Wjolcz

Am I the only one who's just watched each of his videos 4-5 times?

This is quality.

So it looks like the robot will drive up to the landed stage and grab it from below? Why don't they add telescopic poles with wires to secure it? I'm pretty sure I saw a gif presenting the concept. Let me find it. E: I couldn't find it. I know I saw it in Messenger gifs somewhere. BTW do we know the cost of the reused stage launch?

Boo-hoo! Sob story alert! What a shame I don't care about it. Maybe they should've finished the game sooner and moved onto the next game/project/DLCs instead of implementing stupid things nobody appreciates anyway.

Well, when it comes to what I would do my answer would be: I simply don't know. I never was in such a situation. But I think making a DLC probably is the cheaper way. Working on a sequel vs DLC would seem like a no-brainer, but since I have no idea how to make a game I shouldn't say which one is the best way to go. However, I can say what I would like to see and buy as a customer. That is: an aeronautics prequel. What makes KSP special and so successful is the fact that it's a one of its kind. It's not perfect yet there's something to it that draws people in. Now, I think SQUAD could easily achieve a similar success releasing a game of a still fresh genre, which would be the aeronautics game I'm talking about. The only thing like this is SimplePlanes right now. It's still fresh enough for SQUAD to jump in and compete against it. SimplePlanes started as a mobile game so it has its disadvantages even on PC. If this KSP prequel was released straight to the PC platform SQUAD wouldn't have to care about all the limitations SimplePlanes devs have to consider and easily surpass its success. If they played their cards right they could easily have another bestseller, which I would gladly support. Oh man, this post is messy because I've already had a few odd ones but let's continue: When it comes to the audience: Everyone seems to like these sandbox games. Now why shouldn't SQUAD try something new-ish? We have a game about space exploration, but the atmospheric part is ommited on the purpose (and I'm not against it because it's just the theme this game is set in). So why not focus on atmospheric stuff a little bit more? Do that and I guarantee you that not only the current community but also most of the WarThunder/World of Warplanes players will happilly join in. We already have a few of them here on the forums and they seem to be posting in the BDA/FAR threads a lot of their creations. It's just a really good opportunity and I think SQUAD should go for it instead of DLCs (actual new content versus paid mods).

Ok, so I will assume that this Mission Builder thing is a scenario creator in which you can create scenarios (like the ones already in the game) and set landing spots, time limits, checkpoints, initial orbits and such. If that's it then it's actually something new and cool I can get behind. If it's just a Contract Configurator with intuitive UI then it's still "meh".

Then it would be a suggestion for the ones who do and post in the FAR/BDA threads their creations. And this community wouldn't be the only one to buy it. I'm sure such game would bring the WarThunder playerbase in large numbers. Plushies, mugs and such won't enhance the game. I guess you could say that the money goes to the devs which keeps the development going. Fair enpugh, but I'd rather pay for a product (not a plushie) not send the money and pray for more updates.

OK, I think I need a clarification. Is the mission builder a proper scenario editor or just contract creator? Because if it's the first one then I will hang my head in shame and apologize.

I'm getting it for free because I bought the game in 2012. I would happily pay for something to support them. I just wish this something wasn't an unfinished game or paid mods.

@frizzank you are missing the point. I don't know how it is with other people but I can guarantee you paying or not paying is not the case here. It's what is being offered. Now, to clarify, I'm getting the DLC for free because I bought the game in 2012 so ranting about price in my case is a moot. And, as I've said, money isn't a problem here. From my point of view the DLC @SQUAD is offering is simply not worth it. It's parts +some more contracts +contracts creator (which frankly should be stock because what is offered in the career mode is just bad). I would happily pay for something and support the devs. Like a new game, or something that simply can't be added with mods. Just not this.

Aaaaand since that DLC was finally announced and confirmed and it seems to be just more parts and Contracts Configurator with an in-game UI I think this is relevant. Talking about reusing KSP's code for a new game being a blatant money grab: can this DLC also be considered one?

The array is exclusively radial probably because it fits perfectly on the side of an ISRU unit. At least I tend to use it that way.

Isn't it @TriggerAu? He's already a member. One thing is a game whose developers never intended to change the looks of and another a game where devs tried to do so multiple times without finalizing their work which resulted in an inconsistent look of the game. We're talking about parts overhaul, right?

Apparently the shower is too much of a hassle to include it in already cramped ISS.

A single module of Skylab was bigger than a single module of ISS.

Will JWST really be on the Lagrange point for the cooling purposes? I've heard people say it's because of Earth's shadow, but to me it doesn't make much sense since Earth will simply be too far away to cover the Sun in any meaningful way. To me it seems obvious it will be there to have direct line of sight with DSN all the time and more observation time than there would be in LEO (since Earth would get in the way half of the time). Maybe it's the light and heat bounced back by Earth's clouds that would make JWST unusable in LEO?

I know the "but I remember" argument is a bad one but AFAIR in the begining they didn't want to add it to make people experiment with designs, but then career came and a decision was made that there should be more info available (because good luck experimenting in a mode where launches cost money) and there were hints that dV stuff was coming eventually. Then @Maxmaps said it was coming in the (then) next update, shortly after that he got fired and they never spoke of it again. This kind of info really is essential for this game and shouldn't be ommited under any circumstances. You either decide to make a light-hearted game with simplified physics and super efficient engines or a semirealistic game with orbital physics and enough information to let everyone play it. I mean, you can't decide to go middleground, release it and then say "yeah, but there's that mod that you can download so maybe do that" and still charge the full price for it. Don't get me wrong. KSP is a great game but it would be better for it if someone, who knows how to develop a game properly, would take over and start fixing all the bad decisions previously made.

I have a feeling that @Hay is talking about the predictions and wishes posted by the people not the OP.

I feel like if the classes were never introduced this discussion would have never happened. Shame they were because IMO there are more important things that should be discussed when it comes to this game and how it's played.

Would need a new respurce while IntakeAir is already in the game. I'm pretty sure this would be fairly easy to implement or mod in. Just make the RCS use IntakeAir and switch modes, or simply turn monoprop tanks off when in the atmosphere, or sth.

They have a way to deal with this. The Mun already has procedural craters, but it doesn't mean they are random. When they added it they also made sure all the landed vessels would end up on the surface. And they did. Most of them at least.

Is it me or does the DLC look like a PR rescue attempt? It has a list of things that will be included but no price tag yet. To me it looks something you want to announce after the last flop. I don't even think all the "confirmed" features will make its way into it.

Isn't it nice when you can say "We promised nothing" and then call one of the updates "1.0" and call it a released product that costs the full price? Ah, the wonders of early access games... KSP is a great game as a concept and a modding platform. However, it still is lacking things that were promised (unless I don't know the actual defitnition of the word "promiss") which include: -Procedural craters on more bodies than one (the Mun) -"Shmelta Vee" -Part overhaul We can argue over what each of us considers "a promised feature" but I clearly remember these three things being announced by SQUAD as something that will 100% happen.

AFAIK later on yes. Especially after the accidents. This and the fact that parts were made by different companies made it so expensive to fly.

Falcon 9 is a fully reusable first stage. The launch system as a whole isn't fully reusable. Space shuttle was neither fully reusable nor a first stage. They are two different things. They both are/were reusable in one way or another. I don't think they should be compared. For me the most important part is how much each of these cost/costed. F9 is much simpler. Space Shuttle was much more complicated than F9.