. I am no wise person…
  11. Chibbob
    I hope by "optimisation" they mean getting ksp2 to work on less beefy computers not some average gamer's RTX 1 quadrillion bigabyte giga gpu or whatever.
  12. Chibbob
    Adding Dres and Eeloo probably wasn't a difficult decision for the ksp devs as they were regular planets.
  13. Chibbob
    However complicated it ends up being, at least if it was implemented you would be able to see what you were doing. There could be a simplified version for quickly creating a celestial body, but you could also open the config to set specific parameters.
  14. Chibbob
    I have always wanted to create a few ksp planets, but I find that the learning curve of kopernicus prevents me from achieving anything. So an idea would be to have an integrated editor, where the only thing you would have to do manually is creating the textures for the system. There should be an array of options that set the properties of the planet, with a view of the body you are making - similar to the map view in flight. You would also skip the process of constantly opening and closing the game to see the results. To visualise this, I created an incredibly rough design of what this could look like if implemented: I'm not suggesting a procedural planet editor like space engine, but instead an understandable UI that visualises the whole process.
  15. Chibbob
    I definitely feel that having obviously life-filled bodies in places ruins the whole mystery aspect of everything, especially KSP basically being a stylised analogue to real life space exploration. If we don't know where life is found outside of Earth, the Kerbals won't know where life is found outside of Kerbin. There should be miniscule hints of life that could exist on a planet, like how some moons of Jupiter and Saturn could have life under their surface. Having somewhat habitable planets somewhere won't annoy me too much, but having a planet that is covered with green plants and trees will. I will say that making a planet that is not habitable interesting is better than a habitable planet in general because it would require more effort to make it unique, which would give a wide diversity of creative ideas, not just the generic 'planet with big oceans and breathable atmosphere'. I also think that Laythe is annoying as it doesn't have a good analogue. For example: Jool is a gas giant, clear bands, has some moons - it represents Jupiter. Tylo - biggest moon of Jool - Analogue of Ganymede. Laythe - thick, breathable atmosphere, big oceans - Europa??? I mean, both worlds have water... Despite Europa having no atmosphere, no seas... Or really anything. I know there are some vague objects in the Kerbol System that have no clear analogue in real life, but all of them are just small rocks at best. Laythe is an odd one out, and I like consistency.
  16. Chibbob
    The concept of underwater exploration would have a higher chance of you finding interesting landforms, a rogue planet would likely just have some cryovolcanoes at best. A rogue planet where you have to break through the elements to enter the water layer could be a possible idea - but game limitations could ruin any chance of that being a feature as the planets likely rely on bump maps. Also I'm not sure how far you would have to dig downwards to reach the liquid layer.
  17. Chibbob
    I mean, the only factor keeping it interesting would be that it is a rogue planet, everything else about it will be boring. I don't see why people will go to such a planet, even for strategic reasons. I feel like the main complaint for ksp1 was that you would land on a planet, walk a few metres with EVA, plant a flag and leave - there was no motive to go anywhere.
  18. Chibbob
    But this means there is a strong limitation of what you can explore, landing on a planet with no light may be a challenge, but it wont be fun to explore as you will just be wandering around in the dark with a small headlight at most. There are also the logistics of this planet, how will a planet that reflects no light (as it is a rogue) be tracked? I mean, realism isn't everything but in this case it does matter quite a bit.
  19. Chibbob
    I feel like the music for eve should change in tone as you lower into the surface so that the music is more gloomy when you travel below the clouds.
  20. Chibbob
    This makes the geography of the planet uninteresting, as you would barely see any of it. Possibly have a sub-brown dwarf that emits a small amount of light for its moons.
×
×
  • Create New...