Wjolcz

Well, this is just a horrible way to mess up everything. If we want different players roleplaying different agencies there's only one way to do this: There's only one timeline. People open that timeline and set from when to when they want to warp and the speed of the warp. If the warp sections of the players overlap the warp happens with the lowest speed set by one of the players. AFAIK there was a Star Wars game that did it just like that. Still involves a lot of waiting and boredom but at least isn't as frustrating as other proposed ideas and the way DMP works. KSP is just not suited for multiplayer in any way (unless it's a co-op in which everyone sits in one ship, but for some odd reason people don't want that). If you want to have a game with kerbals and multiplayer better ask for a new game.

I just went into this thread, saw this and had a genuine laugh for a couple of minutes. What kind of net and how big would it have to be though? What if they used the interstage fairing to protect the engine bell during the catch?

Fair enough.

Oh, yeah. Forgot the hypergolic ones don't need ignition. Anyhow, even if they developed a completely new engine that would be a pretty elegant solution IMO. BTW, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but the first flight of FH is scheduled for late summer.

What about a SuperDraco redesigned to work with the fuel second stage uses? That would be the simplest solution, wouldn't it? All you have to do is slap two or three of these and run some additional plumbing from the tanks to the modified SuperDracos. Not sure what kind of performance would they have though.

The only co-op I could see working in KSP is everyone sitting in one ship as crew members. The commander/pilot warps and flies, the engineer does the engineering (for example boost the signal for additional EC demand) and the scientist does whatever scientists do (like, I don't know, actual experiments and useful measurements for example?). Everyone would be able to leave the ship but EVA'd crew members would mean no warping can be done unless they are all in one ship again.

Tbh, this thread is kinda pointless. The time warp in multiplayer was discussed extensively and this infinite-FTL-on-demand-but-not-really drive idea has got some issues. One way to deal with it is to have this one axis of time (instead of different time lines) where people set a time piece when and for how much time they want the warp to be activated and if the sections of two players overlap it just happens. Still boooooring as hell though. Another way is a co-op mode where everyone is in one ship and has some sort of role (each controls a different crew member and they can switch seats). IMO that one would be the least boring (for KSP) but the problem arises when they land and want to split or simply EVA. I guess no physwarp when going outside of the ship? BUT what I think would be the best option is to just drop that darn stupid concept of MP in KSP and make a new game a'la SimplePlanes except with working multiplayer. KSP clearly was an inspiration for that one and I see no reason why shouldn't SQUAD take that (still their) idea, put the MP, a sane career mode and kerbals in and beat SimplePlanes in the amount of sold copies. Oooooor we can just keep discussing this dead horse of a concept until SQUAD runs out of money and/or employees because DLCs for an unfinished game, right?

Nothing wrong about a barn that looks good. What we were shown was complete trash. It's still pretty apparent that top tier KSC has much better quality to it than its previous levels and seems to be much more efficient when it comes to textures and models (the stairs). #bringbac9back #stopbutitssokerbalmeme

That's an odd design decision. Why exactly is that? Also which engine has a nozzle extension which is also an interstage fairing that simply slides down into position when the second stage separates? Wasn't it Centaur too? I'm assuming doing that and then sliding it back up to use the Merlin as a sea level engine wouldn't work because vacuum engines operate at different thrust pressures or sth like that? I have to say that I really liked the nose-first concept. The only problematic thing might be the CoM when the main tanks are empty. Did waaaay too many flips in KSP that way. How much the second stage Dracos + fuel would weigh?

@ZooNamedGames the new players argument doesn't apply. No past experience = no expectations of how the system should be like. And let's not assume that new players are somehow inferior to the experienced ones. We're all human beings, with brains, intelligent enough to grasp the concept of this game and if someone is confused he/she can always come here (the forums) and ask the seasoned ones about stuff. I guess the next step of our conversation could be something like "oh, but actually the part of the brain that perceives kerbals and is used during the flight is not the same one that is used when creating a procedural fuel tank" but we don't know because it's part of psycbology and also offtopic. And my essays here are already waaay too long. So let's just agree to disagree and not engage in any offtop from now on, OK? If you try to argument your point of view with this kind of thing I will simply not reply. Give me a reason to be concerned about my idea instead of coming up with problems that don't even exist.

Can you name them? I 100% agree. I'd love to see them ol' parts being fixed for good. And I think procparts are the best way to fix all the issues. So was docking, new planets, engines' performance, new atmosphere, heat shields and many more. But they fixed these, new at the time, elements of the game. But pParts would be an investment. If they got around making it a stable feature of the game the rest of it would be just about adding more textures instead of modelling all these new tanks and engines. I mean, they would still have to model new engines and capsules but the rest would be left for the players to play with, while the devs would be focused on doing something completely different than reading all these revamp threads and trying to nail someone else's style (because it's already in the game). All the revamps were and will be time-consuming unless they decide to change their way of doing this. With pParts they would just make a few textures that can be applied to all of the tanks instead of creating each one of them separately and applying it to newly created mesh and then repeat the process with God knows how many of these more (the way it is now).

@ZooNamedGames c'mon man. Don't do this. We already know your opinion but we also don't want this thread to be closed. I know you wouldn't mind since you don't want more coherent look but there's a certain part of the community that does. Besides, it's also more about SQUAD's workflow. Procedural parts wouldn't only make some of us happy it would also give the devs some more time to work on other parts of the game instead of wasting their precious time on revamps that never get finished. So if you don't care about our opinion you could at least think about how easier it would be for the devs to focus on implementing new stuff instead of trying to fix the old all the time.

