Jump to content

Wallygator

Members
  • Posts

    1,527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wallygator

  1. Fair enough. I'm not "jumping" but rather "shuffling" based on the information and visuals provided. Since this a discussion, I expect to be able to throw out propositions and deductions based on them No worries - it's all good. As to the Fairing separation video - Frankly Squad - the reveal was a bit poor. I like the graphics, but the content could have been clearer. I get the feeling that we are going to see a week of 5 to 10 second videos - kind of like peeking quickly behind the curtain of a side show - I don't like it. It makes the whole thing a bit cheesy and unkempt.
  2. As with ALL Kerbals she will be added to the rotation and get an assignment when the KSP "program" decides to pop her in a seat.
  3. Well Stated. I completely agree with you.
  4. Since I am in the middle of creating a Universal Exploration System, I will continue to develop the various components in the 1.0 Stock environment. I expect they will likely work as expected with minor deviations since I've been constructing them in NEAR. - CTV - a 3 crew transfer vehicle which will operate in Kerbin SOI only - IPTH - An interplanetary Transfer Habitat to carry Kerbals comfortably to any planet (13 Kerbal Max capacity) - XDAV - A general purpose (3 kerbal) Decent/Ascent vehicle (let's not speak of Eve or that other nasty moon just yet) - XLH - a General Purpose Laboratory/Habitat which can be placed in Orbit or surface (16 Kerbal capacity) - Atomic Car - its a rover (think Damnation Alley...) could be fun... I will likely stay completely stock except----> when Kerbal Engineer and Kerbal Alarm Clock are released (and quietly awaiting Venn's Stock Revamp - ooohhh so nice models and textures...) Then when Infernal Robotics comes on-line i'll build: - BHPA: a "Beagle /Huygens Probe Array" of several clamshell probes for planetary reconnaissance missions
  5. I respectfully, disagree - let LethalDose have his say - And I think he has done a very good job of expressing his opinion. In some respects I agree that the development trajectory has deviated from the official communicated path ----> So some form of explanation might be helpful from Harvester. An Apology? maybe not. But I'm somewhat in LethalDose's camp in that I would like to understand the logic and support for this fundamental shift in KSP game play architecture. That said, I really like the fact the the dev team has made the shift. This is really good.
  6. I think this subtle change put forward by Harvester moves the conversation from "Time Based" to "Time and Resource" based. This is a good thing. It is not a case of having to say "I'm sorry, I got it wrong and I'm changing my mind"; rather "I've expanded the context of the problem and am now able to build a more effective model". I think we might give a bit of leeway on this one. Seriously, with this subtle shift, we might see an ever increasing set of 'Real world" based game dynamics. In my mind, this is the single most important element of the 1.0 release - it could be the tip of a foundational game-play change iceberg. <--- in a GOOD WAY.
  7. A very interesting supposition - I'll add that to my personal list of things to attempt in 1.0. Agreed, that would be very cool.
  8. I think I'm in the majority here who have a general feeling that the mechanism surrounding fairings are still not fully understood. The construction mechanism seems a bit tedious - and I can only surmise that if there are changes to the internal payload, then the Fairing might need to be completely reconstructed. Now, that actually might be a good thing in some instances because it give a great deal of flexibility in the fairing profile, BUT... if the majority of a player's payloads and fairings are simplistic, then it could be a real repetitive PITA. Still, I prefer to reserve judgment on fairings, BUT I still want to share my thoughts and concerns with other community members in a "trolling free" environment. Mega thanks to RIC for the well needed public service announcement. I would like to add: Until 1.0 is released, we are STILL in early access. That means we as a community still feel we have a bit of influence and say regarding planned changes and added features - we joined in this journey because we really like the idea of KSP and want to contribute. What we chat about in the threads is equally about features of the game AND the effectiveness of how Squad communicates it.
  9. A long as time based mechanics emulate real world systems, there should be no problem. I have no Issues with the current plans for implementing adjustments to Science - I do however have a BIG problem wiht the entire Science / Research / Tech Tree system - but that's another thread topic I would assume.
  10. Love it! Now put a W engine in there and see what happens. (Not really.)
  11. There are masses of topics which we are not allowed to suggest or discuss. So when there is a little bit of error or perceived issue then the entire community jumps on it in a frenzy. This is normal behaviour for groups that are information starved. We all need to accept that the behaviour is natural and in many ways provides a positive influence to the game design - and yes sometime there will de dissenting voices and a bit of unwanted noise surrounding any topic. SO (IMO) getting angry (in an attempt to stifle dialogue) at folks who are passionate about KSP is not a productive idea. ON TOPIC: I am pleased with that the mechanics of the Fairing Design seem to be workable for mocking real world systems - I like it - WELL DONE TED! GOOD FORM!
