Jump to content

GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Posts

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

509 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    734

Recent Profile Visitors

6,644 profile views
  1. On a related note, probes also need a Comnet connection to have full throttle control. This is especially true when trying to land for the first time on the Mun - as tempting as it is to get try and hit that sweet spot where Kerbin is right above the horizon as you touch down on the Munar surface, your probe is almost definitely going to plough into the ground at full speed if your overshoot slightly and the planet drops out of sight. Unless you're smart enough to set up a relay first, I guess...
  2. Right, in truth the bar was pretty low - all they really had to do was make a game that felt like a substantial improvement over KSP1, which given how ramshackle the first game was could have been entirely achievable. I do genuinely think that "KSP1 but better-looking and more coherent" with a few new toys to play with genuinely could have been pretty successful: one thing that I don't think anyone was really criticising was how more accessible KSP2 was, through tutorials and such, which I imagine would have been quite attractive to people who struggled to get into the very sandbox-y first game. In truth the alarm bells for me only really went off when Early Access hit... going from a projected 2020 full release to a 2023 (very) Early Accesss release clearly meant something had gone wrong. But it was actually Nertea's blog post that really pushed me to "oh, this is in real bad shape", although not for the reasons some did (I actually really liked what he was talking about there!). What was specifically concerning was that they were still doing lots of 'big picture' planning, and that clearly no-one knew how big features like colonies or even heating were actually going to work practically for the longest time. I still don't know much about game development, so I don't know how typical that it is at that stage of development, but even then it felt like a full 1.0 release was still multiple years out.
  3. The obvious problem here is how you convert your electrical energy into something an organic body can use - I definitely don't have the biological knowledge to speculate as to what exactly is needed for full functioning, but ATP seems to be a major part of how the body releases energy. The only reference I could find to electric-to-ATP conversion was here: https://phys.org/news/2023-08-scientists-artificial-metabolic-pathway-electricity.html# ...but that's extremely new stuff, and I think still requires organics to break down (so you still need some kind of artificial photosynthesis). If you could do that though, you might be able to avoid some atrophy, as then you're effectively "feeding" the muscles and such. Unfortunately there's just so many processing going on in the human body which don't have an "off" switch - even if you are artificially thermoregulating, I don't think your body will just stop respiring, and you still need to breathe and keep your heart pumping. Equilibrium processes are kinda a pain like that. As a side note, you'd also have to suppress your hunger artificially no matter what: the feeling is hunger is based on whether or not you have solids in your digestive tract, rather than what your blood sugar level is.
  4. Well I certainly won't be now, given the, uh... situation Right, which is exactly my point - most of the bugs that plagued the game had to do with stuff that pre-dated the science system and was showing very little sign of ever getting properly fixed, which is what turned me away. The science system itself seemed to be pretty robust, with most of the complaints being about deliberate design decisions than things not working properly (aside from relatively small complaints like Eve giving weird science returns), which is what I think that quote was more referring to: the "science update" was reasonably refined even as the rest of the game was falling to bits. I think that matches up with how this video explains how development was managed: pre-EA everything was being developed in parallel with different people working on different features, but post-EA release it seemed to be mostly all-guns on individual features, even at the expense of core stuff.
  5. Just my interpretation, but I read that quote as being more about the update being "polished and bug-free" rather than "feature-heavy and full of content". I never played, but from what I saw of KSP2's science system, it all looked reasonably well thought-out and working as intended, even if it was way more shallow than I would have liked - the existence of the mission system alone at least suggests that someone was thinking about how the game was going to play as a whole, and at least a reasonable effort to get things 'right' the first time around given the repeated responses from the dev team that the core mission structure wasn't going to change (even if, again, it was a bit of a shallow experience for my tastes). The actual bugs in the game mostly still seemed to be present entirely in the core game systems, which we now know was a result of a huge range of factors, one of which being pushed into an EA release that the team almost certainly didn't want.
  6. Hard disagree. Not only do lead designers do a heck of a lot more than that as described by others above, arguably one of the biggest-impact issues KSP1 had pre-1.0 was that there wasn't anyone with a cohesive vision of what the final game should look like. You could almost feel the tension between different ideas of what the game should be in those earlier versions as it transitioned away from "silly space frog game", and I do wonder now if that's why career mode ended up feeling like a bunch of disconnected features in a trench coat rather than a complete way of playing the game.
  7. Did some digging, and surprisingly it does seem to still exist on the forums! This is all pre-1.0, obviously (the 86x memory limit was a heck of problem for early modded installs) - I don't have the technical knowledge to tell how it works, but to a totally untrained eye it looks like it was replacing only the textures in the game with low-res versions, then switching them out as needed. Like you said though, it's noted on that page even that it was a bit of a crash-happy mess... and I have dim memories of the loader often failing and leaving you stuck with the blurry low-res textures for half your parts. More interestingly though, apparently someone did set up something that worked post 1.0... ...but that was also apparently broken by the update to Unity 5 in 1.1. Evidently it wasn't really worth the hassle after that, given since 64x became officially supported, no-one's released anything similar since.
