rjbvre

May 28

Yikes. You'd think there'd be someone in the corporate structure whose job it is to clean that kind of stuff up

May 28

2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Agree! Disney should take the helm!

If they made a movie I'd go see it haha

May 28

I admit I don't know KSP1's dev history super well, but I get the sense that Harvester is to KSP what George Lucas was to Star Wars. You can't get KSP or SW without them, but at the same time they are completely incapable of making it on their own, and you need other people to steer things in the right direction and keep them from ruining it.

May 21

9 hours ago, stephensmat said:

And then have Colonies and Interstellar as paid DLC.

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if there's anything in Steam's EA policy that wouldn't allow it since they posted those in the roadmap for 1.0

May 16

4 hours ago, AVaughan said:

The game is not going to end up good, unless they keep developing it. Nothing they have said gives me any confidence that will happen. the pretty much complete silence on the topic actually makes me think they have already killed future development, and all we can realistically hope for is one more patch before everybody finished work. (And even that patch is iffy).

Think about it. If they had a plan to continue development, would they have waited this long to say so?

Completely agree, that's my guess too. Depending on what they already have, they might try to call it 1.0

May 16

I'm going to preface this by saying this argument is moot because I doubt the game has much of a future anyway.

3 hours ago, Skorj said:

You're talking about existing players. I'm talking about potential new buyers of the game, whose purchase could fund future development work. Recent reviews showing as "overwhelmingly negative" would be very off-putting to potential new buyers, so it's very hard to get a wave of new buyers giving positive reviews. While it's theoretically possible to climb up out of that hole, e.g. people could change their existing reviews, that's quite a rare event.

Steam was smart enough to give both all time and recent review scores. It's not uncommon at all for games to improve, bring their recent review score up above their all time one, and be successful because of it. Nobody cares if a game used to be terrible if it's good now.

3 hours ago, calabus2 said:

This. Why the hell would anyone trust a publisher that has had ZERO communication with the community they sold this steaming pile to? If they had a plan to resurrect this turd then they would have announced it the same week they put in the WARN notice for IG.

Because nobody outside the forums cares. This place has gotten way too self-important. Some guy browsing Steam isn't going to care that you didn't feel the publisher talked to you enough months before the games was fully released. If the game ends up being good word will spread, videos will be on youtube, and people will buy it. Trusting the publisher has nothing to do with it. Everyone hates EA and look how their games sell.

May 15

8 minutes ago, Skorj said:

If they are going to continue development past bugfixes, this silence may have doomed the game anyway, due to the Steam review score.

This opinion is pretty common on here so I'm not picking on you personally, but this just isn't how things work. If by some chance the game is saved and they start putting out good updates public perception will turn around. Emotions are running real bad right now, but that's simply because people aren't getting what they want. If they start getting what they want they'll be back to happy in five seconds flat acting like nothing ever happened.

May 13

We don't know enough to be sure unfortunately. It doesn't seem likely the game will be developed through the full roadmap, but there is technically a chance if its given to another team. We know the layoffs are scheduled for June 28th so they could spend two months slapping together what they already have and call it 1.0. I'll leave it to you to decide if that's effectively canceled. Worst case is they payed everyone their 2 months' wages, kicked them out of the office and all development ceased forever two weeks ago.

Like a lot of things in life we don't know what we don't know, and those details can change things drastically.

January 14

35 minutes ago, dmsilev said:

Point being, we knew a lot about the planets of the Solar System long before reaching the 'can send sounding rocket to edge of atmosphere' tech level of the game's starting point. A KSP2 starting-node rocket is in the rough ballpark of a V2, so if you want an equivalent to Earth, ask about the level of astronomical knowledge at the early 1940s.

Oh absolutely, I'm not arguing that there should be unknown planets or that we shouldn't know their mass and orbits (or other info that can be derived from them) at the start of the game. But even if we say day 1 is equivalent to about 1960, which I find more fitting, we still knew very, very little about most of the planets, and next to nothing about the moons.

I am arguing that revealing additional info through exploration and/or science would be a realistic and fulfilling game mechanic. One that could easily be turned off in settings by those people who don't want it.

January 14

42 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

We knew the distances to the other planets in 1769, TWO HUNDRED YEARS before we sent people to the moon. Now, the calculations weren't super exact but they were enough to get the basic idea; no more than a couple percent off. If that's not good enough for you, in 1961 we used RADAR to determine the distance to Venus (and therefore all the rest of the planets) to - basically - exact.