  12. Is there a link to this quote? EDIT: Its from the 24th of Feb Dev notes. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111668-Devnote-Tuesday-Fairing-well So basically, if anyone at Squad would have bothered to drop a quick clarification note to these questions (assuming they actually read them) nearly 100 posts and the associated angst might have been averted. Grrrrr. CRM is not just keeping track of my personal data.
  13. Frankly, if you haven't been motivated to play in the past year, then there probably is little in existence (.90) or in what is planned for 1.0 to get you interested. It's OK. Try 1.0 when it comes out. If you like it, then play some more. If not, then do something else. Simples. There are no tricks or suggestions to magically change your mind. Just try it... and accept the consequences. EDIT: Why do I sometimes think these kinds of posts seem to be trolling? no offence to the OP because this may be a serious question, but still...
  14. I strongly suggest you buy the current version directly from the KSP website. Why? - your purchase price goes directly to the dev team (I think) - $30... It's good value for money - The price WILL go up - Play with the current version for a bit and enjoy the mods that have been configured with it (since it may take some time for the molders to update their code for 1.0 - Learn the game without demo restrictions - Experience the quirks and oddities of pre 1.0 as it may help you understand and interact in the community during discussions. - Have both versions installed once 1.0 releases, just in case...
  15. Just jumping in on this and to reference the original question... I feel that KSP is now becoming a reasonable space flight simulator... with a rather simplistic and deterministic game idea stapled to its side.
  16. I do nothing different really. I keep playing as and when I want. Then when the new version comes out, I see if my saves convert directly. If they do, I continue. If they don't, I copy the shop designs to a temp and then I delete the save - and start over with a new career... Which I soon get bored with once again due to the fracking grindest and I once again devolve (evolve perhaps) back into a sandbox...
  17. I suggest everyone watch "The Trap" by Adam Curtis. A 3 part documentary on freedom.
  18. Nope. In respectful disagreement with you Tex... If the game was already out of early access then I might be inclined to agree with you on a number of levels. But the purpose of early access is to get funding and also input regarding design. IMO this item then fully constitutes a valid topic for discussion (among many others) ON TOPIC: I would support the option for fairing staging as mentioned a few posts up - or perhaps a Binding tag as a tweakable to bond various fairing pieces together (which might allow interesting non-clamshell separation structures to be configured)
  19. I support this. Very much. The proposed multipart sep makes me think that squad watched the lost in space movie way many times. Which would be once.
  20. So since the fairings end up like solar cell debris... Does this mean we cannot attach to them? I like the fairing construction method somewhat, but I do not like the fairing deployment implementation at all.
  21. Could be. But then where is the everywhere announcement? In the end this is no skin off any ones back except squad's. The end all effect on me is that I loose trust in their sincerity to communicate with their core community. still love the game, but don't love the Communication style. - - - Updated - - - Oh and while I've just clambered up on this rickety soap box... The communications is quite sparse for the most part. Yes we get a daily blurb, a weekly dev note, and an occasional blog post. When such a thing happens the community jumps on it like a thirsty traveller in the desert. Assumptions are made, wild interpretations are voiced and the community spirals into a pool of crazy for the next week. This up and down hype and crash cycle gets very tedious. I guess squad considers this to be good customer care. edit: since this post wasn't deleted I will append with a clarification: I bet squad doesn't yet really understand dark social - some folks don't want a dozen tracking feeds getting fat off personal data.
  22. There is a huge difference between "coordinated multi-channel social marketing" and just posting something on Twitter. I'm not a marketing person, but I can tell poor market communication when I see it.
  23. I also agree with the other guy... Career mode is not balanced or much fun as it really is more of a grindfest. It is clearly a very deterministic play mode - you are forced to play as the tech tree demands. And the player is only allowed to breakout of it when playing sandbox. Regardless "the end" really is where you make it. The end for me is usually when I crash (to desktop not ground) ;-) EDIT: That said - I;m still playing KSP after 2 years. No longer recommending it to folks as I can't yet with an honest heart curse my friends with the heartbreak of a save gone bad due to memory leaks.
  24. Fantastic. No mention in announcements. No mention in the daily kerbal. No mention in the dev notes. No mention by any moderator. Nice one. Rep to you shib! EDIT: see this other thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115759-Kerbal-Kountdown%21%21%21%21 My above points still stand.
  25. Finish a KSP game? Not sure I've made it the real beginning yet...
×
×
  • Create New...