Jump to content

GluttonyReaper

Members
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GluttonyReaper

  1. Good old KSP1 v1.0, where you had to attach your NERV engines to the biggest fuel tank possible as a heatsink, or risk them exploding on long burns
  2. Not saying I disagree, but also... this doesn't feel that surprising? Given there hasn't been a major update in 10 months, and that many (most?) of the EA buys were likely KSP1 players, a game which still exists and is more feature-complete than KSP2, it doesn't seem like a massive revelation that people aren't playing at the moment. I genuinely don't know what kind of numbers are typical for an Early Access sequel (given there aren't many of those regardless...), but this doesn't seem super crazy. "Quit" is a bit strong. There are very few (even complete) games that people will play for 10 months straight (or even a month straight). I doubt it's as dramatic as everyone else actively quitting the game in a fury, never to return - it'd be more accurate to say "not actively playing". There's plenty of games sitting on my hard drive(s) that I like or am ambivalent to (which I suspect is where most KSP2 purchasers sit), but that I'm not particularly in the mood for playing right now this minute. Not only that, this is something that KSP1 never actually explains. In fact, it does the opposite - the main heat generating parts (drills/converters) have a "required cooling" value displayed in the VAB IIRC... and all you have to do to maintain the correct temperature is add enough active radiators, which have their own "cooling rates" displayed, to match this. The weirdly complex heating system is entirely a background thing which the game never encourages you to engage with, not that I personally think it would even add that much if you did.
  3. I was merely joking For real though, it's definitely something you could easily run into in the early game - in particular I'm thinking of scenarios in which the game wouldn't know that you don't want that battery power used, for example if you're doing a fly-by with limited time/energy to collect science, and would rather transmit once you're in a more practical location. Kerbalism sort-of had an option to allow this by stopping transmissions if you retracted your antenna... but that feels a bit artificial and creates problems for probes that might need the signal connection for control purposes (I guess you could also block EC flow from a single battery even in stock KSP1, but again that feels artificial). It's not that I don't think automated transmissions should be in the game, but there should definitely be an option to switch that off at any point. If anything, I'd say having it left on manual by default is better, for the sake of letting new players understand what's actually happening in an interactive way (an issue I had with Kerbalism), with an option to switch on automatic transmission available once you know what you're doing, in the VAB or in-mission.
  4. That's efficient design - no need to pack all that extra power generation if you can just wait until you're back in the daylight
  5. Not saying I disagree, but a big stumbling block here for KSP2 in particular is that eventually there'll be interstellar travel, apparently with no FTL mechanics. This means that at certain point in a career, you might have a spacecraft that's travelling to another star for decades rather than years. Having played with time-mechanic mods in KSP1, I often would almost never actually have a mission arrive at Jool, because I'd end up finishing the tech tree while it was travelling and/or get bored with doing routine inner solar system stuff. I feel like this problem would only get worse when some journeys are a magnitude longer - it'd be pretty frustrating to have to make sure every one of your colonies is resupplied every year or two while trying to timewarp to another star.
  6. To be clear, IG haven't removed these particular two characters - they simply haven't gone out their way to add them into KSP2, exactly the same as every other named kerbal from KSP1 (mostly hiding in the admin building). Given that Gene mostly lived in Mission Control (which currently doesn't exist) and that having a WvB-alike is a... dubious choice, as others have already laid out, it's not widely surprising that we haven't seen either. Also WvB literally only existed in tutorials IIRC, which given that P.A.I.G.E appears to be fully voiced... yeah, kinda glad that we didn't get comedy-german-accent green blob man as representation of a controversial historical figure. Personally, I think it's nice to see that the KSP2 team isn't just cribbing everything from KSP1, and are expressing a little bit of creativity with some fun new characters.
  7. Pretty much this - regardless of how you rationalise it (it definitely helps that reputations seems to have gone out the window now), the results of multiple experiments just get mulched up into science points, at which point no longer feel explicitly connected to the original experiments, especially considering you, the player, get to pick what those science points unlock and thus effectively are 'guiding' that research. It ultimately just boils down to "more exploration = more tech" which seems pretty reasonable. If anything, I feel like attaching unlocks to (even vague) exploration conditions actually makes it feel more arbitrary, because now actually *are* saying that your temperature reading somehow directly leads to creation of cryogenic fuels. That said, I do think there should be some gentle encouragement for players to explore a bit more beyond just landing on every body/biome exactly once (doing more unique stuff like flying through icy plumes or driving to lava geysers comes to mind), but hopefully this alleged resource/discoverables system will do something similar.