Other than Venus and Mercury, we also knew the masses of all planets in 1769, because we knew how far away they were, and therefore how far out their moons orbited, which is all you need to know to know mass.

There is no mathematical reason that we couldn't have sent interplanetary probes during the Civil War. The problem back then wasn't that we didn't have the information. it's that we didn't have the ability.

I agree with the basic idea of your post that it's possible and historical to know the orbits and sometimes the mass of planets fairly accurately without sending a probe there or using a space telescope.

In 1769 we didn't even know that Uranus or Neptune existed though, nevermind their distance or mass. We hadn't observed Phobos or Deimos yet either so we really only knew the mass of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn. 3 out of 8 is a far cry from all planets.

January 11

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Using RCS for translation is usually associated with docking. In turn, unless one is, let's just say, unorthodox, docking is done by making the smaller ship dock with the larger ship. Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

Docking is a primary purpose for RCS yes, but you missed mid course corrections, emergency maneuvers, and backup deorbit burns (there are others, but they really don't apply to KSP). My Eve return lander which I dock to a mothership would absolutely benefit from larger thrusters. And there are more scenarios than just larger ship/smaller ship. That mother ship I docked it to was constructed in orbit from relatively equal halves, both of which were sluggish and annoying to maneuver with current thrusters.

Even if we leave out futuristic designs, and focus entirely on copies of current/past spacecraft we're left with ships that vary in mass over several orders of magnitude. Are you really arguing that one size of RCS thruster makes sense for this? Is there a gameplay benefit to limiting players like this? Do you think it mirrors real life spacecraft?

January 10

22 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Yes, at least we understand each other here. The less technically inclined think it's important their interstellar ship, en route for decades, needs to spin around in a matter of seconds, but we realize that at ships that size, the crew at the far end of the ship is going to pass out from g-forces if you try to spin it in less than half a minute.

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

January 10

49 minutes ago, mikeman7918 said:

I imagine they are not in the game yet mostly because they appear to be the size of a MK1 command pod, and that makes them a bit excessive for anything we can build in the game right now. They do have the massive radial monopropellant tanks in the game already though despite them also being super excessive for anything that exists right now, which is a little confusing.

Good catch! I get the impression they're trying pretty hard to only show parts that are intended for release in trailers/footage.

I was also pretty confused when I first saw those giant tanks.

January 9

The 70% scaling would make sense to me. According to the wiki article:

While Earth entry interface is considered to take place at the Kármán line 100 kilometres (330,000 ft), the main heating during controlled entry takes place at altitudes of 65 to 35 kilometres (213,000 to 115,000 ft), peaking at 58 kilometres (190,000 ft).

This would mean most of the heating should be between about 45 and 25km, with the most intense at 40. Unshielded sensitive parts no doubt exploding well above that. Almost all my re-entries have followed this pretty closely.

I do agree that things quickly blowing up just under 70km shouldn't be the goal, but some people are arguing for things that definitely shouldn't be possible on here, which is fair enough it's a game for fun, but at that point you should change your own settings rather than the base game.

January 9

On 1/6/2024 at 9:17 PM, NaughtyMonster said:

I was a smidge disappointed to discover regions called "Arctic Ice" and "Snowdrifts". Arctic refers to northern regions (arktos - the bear) and there seem to be regions of "Arctic Ice" all over Minmus, and the Snowdrifts I found all seem to occur quite high up on the slopes. I guess there's no wind to cause snow to drift any more in the lowlands, but why would it drift in the highlands?

Agreed completely, the term Arctic stuck out like a sore thumb to me too.

1 hour ago, mikeman7918 said:

To be even more pedantic: the KSP2 devs have said that Minimus is not an icy world, but a glassy world. A ceramic planet. They could not justify putting an ice moon that close to the sun. So why do the biomes still call it ice?

In game it's not ice. I'm guessing the reason they did this, or at least possible in-universe explanation, is for the same reason we still call the dark areas on the Moon maria, which is Latin for seas. It's what the Kerbals thought it was before they knew better, and serves as a tribute to KSP1.

January 8

22 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I'm saying that we don't need flyby probes to get a look at planets. The very desciptions of multiple bodies in the game have something about observations, that include bodies as tiny as Gilly and Pol.

Of course we don't need it, its a game. But several of us are saying it would make the game more immersive and enjoyable for us. We're talking about a feature that could probably be turned on and off in settings: you get what you want, we get what we want.

