Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kdaviper

  1. 13 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

    I wouldn't exactly say  that chutes worked fine in KSP1 under physics time warp.  If the forces on them weren't too strong they'd often be OK, but on quite a few occasions I'd have them rip off if I deployed them under time warp but not if I did it at 1X. The main chute deployment at 1000m would also sometimes yank either the chutes or the parts they were attached to off if it happened under time warp, so I would always slow down to 1X when crossing that boundary.

    This was how I discovered superluminal speed in ksp1 

  2. 9 minutes ago, herbal space program said:

    I didn't dismiss it as such, I merely did not dismiss the possibility that it was in fact user error, because I flew a whole lot of missions without any such problems. Two different things. And again, a lot of the people here with the harshest criticisms of the game seem not to have played it very much.

    I have experienced 3 issues with parachutes: one was fixed by changing deploy settings

    The second was fixed by ending time warp ( I did not realize time warp did not reset to 1x after entering atmosphere as it did in ksp 1) 

    The third was maybe related to a symmetry bug of some sort as half of the chutes from a certain set refused to open when the other half worked fine. 


    While I agree that it did not make the game unpayable for me, I can see how it can cause frustration and there is the potential for a game-breaking experience if the first two work-arounds consistently fail.

  3. 27 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    We did.  Or, at least, I did at one point.  But someone pointed out how to orient myself, and now I know that when I drop a command module I have to simply hit E once, and then when I'm looking at the number 4 on the wall I'm oriented properly.

    I wish they had drawn a compass rose on the floor or had the cardinal directions indicated in the walls

  4. 2 hours ago, NH4Cl Enthusiast said:

    Planning for the required dV for a given maneuver has nothing to do with your burn time prediction though. Many players in KSP1 had some kind of a vessel or satellite just to plan maneuvers with. I don't understand why these are built to be so heavily connected in the first place but it does explain a few things about the issues they have with the current planner. 

    Here's an experiment: in ksp2, plan a 1000 dv maneuver with a rocket with a 1.0 twr. Now plan the same expenditure with a .01 twr.

    Notice any difference?

  5. One does not need to complete missions in order to unlock tech, they merely serve as a potential pathway for new players and yet offers some challenges.  I do think there is a lot of room for improvement however. For example, I think it is an astute point that there is no mission that requires docking when it is a core mechanic and opens up so many mission profiles.

    As far as the tech tree is concerned I don't think that is bad that decisions must be made between parts. However I do feel that planes are sort of jimmied into the tree and their tech cost does not necessarily reflect their usefulness. Perhaps they could be integrated into other nodes and the node cost or science rewards could be adjusted slightly to compensate.



  6. 1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

    This assumes there was never A. We're here because we passed A long ago, we had another round of A before and after FS!, and the only real thing A managed was a bandaid fix on wobble... which also meant they went back on their own statements of not wanting to implement bandaids.

    The problem with your argument is that you seem to think B is unjustified, and it's somehow blindsiding you by being a completely unwarranted surprise appearance. In reality B is the obvious consequence of what happened with A, along with many other fiascos along the way both inside this project and others.

    Sure, IG can't fix the industry, because no individual studio can, but maybe they can follow better practices instead of the bottom of the barrel that "industry standard" has become.

    So are you upset that they listened to the community and changed their mind about implementing a stop-gap? 


  7. 41 minutes ago, calabus2 said:

    Why aren't those deadlines and goals visible to everyone that purchased the game? There is little to no transparency when it come to the dev cycle. 

    Totally forgot that anybody who purchases an early access title is entitled to inside information. My bad.

  8. I don't think adding tracks would be a huge obstacle, as iirc the wheels in KSP are essentially just skids with rotating textures iirc.

    From what I understand they would have to change the shape of the collision mesh and artwork that corresponds to the new shape.

    However if the above is true I don't see how they would be able to articulate over terrain and if that was desired they WOULD need a major rework 

  9. 49 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    Probably.  It is what it is at this point.  I think maybe I'm just that one weirdo the devs didn't plan on having and I'm coming up with the ideas that break their stuff.

    Thing is I have built things using similar construction methods as you and don't have near the problems. I've had problems with the docking ports but only when disconnecting them from decouplers via staging. I've been able to attach them to each other as well as attaching parts directly to them and then undocking to separate.

  10. 10 hours ago, Icegrx said:

    I don’t even think the dev team knows the goal at this point. 

    all we have been teased with are large station like colonies. 

    seems the goal to me, is to make large stations while getting around the part count problem. 

    I think the purpose is to replace ksp1-style surface bases with physics-less surface bases that don't suffer the same drawbacks bases as ksp1 

  11. 2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

    So i launched my transfer stages this morning without nose cones...and they worked as expected.  My flying was bad, but thats a different story.

    How is it possible that we have effectively one-time-use docking ports?  And why isn't this a higher priority?

    How do you typically attach your nose cones?

  12. On 3/24/2024 at 9:55 AM, MirageNL said:

    Deleting some steps could also help a lot. You don't need the 950 dV for returning to Kerbin's SOI, nor the 3400 dV to land when you can simply aerobrake.

    Adding different destinations would only help if the vessel stays in one piece. Usually though, a vessel would split up in that case. Even when only having one destination, a vessel could split up into an orbiter and a lander, making the whole calculation more complicated than what the trip planner can account for. For complex missions, you would need an entirely revisioned mission planner, where the maneuvers can be linked to different vessel parts and combinations. You would then also have to select which engines to use for each maneuver.

    To put it simply: it's complicated.

  13. Of course every thing they include of exclude at any point in time is a decision. Instead of implementing comment occlusion, they have decided that their time is better spent delivering other content and fixing the foundations of the game.  

    I tend to agree with this decision. While I do see the value of adding additional challenge via occlusion, I am more interested in seeing:

    -the challenges and gameplay opportunities afforded by colonies

    -resource gathering and how that will tie into both science collection and colony function

    -Much-needed improvements to UIX, including but not limited to maneuver creation, map view, PAM, resource Manager, and vehicle construction.

    -optimizations to performance, especially considering terrain generation, vehicle physics, and fuel flow

    -bug fixes that are frustrating to experienced players and game-breaking to newer players.

    Let's not miss the forest for the trees.  The difficult part of this is we can only see a few trees around us while the rest is hidden behind nondisclosure.

    2 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

    Comnet this isn't something that I want to see come to KSP 2 via mods. It's something integral to KSP and IRL spaceflight and such I think should not be excluded. If you don't want to do the whole relay thing, that's why we had that umbrella dish that could connect from anywhere but for those who do, we were happy with comnet.

    While I agree that commnet provided an additional challenge, remember it did not Even come to KSP for quite some time after 1.0 and Even then could be disabled via toggle.

    Especially considering how performance degrades as the number of vessels increases, I didn't know if it's a great decision to encourage sending a bunch of extra crafts into orbit at this point in time.

  • Create New...