Search the Community

????? So we can talk about the KSP 2 UI not handling certain resolutions well (for the record: when it comes to the pixelated style scaling improperly, yeah, I agree that is a problem), but as soon as we discuss the KSP 1 UI becoming outright obstructive at certain common UI scales, especially those you can expect console players to play at, it's "[not] too fair"? Not to mention, claiming "if you make it the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive" which, purposefully or not, implies people who play at these UI scales would do so intentionally only to make their experience worse. I think it's completely fair to cite this example. People playing at lower resolutions or with their monitor across the room like in any living room setup is not unheard of, and if anything, it's frankly not fair to pull the rug from under my argument as soon as any criticism of UI scaling poorly blows KSP 1's way. I guess this is a convoluted way of saying: I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to excuse Squad with "the game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution", as if it isn't standard practice to ensure UIs scale well between 720p and 3840p and super incompetent on Squad's part to not do so! Matt Lowne would not configure his game purposefully to make his console experience even worse, full stop. Players playing with the UI this big is not something that never ever happens and is not something devs shouldn't try to account for when coming up with layouts for their UIs. I'll hold Squad fully accountable for placing the navball in the middle so that players have to zoom way out to see the ground below their landers.

Probably... Actually, I'm gonna hop on investigating how it's done. A fun video I remembered due to this talk: The video mentioned in the comment, or rather, comment response above. Yes, you're thinking correctly. This indeed IS the longest text ever put as a description of the link.

1. The interface. The team had a bunch of nice ideas posted publicly (and probably few more never revealed) but settled for style that neither fits the general feeling of the game (high tech civilization heading to other planets, even stars) but also is barely readable thanks to 15000 different font types, sizes, inconsistencies and general clunkyness of the chosen style - retro pixely text was never good at being easy to read, which brings me to the next point: 2. Accessibility. As widely elaborated here https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/219151-can-we-talk-about-accessibility/ it would be good to have some options, considering that many not only fully featured games, but early access titles as well, have those options. And it's important, if you want your game to be played by everyone without limits their bodies made on them. Please also note that in both paragraphs I'm talking about the style. The layout is fine. 3. Discovery-and-situational-based technology unlocks. As opposed to, once more, the science system based on points. We've been through this already. 4. Actual Mission planner with alarms and transfer windows. I forgot if it's gonna be introduced in FS! but it's nearly crucial for long term simultaneous missions. Since you do have TriggerAU on board, he knows his stuff. 5. Fairings that are actually solid. No more clipping through payloads, please. And some additional structural integrity would be nice if, say, I want to build an interstage fairing and hold the munar module in it. Right now the only place where the fairing is connected is on the base. The open top should also work as structural element. KSP1 sort of allowed for mounting points in the middle, it wasn't the perfect solution but it was something. 6. While I'm at it, surface attachments for the tube parts. Please, I'd like to put solar panels there but I can't. 7. Picking the side of the runway on launch. The other side is much closer to the KSC buuldings if I want to take a drive. And I may want to liftoff straight to the west. 8. Once heating arrives, and some more electricity generation systems.. perhaps a way to turn excess heat from <insert a manufactory process or sthn> into power. Even tiny amounts. Balance it so that it needs to be radiated but when in atmo, part of the heat could be worked through a turbine of sorts. 9. Different surface properties on different bodies. Rock should feel different from grass, grass should feel different from sand, sand should feel different from molten basalt that is solid but still hot and sticky. More in linked thread. 10. I dunno, just some basic QoL features that will make playing more pleasant. There's too many to list.