25 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Also reminder that Kerbals aren't humans and their astronomical discoveries and technology have nothing to do with ours.

KSP is overwhelmingly about our technology and space exploration. Almost all the celestial bodies are based on real life ones, most of the parts are functionally and visually clones of real life counterparts, and the progression of technology is basically the same with some differences for gameplay reasons. The fact that it has little green minions and funny names doesn't change that.

January 8

Is it too pessimistic to think the amount of time they spend somewhere is directly tied to the amount of users there for strictly pr reasons, and they're not actually giving that much weight to any of the suggestions on any platform?

January 8

12 minutes ago, hatterson said:

What I meant is that if you don't understand how gravity assists work/struggle to do them well it can be incredibly dV intensive to visit multiple moons in a system and even moreso to switch from a prograde to a retrograde orbit. And if you don't understand those things incredibly well, there's no easy way for the game to teach you nuances like that. The best option is to just do it over and over again until you figure it out. Similarly if you don't understand how to properly align your orbital plane on entering a system it's incredibly dV intensive to figure it all out after insertion.

It's difficult for a mission to teach that stuff because of how late in the progression it would need to happen given the distance from Kerbol and thus you're already at the point where just strapping on more and more delta-v isn't too hard.

That's all fair, and I completely agree about trying to teach mechanics that only become relevant toward the end of a long mission. The same issue applies to trying to design a plane for Laythe, thermal management at Eve or Moho, or even just how much electricity you get from panels at different planets. That's why I suggested an in-game "simulator" to test designs in different locations without being able to get science points. That's really another discussion and off topic though

January 8

42 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I am curious what you are doing with RCS thrusters that large that the small amount of monopropellant in the pods would be able to accomplish.

I've had several times when the Cockatoo pod had enough monoprop for a simple orbital rendezvous, but the small RCS thrusters on a ship that size made it sluggish and annoying

January 8

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Photos from our space telescope:

Neptune was discovered in 1846, more than a century before first rockets reached Earth orbit.

I'm not being snarky, I honestly can't tell if you're arguing for or against. Those photos were taken decades after we landed on the moon with a scientific instrument we launched into space. We had no idea what Pluto looked like until 9 years ago even with Hubble.

2 hours ago, hatterson said:

You actually wouldn't need that much dV because the planet would be so far out that the SoI would be relatively very large and high orbits around it would be at tiny velocities, making adjustments trivial. In game currently Eeloo has a larger SoI than Kerbin despite being 5% as massive (at least based on KSP 1 numbers, I don't know if they've slightly changed for 2) and if you're orbiting at the extremes of the SoI you're able to completely reverse your orbit for <50m/s.

The difference between inserting into Eeloo polar versus equatorial is fractions of a single m/s of delta-v and which direction polar doesn't make a difference. It would be harder to have a single craft do both moons or to have craft meet up after doing both moons since you'd have to match inner system velocities, but the simple challenge of going polar isn't anything if you understand what's happening.

You bring up a good point, I didn't think of about the SOIs. My point stands though. Sure an efficient polar (not technically polar but easier to describe that way) insertion and correction might require similar deltaV to an inefficient equatorial one, but still quite a bit more than an efficient one. We're talking a system with the gravity of an ice giant and multiple moons. It's much easier to use the Oberth effect and gravity assists if you're already in the correct plane. I don't doubt you can use gravity assists to help with the plane change, and that would be another great optional challenge.

3 hours ago, hatterson said:

Granted if you don't know what's happening or how to do it, the challenge is pretty extreme, but that's not great gameplay design. You'd have a challenge which is a massive step up in difficulty for those who don't truly understand orbital mechanics, to the point that it would likely just be easier to go interstellar in the first place while at the same time being very trivial for those who do understand orbital mechanics and thus offering no real additional push.

Huh? It obviously wouldn't be the next goal after your Mun landing. It would probably come after a Laythe landing which itself would come after all sorts of orbital maneuvers. It seems like a natural progression displaying some of the actual things going on in the real world, not some playground of hypothetical planets scientist imagine in their free time. And if getting there is trivial to someone then I imagine the whole game would be trivial to that person anyway.

3 hours ago, hatterson said:

Basically if the choice is "stick Uranus in the Kerbol system" or "have a new system with planets that do cool things" the choice seems trivial to me for the base game.

