Jump to content

sweatbox

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sweatbox

  1. 11 hours ago, PopinFRESH said:

    Given the context of the story Nate tells about the KSP2 contract, when T2 acquired the KSP IP, and when Nate became creative director at Uber Entertainment; the development of KSP2 likely started pre-production in late 2017. When it launches in EA next year it will be about 5 years of development, and like sweatbox this announcement gives me substantial pause in regards to the state of the game. What happened with KSP1 is irrelevant in this discussion in my opinion. The context of the previous communications over the past 3 years including the last delay announcement's phrasing appeared to set an expectation of delivering a feature complete game at launch. This announcement not only is a radical departure from that tone, it also lacks any indication as to the state of the roadmap features or any target/expectation of cadence for when they will be added.

    Also the "just getting each feature finished and "polished" enough to enable for users — not starting on each feature from the beginning." when in context to the stated rational for early access just doesn't pass the sniff test. If you're at the point of "polishing" those features then the "getting users feedback on the core experience" is meaningless because it is not going to substantially change a nearly complete feature that is "just getting each feature finished and "polished" enough to enable for users".

    I've also been very optimistic and looked forward to when KSP2 would launch. This announcement however seems like it came from a completely different direction when compared to the last 3 years of communications, and as such it gives me the feeling that Private Division had kicked the can as far down the road as they could and Take Two ran thin on patience and gave Private Division an ultimatum to either start generating revenue or cancel the project. I will check it out when it hits early access launch like I've said before, however, given the context of things I will very likely refund it and wait until there is at least most of the expected features and an established cadence of how quickly they are delivering the features on the roadmap.

    Yes, this is exactly how I feel. The launch of EA sounds like they were given an ultimatum to start generating revenue for the project, at least when coupled with the apparent progress of the game up to this point along with the history of this game regarding changing studios and potential mismanagement. 

    If this is what we need for the project to have continued support, and the missing features come in a reasonable amount of time after this release, then I'll be fairly satisfied. However to me this doesn't completely add up and frankly I was also of the expectation from the previous diaries/communications that they intended on delivering a feature complete title at release, not an early-access demo. 

    It just doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the tone and attitude of several of the developers up to this point in their communications. I'll inhale some copium for now, but until we have some sort of timetable for the new features I've lost some optimism for this title. Looking forward to at least trying EA and experimenting with the new systems.

  2. A part of me is slightly concerned that this game is in development hell. I've been very optimistic and eager to explore the new game, however considering the game was originally supposed to "release" 3 years ago, and only now are they confident enough to release what essentially will be the same game as KSP 1 with the updated engine and tools, I can't help but feel wary of the progress the development team is making.

    Of course I understand the difficulties that come with developing games, but to have only the default system and none of the landmark features that this game is supposed to have after what will end up being around 4 years of development is worrying. 

    I'm sure the team is giving it their all but can't shake the feeling that we might be in for a long wait for the new features. 

  3. I have the option in the advanced menu disabled, however the extra ground stations are still there.

    I've tried googling this subject and only found a single reddit thread telling me to set the "occlusion" settings in persistent.cfg to 1, which I did, but didn't help.

    Is there anything I can do to remove these? Would I be able to make a new save somehow and keep all my crafts, missions, etc but have disabled ground stations?

  4. 8 hours ago, FusionNexus said:

    heyo, back again a few hours later. I did find a specific part that should fulfill your needs. however, it does not refine uranite from my understanding, it only refines Depleted fuel, or Ore.

    This is the Nuclear Reprocessor that comes with NearFutureElectrical. It is very efficient with electric charge, but requires cooling to use effectively.

    It can Reprocess DepletedFuel back into EnrU at a ratio of 2/1 (Depfuel/EnrU), can convert Depfuel to Xenon, and can process Ore into EnrU (at 1000 ore to 1 EnrU, it produced 3.6 enrU per hour, at 1 ore per second and 200 EC per second). If your willing to deal with mining, this should keep your Kerbopower Gen running infinitely. Otherwise, the enrU it stores is very high as well, allowing your generator to run MUCH longer than the expected 5 year lifespan of the 11 EnrU it already holds.

    KBX05gR.png

    Edit: can be found either in AdvScienceTech (according to its config) or in Nuclear Fuel Systems (if CommunityTechTree is installed)

    Thank you for your response. This part does seem to do what I'm looking for in the part I'm describing and I appreciate you finding this information. For clarification, I have quite a few mods installed (All the Near Future mods that are updated for 1.12, Cryo Tanks, Community tech tree/resource pack etc.) and just didn't want to list them all out immediately :confused: but if it's popular and updated for 1.12, you can probably assume I have it installed.

    A couple more questions - you mention mining, and while I'm not opposed to this (I do plan on starting a mining base but I'm still fairly early in this career save), I'm not sure what the best way to refuel a satellite in deep space would be using this method. Are you suggesting that I can have a probe or small craft that will rendezvous with the satellite from the mining base on a nearby planetary body?  My intent behind my post was to try and find something portable I can bring on the satellite with a store of (what I now realize I should be using) ore or depleted fuel. I noticed I was able to scale this part down using TweakScale, which is great, but am just wondering what you were intending when you mentioned mining.

