regex
-
Posts
9,837 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by regex
-
-
15 hours ago, The Aziz said:
I know you're passionate about rovers, but would you be so kind to share what kind of slopes are you expecting to be able to conquer? Cuz from what I've seen, some people expect the rovers to climb slopes normally reachable by rock crawlers.
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.
9 hours ago, kdaviper said:You can always add moar boosters!
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).
-
3 hours ago, hjk321 said:
Bold of you to assume it's even reached that point yet.
Keep it in the peanut gallery kid, I'll make my own assessments about the game thank you very much.
-
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.
-
Quote
At what point do you see yourself "committing" more seriously to KSP2?
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".
-
12 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:
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.
-
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.
-
23 hours ago, herbal space program said:
Yes, but exactly how much inward? It's really much easier to have the game figure that out for you!
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Westinghouse said:
What exactly is so dumb about following the U.S. path, out of interest?
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).
-
23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
Most external tools give me the date of a transfer window. I can just warp to that date and my phase angle is set. But then, even when I'm in the right place in time, I often have a hard time getting an encounter (last time it was Dres), and I don't know if it's because my d-v calculations are wrong (doubt it, as I dragged all nodes back and forth many times) or perhaps the position of the node is in the wrong place.
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.
23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:So it's partially about the tutorials (telling what the ejection angle is, it should be a part of interplanetary travel tutorial), and UI (actually showing the ejection angle of a node).
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.
-
9 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
Ejection angle is absolutely an issue. I remember in the last dev stream they asked what the ejection angle for Duna is. People gave numbers, and devs applied those number I think correctly because the mission worked - but nowhere in the game does it say what the current angle is and how to find it. Where is 0⁰? Where's 90⁰? You won't know unless you learned it somewhere else. And guess what, over the last decade, I haven't. I just sort of guessed based on "going inside, sunny side, going outside, dark side" rule of thumb.
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.
-
Would definitely rather they focus on adding new star systems. Interstellar travel is the big draw of KSP2 for me.
-
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.
-
3 hours ago, ApexAZ said:
Yep. My point is that I wish there were more missions (and tutorials) to take me to these places.
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.
-
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".
-
20 minutes ago, Nesses said:
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!
-
6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
More like "build a completely useless chunk of mass made out of full fuel tanks because they're the heaviest and send it for no reason at all to a place"
It's great practice for wrapping your mind around launching and delivering say, a Tylo or Eve return vehicle.
-
34 minutes ago, The Aziz said:
for Duna you need both parachutes and engines.
You don't need parachutes if you bring more landing fuel.
1 hour ago, ApexAZ said:Finally, some feedback: I've run out of science and can't unlock more.
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.
-
34 minutes ago, Intercept Games said:
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 think y'all really need to invest in that new terrain engine, especially if this is going to continue being "a thing".
How about more torque (or torque parts) so we can build proper rock hounds too?
-
14 hours ago, MechBFP said:
directly parallel to Kerbin's orbit depending on if you were going to inner or outer planets
No, in certain cases and for certain encounters (probably much more commonly than "in certain cases" tbh), depending on where both planets are in their orbits, you would want different ejection angles (as @Superfluous J points out, that's the final ejection angle, not the node's). You might want an orbit with a higher eccentricity in order to encounter the target earlier in its orbit, for instance. This is why the ability to move the node around on the orbit and KSP2's burn indicator (which isn't single impulse) are so powerful, it's much easier to fine-tune encounters and reliably get the exact burn you want.
-
I see the
firstbest transfer from the start of the game at day 286. You can definitely get there on day 189 with a reasonable delta-V bump though. Maybe try moving the maneuver node around in the orbit to change your ejection angle. -
If you're willing to accept something that isn't specifically branded get you a Leuchtturm notebook or three. I've fallen in love with them for keeping notes for roleplaying games (I prefer the A5 size, perfect for bullet-pointing), really high-quality and a joy to write in.
-
9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:
Oh for sure, not denying that, but if you looked at the forum as a whole, yeah, defend the devs was the clear behavior.
And yet, again, according to Squad they gave far more weight to Reddit due to there being far more people there. Was Reddit defending the devs the clear behavior?
-
Just now, PDCWolf said:
like the barn.
Even the barn had its defenders. It's been pretty clear to me since that any dev team should stick to their vision of the game they want to play rather than listen to the community on anything other than bugfixes.
-
36 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:
I'll add that smaller sizes would be good too. Probes and satellites can make use of RCS too.
This. We should have at least three sizes, probably more when we get the truly titanic ships.
Some Improvements on the Way
in KSP2 Dev Updates
Posted · Edited by regex
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.