Jump to content

Wjolcz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,406

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Wjolcz

  1. Wjolcz
    Well, if you put it that way it does sound like a lot of fun.
  2. Wjolcz
    So something like Kerbin Side would do just fine. Many runways with many directions. Unless the game becomes fully focused on airplane flight it won't have multiplayer because it would be pointless and dull. KSP is about spaceflight and believe me you need alcubierre drives if you want to play multiplayer in KSP. Otherwise it's just a warp/syncfest with chat and very rare encounters.
  3. Wjolcz
    YES.
  4. Wjolcz
    It's the current plan, I believe.
  5. Wjolcz
    What for? The concept is meant to deal with high traffic density and unless KSP becomes an MMO game focused on airflight there's no need for circular runways. And "because it's kerbal" is not a good argument.
  6. Wjolcz
    Tech tree would be broken even without spaceplanes. The branches should be linear and each of them themed. Spaceplanes with spaceplanes, electric with electric, etc.
  7. Wjolcz
    To be frank, I'd really prefer a whole new game about space/airplanes only. There already are people who dislike the fact that KSP has so many good-looking spaceplane parts and would rather see more space station modules in the game. I'm not one of them, because I love spaceplanes, but at the same time I tend to spend a lot of time building them instead of flying rockets and so do the guys from BDA and FAR challenge and showcase threads.
  8. Wjolcz
    @LoSBoL the game can be funny and look good at the same time. The "funny" part doesn't need rocket parts that look awful. These two elements don't have to gear together to make for a good game. Let's take one of my all time favourite games as an example: Portal. The chambers there were simple and well-designed and the lines delivered by GLaDOS were fairly witty and intelligent. Now, in KSP there's a certain imbalance as if the devs haven't decided (yet) how they wanted the game to look like. We see silly and reckless kerbal pilots flying in trashy rockets that were presumably built by intelligent kerbal engineers/scientists (because rocket science isn't actually easy if you haven't guessed already). Why can't we have this simplicity and intelligence Portal had? The whole philosophy of KRAAAAZY KERBALS simply hurts game's looks by making people believe that the parts were meant to look like flying barrells and trash cans but in fact it's just an artifact of past part overhauls.
  9. Wjolcz
    "Kerbals are dumb and fly in trash cans" The game is meant to look near future. It was stated before by the ex-lead dev @HarvesteR himself. The way the game looks isn't even intended. It looks the way it looks because completing each part overhaul project never was a priority. People should seriously stop talking about how trashy style is intended because it really isn't. You don't know the whole story behind the parts and the fact that "it says it so in the descriprition" doesn't mean the plan to change it never happened. It did. And it's pretty obvious that more than once.
  10. Wjolcz
    It might be. It would make sense to sacrifice some payload capacity to recover all the stages and fairings. Especially when FH has 60(?) tonnes to LEO. Even if it gets reduced to 30 it's still a pretty good score. Especially when the next launch you only pay for the fuel (and refurbishment but I assume this will get cheaper and cheaper with time) not a whole rocket.
  11. Wjolcz
    What would be the purpose of that?
  12. Wjolcz
    If I'm not mistaken Falcon 9 is the most frequently flown rocket right now, isn't it? We see a launch almost every month.
  13. Wjolcz
    Woah. I don't mean to be nitpicky but these are some overweight astronauts if you ask me. Either that or they are giants. Oops, nevermind. It's them + their equipment.
  14. Wjolcz
    This is a descritpion of what's been happening with the parts since around 0.15. Too many parts added by too many different artists. Now they aren't there and someone has to fix the mess.
  15. Wjolcz
    I'm pretty sure it was @C7Studios who made the ARM parts. Apart from that, I agree. The emphasis should be put on the stock parts. The DLC pack should complement the stock, not surpass their quality.
  16. Wjolcz
    Airstrips and launch sites/landing pads would be enough imo. Cities would be another one of these things that serve no purpose and eat your PC alive. Shame @bac9 is no longer in the team. He had a clear vision of what the buildings should look like.
  17. Wjolcz
    As a very rare easter egg? Sure.
  18. Wjolcz
    I don't know about all this atomic stuff. I still think a conventional approach with a base/spaceport on the surface would be better. Politically problematic when it comes to relations of the two factions but at least the planet inhabitants wouldn't have to deal with fallout and radiation if something goes wrong with the SSTO. What about an SSTO with SABRE-like engines? Or even a whole fleet cycling there and back all the time? I guess this approach makes landing anywhere on the planet out of the question but then I'd imagine these spacecraft would be used to transpprt important people and secret equipment instead of troops. Besides, drones can do the job of troops when it comes to warfare.
  19. Wjolcz
    I thought the historical contracts will be a part of the DLC? I was refering to the Mission Builder as the main part of the DLC + historical missions + parts. Not contracts being a part of the Mission Builder. Just wanted to make that clear.
  20. Wjolcz
    Now that I think about them they don't really serve much purpose, do they? They were cool in the beginning when the only capsule available was the MK1 (the one that has its own statue by the VAB). Watching kerbals go crazy during explosions was pretty fun. I never use the MK3 passanger modules mainly because they (their IVAs, I assume) lag a lot and even more when there's crew in them. Maybe instead of having one cam per one kerbal there could be one for the entire cockpit? Like this: I don't know if something like this would reduce the lag but it certainly would unclutter and reduce the amount of IVA portaits. One cam per one capsule/module/IVA would be just fine IMO.
  21. Wjolcz
    It doesn't look manned.
  22. Wjolcz
    Yeah, I had a feeling it couldn't have been 100% correct. Seeing as some people on reddit don't even know who Musk is I tend to take information taken from r/space with a pinch of salt.
  23. Wjolcz
    Here's something I have found on reddit:
  24. Wjolcz
    I'd love to see an RTS like this. With two people at each army. One does the ground work, building and expanding bases and the other does recon and is a flight controller at the same time. Oh, God, but let's not derail this thread! It's too good!
  25. Wjolcz
    If we assume that colony ship has an ability to mine a nearby asteroid field I'd say spmething with LH/LOX in the tanks, like a VentureStar or The JAXA Space Egg (because I really, really like the concept and can't think of anything better for a VTOL). Now, is the planet Mars-like or Earth-like? Ideally a Mars-like world would make the trip down there (and back) much easier and have a much better payload fraction.
×
×
  • Create New...