Jump to content

Vl3d

Members
  • Posts

    2,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vl3d

  1. Yes to progressively unlocking (visual) information about celestial bodies. Yes to having something interesting to discover around every corner. No to procedurally generated boring empty celestial bodies. The thing that motivated me the most to play KSP1 was the curiosity related to discovering anomalies. I was very disappointed after some time.
  2. Just allow the option to play IVA with integrated UI and map view in the instruments panels. There's no need to make it more busy, just show it on the flight deck.
  3. I fully support the idea of having useful and actionable science with reports per celestial body and biome. Some science was useful in KSP1, like testing Eve's and Duna's atmosphere to plan reentry. But I don't think people really have the patience to do the math using the experimental values. Better would be: remote observations (land/space telescope) + send probe, do tests, do science -> fill some part of celestia body knowledge repository + get useful alerts to help you build appropriate missions. The science should help the engineering. When you pick a landing spot and you did the science for that biome it should tell you: ideal atmospheric braking altitude is X, set parachute deployment parameters to Y, landing drag coefficient or how much fuel needed to land Z, how much fuel needed to get to orbit, risk of storms, pressure and temperature should really be important for mission survival, corrosive environment etc. I mean, yeah, trial and error is fun for testing, but we should get some useful advice from scientists before landing there just to find out we can't leave with your Kerbals. Science should help prevent failure. And it should be in-game. I spent so many hours browsing the Wiki...
  4. Have to add this "bad boy" of a season trailer here. I want to build every ship in KSP2!
  5. Yes to tethers, yes to ladder assisted spacewalks.
  6. I was close enough. Congrats KSP team, thank you NASA!
  7. Except for @t_v @Bej Kerman previous posts keep pointing out what "we can't have". I don't like this attitude. I just ask that you imagine how cool weather effects on planets would be and how much more interesting, beautiful and educational they would make the game. If not simulated, at least make them visual.
  8. I don't agree with the last statement. Simulations can be simple, efficient and game-enhancing. Temperature, atmospheric pressure, biomes, terrain friction - these exist in KSP1 and make the game more interesting. Rain, snow, clouds - can be visual effects without physics Wind, storms with lightning and thunder - visuals + simple localized vector fields interacting with the drag physics. EMP effects should be added to the game. Seasons, climates - calculated with astronomic values, mostly visual and have probability to trigger localized events. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also - it was confirmed that buildings are rigid body arrays, it's just an extension of the weight + drag physics. I would also hope for destructible terrain, solar wind and radiation. As a last thought - I think players should not be so quick to judge what is possible to implement and what is not. That decision is up to the devs. We're just talking about the possibility of having cool features.
  9. Fine, I'll settle for rain, snow, wind, clouds, storms with lightning and thunder, seasons, climates. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also. But all this with classic water AND other materials like methane etc. Should make for some very interesting planets.
  10. Materials density, viscosity and temperature -> ground / liquid / gas temperature transfer -> evaporation / condensation / sublimation -> rain and snow -> surface liquid flow -> atmospheric mass movement and interaction with terrain -> currents and turbulence -> wind -> clouds and storms -> seasons -> climates. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also. I want all this.
  11. What changes / improvements he wants for the VAB/SPH construction UI, orbital construction in KSP2, rocket / craft versioning, what new parts he wants for rover / mech? Also maybe ask him about part software modules, as talked about below:
  12. It's Fr... 2 months since the last video featuring the game.
  13. So for me personally the marketing campaign is useful only in the amount of new information it gives me about the game. That's why I'm not satisfied with just knowing "it's coming". I want to know more about it. I can only hold this perspective. The sneaky interview in the Matt Lowne episode is great PR. But it still tells me nothing about the game. I'm at square 2019. I guess we really have to wait to play the game in order to decide if it's better than amogusz.
  14. Am I the only one that missed this? So Nate started he doesn't need to promote KSP 2. Grrr.. :)) And what's with the weird Amongus comparison? Could there be similarities in the multiplayer aspects?
  15. Found this completely by accident.. at 12:10. Am I late to the party? Was this posted somewhere on the forum a week ago?
  16. @N9 Gaming are you going to have a chat in the future with the NASA engineer himself, Mr. Jamie Logan? I'm guessing about self expression, construction aesthetics and KSP as artistic medium... https://youtube.com/channel/UCNwdW40huabfSb-7jgwG9nw https://www.reddit.com/user/JamieLoganAerospace/ Huge fan of you both.
  17. Why do you read the news? Why do you follow Starship development? I have another question: why do people blame the fans for wanting to know more about a game they care about?
  18. Infinite engine restarts, saturable reaction wheels, RTG and solar panels decay - should be stock difficulty options. I'm totally fine with part clipping for aesthetic reasons and to move things around. I use this all the time. And in a single player scenario I agree that it's up to the player how he wants to LEGO things around. But when we are in a space race or comparing vessels to one another or we have some multiplayer interaction or if we build in a persistent world, I want it to be an even playing field without weirdness. A while back I thought about some guide lines for part clipping - this would allow clipping but make things more realistic in a good way.
×
×
  • Create New...