Jump to content

t_v

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,051

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by t_v

  1. t_v
    I looked at the wiki, and at 0.1 c it would take 7,570 seconds to go from the outermost edges of Eeloo's orbit to the other outermost edge of Eeloo's orbit in the Kerbol system.
  2. t_v
    I just want to note on the subject of this image that the skybox looks quite a bit darker than in some of the images of ships in deep space. I can still see the nebulae but not as much. There is also some sort of post-processing going on since the color balance is different from other things we have seen. If this is an image from the game and there is an easy way to add custom post-processing effects, that would be huge.
  3. t_v
    If you want to synchronize technology across your colonies, I think they should need to communicate. There’s not really any reason why a colony 5 lightyears away should magically know of research on a local planet unless it can receive communications. I think that comms technologies will improve instead, and probes will need to have really big/powerful transceivers or have an interstellar relay chain, or both.
  4. t_v
    If you don’t have enough delta-v or your engine is good enough, you won’t want to be accelerating the whole time. First, the actual time that you gain from using a baristochrone trajectory decreases as you accelerate closer to the switching point. What is the purpose of increasing your velocity by 100 m/s when you are only benefitting from that for like 5 minutes, which would gain you next to no distance. Early ships that do long accelerations and decelerations will realistically accelerate to a cruising speed, then coast for a third of the journey, then decelerate. Not only is it more economical, but it affords a higher acceleration due to lower starting mass, so for shorter trips it might actually gain time relative to a heavier ship not using its full potential. Second, if you have an engine that can accelerate you to 0.99C before the halfway point, going any faster would be pointless unless you are really short on LS, which probably isn’t a concern at that tech level. Cruising is just better for dV in general, whether you are cruising at 0.2 C or 0.9.
  5. t_v
    I was going to say the same thing, but people get locked into the Steam ecosystem and get very used to the convenience of having everything in one place, having community content being supported for free, and yes, even having their games kept automatically up-to-date. I don’t use Steam unless absolutely necessary, but it might be very hard to have all of your games on one platform and then not use it for a game.
  6. t_v
    I would like the first interstellar engines to have speeds like that (or maybe even lower) but the most technologically advanced interstellar engines be able to move ships between stars in less than twice the time that it takes for light to travel there (as in, they can reach speeds very close to C and cruise there) so I'm hoping that there is a progression of transit times from several decades to several years
  7. t_v
    This is sort of what I meant, that the differences would be small enough to be worth not simulating. I'd like to know of what sort of oceans you would see in space that are either highly compressible or have strong gradients of other materials in them. I'm sure that there are some and I don't want to pressure you to find them, I am genuinely curious.
  8. t_v
    In non-compressible liquids, the density of the liquid is constant, so buoyancy will work the same at any point below the surface. In compressible liquids, this is different, but liquids such as Water, Mercury, and Methane are not compressible enough to make a significant difference at ocean depths. I definitely think that having better buoyancy values and calculations is better (something that a voxel based model would help with), but the density of the oceans should not change with depth.
  9. t_v
    I just realized that explosions have debris. Hype! (also, we are now 3.5 - 7.5 months away from the announced release)
  10. t_v
    I'm too busy watching all the alarms go off on the ship. I bet that @KerikBalm sees many more interesting things though...
  11. t_v
    Step 1: pitch drop experiment Step 2: wait Step 3: torch drives This would be a perfect end-game experiment though - the entirety of the Kerbal Empire is shifted from making paperclips to dropping as much pitch as possible
  12. t_v
    Terrain on terrain shadows are implemented - you can see them in the background where part of a hill is in shadow and another part is in sunlight
  13. t_v
    the last few comments have been in-depth explanations of specific elements of KSP that people want to see fixed in KSP 2, neither of them were invalidating or discounting anyone's complaint. Discouraging it wouldn't be helpful. Bugs like these are the reason I can't play KSP for more than a few hours at a time or make consistent progress on my saves, having to revert launches, load craft many times (jumping bug), or spend time changing the save file to stop things from breaking is sometimes too much for casual play.
  14. t_v
    I was worried this would happen, which is why I didn’t make a post mentioning parallax myself. Anyone looking for Parallax, the actual thread is here:
  15. t_v
    Or part variants, like if you visit an Apollo landing Easter egg, you get a variant of the mk 2 lander can that looks like the LEM. Or if you make a ship that has a length:width ratio of at least 400:1, you get a suit that looks like a cross between the kerbal bubble suit and the Darth Vader suit
  16. t_v
    There is another group within that first category of people, like me, who like science and career modes but want a mode where you always have the option to launch a ridiculously overpowered and over engineered ship from Kerbin if things become bad.
  17. t_v
    My house…
  18. t_v
    I know, I was hoping to answer your question. Pthigrivi put it into more words, sorry if I wasn’t clear.
  19. t_v
    The gas will accelerate outwards due to the small amount of pressure it has, which is why it isn’t a straight cone.
  20. t_v
    I’m going all in on it, mortgaging my house. Gambling!
  21. t_v
    Then what is? Saying a feature is coming apparently isn't, showing it isn't either, giving a timeframe for it ("post 1.0 update") isn't either. Things aren’t binary. Even though these features aren’t an unbreakable promise, they still hold value and aren’t completely invalidated. If I sat on a flimsy chair that creaked and groaned, I would say that that chair is probably not going to break. A sturdier chair would give me a better sense of confidence but it still could break for some very improbable reason. Just because the developers can’t be 110% trusted to fulfill their statements doesn’t mean that they should only be 5% trusted. And you keep bringing up Squad’s history but remember, KSP 2 is under new management, and both development and marketing should be viewed neutrally.
  22. t_v
    If you decide to ignore marketing because it isn’t a concrete demonstration or promise of features, then that is your choice. For me, I’ve been aware that any or all planned features of KSP 2 could be tossed out the window, and I still follow development. Why? Because even though it isn’t a perfectly sound promise of features, it gives me a vague idea of what the game will be like, probably. And what I think the game will be like is looking pretty good, so I’m continuing to follow development to slowly confirm my suspicions. Even though colonies completely could be purely cosmetic parts upon final release, I have a reasonable guess that they’ll have at least some function, and I’m fine with that even though I’m not sure. If all the information possible to release about KSP 2 was released tomorrow, it would provide enough to make concrete beliefs about exactly what KSP 2 will be. But I would rather know that I am only receiving a view of a potential game that could change, than believe that I am seeing finalized promises and be unaware that they could change.
  23. t_v
    If I want to play this on a Mac, is there anything other than Parallels, Boot Camp, or other Windows simulator that I can do? What is the DirectX 11 used for?
  24. t_v
    Most likely it would fade out, like the smoke trails in KSP 1. Keeping track of a trail like that is hard enough that it wouldn't be worth the performance hit, and then moving it around with fluid simulations is very difficult
  25. t_v
    It’s to keep out the birds (: I think we also saw docks in another shot, so there’s options for water vehicles
×
×
  • Create New...