Programming. A visual scripting system, layered on top of a standard LUA/Python for more experienced players to replace the action group system. It would allow simple conditional action groups even to players that don't care at all about programming, with things as simple as parachutes deploying automatically or lights turning on when there's no sunlight, and get them curious from there. Electric and methane powered props and rotors, along with aerostats and airship parts. We have an helicopter on Mars right now, and it has flown for 65 times already (of the 5 planned), flying stuff, even where you don't have the oxygen for jet engines, is already here in space exploration. Returning from Eve with an air launched rocket from an electric plane has been my favorite KSP1 mission in 10 years of playing the game. A non-resource based and non-lethal life support. I don't care about having to carry Kerbal Fuel on top of rocket fuel, I want to have interesting design constraints given by the environment I'm going to explore and the duration of the mission. Non-lethal to preserve the existence of rescue missions, maybe make that a canon thing with emergency hibernation capsules or something. Robotics But not for props and rotors. Those should be single-part engines, just like wheels and rocket engines. Functional Bases and Stations. Even before colonies, I want a reason to be building a base/station, be it science, surveying, training, tourism, mining or whatever else. I don't want to build a space station just because a procedurally generated mission told me so, i want them to be part of the gameplay loop. Not just colonies, even that small entry level LKO outposts resembling the ISS, it has to have a reason to be there other than "I want a ISS replica" or the game rewarding me a couple hundred science points and then ignore its existence. I'd like for it to be functional. Being able to store/edit/recover specific named crafts. Especially when resources kick in, I don't want my first ever supersonic plane to be scrapped for parts and rebuilt every time it's used. I want to have an hangar with all my built planes, and have them serve multiple missions each. Construction times (and refurbishment) Self-explanatory, not a big deal for people not wanting it, just time-warp it away, but it adds a layer of logistics I would enjoy. A Strong supply automation system. I don't want it to just transfer resources from point A to point B, being able to "Certify" a booster for automatic recovery (and then hangar, and reuse, skipping the construction times the next time you need it), being able to send back to the KSC a mother-plane after it has released it's air-launched rocket. And, on the other side of things, having to do test runs, and hops around the KSC landing pads to "Certify" said booster. Testing environment A test environment of some sort, a "simulation" in which we can test landers, parachutes, gliders, and whatnot in the condition of the target body, but only after we've unlocked it by bringing the right instruments in that environment. The last 4 could all be buildings (or even multiple buildings each), in the bases/stations/colony system for that functionality I talk about in point 5 (A mining rover garage to store your mining rovers on your Mun mining outpost, ILS equipment for the runway at your Laythe AirBase, and a wind tunnel to test new designs...). And, number 10: The color picker. Every other reply here adds it and I'm jumping on that one to. Gimme the hex values for colors, and a custom palette thing where I can save the colors I use more often.

I think the issue with fail-learning is that people talk about how this worked well when the Europeans crossed to the Americas and the US expanded westward, but ignore the massive costs involved in that. Someone from Bulgaria made a good statement when talking about the p-word over on the For All Mankind Reddit. To use it here in the context of how we should go about colonizing space, “yes, the 1800s pioneers were successfully in colonizing, but with great loss of human life along the way. That was fine for the 1800s but unacceptable for modern society.” IMO, I think it’s in engineering where that “fail-learning” is best applied, but a good level of discussion by multiple parties is necessary for ethics and broader goal planning. Soviet space goal planning in the 60s was not unlike Musk’s “we’ll land on Mars in 2024” style of doing things. It cost a number of people their lives, such as in the Soyuz disaster of November 1966. A little more thoughtfulness might have prevented loss of life, and if the program wouldn’t have been so secretive, it might have benefited from think tanks auditing the design bureaus’ engineering practices, in the same way Soviet nuclear strategy was influenced positively by both civilian and military think tanks. That’s not a jab at present day SpaceX by the way. They’ve clearly done well so far, with a darn good safety record and impressive engineering feats. I’m talking about SpaceX in the 2040s or 2050s, which may be a wildly different organization from the one we have now, much in the same way 1990s NASA did not resemble 1960s NASA that much. The Soviet method of management and organization performed just fine for Sputnik and Vostok, but failed when they tried to go to the Moon. There’s a thin line between insanity and genius, and I’m just concerned SpaceX will tip the wrong way in the future.

