Tuareg
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Tuareg
-
-
Exactly.
And if it's optional... well, then it would be only one more thing you may do if you feel like it.
I think this is the point of the games. do things if you like. but in ksp there is nothing to do other than build tensome rockets and send them away...
Exactly.KSP is quite a sandboxy thing. You're given a whole solar system to play in and and lot of stuff to mess around with.the whole solar system adds the possibility of build 10 rockets and you can visit everything... whats are the lots of thing to mess with? cos unfortunately i've missed them.
most people dontlike repeat/rinse like gameplay. they need aims and rewards. in ksp none of these exists. what dou you think there are all the mods out for the game? ask ppl here on the forum to play this game stock for a week. they will laugh at you. playing? this? stock?
i dont want to turn it into a simcity and giving modules and functions for the building wouldnt be difficult at all. could be easily done in ksp. all are actually already done in the form of mods, they would just need to look around. there are planetary base buildings, there are minings (not perfect for casual players, too much micro managemet but it could be reduced greatly), there are communication mods (ppl will not launch satelites just for the shake of launching, they need a reason) etc. i have a cool munar base, i will never visit them because there is no reason. getting fuel there would give a reason... if there yould be specific things/resources on planets or moons that would give reasons to go there... like to unlock giga big rockets you need pampurampulus metal and you can only find it on the 3rd moon of the 4th planet. that would give a reason. and would make this crap physics simulator a game (yes its crap, it has so many fault based on a physics engine made for graphics and not physics simulation, its incredible).
-
Well, in that respect, KSP is entirely too realistic.
Just think of the real moon landings. They went there, chipped off some rocks, went home. What else should they have done? Putting up a proper lunar colony was out of the question IRL, and truth be told, it makes no sense in KSP either: the main benefit, gameplay-wise, would be to give you something else you could do and strike off the list. Even if you went so far as to allow mining and workshops and everything that's necessary to construct spaceships on the surface of the Mun -- what are you supposed to do with them that you couldn't do just as well (and a lot easier) with Kerbin-launched vessels?
The end of KSP is when you've been everywhere and have done everything. You may come back in order to do it again, and this time do it right, or better, or in some particular way. But a serious space colonization effort would require an entirely different game underneath it.
and you want only that much? do you think that will entertain casual players? to build a lunar base could be like getting to the next level but for sure to do that you would need to do a lot. building a game is like putting up aims the player can work towards. launching your next gen rockets from mun would let you to avoid fighting kerbins atmosphere and gravity, but to do so you would need to 1: find the researches 2: bring equipment to mun 3: build mines 4: find a good launchpoint 5: bring materials to the mun 6: build a colony with a launchpad 7: build a factory 8: start launching your munar rockets to move on to other planets... this is how games work and what is missing from ksp. there are 10 some target planets, build rockets fly to there end of game...
-
Your fear may come true. The devs have explained that they don't want to have a large number of resources and equipment. And if you think about it, a single module would be all it needs. Where is the gameplay benefit to having a variety of drill bits or converter modules?
it could give to the endplay. there are only a few things you can do in this game and even those are like, ok, ive done it. whats now?
like build bases around stuff. i knew it will NOT happen but somewhere deep i was hoping that maybe science will give a reason to build big ships and bases to play with them. now it happened as i was afraid of. it didnt give any reason.
i have bases all around the kerbol system but for what? sometimes i can take a look on them and ave how cool they are. and? thats it? no use at all.
mining could be an other reason (to be honest it could even be combined with science) but it will not. there is just no reason to play this game atm. now after they somewhat sorted the science i've unlocked the entire tree in like 2 days but it didnt give anything to the game other than those 2 days. (and as they messed it up it was more of an annoyance than joy. like on the planets surface you could use science rovers to explore but no, the docking and the wheels were right at the very end of the techtree... the science lab is pointless... should i continue?)
-
Oh there's older things than that SaturnV, and it'll all be addressed in time
will be? are u sure?
-
....because?
I don't necessarily disagree, but you haven't given any useful reasons why you think so.
yep you are right, and it wasnt nice. well, what i think is there are 2 options if the asteroids will spawn in the current system (aka orbiting sun):
1: they will be too big to change their orbit - in this case chasing them down, refueling on them and moving on will cost so many resources that it will not be worth going after them
2: they will be small enough to be moved to orbit - in this case everybody will build the ship around asteroids and you have a mobile fuel mine.
to make it any useful they would need to create asteroid fields bond to planets - in this case the planets which doesnt have an asteroid field and the moons will fall out of the mining and refueling (however its just my guess squad wouldnt place asteroids around every planet)
having actual surface mining (like ice around poles, or even methane in swamps) would be far more interesting
the only one positive side of having mines on asteroids is that its a lot easier to dock to an asteroid mine than landing on a fix position on a planet
what i fear is that the entire thing will be solved with one single modul. you put a claw on it, attach to the asteroid put a fueltank on its other side and it will refill the fueltank by the time... thats it. i hope im wrong but this is what i think.
-
I really hope ISRU is not asteroids-only. Harvesting from the surface of at least some bodies would be good, too.
isru from asteroids will be pointless...
-
An easy implementation of this could work just like the recovery system does. Instead of deleting the ship and reimbursing the value of its parts (minus a recovery rate), the ship would get stored "as is".
Crew would go back to the roster, science collected and experiments recycled for another use. There would be no recovery of funds, but also no construction costs. The only funds spent would involve filling fuel tanks.