  8. This is probably the one thing that genuinely would have gotten me to finally pick up KSP2 had it ever become reasonably stable and reached feature-parity (or close enough) to KSP1. Even the most well-designed mod planets for KSP1 never quite got away from the polygonal look that the stock planets had. Like many things in KSP1, it's definitely one of those things that seemed like a reasonable thing to do when the game was a fun little project that was just thrown together and had only a handful of parts to load each time... but alas, evidently they never got around to rebuilding that system (and perhaps it was too ingrained even when they had the time post 1.1?). I seem to recall there was a mod that actually did add load-on-demand, but I have no idea if it survived to the final versions of the game.
  9. I think the bigger point is that I doubt he would want to work on KSP again, let alone KSP2. In hindsight it's pretty obvious that KSP1 very much got away from his initial "slap rockets together and see how far you can get" idea once it started to gain momentum, and it definitely felt like it was growing faster than they could plan features out by the end. And he's mentioned already that he would be more interested in a prequel to KSP than a sequel, which again makes sense when you consider that that would be much closer to what he was thinking of in those initial KSP versions. I'm not saying he wouldn't be capable of creating a KSP2, but I'm sure he's perfectly happy working on Kitbash instead.
  10. The balance with EA games has always been a bit dicey... on one hand, it's obviously not ideal for early donators to run the risk of effectively not getting what they hoped they would, especially in the face of actively disingenuous teams (see: Ant Simulator). On the other though, EA game do exist for a reason: to get games developed that would otherwise be too niche, or too experimental. It would be a massive shame I think to see it regulated into the ground - it would be a massive shame if small indie developers/studios felt it was never worth the risk of potentially bankrupting themselves or going into massive debt by issuing refunds, in the event the project actually just happened to fail through lack of funding or other unforeseen issues down the road. This seems especially hostile to the "one guy in his garage" model that made EA so popular to begin with. Obviously, the idea of massive publishers/studios doing EA is frankly absurd. Really, it only benefits them - they get a certainly number of guaranteed sales before the game ever releases (like a kind of turbo pre-order...), if it releases at all, with likely no more risk than they would encounter going through a more traditional development. If player input is something they're really concerned about, surely they could just go down the route of having a open beta in months leading up to release, no? Right - I feel if optional donations were enough to keep games funded, EA as a concept never would've sprung up. It's a nice ideal, but ultimately it just means less people actually able to make games, which means less cool games for everyone. It's a lose-lose, really.
  11. Great list, definitely going to use this when I set everything back up! I was going to make some suggestions, but this pretty much is my mod list, as far as I can tell... the only (very optional) mention I can make is: Engine Lighting Relit - adds a minor lighting effect to engines which I think looks nice! Personally, I've also used Kerbalism and JNSQ as an alternative to TAC and Outer Planets, but that's definitely for a bit of a different play style. I would also recommend SCANsat and DMagic's Orbital Science... but I have no idea if they even work on the final KSP1 versions.
  12. I, for one, think they should just leave the bugs in. Even better, they should add more new, exciting bugs in - keep us all on our toes, y'know?
  13. I've not messed with RO in a long while, but if I had to guess I'll probably the general mass distribution of the rocket - the Atlas V setup has a more distinct second stage than both Mercury-Atlas or Juno II, which gives it that 'lawn-dart' configuration that's pretty desirable in rocketry. The Atlas V is also a lot heavier than the others, which means aero-effects generally don't matter quite so much, as cross-sectional surface area doesn't scale as fast as mass does. I'm not sure if you have FAR or anything else installed that might affect it, but the center-of-lift indicator in stock KSP is generally pretty useless for rockets - it doesn't take into account body lift and similar effects. The more important metric is center-of-drag... which KSP just doesn't display unfortunately. I don't know how much RO models this, but the Atlas V also has a huge gimbal range on its main engine, which means you're getting a hefty amount of active stabilisation too if you're using it. It's actually enough that in reality it can stabilise itself enough that it can fly with a single SRB strapped to the side.
  14. Right, this is pretty much the sticking point when it comes to all forms of machine intelligence - even in scientific fields, with purpose-built deep learning models for particular data sets, it seems that it's pretty tricky to cross that hurdle into finding new correlations that the average (or even expert) human wouldn't be able to find. It's great at reproducing some of the more nebulous correlations that humans can pick out, but catching the golden goose seems to require something different... ...which is currently the issue with AI-generated art. Theoretically it's only able to work within the parameter space given by its training set, and in practice it seems to only be able to work within a narrower 'average' portion of that parameter space where there's sufficient data to work with. I assume that's why it tends to produce either very 'safe' results that are arguably lacking that cohesive spark, or just weird nonsense that may as well be random, no matter what medium its working in. I had a friend actually who trained an older LLM (GPT-2?) on some old chat messages for fun before things really blew up... and results were a bit mixed. Whenever it was stuck with a small sample, it would either just regurgitate a message from the training data verbitim (or close enough) or spit out gibberish words that were only sometimes pronounceable. I was told at the time that this was probably due to a combination of the model actually generating character by character rather than word by word, and the fact that some of the words in the training data actually were made-up nonsense, because that's how people speak online sometimes.
×
×
  • Create New...