Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DChurchill

  1. 1. Nope. It really works. It crashed last night when I alt-tabbed out and started Ventrilo. KSP's fault? I'm not even having any real wheel problems. The small rover wheels want to spin in circles, but that's a known issue that's being addressed. 2. Hardly. I've bought games on Steam, played them for 2 minutes and said "Whelp, this is a piece of excrement." and promptly deleted it. 3. See #1. Although, I suspect the cause of most peoples problems IS Unity. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't 1.1.2 built on an outdated Unity version that is going to be updated?
  2. The craters on the Mun are generated procedurally. I have to think that if the game can do that, then it can alter terrain on the fly. I like the realtime crater idea, too. I was expanding a station around the Mun last night and I deorbited a pretty much spent delivery vehicle and was saddened a little when it didn't make a crater.
  3. One of the big impediments to surface base building is uneven terrain. Not everything is the ice cream flats of Minmus. But if it were . . . A bulldozer part to procedurally flatten surrounding terrain. I'm talking a few meters. I'm pretty sure if we can procedurally build terrain, i.e. craters, then we should be able to build flat spots on demand. Just a thought.
  4. In the event that you couldn't get the failure code to work right, that would work. Or even if you could, make the failures a parameter. Have them or don't. Anyone with any KSP modding experience with the tech tree maybe weigh in on the feasibility of this?
  5. I dunno. I have Steam, and I'm not having any problems. What I've noticed is that the higher end your system the fewer problems you have. That's the only thing I've seen and it's pretty anecdotal.
  6. LOL <smootch> I don't have a thin enough skin to take too much personally on a forum. No big deal. I don't have a problem with polls. I have a problem with the over-use of polls. YMMV
  7. @The_Rocketeer because I pay the same price for entry into this forum as you do. I live here, too. If you don't like what I have to say, there's an ignore button. Feel free to use it.
  8. Yep. That's part of the package with mods. However, once the development of the game itself is done, like Skyrim, mods don't get broken by updates. They may get abandoned, but they're still usable.
  9. And there's your answer. I'd rather they work on the system rather than the content, for the above reasons. There are lots of people who provide SOLID mod content to KSP.
  10. Here's the thing: Squad has gone out of their way to embrace mods in KSP. If a mod, like say Kopernicus, adds the functionality or feature that someone wants, they're not going to spend a great deal of time to reinvent the wheel. If you want gas giants in the outer system, get Kopernicus. There's a whole outer system pack for it. A good game, IMHO, is one that provides a good framework for modders to apply their talents. KSP, I believe is one of those games. You can generally have a full featured game right out of the box that will promptly be ignored after all the "stock" content is consumed, or you can have a game like Skyrim, or KSP, that has a solid framework (current crop of bugs notwithstanding) and an active and creative modding community, that people are still playing YEARS after launch.
  11. For what it's worth, Felipe, I can answer this with a categorical yes. I used to have a game for the Commodore 64 about a thousand years ago that basically put you in charge of your own space program. I missed that game, and when I saw KSP on steam as an early access beta, I jumped on it. Thanks for providing me with a world for my nerdiness to live. Salute.
  12. How about a poll for should polls be disabled?
  13. Sliding up the ladder is always a good one, too.
  14. If true, it's likely something that it's doing, rather than the service itself. Since there are so many different windows versions, maybe this poll might be better served by having more options for OS. I'm on windows 10, playing 64 bit. Rarely crashes (maybe twice). 1st gen core i7 930, 16 gig ram Geforce 970 GTX.
  15. My thinking is that it would take specific science to unlock a node, then the parts in that node would then become prototypes. The idea of levels of specific types of science being required to unlock a node would fit, too, I suppose, but it might leave out the idea that you have to go get some specific science related to what you want to unlock. Like I already have level 5 in x and y so that means I get to unlock the Rapier without doing anything specific for the rapier node. I think you could do this as an addon to the existing way the whole tech tree works, without the need to add a whole new mechanic of different science types. I don't know thee guts of how it actually works, other than paying to flip a locked bit on a node with generic science points, so my logic might be inherently flawed. But I'm thinking you might be able to add a list of acceptable science experiments that could unlock that node. Like the temperature and pressure experiments to unlock the jet engine. You'd need a file to keep track of that progress but whatever nodes that are still locked get a completed science experiment in their list of acceptable science, then the gauge gets that much closer to full. When it fills up, then it's considered unlocked, instead of just using generic science to unlock it. And until the required precursor nodes are unlocked, science will not accumulate for that node. So there's always a need for ongoing specific science. Once it unlocks, then the engineers take over with the prototypes. Once that part gets enough in flight testing, the bugs are considered worked out and it changes from prototype to operational. At that point it's just like it normally would be. I think that writing some sort of failure code might be the sticking point.
  16. Did some science in Duna's southern polar region for a fat contract. Launched a probe to Jool which will net me an even fatter paycheck. Thought about building a fuel farm on Gilly. Do I want to do it with a few autonomous mining/conversion trucks that can launch and land from Gilly orbit, or do I want to make a tank farm with autonomous refueling drones. Decisions, decisions.
  17. I've seen discussions like this in the past, but I thought I'd float it again now that I've had a chance to play 1.1 pretty extensively. Before taking a long hiatus, since .22 I think, the tech tree was new so I figured it would have matured more in the interim, but not really. I see some tech tree mods, but my thinking was more how it works in general. I'm not thinking about a drastic overhaul, but just adding some logical steps between: Take look at magic goo -> unlock node - acquire new parts which have nothing to do with magic goo -> profit. It's like somehow using your sword alot makes you a better pickpocket, if you follow me. I'm suggesting adding specific science experiment milestones to unlock specific nodes. Like maybe temperature and pressure measurements before you can unlock a more advanced jet engine. But that's not all, you could only unlock a prototype of that engine until you put x amount of time in with said prototype. Those prototypes might be more inefficient and/or more prone to malfunctions that the final part. You wouldn't even have to create adding any additional parts models. Also, it could be completely, or almost so, agnostic of parts packs and so on. An engine has these particular prototype characteristics, an solar panel this other set. Add in the possibility of failures and malfunctions, this would also give the little green engineers more to do. Now, ultimately, you'd want to somehow incorporate something like @DMagic fantastic science pack or the TST chem cam and telescopes from @JPLRepo, or the available experiments to unlock nodes might get a little repetitive. There's only so much you can do with 4 stock science experiments. Does something like this exist now? What would it take to make this work?
  18. Depending on where you want to store it, why not create a holding tank farm? I'm thinking of putting something like that on Gilly. That would be a fun project in any case. At least I think so.
  19. Yes, and the "1.1.2 is broken! Fix it! or I quit!" is getting old, too. What good is yet another thread about 1.1.2 being broken going to do? I think it's pretty obvious 1.1.2 is broken for some people.
  20. I've been to them all, but this is a pretty good list of what doesn't get much attention from me.
  21. N ot really. The only reason I ever improve the admin building is for completionism. I sometimes use the strategy that gtes me money for reputation, but honestly, the net reward isn't really enough for me to spend any time thinking about it. I hope they rethink how the admin building works.
  22. The whole idea of "cheating" in a single player game is absurd.
  23. Why on earth would you do that? Uninstall everything and start over.
  • Create New...