Jump to content

DoomsdayDuck555

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DoomsdayDuck555

  1. On 7/4/2024 at 10:40 AM, Observe said:

    Define KSP3 and I'll tell you if I'm excited about the idea of it. If the vision for a hypothetical KSP3 is anything like KSP2, then no. I want a real solar system (RSS) and no cartoony Kerbals. Give me a proper space (and aircraft) simulator game and I'd jump on it.  In other words, it couldn't be called KSP anything. It would have to be a whole new game altogether.  

    Then you don't want Kerbal Space Program, but Generic Flight Simulator

  2. 2 hours ago, atomontage said:

    You are probably right. I reconsidered my statement.

    Although I still believe there is no need to punch the dead [game], the studio being closed - thats something potential buyers might want to know. The game is not officially cancelled but the studio is definitely closed as per WARN statement. (I believe so?)

    Isnt the studio open, it just doesn't have anyone working there? so technically everyone at the studio is working on the game? Might be wrong.

  3. 7 minutes ago, ArmchairGravy said:

    Yes, SRB's in the latest edition have their limiters doubled vs. the published amount. Put a Flea on a command pod, set the TWR to 1.5 in the VAB and it won't leave the launchpad because the actual limiter has been doubled. 5 minutes of play testing would have revealed this.

    is TWR set for vacuum? that might make enough difference.

  4. 1 minute ago, NexusHelium said:

    I completely agree with the suggested additions and I really hope they add them in the future. Most of these probably will be added throughout the roadmap though (I can definitely see things like life support being added as a separate difficulty mode). And I don’t personally have a problem with the game’s price. I’m just holding out until all of these are added and I’d they’re not, then chances are the game is going be still one of the greatest of all time.

    I recently watched Nate’s interview and it really seemed like the devs are trying to bang out the roadmap stuff quickly, then they will go back and add QoL and requested features. For example, Nate mentioned commnet systems, science archive, and alarm clock all as things that the team wants to add but are prioritizing below roadmap. 

  5. I kind of agree. While 2's effects look much higher quality, with more polish, the way you can see the vessel through the plasma makes it look much less intense. On the other hand, 1's effects like much more rough and janky, but they convey the intensity of re entry better. I think the transparency through the plasma really takes away from the effect.

  6. 29 minutes ago, calabus2 said:

    So back on topic. When exactly are we going to see a clear and concise plan including timelines for deliverables and a detailed list of outstanding bugs and when they will addressed? 

    I could see us potentially getting a peek at the internal bug priority list, but if they gave out a timeline for major updates then they would have to either rush out the updates to meet the deadline, or they would have to go back on their word about the release dates.

  7. Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes 
    OS: Win 11 | CPU: R5 5600x | GPU: 3070 | RAM32GB

    I’ve noticed  that ablator doesn’t ablate more than 5-10% regardless of re entry conditions. For example, on lunar re entry with a periapsis of around -10km and hitting the atmosphere at  3000m/s, I only lose .01 tons of ablation from the .20 in the small heat shield. Although I don’t remember the exact details, on a re entry from jool at around 8000m/s, I only lost .05 tons from the .20 total in the small heat shield. Re entry heating is set to 100%, and I’m wondering if this is intended behavior. If it is, I suggest changing it because re entry doesn’t pose any big dangers with the current behavior.

    Included Attachments:

  8. 18 hours ago, RileyHef said:

    - Studio-wide break from 2/10-2/18

    - Anniversary post and KERB on 2/23

    - The only active CM on vacation for a family wedding from 2/24-3/3

    That brings us to now. The team has been able to take some time off over the last month and is deep in work towards a hefty 0.3 update. Nate recently sat down with a YouTuber for a 40-ish minute interview to update us on current progress towards that milestone, too.

    I'd say this is a healthy dose of communication given current progress towards 0.3 (which is speculated for the summer). It feels like less when compared to the heavy marketing leading to 0.2 during the end of last year, but the team has gotta cook and likely doesn't want to share too much until they are near the finish line for any new releases. Such is the life of early access.

     

    ok I didn't know about the wedding, and I though the break was late january for some reason. that makes sense

  9. Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes 
    OS: Win 10 | CPU: R5 5600x | GPU: 3070 | RAM32GB

     

    In the description it says "designed to perfrom the same experiment" instead of perform

    Screenshot:

    Perfrom.png

  10. 1. advantages to small probes - more/larger/preclustered xenon engines and more miniature science parts

    2. Hydrolox and kerolox fuel types and engines 

    3. Basic life support 

    4.  Large landing legs that are sleeker when folded/something in between wallaby and the next smallest landing leg

    5. XL engine parts

    6. A bunch of historical parts - 1.875, saturn V, and soyuz

    7. Robotic parts

    8. Mini SRB's (mites)

    9.  Better RCS - larger RCS

    10.  Transfer window overlay in map screen 

     

×
×
  • Create New...