I agree with this though, but it might be a false dichotomy. Mods might make the most sense for it

January 8

40 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

They aren't using lots of their charge on performing experiments or transmitting the data. Solar powered rover on Tylo will run out of juice after a minute.

They will absolutely be using lots of their charge on scientific instruments and antennas. The Tylo rover is a great example. RTG is absolutely the right choice for it. On the other hand, early in my current exploration playthrough I saw that I had some great transfer windows coming up for Jool and Eeloo. I figured I'd make some probes for flybys/landers, but RTGs were way too far down the r&d path (which imo should be changed), and fuel cells and tanks would weigh too much. Solar panels and batteries were the right choice for that mission, and I got a ton of early game points.

47 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

No, that will be a bigger challenge (good!) Because not only you'd need to get there first, which requires a lot more than just bigger rocket and few more parts with slightly better stats, but also you'll be starting pretty much from scratch in target system. With no VAB to build stuff, no launchpad to launch from, only your Interstellar ship in orbit and whatever you send down to the surface of chosen body.

I agree completely, but one challenge doesn't preclude the other.

22 minutes ago, hatterson said:

Given the parts available to us right now, even without including thing related to colonial refueling that will come in the future. I'm not really seeing much of a jump in difficulty between something like a Tylo lander or Eeloo mission and an out planet.

The biggest change would really be making solar panels useless so forcing you to rely on RTGs or other generation.

Imagine if a Uranus analogue was added. Its axial tilt and moon's orbits are nearly 90 degrees relative to the plane of the solar system, with some moons also orbiting retrograde. Trying to plan a trip to one of it's moons would be much tougher than Eeloo. Not only would you need to time your launch for a Hohmann transfer, but you would also need to either time your arrival to enter the same orbital plane as the moon, or carry a lot of extra deltaV for the correction. Double this difficulty if you plan on returning. This would also have the ticking clock of RTG's running out of juice or needing even more fuel for fuel cells.

January 8

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Anywhere past Dres the solar panels are barely effective so fuel cells or nuclear generators are a must, no difference here. As for the antennas, pretty sure the best ones we have are enough to cover the entire system and more. And the extendable ones aren't particularly big or heavy either.

Incorrect. Solar panels and batteries are still a viable and sometimes the better option. It depends on the mission. Do you need short bursts of lots of power? Solar panels and batteries are probably better. Moderate amounts of steady generation? Fuel cells, or if you spend the research points RTGs. Also now there's an RTG time limit which could penalize taking too long to get to further destinations. IRL there are probes going to Jupiter that will rely on solar panels (ESA's Juice and NASA's Europa clipper). Antennas cover the current system, but this would make the system larger.

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

We can have the same challenges in other star systems instead, since the whole point is to go beyond.

That won't be the same challenge though since it will be after you unlock interstellar and other more advanced parts.

January 8

7 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Other than putting more dv in the transfer/arrival stage and perhaps using Jool for gravity slingshot to cut some years from flight time - what more is needed?

Electricity generation/storage with much less sunlight, possibly better antennas for communication. Depending on the properties of the bodies there could be new challenges to explore it (small sphere of influence to target, a Uranus analogue with axial tilt, icy bodies with off gasing). All of this could be rewarded with increasing science points

January 8

For the most part no, that's definitely the weakest of my points. But it is adding an additional resource when pods already have monoprop.

There's also the realism aspect. You wouldn't bring lox/rocket fuel for deep space attitude control. I know a lot of players don't care about that as much, but those of us who do should have the tools to play within those constraints if we want.

We definitely need more parts for this

January 8

I would love this, one of my wishlist items is new bodies in the Kerbal system that are released as a surprise on day 1. Agree fully about the sense of discovery and that the chance to explore new bodies is a key motivation for a lot of players, not sure why people on here are so willing to disregard that.

There are a couple issues with modeling more of the solar system though. If we add more gas giants, Eeloo's orbit wouldn't fit as a Pluto analogue without being changed. As stated above it should also probably make sense in terms of gameplay progression: what variety would they add to the game before going interstellar that going to Jool wouldn't provide, and would visiting them be the intended path before going interstellar?

If gas giants don't make sense, I think analogues to Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects would be fun. I really enjoyed the KSP dlc that had you launch a telescope to discover smaller bodies to go interact with. An Oumuamua analog would be really cool too. It could be a really hard mission to intercept, but would yield a ton of science points.

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by rjbvre