Jump to content

Vl3d

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,540

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Vl3d

  1. Vl3d
    You actually get them in the future if you revert time. It's just another recorded event put as a key point on the main timeline. Causality must be preserved at all costs! And yes, for the duration of the mission you're stuck with the tech level you had when you started. But that's how real life works too. The only thing I can think of that is of consequence is the Tracking Station (DSN) upgrade. But nothing is stopping you to end the mission while on transfer, revert time and do other missions, upgrade DSN, then time warp and finish the Duna landing.
  2. Vl3d
    @Ghostii_Spaceis this what KSP2 will be like? If not, could you please pass the idea along?
  3. Vl3d
    Hey guys, I think you should check out my thread in the KSP2 suggestions about parallel-sequential missions. I may have stumbled upon the mother of all KSP2 innovations. I think we're in for a very big surprise.
  4. Vl3d
    This would be the most basic system diagram I think. Most kinks can be avoided if the mission recording resets in the case of interaction. In case of assuming direct control or interaction it just sets a new mainline T-zero and a new mission timeline starts. Returning to the starting point would be optional of course. Braching off of mission timelines should be avoided. Best to only allow branching off of the main timeline and then focus exclusively on a mission until the desired on-rails / static state which marks the missions end is achieved (can be craft in orbit .. even a transfer is an orbit .. or landed or docked etc.). This way craft state change, creation and destruction are just key points on the main timeline. This system allows for massive gameplay expansion.. like having single player space races against an AI controlled agency. Not to mention the possibilities for multiplayer. My instincts tell me this is close to the solution KSP2 will utilize.
  5. Vl3d
    Gameplay style can be accommodated, timescale and size of undertaking wouldn't be a problem with massive swarm flight automation, direct mega-colony construction and multiplayer with a large number of agencies working together. We could go even further and imagine building a mini Dyson swarm. There's no reason to limit our imagination. Maybe in 10-15 years this is the direction the game will go in: megaprojects.
  6. Vl3d
    It's a very cool list, I integrated some ideas into the wish-lists compilation thread. Thanks for the effort you put in!
  7. Vl3d
    I understand and agree with what you're saying, I was thinking about some more advanced things that could be done using KSP2 features. For KSP1 a simplified version could be very cool.
  8. Vl3d
    I think people just want some Lagrange points.
  9. Vl3d
    And rivers and waterfalls, like the primordial earth at the beginning of Prometheus! Let's crash comets into Duna and make an ocean!
  10. Vl3d
    Added some more ideas from Discord user Z.O.M.G: Mass driver colony parts to propel smaller payloads to orbit Propeller parts with customizable number / size of the blades Nuclear jet engines Small "vehicle bay" parts to give large ships the ability to build / modify / repair small vehicles Closable N-sided clampshell fairings Laser power transmitters for colonies Quantum communication parts late in the tech tree Lifting body physics and the ground effect Delivery route craft are all physical, interactable and the player can take control of them A way to transfer large amounts of kerbals quickly between crafts Giving colonies the capabilty to be built on asteroids Auroras Shooting stars visible in the sky
  11. Vl3d
    I think this idea could also be implemented in a simplified way in KSP1 using the FMRS foundations (maybe not having craft recordings while not on rails, just placing the vessels in the final positions at the appropriate time and remembering the future benefits you should receive).
  12. Vl3d
    It depends. Maybe your original mission was in orbit of Kerbin for a long time waiting for a transfer window and you decide you want to dock to it meanwhile. So you could do that and the mission recording would reset. Yes but if you do the Duna mission you use the initial TS level. You finish the Duna mission (record it) and then return to the past, do the other mission and upgrade the TS. Then when the Duna mission (which is already recorded) arrives at Duna, it should have had access to the current TS level. But it did not. It's a causality glitch but it can generally be ignored. The fix would be to just leave the vessel in Duna orbit in the recording, return to the main timeline and do other missions, upgrade the TS, then time warp and return to the Duna craft which should have arrived in orbit, and finish the mission. There's a lot of creative freedom.
  13. Vl3d
    You can do N missions to the Mun and 1 mission to Duna. Benefits would come in the future, but the Mun missions are done first, so you get the rewards from those first. But the benefit would be available for the Duna mission. I might add that it would be a waste to have 4 launch pads and not be able to use them all in single player. So you could do back to back launches without the afterthought that they would block each other on a single launch pad. Can you clarify the question please?
  14. Vl3d
