Jump to content

i dont know how to forum

  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by i dont know how to forum

  1. I think there's been some confusion. This is not an official version of the screenshot. The version that The Aziz posted was an edit they made to show what the UI could look like with a more uniform style, with reduced pixelation and using the same font for everything.
  2. This craft from the new trailer shows radially attached hydrogen tanks, and they're still enclosed within a truss, so it seems like I was right that there is no bare variant currently in the game. It also seems to have structural panels instead of radiators, but that's a different topic. I think this craft is a good example of where a bare variant would be nice, the truss structure here feels out of place for radially attached tanks, especially if they're drop tanks (I can't tell if they're attached to decouplers or not here).
  3. From what we've seen it doesn't look like we'll have to deal with radiation at Early Access launch. The radiation shield on this craft is just an adapter positioned to look like a radiation shield. Given that we've seen a radiation indicator in the VAB in older screenshots and very large radiation shield parts on interstellar vessels, I think it's very likely that radiation mechanics will be implemented in the future, just not for EA launch. Also, as you mentioned, the structural panels positioned to look like radiators are a bit odd. Either nuclear reactors don't generate much heat (unlikely) or this craft is going to overheat soon after being cheated into orbit for a cool shot (more likely). Given they weren't used here, I don't think we'll be seeing procedural radiators at EA launch either. All the Early Access footage we've seen has just used the KSP 1 style radiators. I would expect both of these things to come with the interstellar update, as they are critical to building massive interstellar craft. I do love the tumbling pigeon style and the use of ion engines, but I think this craft is for show and not for function.
  4. I agree that this just sounds like decouplers with extra steps, but given the thread title I just have to add:
  5. The tweet from the KSP account containing the image being discussed was deleted. EDIT: Sorry, better clarification: the tweet itself was deleted by the KSP account, it's likely they didn't mean to show off some of the things seen in the image yet.
  6. Deleted KSP2 tweet spoilers, as it seems there is not a consensus yet: Not much else I can gleam from the image, but it is very exciting to see the game being played!
  7. I suspect that the crashing sound might have been edited in, there's about a frame before the video cuts out where you can see that the craft actually bounces rather than crashing, and it seems like the other sounds cut out before the crashing sound does. There's a small smoke cloud though, so it is possible one of the landing gear broke and the sound is from that. Generally I agree though, all the sounds we've heard so far have been great.
  8. As I said, in KSP2 it's built into the parts themselves. The issues I mentioned with KSP1's interior overlay no longer exist.
  9. In addition to what was already mentioned, KSP1's interior overlay is a very hacky solution. It's literally an overlay, the "windows" render on top of everything else. You can have a bunch of parts in front of the window and the interior will still render over all of it. This also means you can't look in one window and back out another. It was a fun little hacky thing built on top of the existing parts; in KSP2 it's modeled into the parts themselves. Consider also the following (timestamped):
  10. I think we'll likely start seeing the first insider videos tomorrow, and then a steady release of them over the two weeks leading up to launch. This likely includes developer interviews, Q&As, gameplay recorded during this event, etc. with strict rules on what can be released when. To my knowledge this is all a fairly common practice for the games industry.
  11. Regarding the forum discussion, what will the spoiler policy be for any anomalies and hypothetical Planet 8s to be found once the game launches?
  12. I've been reading a bit recently about the Copernicus-B, one of the most well known Mars transfer vehicle designs, and its relatives. See here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140017461/downloads/20140017461.pdf http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns.php#borowski These designs seem to have directly influenced KSP2's liquid hydrogen tank design, with the gold foil tanks and surrounding truss structure. This is a very cool look for these tanks. However, what we haven't seen is a radial, trussless variant, and I think this is very important. On the Copernicus-B, this tank isn't fully surrounded by the truss. Instead it's connected to a "saddle truss", which leaves one side of the truss open so that the tank can be jettisoned after use. This allows the craft to carry a single inline drop tank, whereas drop tanks must traditionally come in radial pairs to balance center of mass. There are also a few related designs that instead use a "star truss" to attach four drop tanks radially. I think it would be a huge missed opportunity to not include a "bare" variant of the hydrogen tank in KSP2. The version we've seen so far looks great for inline usage, but doesn't seem ideal for use as a drop tank. We've even seen a saddle truss in KSP2 already, here: There's no good way to use this in combination with the existing KSP2 tank, but a trussless variant could easily be attached to the inside via a decoupler or docking port. Such a variant could perhaps have slightly less mass but no inline attachment points. It could also be fun to have a star truss available for usage, though I imagine the applications of this would be far more limited. It's entirely possible that this is already in the game, but we've seen quite a few craft using LH2 tanks and I feel like we likely would have seen it by now. To my knowledge we haven't seen any part variants in general, so I'm wondering if that system even still exists in KSP2.
  13. Listening through the KSC stream and man this soundtrack is beautiful. If we get unique tracks for each planet like people are hoping, that alone will be enough motivation for me to visit every planet in the game.
  14. "Thing 2 is better than Thing 1" does not invalidate the statement "Thing 1 is great". KSP2 doesn't need to meet some arbitrary modern graphical "standard" in order for me to say it has great graphics. It has great graphics! It looks beautiful! Showing me other games is not going to convince me otherwise. As for points like the terminator line, this already looks smoother in the most recent screenshot. I think the clouds we're seeing right now look great, and I expect them to still receive some improvements. Like I said, there may be some roughness around the edges in some of these screenshots, in part because they're from various beta builds, but nothing I'd consider a dealbreaker and I still can't wait to jump in and see the game for myself.
  15. I mean, I'd say most of the images we're getting right now are meant for "veterans" that are already following KSP2's development, but with that in mind I think the game looks great regardless of whether you've played KSP1 or not.
  16. Reading the graphics discussion here sometimes makes me feel a bit like I'm going crazy. The whole conversation seems rooted in the notion that KSP2 somehow looks graphically bad, so can I just say that I think it genuinely looks great? The recent images we've been getting are beautiful, I'm loving the art direction and the graphical fidelity seems pretty dang good to me. There's been a bit of roughness around the edges, most of which I expect to be fixed if it hasn't been already, but certainly nothing I would consider a dealbreaker. Given the sheer scale of the game I'm very impressed by what the team has accomplished here.
  17. Not sure what you mean, you could always attach parts with different attachment point sizes, they just wouldn't be flush. I'm guessing 2.5m based on the size of the truss connector we can see at each end of the spherical tank.
  18. Ah, I was thinking specifically in terms of attachment point size; the spherical tank looks like it has 2.5m attachment points to me. The spherical tank is certainly quite large, looks about 10m in diameter to me, but I doubt we'll see any cylindrical parts larger than 5m at EA launch. Would love to be wrong though! Bigger is always better. Sometimes.
  19. Where were 7.5m and 8.75m parts confirmed? I've only seen 5m for the inline cylindrical parts.
  20. What stands out to me about the sounds we've heard so far (namely this and the recent landing leg video) is they they sound like what you'd hear from inside the craft while in space. While I don't expect this to be entirely consistent (for instance you'll probably hear these sounds even if you're controlling a separate craft nearby), I really appreciate the impression it gives that we're only hearing the sounds that are being conducted through the craft itself, rather than through the vacuum of space. I think that's a battery bank.
  21. The part in the middle? It's not a xenon fuel tank (the part behind it is), and I don't know why the probe would be carrying another fuel type Not sure what you're seeing, unless you mean the far side of the probe; that's an ion engine.
  • Create New...