Cargo bay contents would prove more difficult, as the game only sees parts connected to nodes. New code would have to be written to discern between what is the main craft and what is its payload.
a good sum of what i wish. sad i doesnt have good enough english to get my thoughts into nice sentences
thanks -
Very interesting. I think long strings with counterweights attached are necessary in practice; or so it seems from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization
only to stop the initial rotation. once its on perfect orbit, that's it. (sure in real life there is no perfect orbit. in a game there could be) anyway, the pointing the same point of the sky isnt a fine solution anyway. that just doesnt exist in any form.
-
How about an auto/manual option? So people who want to work the antenna manually can do that and people who want the antenna to work automagically can have that.
I also think John FX has a good idea too. It would be nice to be able to open/extend the antennas in the VAB/SPH. So you can see what the craft looks like before its launched. Solar panels too.
the auto/manual switch would be great so i could set one to auto what i want to work with the transmission and set to manual what i want to control
you can actually extend the antennas, it would be good to have it for the solarpanels too
-
Let's give a big hand to Captain Negative here! Who also happens to be flat out wrong.
hmmm thats already positive and yeah, im might be negative but last time i was right about science and i still think they will mess it up...
-
Maybe you'll like Hangar.
Integration with KerbinSide would be even more awesome
yeah, its a good looking mod its just missing exactly what i would like from it. it doesnt take science from the returning vehicle.
-
good looking mod but i miss something. my biggest problem with not having stock hangar is that i have to recover a vehicle in order to get the science it has collected. i wish there would be a fixed hangar at ksc which, if i dock would receive the science at full values (like if i would recover the vehicle).
thanks a lot
-
I hope they don't. Kerbal experience could be good. I like KSK's concept- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98466
It combines the idea of kerbals being given specialisations with an experience gaining system, letting you train kerbals in certain ways, or have them develop as a side effect of how you play. It would be great.
From time to time, we hear the that the developers monitor the discussion going on in the forum, and reddit. I hope this is true, as there are some good ideas among all the repeats.
they have already wrote somewhere that kerbal exp will change boost/engine efficiency/overheating so nothing you/we dream of. and anyway. they mess up everything why would this be the exception?
-
what i mean is let us drive back a vehicle/bring back science keep it ready with crew without recovering it. like a rover or ssto cant collect science because you have to retrieve and launch again every time...
-
I think they should redo the whole tech tree. Seriously. There is no explanation for wheels being as advanced as NERVAs but waaaaay beyong liquid engines except THEYRE KERBALS THEY DONT USE LOGIC
no the kerbals are who dont have logic, those are their developers
-
Yeah, personally I don't know what Squad were thinking when they made the science system. It's a really basic placeholder. Right click, do science, here's a message you've seen loads of times before, read that before we add a real science system.
i've already said this will happen when they have announced science... just like now i say they will totally mess up kerbal experience and resources too.
-
It's not locking, more like retracting.
yes, but after that you cant extend them manually... they get locked
-
title says everything. i dont see any reason. dont even close them, i will do it if i want. thx
-
I agree with Nikola7007. It is more fun for it to be a surprise!
erm, well, diff settings then. i hate crappy surprises. anyway i did it just save before spending science try all the options, chose whatever i like
-
Again, all that gives you is a vector from the craft to the center of the orbit. That's a completely different, nonphysical problem from gravity-gradient stabilization. The difficulty with modeling gravity-gradient stabilization is not finding the lookat vector, but choosing the correct spacecraft orientation that should be aligned with that vector. In other words, to presolve this problem in the way your suggesting, you'd need to solve which end of the craft should be lower in the gravity well. Only then can you orient it along the lookat vector.
i think you misunderstand physics like many. what do you think how the moon have chosen which side will it show to us poor humans? do you think it does have a heavier side and it turns that side towards the gravity? really? do you think that those things like centerofmass, profile or whatever makes any difference? erm. well, no, it doesnt. both the centripetal force both the gravity affects every tiny point of the object. it doesnt matter how it looks like. ergo if once you put an object into perfect rest on orbit it will stick to that and whatever part of it looks into the center of gravity it will always look that way... irl the problem is that everything you launch has an initial spin and they want to use this gravitational force to stop that spinning because irl you cant ever make an object being in complete rest. anyway. in spherical geometry following orbit around a globe isnt even rotation. its moving in straight line (in any chosen point of the object)
-
Technically true. The difficulty is picking the correct, physics-based orientation along the craft for the lookat so that this physics-cheating hack can work. Let us know when you've solved that problem.
erm... orbitcenter... solved
-
Gravity gradient stabilization was in the game at one point when different parts on a vessel had gravity acting on them individually. However, I believe it was the time warp update that broke this, because all physics calculations for orbit were moved to the center of mass. This became a case where gameplay and programmability were valued as more important than physical accuracy.
a lookat(vector) isnt difficult to program to fix it...
-
exactly this is what im talking about but it should work without "cheating"
-
for a planet, but for satellites its already in useNo it would not. To become tidally locked takes millions of years.
irl thats the unperfect basic situation as i've mentioned in the opThe rotation imparted by a ballistic trajectory could be kept I guess,
if you are zoomed to an obejct it doesnt matter if you are in timewarp or not the orbiting object will always follow the initial trajectory and not the orbitvectors however in my views as ksp is an ideal world if we completely stop the rotation of an object it should fly on sync orbit. the non-ideal way is the irl where u have an initial spin...but as said, if you hit timewarp in KSP you loose any rotation.
Icons should scale with all resolution settings
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
nope, its design choice. if you want it to work like that you have to work on it. not much but you have to. apparently squad doesnt want to work on it