  8. Huh, sounds neat! It'll be interesting to see how that pans out, nice to hear they're going in a different direction to KSP1 at least. I mean I guess? Out of atmosphere I only ever used the active radiators (which I believe were just magic heatsinks that could draw from anywhere) given they were so light, and re-entry was generally just a matter of having full heatshield coverage. The only time the heat system actually seemed to come into play was for spaceplanes, which always felt to me like more of a consequence of spaceplane parts in general just being slapped into a rocketry game without much thought and not having the logical parts you'd expect (i.e. no ablative tiling on plane parts). Whether the solution is trim the excess or to find a way to more meaningfully integrate the old complex system will depend on how the rest of the game shapes up I suppose.
  9. The science/tech-tree system, to my mind, was probably the most robust career-ish part of KSP1 - not the most exciting, mind you, but it was functional gameplay loop that genuinely compelled you to keep sending out bigger and bolder missions to unlock new stuff, so I'm fairly happy with it being brought back for this game. I'm hoping they incorporate and expand on the more interesting variations we saw towards the end of KSP1's development (Kerbal-operated surface experiments, scanning tech requiring a specific orbit, etc.). It seems like they've also gutted the "fluffier" parts of career mode, like reputation and random contracts, presumably to be replaced by much better systems which is a good sign (I swear if I see a single strategy...) As someone who hasn't really been following KSP2's development until recently, the physics seeming to be identical in principle to the first game is... unfortunate. It doesn't seem like there's been any huge performance jumps (i.e. higher part counts) from KSP1, which seems like a pretty big missed opportunity considering that was something that always felt like a hard unfixable limitation in the first game. Anything else though feels like fair game to be simplified or chopped and changed - in hindsight, KSP1's heating system was weirdly complex under-the-hood for something that boiled down to " just add more radiators and/or heatshields when things get too hot" overall. I'm personally much more concerned about systems actually working well together as a cohesive whole than each individual system being hyperrealistic.
  10. As with many things in KSP2, the trickiest bit of life support is bridging the gap between interplanetary and interstellar - how do you deal with the fact that decades might suddenly pass as you're time-warping to another solar system, and your space station that needs resupplying every six months runs dry after half a second? It's not an unsolvable problem (automatic resupply missions comes to mind) but it's a heck of a large development investment for an optional feature. I personally would actually like to see some kind of more full seperate 'hardcore' mode with a more complex life support system (with lots of interesting solutions!) that's fully integrated into other parts of the game such as resource mining and science, rather than a milder solution that can toggled on and off. Perhaps as something to be developed after 1.0 eventually releases, like the survival modes of other games
  11. Given that it's been stated previously that the devs aren't super likely to be any other time-based mechanics (e.g. life support), I think the ideal is either a streamlined version of the Kerbalism science system or an extension of the kind of stuff we saw towards the end of KSP1 (e.g. seismic impactor, or the resource scanner requiring a polar orbit). Ultimately both encourage the same thing - actually thinking about how to get each bit of science, rather than just slapping on every bit of science tech on every mission and just running them all any time you change 'situation'. The key part is enforcing the right 'conditions' for each experiment which leads to more interesting designs, like having mini-probes to detach into polar orbits, or spaceplanes to stay in high atmosphere for extended time. Kerbalism uses timed experiments to distinguish between sub-orbital/fly-by and permanent orbits (plus to play against mechanics which we know don't exist in KSP2 like life support), but I assume there's more stock-friendly solutions to that, like just noting what state the craft is in at the time of sciencing. But yeah, with time warp, year-long experiments don't make a huge amount of sense, and experiments that take a few minutes may as well just be instant. Now that I think about it, it'd be interesting to have experiments that use some limited resources that have been talked about...
  12. I've not had any issues with things exploding yet, but as far as I can tell, it's not really made for "construction" per se, more augmentation? It's very fun using it to rectify mistakes on the fly, I particularly enjoyed passing around an SAS module across my Munar vehicles when I realized I hadn't installed any on my landers...
  13. Apologies if this on the wrong section, not quite sure where to put it. So I got a new laptop recently, with a non-integrated graphics card and quite a high resolution screen (3000x2000), which is quite nice as I can now play KSP again, but there's one issue. Even at 1080p, the game window is tiny! I can bump up the size of the UI elements to compensate, but that blocks a lot of the game, and some of the text is still a bit of strain to see. Is there any way to "stretch" the game window, so that it stays at the same resolution but fills up more of the screen? I've tried using the full screen option, but as soon as there's a scene change, it automatically bumps it up to the full 3000x2000, which is way too taxing for this machine. Thanks in advance!
