tstein
-
Posts
471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by tstein
-
There is no predefined function. It is the type of thing you need to simulate a model and check if the conditions converge.
-
It is proportional to the mass. The larger the mass the less oblong it needs to be. Small bodies, with small mass would need to be very oblong , while large bodies can be only slightly (That is why our gas planets all have at least a bit of rings). Small bodies also would have a hard time keeping all the debris/ dust in clsoe orbit since the collisions during its coalescing would send some of mterial away. It is not a matter or precise number.. it just looks and feels wrong and a feel wrong based on scientific reasoning. That sid IF they add some anomaly that we can discover to explain it then it would be a good way to save the suspension of disbelief.
-
It is very round.... that is the problem. Minimus would be more able to do it.
-
That is not simetrical... not round. It is exactly the non sphere shape (i.e non uniform gravity field) that put ascending and descending acceleration on the dust and when their multi orbits collide at middle get neutralzied at that point. That is the system that can transform a dust cloud into a ring pattern. Something with a large lump in one side is enough.. important part is the lump being radial tot he rotation axis. True the Luna's aberrational density (probably result of its formation as result of a collision) give it enough of what it needs, but dress all alone in middle of nowhere seems a bit more far fetched.
-
The fact that Dress has rings but not the gas giants relly tickles me badly. Rigs form exactly because gas giants have more oblongated form due to their rotation combined with most of their mass being not rigidly locked. The oblongated shape is what concentrate everythign in close orbit aroudn a very very thin belt. Small rigid spherical bodies CANNOT form rings
-
Concern about procedural things and other 'QOL' improvements
tstein replied to snkiz's topic in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
In general I agree with this. The reason to exist a second part B in separate of part A should always be: -Different functionality -Different technology/efficiency -Different SHAPE Different size is not a reasonable one. It is simply stupid, makes zero sense, helps in nothing the game play. We should have fuel tanks by TYPE of fuel, by attachment types (radian, spherical, clasic cylinder) while ALL dimensions should be parametrization UP to some size limit (upwards and downards both) Structural stuff are the same. Why in hell I need to stack 10 cubic ones? I shoudl have a single part that when I stretch it is assembled by 10 cubes. That is better for design, it is better for the PHYSICS and it is better for game stability. -
I can't I am too low in the SOI of my finances....
-
What will be your go to Paint scheme?
tstein replied to Snafu225's topic in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
I want transparent paint scheme so I can roleplay Wonder Woman Space program. -
Not necessarily.. seriously think for a second. You never layed the game.. someone shows you the game and what you get is.. "I stack this capsule in front of this engine then I press lnunch and the autopilot does eveything" it can damage the sales of the game, seriously, people tend to find things borign when they see not much for them to do, so it must be made in a form that does not look like the standard intended gameplay. If it is something with a tradeoff (as for example a non negligible electric charge consumption or demanding kerb net contact.. and specially in science mode.. being unlocked.. then I think it is completely safe.
-
There is a huge difference between an AUTO repeat AP and mechjeb that does everything for you from the start. And THAT is already in the game (when colonies come in)
-
That was the reason why some 2 months ago I suggested some sort of underwater mechanics since finding things and navigating on a canyon for example would at least keep you awoke. Traveling in any place devoid of life will be tedious most of the time and that is a real barrier for exploration, as any game that gives you a reason to stay AFK has made some bad decision.
-
I would find it very interesting in cascade anomalies. I mean after you land in certain 3 anomalies the kerbal mathmaticians points that there is a pattern and you should seek something alike in the vincinity of (XX,YY) place. That would create some structure and guideline so things do not look like "just a bucket of places".
-
MY point is.. I don't agree. It removes most of the game, so if added it should be a PART, with an implicit trade off on having it.
-
You realize how Logarithmic superior machines means exactly that the machines are barely more capable than they were in KSP 1?
-
I think, personally is that more than density, what we need is some sort of clues system so we can find the anomalies by ourselves. It could even be integrated in the science part. If you add 10x the nubmer of anomalies, I will guess than 99% will never be seen by a player. In fact this could result in a much better resolution of the old contract system. You get hints of something to discover at a certain area. In fact I think the solution is not to release all at same time. Add one more each major patch during EA
-
In that I agree. For the game to be healthy it needs to be playable by people that are not classic gammers as well (for example, requiring more than 16GB as minimum would leave easily half the player base out)
-
yup the typical session is very different from an FPS or racing game one. It is more akin to a paradox game than people realize
-
I used to think like that.. until I realized in my office (where I was presented to KSP, there were 11 people that played it.. and only me, ONLY ME had a desktop, not a notebook at home). KSP attracts players that usually do not play other games and these do not usually have reason to have a gaming station.
-
You realize the vast majority of people that might buy KSP do not have a system better than those minimum requirements? I really woudl be most players play in a notebook.
-
I think you do not get us. We care if they use resources for graphics and that result in not enough money to make the features work well. If all features and mechancis are ok and nice and money is available.. go for it.
-
Morrowind had more content in Vivec library than the whole kerbol system.
-
A plane autopilot is not the same thing as an autopilot that can perform orbital insertions
-
You say that as if that was a super new phenomena. Humans whine when bored since the day they got down from the Trees...
-
oo no I am not proposing a wood shed only (although for me it would make little difference), but my point is, as soon as you reach the middle class suburb house you should NOT spend money in making a larger one unless you have nothing else to spend your money on. It is exaclty as in real life... everyone wants a middle class suburb house, but if you cannot afford a car after that you are not going to continue investing even more in your house.
-
Because if you design a feature that only 1% of your costumers will use you made a bad use of your money. You should first and foremost invest on that will influence the large base of players. A simple great example is occulus support that some games added but so few players in their base had that made no real effect in their sales. There is an upper limit to the graphics and it is a FINANCIAL PROBLEM foremost. Developign these high end stuff takes time and more than that adds time to testing and time is money. They need to use their money wisely so they must have a HIGH setting that is good, but that is usable for a significant part of their expected playerbase. They do KNOW the average computer that is running KSP trough steam, so they probably have a target that might disapoint you.