    And finally, do you have any personal recommendations for a long range, nuclear powered satellite? I'm using OPM in this save as well and want to try and visit all the bodies I can, and have very little experience when it comes to RTGs and nuclear powered ships in this game. I'm hoping to learn more about the more advanced concepts and parts with this save, and would be happy to hear any feedback or information you're willing to provide.

    Thank you again for your time.

  5. Hi everyone, 

    I am a little confused on how I can bring extra uranium for a long term mission. I want to bring a fission generator to replace solar panels, knowing that it has a finite life time due to using enriched uranium as its fuel source. This is why I want to bring extra enriched uranium, so that I can extend the lifetime of the generator. 

    When I look at the containers I have available, none of them appear to have EnrU as a storage option, and the closest I can get is uraninite. I'm guessing I can refine this somehow, however it's possible I don't have that part of the tech tree unlocked yet, and I'm also concerned about the weight it would cost to bring an entire refinery up.

    My questions are essentially as follows:

    • Is there a container that has EnrU as a default storage option? The containers from SSPX and other mods I have don't allow it as an option.
    • Is it possible to refine Uraninite (or whatever material is required to create EnrU) in space, cost effectively?
    • If so, what is the part I need to do it? 
    • Are fission generators a viable long-term option to replace solar panels?

    I've attached some screenshots below to show the specific container and generator I'm trying to use as well. I haven't played around much with fission generators or RTGs and am trying to learn more about how to use them effectively as well. I really appreciate anyone's help and information. 

     

     

    20220919161119_1.jpg

     

    20220919161116_1.jpg

  6. 13 minutes ago, Caerfinon said:

    Do you use TUFX?  If so, try setting config for map mode to default-empty. See if that clears it.

    I do! I must have forgotten I had it installed - thanks for your response.

    I took a look in the config in-game and also poked around the files for the mod, but was unable to find the config you mentioned. I'm sure I missed it somewhere; do you happen to know the path for this or if it's a setting in-game I can change?

    Thanks again!

     

    Edit: Nevermind! I found how to change the config. Thanks a lot for your help, it was really immersion breaking for me.

  7. Hey everyone, I'm having a strange issue I can't figure out regarding there being a shadow on celestial bodies when zoomed in far enough in the map view. I've provided a few screenshots to show what I mean and what it's supposed to look like.

    I am playing on a modded installation, however the issue doesn't appear to be caused by EVE or Spectra as I've now removed those. I also have:

    • AVP
    • Parallax
    • Scatterer

    And several other mods that affect gameplay but not cosmetics. Has anyone experienced a similar issue before? 

    The issue while zoomed way in:

    20220821153110_1.jpg?width=1618&height=9

     

    The issue while zoomed farther out:

    20220821153106_1.jpg?width=1618&height=9

     

    How it's supposed to look:

    20220821153112_1.jpg?width=1618&height=9

  8. I landed on Duna for the first time in a career mode save! Managed to land inside one of the canyons too - however not without the loss of 3/4 Gigantor solar panels during initial aerobrake. Had I lost the last one it would have been not good. :D

    20210527012708_1.jpg

    20210527013406_1.jpg

     

  9. 6 hours ago, Rylant said:

    It is huge though; like 370 tons or something, so getting it into orbit is silly, but I do have a launcher that works. It is expensive, like 1.7 million or something. 

    Haha, a 1.7m launcher. And I thought my entire Eve rocket with station parts was expensive at 1.5. Guess I still have a bit to go :o

     

    Side note: how did you make a lander with a bunch of TTW? Did you just use a bunch of the more powerful engines? Maybe Methane if using IFS?

  10. 8 hours ago, Geonovast said:

    For me it's what makes more sense in my headcanon.  I disklike putting relay antenna on probes unless they're a dedicated relay satellite.

    I'll typically do 3 or 4 sats around a planet each with an RA-2 or RA-15 and then put a sat with an RA-100 in a ridiculously eccentric polar orbit with its AP as directly over one of the poles as possible.

    Satellites that are for science or exploration only get direct antennas, as relaying signals is not their job.

    I do like this. I think I am going to adopt a similar mentality going forward when designing probes if only so the game is a little more difficult/fun for me :)

  11. 1 hour ago, Dafni said:

    Weight savings? Funds? Furthermore aesthetics, size and all that.

    Same issue/logic applies to many parts in KSP, actually. Most of all engines come to mind. Early tech tree parts tend to become superfluous later in the game.

    Have to build a progression into the game/tech tree somehow.

    Plus, options are always nice.

     

    On top of all that: "making satellites smaller" or rather as small as possible is what a lot of satellite designs focus on in real life too. Just a thought.

    cheers

    Dag

    I think you're right actually. I thought about it some more and decided to try and make a smaller probe than I normally would, and I actually had a lot of fun prototyping designs and trying to work within those constraints. I decided to try and use elements incorporated into the MRO in my design and in general found myself enjoying the process more.

    Thanks for the insight.

  12. I have a contract to put a satellite in orbit around Eve and I just got to thinking this question. I have almost all the communication parts unlocked including the RA-100 which I have been using for almost every satellite since I've unlocked it.

    Why would I ever use one of the smaller antennas I have now other than for some personal restriction on not just always using the best part for something, or intentionally trying to make a satellite that's smaller than necessary? I just think it's a little unfortunate that, at least to me, it doesn't seem like the smaller relays and such have a purpose at all after unlocking the better ones.

     

×
×
  • Create New...