    In the parallel style you launch A, set up some maneuver nodes, maybe do a transfer burn and then you return to the KSC without time-warping and without finishing the mission. The third way is to actually do the mission A - time-warp for years if necessary - then return to the past (to your selected T0) and do another mission. The A mission would then take place as you did it while you're doing something else. Basically it would play out as if it was recorded. This way you can do however many missions you want in parallel but you can also finish them in one sitting as if you did them sequentially. But time flows naturally in the main timeline, you don't waste years by time warping, you basically recover the time resource.
  15. Vl3d
    Actually, after returning to the starting time (T0), you can see your mission as taking place as if it was recorded. So if you want to interact with it at any time from the main timeline you would be able to do that, but then you would have to redo that mission from that point on (the recording is reset). Another idea to think about is that if your building technology is upgraded meanwhile - let's say before the recorded mission ends in real-time - then that mission would also benefit from the change (like a Tracking Station upgrade, for example). So you can plan for the future. Although the problem would be what happens during the mission time - you would not have access to the upgraded TS because you did not upgrade it yet. So there are some causality problems to work out, but some can be ignored if interaction resets the recording. And the beautiful thing is that all this would use the already implemented features of the "delivery routes" for example (seeing recorded craft on their paths or using point-to-point automated navigation based on the way the player already did the mission).
  16. Vl3d
    Generally there are two ways to play KSP. 1. Sequential missions - completing a mission from start to finish, thus focusing their attention. The downside of this is warping through time and pushing the clock years in the future. This is especially bad for multiplayer and space races. 2. Parallel missions - launching, setting up maneuver nodes and alarms but not time warping. This maximizes the amount of missions you can do with a particular tech level in a certain time window. I propose a third: 3. Parallel-sequential missions. A good way to play I think would be to finish a whole mission then go back in time and continue with other missions from the moment you launched. Recorded mission milestones would be added to the main timeline. And the science points would come in the future, thus respecting the timeline. I think this would be useful for space races also, because I'm that case the timeline is very important and you can't really time warp because you're losing opportunities to launch more missions. So there's a lot of freedom to be gained by being able to go back in time. But from a gameplay perspective it's also very useful for the flow of the game to be able to focus on a single mission and finish it. This system allows for massive gameplay expansion.. like stage recovery, having single player space races against an AI controlled agency and rocket construction time passing in the stock game. Not to mention multiplayer (see multiplayer thread)! Later edit: Interaction with the craft could be feasable without resetting the recorded events timeline from that point onward if we have mechjeb-like automated control using milestones. The craft (or capable subassembly in case of separation) would just try to adapt and continue with the mission even if crippled or modified. If the physics simulation doesn't allow it to be successful (not enough Delta V for example of broken solar panels) then.. yes it would fail.
  17. Vl3d
    There's no issue, I was just curious how other players prefer to do things. Generally yes with part failures turned on, your relay networks go down. The best way to play I think would be to finish a whole mission then go back in time and continue with other missions. And the science points would come in the future, thus respecting the timeline. I think this would be useful for space races also. Later edit: this idea from the previous two paragraphs is where it all started. See the KSP2 suggestion it evolved into.
  18. Vl3d
    I don't have any issue with parts or engines failing on the currently controlled craft. But having parts fail in the background forces you to give up on the playstyle of completing an interplanetary mission (or iterating until successful) before moving on to something else. You're forced to set alarms and launch every possible mission you can with the current tech level before time warping. Is this the way Kerbalism should be played? It kind of breaks the flow and you forget what you were doing.
  19. Vl3d
    Because of the building / interface progression and there are a few interesting contracts - like fainting kerbals or tourism or planes or space stations that inspire me. I would not have reason to do these missions if I played science.
  20. Vl3d
    Agree, it's just too much complexity, you don't have any clue where to start. I have never played sandbox. But I do use money cheats.
  21. Vl3d
    Do you guys play with parts and engine failures turned on? Doesn't it slow down the game too much?
  22. Vl3d
    This, right now, is the 'proper' release. Because of its limited complexity and because this is where the tutorials are released. (But I would argue that the science mode progression update is the best place for new players to start, not sandbox.)
  23. Vl3d
    Completely disagree. Newbies need to start with just a few simple parts and learn progressively.
  24. Vl3d
    You would need something like 1000 m/s of extra DeltaV with all that "baggage".
  25. Vl3d
    The point is not to maximize psychological happiness but to maximize how objectively good the game is. For that you need fuel for the Will, which is actually generated by not being happy and content and complacent.
×
×
  • Create New...