  14. This is making me even more concerned about the strategy to UK government has decided to take - here, it's been decided that we're going to have doses of the Pfizer 12 weeks apart, even though apparently it's never actually been formally tested to see if the first dose remains effective for that long. There seems to be some discussion about whether it's a viable strategy or not, but it doesn't seem like we're going to know until it's all done and dusted unfortunately... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-55503739
  15. Not necessarily - I'm envisioning some kind of genetically engineered super-moss. Perhaps have a more traditional hull on the outsider, but then this organism forming a kind of "inner" wall, maybe even in a cavity between two walls. It wouldn't have to endure the full intensity of vacuum then, and it'll stick around as long your interior is at vaguely life-friendly temperatures and atmosphere. And it's a free CO2 scrubber, so that neat. Not necessarily - I'm envisioning some kind of genetically engineered super-moss. Perhaps have a more traditional hull on the outsider, but then this organism forming a kind of "inner" wall, maybe even in a cavity between two walls. It wouldn't have to endure the full intensity of vacuum then, and it'll stick around as long your interior is at vaguely life-friendly temperatures and atmosphere. And it's a free CO2 scrubber, so that neat.
  16. Really? I would've assumed it was the other way around - unless it does totally collapse in the near future, I'd think it'd make it more dangerous, given further collapse could happen at any moment.
  17. If it can do that then sure, you're pretty much invisible by that stage. Problem is though is that the CMB is surprisingly low in energy - it's all microwaves. To get your spacecraft to emit out in that range, you're gonna have to be getting (relatively) close to absolute zero, which might be a problem if you've got anything living on board. (Of course, if you're an advanced enough species for interstellar travel, you might have found a way around that )
  18. It's been a couple of months since I used it, but I'm pretty sure this is similar to how Kerbalism handles data transmission - the quality is 100% within an optimum range, but gets steadily worse with distance, with multiple antennas or a better antenna needed to make up for it. I *think* it has passive electric drain too, but don't quote me on that.
  19. I doubt this'll be the case - it doesn't matter how cheap or effective your rocket launches are, space telescopes are fundamentally just super expensive. Both Hubble and the JWST have development and operating costs measured in the billions of dollars, while even the most expensive rocket launches are in the hundreds of millions - even if Starship gets that down to the tens of millions, I can't see that leading to a boom in orbital telescopes. Ground-based observatories are gonna be around for a long time, if only because using them is so much cheaper than orbital stuff can ever be - there's plenty of great research that gets done down on the ground, purely because they either don't need the incredible resolution of a space telescope, or because what they're doing would take up a significant amount of time. If Starlink is as bad as it seems to be, those types of research are gonna get frustratingly more expensive at best.
  20. There's an option to "lock" hinges once they've stopped moving - this makes them less floppy, but more importantly allows autostruts to pass through them, letting you make much more secure connections
  21. Some of you may remember that, shortly before the release of KSP 1.2, many of the recent hired devs (at least some of whom were prominent modders-turned-devs) suddenly and mysteriously announced their departure from the KSP development team. The reason behind this was unknown, until it was revealed they had actually been hired by Valve, to work on... something. Of course, what exactly this project was has remained unknown since then, presumably due to NDAs and the like. But recently, Valve released this: Half-Life: Alyx - Final Hours ...effectively an interactive look into what Valve's been up to all these years. Now, I don't own it myself, but according to Daniel Hardcastle (aka NerdCubed) in his most recent video (which I won't link here due to likely containing profanities), the KSP devs hired were working on SimTrek, a Star Trek themed VR game! Unfortunately, it was cancelled some time ago, apparently so more VR development resources could be focused towards Half-Life: Alyx itself. Just something I found interesting, it's nice to know where those people who've influenced KSP so much ended up
  22. IIRC, it's actually sorted alphabetically by default - it just so happens that the parts are named in such a way that they tend to be grouped by size. I think it would best for tanks in particular to be sorted by diameter (1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m...), given that majority of the time that's what you care about the most, maybe even in a expandable menus to reduce clutter. Everything else would be great too, QOL stuff never hurts
  23. For me, this isn't the issue - large game companies like this don't have issues making great games when they actually want to. It's more about whether the developers who've put all that effort into making said great games are actually getting what they deserve for it.
×
×
  • Create New...