Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by regex

  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.
  16. The U.S. path to space isn't dumb, people just seem to think that Kerbals should use probes first and start with SRBs instead of liquid motors. Kerbals are Kerbals, they can do things their own way, they don't need to follow human historical precedence (which has already shown us there are other paths to space anyway).
  17. It's basically like setting up a rendezvous with another craft, you'll see the intercept markers and can adjust from there. Once you get it close you can adjust the ejection angle by dragging the node to fine-tune. Dres is a notoriously hard target to hit, sometimes you'll want to wait for the next transfer window (which will be closer to AN/DN) or use a correction burn at the AN/DN of your transfer orbit. Again, I don't think ejection angle is needed at all beyond your mnemonic about which side to plan the burn from, it's very easy to adjust by eyeball. Instead what I feel we need are tutorials which explain concepts like correction burns, AN/DN, interpreting the intercept information, and what all that means for getting an intercept, plus better tools for manipulating the maneuver node.
  18. Are you talking about phase angle? Because that is very important, that's the relationship between the two planets and where they are in their orbits. Ejection angle is like you say "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" but since you can drag the maneuver node on the orbit knowing what it is exactly isn't an issue (compared to phase angle, for instance, which is crucial). It is very easy to set up a basic interplanetary maneuver and then fine-tune the ejection angle, and that was my whole point. Your rule of thumb there is about all you really need to know once you grasp how to manipulate maneuver nodes.
  19. Would definitely rather they focus on adding new star systems. Interstellar travel is the big draw of KSP2 for me.
  20. Just some general comments, understanding that I've really only done the missions up through the main Duna mission (sorry, Starfield came along and I needed a few months to play that). 1. The huge Minmus craft mission is great practice for the later Eve and Tylo missions I've heard about but needs the science rewards rebalanced (I see no reason to do it, ever). Related, it should probably arrive later (after Duna) in order for the player to get larger parts. Players need to learn how to launch enormous things in this game and that was a good idea of how to introduce that concept. 2. Emphasize quick-saving if you're not going to give us trajectory tools beyond the orbit stuff. I had relatively little problem landing near the target on Duna but I've played a ton of KSP1. (Pro-tip to any newbies reading, Duna doesn't have enough atmosphere to really mess up your trajectory, what you're really compensating for is planetary rotation, and you really only have to aim slightly ahead of the target). 3. Emphasize missions that are optional or can be slept on better. Emphasize that self-direction is perfectly fine and expected. This is and always has been a sandbox game, promote it as such! If you put in a series of missions then people are going to think that's the game rather than look around for other things to do that can gain them expertise. 4. With interplanetary missions maybe add some missions to land on the easier targets like Gilly and Ike early on. That gives the new player more confidence in how to do landings and transfers, more practice with estimating fuel requirements and dealing with the unexpected, and so on. In fact, you guys need to add more easy missions (and maybe rebalance the rewards across the board accordingly) in order to better prep new players. 5. You absolutely need tutorials for interplanetary transfers and maybe even a diagram or something for the best transfer times. Ejection angle isn't really an issue because you can drag the maneuver node around on the orbit but that needs to be shown to the player and we also need better controls for node manipulation in an overview like when setting up a transfer. 6. See above, docking tutorials, which kind of introduce the concept of an interplanetary transfer. Docking tutorials first before interplanetary transfer. 7. A side thought, maybe emphasize that having extra fuel for plane changes is a good idea, your missions require that a lot. 8. See 7. The missions as they stand are a crash course in a ton of concepts all at once. They could be spread out better to introduce things to new players in a better fashion. On a personal note, the humor is fine, at least it's not the dumb junkyard stuff from KSP1 that made me feel like the game was completely unserious. I also like the light-hearted Kerbal tone much better than the previous game, it has personality divorced of historical human actions and gives me no expectations on how I should proceed into space. I've railed against the dumb idea that Kerbals have to follow the U.S. path into space before and you guys are doing a good job making them their own thing rather than a reflection of U.S.-centric thinking. Thank you for that.
  21. Do what we did back in KSP1 before career mode and set some goals for yourself. Read some forum posts and figure out how to do an interplanetary transfer. Go to Eeloo just to see it. Make a bucket list. Explore the game.
  22. 5 Rovers are hitting a physics glitch every 1000m from the Location of Rover Being Loaded into the Game with Disastrous Results Improved, investigating long-term solutions "Improved"... I am NOT looking forward to the day when this is removed from the KERB due to "investigating long-term solutions".
  23. Am I imagining things or is this a much tighter interface (in terms of less "whitespace")? That's one of my bigger gripes, just how much space is wasted on the screen. Either way, the fonts are looking much, much better, great work, looking forward to playing the result!
  24. It's great practice for wrapping your mind around launching and delivering say, a Tylo or Eve return vehicle.
  25. You don't need parachutes if you bring more landing fuel. Yes, you're supposed to go outward from Kerbin to gain more science. Try missions to Duna (hard), Ike (easy), and Eve's moon Gilly (very easy). You can also get some good science from an Eve atmospheric probe, just have it land on parachutes.
  • Create New...