Dear Devs, I used to be an eager LEGO parts supporter in the past. However, seeing what happened to the past revamp projects I now see that they are never finished because of (this is an assumption btw) insufficient artists, insufficient time or the amount of work that needs to be put into an overhaul project. That is why I would like to suggest procedural parts as a solution to this never-ending problem. Just make some textures that look good when scaled, add a texture switch and let us model our rockets. A bit of extra info for everyone trying to argument their way through with "this is how this game is meant to look" argument. No, it doesn't. If you've been on the forums long enough you will know the way all the parts look is due to the past overhaul projects done by many artists, some of whose art style evolved as they worked on the game. I'll post the relevant link soon. EDIT: This post looks odd because it was an OP that got merged. Scroll down to find the link to the post by NovaSilisko (thanks @cxg2827) vvvvv

We aren't? I thought the revamp was on hold until they have time to finish it? Either way, at this point I really don't care who retextures and remodels the parts. If they now hire Ven to redo them he will probably never finish the revamp because of the amount of work and limited time. If they implement the mod the DLC parts will probably not fit with the stock ones. SQUAD should seriously consider making everything procedural with a texture switch. Then just make some more cockpits/capsules +IVAs and add a new set of textures every now and then. Would be much simpler for them and much less frustrating for us.

Hey, it's another one of these firstposters asking for multiplayer that make a thread and never reply. How mysterious... Anyway, KSP will never have the kind of multiplayer we all know and love. The devs said it will "kinda be in" so my guess is this multiplayer is part of the upcoming DLC. It will have that mission creator thing with the ability to share missions/challenges and scoreboards of everyone who has played the mission. And I'm 95% sure we won't see anything more complex than that. Unless they decide to make a new game, that is.

His point is pretty clear. Landing on a circular runway would be as infuriating as landing on the bumpy one (tier 1). It would be neither useful nor fun to deal with.

Does it though? There isn't even an in-game transfer window planner. The game discourages and punishes doing anything more complex than going to the Mun. This is just... What? I don't follow the logic here. There's literally nothing to load from RAM since the UI windows are already in the game (like it is with KER). Unless SQUAD went with new textures for each UI window/widget (which is something I hope they won't do) there would be only code to "load". Besides, having more tools and aids is a good thing. It encourages complexity. Right now the game punishes the player for being creative because of how barebones it is. Are people who say things like this even playing this game or just trolling? I seriously can't tell.

Seems like someone's already done it in KSP 3 years ago:

For me not knowing the exact delta-v kills all the fun. If you wanted the "hilarity of kabooms" you could just ignore the readout for the first few flights.

I have one seroous question: why have they never considered a Europa/Enceladus mission until recently? Is it because they didn't know about the oceans, no available rockets that could pull off such mission or insufficient funds? I'm guessing it's the combo of some/all of them. But I still don't understand NASA's approach on the matter. Instead of sending tonnes of missions to Europa/Enceladus they go for Mars instead (and there are a lot of them that aren't successful). I guess it's the complexity (delta-v, radiation and the signal delay) but maybe they also think that finding life on some other body would cause serious trouble for the whole society and would prove that we aren't that special after all or something like that?

How much time they could've saved themselves if they finally decided to go for procedural parts instead of keeping it LEGO... The historical pack would be nothing but just a few new sets of textures that could be switched by right-clicking the tanks in the VAB/SPH. No 3D moxelling required (=more time for texture fine tuning). And I would be 100% OK with that.

Even the parking lot spots are oddly spaced IIRC. [EDIT by @Snark: Right after Veeltch's post here, @dboi88 made the post below. Owing to some technical difficulties, it got accidentally merged into Veeltch's post in a way that is unclear how to fix at this time. I'm making this comment here to make it clear what's going on. Everything in the quote box below was said by dboi88 in response to this post by Veeltch. This clumsy ham-handed hackery is my attempt to "fix" it as well as I can within the limits of forum software that is, shall we say, perhaps not optimally flexible. We apologize for the inconvenience. If you're the author of the quote below, please let us know.] And there's too much tarmac out front, so it literally looks like it was just tacked on the end.

Why am I even replying to this? I guess I like punishing myself or something. Alright, here we go again... There's no other perspective. It's either the lack of money, lack of time or both. The way the game looks isn't intentional. It won't hurt the sales in any way. The worst case scenarios in a situation where they actually overhaul parts are either: people won't care much or people will see it and say "Oh, hey they actually tried to do their best to make this game look good and finished instead of trying to milk it with DLCs. I'm now seriously considering buying another game from them". Subjective point of view. Also, I don't believe you. It's natural that if something looks good and shiny it will sell better than something that looks like trash. You also completely missed my post about Portal. The game can be light-hearted/funny and good-looking. You might as well go watch Mad Max and try laughing as if it was some sort of comedy, because by your logic scrap and rust = hilarity. That is a very strange sense of humour imo. Oh, and everyone is reckless there so the hilarity is doubled! This argument is invalid as KSP is known for its steep learning curve.

@LoSBoL you just completely missed my point. The parts don't look the way they look because they meant them to look that way but because there was never time and/or will to overhaul them. The current "style" is not intended at all. NovaSilisko created them and he said himself that he hated the style and would do it in a completely different way if he had another chance. Oooooh, okay. My thread where he said that is actually gone from the forums and can't even find it with Google. How convenient. Edit: OK, I got it. It was just mobile forum being strange again.

Troll alert!