Jump to content

regex

Members
  • Posts

    9,844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

11,500 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Peace, Love, and the R-7 Family
  • Location
    Eugene, Oregon

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, those guys were totally a righteous underclass being stamped on by the positive elites. HAHAHAHAHA The discourse around here truly has fallen [snip]
  2. lolwut dude? It's non-stop doomsaying in here, what the hell are you reading?
  3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Damn dude, you've been living under a rock...
  4. Yes, I know. It's a stupid way to drive a rover, especially because you're spending half your time going backwards.
  5. I'm assuming you mean "go around"? In certain cases that simply isn't possible. Note also that when I request a low gear I expect it to act like an actual low gear IRL: lower speed for more torque, not talking about flying up hills (which you can actually do if you build a featherweight with TR-2Ls). I'm also not asking for the ability to simply go straight up a mountain what I want to see is larger, heavier rovers having the torque they should have. Right now doing switchbacks to climb a mild hill is just infuriating.
  6. Yes, everyone experiences that. I've literally willed myself north on Kerbin through all those dumb physics resets, that's not what I'm talking about, nor am I talking about scatter specifically. A reasonable size rover simply can't navigate the terrain they've created because it doesn't have enough torque to move itself up a slight incline. I've definitely created a featherweight that can fly up hills but if I'm carrying any sort of mass (in my case just that big cockpit) that changes instantly. How are we supposed to lay out supply routes and mining expeditions? How can we drive our glorious creations over rough terrain? Why am I getting so much pushback for a minor tweakable suggestion? If the game gives us wheels and big rover cockpits they should be up to the challenge. Right now they're not.
  7. Yes, but I can't get to the science without a good rover that can actually climb a > 10 degree grade. Have you seen the new terrain? They've given us all this wonderful new scatter and hills and stuff while making it nearly impossible to traverse. Now, I can probably agree that we don't need exactly rock crawlers but the rovers should at least be useful and being able to produce enough torque for a non-featherweight contraption to climb a good percentage of the terrain we've been given would be ideal. How are you going to set up supply routes with rovers hauling tons of goods?
  8. More frequent updates please; just tell us what the actual hell is going on in a short forum post rather than the dumb memeing we have to put up with to keep up in the Discord. You guys CAN do better and you just have. Also, I agree, we should absolutely get more frequent actual software updates. I'm in waiting mode on this game, you're losing my interest, much as I believe in your ability to produce the game and the promise of the end product, you're not delivering. You guys CAN do better.
  9. I would like to build a rock crawler. For an idea of the slopes I think a rover should be able to drive, just head straight north from KSC for an hour or two. You'll figure out soon enough that the normal wheels can't handle even mild off-roading, no matter how good you get with switch-backing and doing dumb tricks to gain speed. It's a real shame. I'm not talking about 45 degree grades either, although it would be nice to have a very low gear that could actually drive up one of those, but to even maintain speed going up a 10~12 degree grade would be a godsend. More weight which means less speed which means torque is less effective overall. Lack of refueling options in the field is also a problem, especially on Kerbin (good luck finding flat ground to align your docking ports deep in the northern mountains).
  10. Keep it in the peanut gallery kid, I'll make my own assessments about the game thank you very much.
  11. A low gear tweakable option should be introduced which gives increased torque but lower speed. Alternatively, a "transmission" part could be added that globally adds torque or introduces gearing options. Just in general we need more torque but it should be configurable so that low-gravity rovers don't instantly flip. I want to be able to climb some actual slopes in high gravity but the wheels that exist are completely anemic unless I'm driving a feather. We need more options in this area.
  12. When there's more to it. I'm so burnt out on KSP1 gameplay and the game really hasn't deviated enough from that core to make it interesting again. To be sure it looks fantastic; I've had a lot of fun flying and driving around Kerbin but there's really no draw beyond that. Plus, the wheel options are literally terrible, they need far more torque or parts to increase torque or new part options (low gear, maybe) so we can climb steeper grades. Also the bugs around driving need to be fixed, the physics reset after 1km has killed too many of my rovers. Overall I really like the game, bugs aside, but it needs more of its own personality and less "KSP1 but better".
  13. Which I can also do by just moving the node back on the orbit to adjust the endpoint. Like I said, I've had much more luck with the new node, it just needs better controls.
  14. I've had much better luck with KSP2's maneuver node tool than the one in KSP1, which always required correction burns, especially with long burns. The new one produces far superior results, it just needs better controls.
  15. Set your initial delta-V expenditure prograde and then move the node around on the orbit until it achieves your desired intercept, there's no need to burn radial.
×
×
  • Create New...