I’m a little bummed that docking physics is STILL not on the list of things needed to be fixed.. : ( especially since this has been an issue since launch.. about 8 months or so ago. I have reported this issue as a bug here on the forums before. I’ve seen others talk about it on discord. I’ve seen Matt Lowe himself mention it a couple times now on his videos on YouTube. . So I’m confused as to why this isn’t being worked on. This is a major issue that’s preventing me, and likely many others from enjoying the game. Can a dev please reply to this so I know that it’s at least known and if there will be any sort of fix for this soon? I really want to enjoy this game but the docking and undocking is very unstable and has been since the beginning of this games early access launch. Just this morning I was trying to do a mun mission and when I undocked my Lander from my other vessel it blasted it away, up at an angle. Rather than a smooth disconnect and slowly moving away as it should. And recently I was not even able to dock with my other vessel at all. It would just bounce right off the other vessel and would not dock at all. The dock part was previously connected to a decouple, which apparently breaks the docking physics once that’s disconnected.

I refuse to judge KSP2 based on the dreams of community members. Heck, it's finally a pretty mainstream opinion even in the forums that it is not reasonable to 100% believe the official statements either. That's 8 months of building trust right there. It'll stop being a non sequitur when people start actually playing the game for real on long term science/exploration saves. But hey, you can talk about future imagined optimizations and I can't talk about a very real issue that's currently in the game waiting to explode? (did once already, too). May I know what you call nonsensical placements? You mean the navball and vital information such as speed right in the center as it exists on almost every plane or spacecraft cockpit? Again, altitude I give to you, that's bad. I mean, if you're talking from a different timeline, might as well make it clear now, because you seem to live on a completely different reality. Probably born from not leaving the forums, which is a common problem. Normal cockpits might have a compass, altitude and speed tape, yet again, in real life they know those elements are not there to be pretty, and they should communicate information in a fast, compact and concise way: In real life, on a PFD, the speed tape exists to communicate overspeed, selected speed, current speed, and even acceleration. In KSP2 the speed tape does nothing but exist behind the one useful number it shows. The compass tape also communicates other elements, like selected heading. In KSP2 the compass tape exists as a huge useless element and the one thing it should communicate is a number which in KSP2 is sitting outside the tape, not even in it. An altitude tape shows your current altitude, selected altitude, vertical speed, and in some cases terrain altitude too. In KSP2 you need to hide one number to show the other, and the altitude tape exists only as a background element that does nothing useful. In real life, all these elements are presented in a compact way, on a single square screen that doesn't waste any space, yet shows all the useful information without overwhelming the pilot. In KSP2 it looks like someone hit the explode button, with every element taking useless space for no reason. Here's a real life PFD as an example. It sits centered in your view, so you just look down and see it, and can derive all your information from it. In the worst case, it's on one of two or more screens, but you can select on which to display it. It's the same engine, but don't worry, hating on Squad and KSP1 after getting thousands of hours on it is the only cope that has been found to justify KSP2, even though KSP2 is still the worse product of the two.

maybe grammar then talk

yes Talk:Spacecraft

Did you mean: Talk:Train?

train:Talk

Yes, but sinking ships is much more challenging and relevant. Starship would blow up if you strafed it with an 20 mm gun on an plane not to talk about any naval gun as it would be filled with methane and oxygen gas. On the other hand the military has interest in starship, primarily for much larger and cheaper satellites so they would be helpful.

I can actually recommend a really good podcast on spotify on the topic of space race. I am currently halfway through it, it is really detailed while being easy to understand. They talk there about USA and the soviets. https://open.spotify.com/show/28QHTa6Asoh6ETNZ6dNtSB?si=MWSwXZSaRrGgeW3VoDXrhA

My take on this FWIW: the player should have to be able to fly a pod to orbit and back before being able to lock to pro/retrograde. But then the player shouldn't need to do it with every pilot. They debrief, they talk among themselves. They build a better simulator. A player should have to be able to dock to prove they can do it - just like Gemini did. A player should be able to land on Mun. Perhaps don't make the process as long-winded as KSP1. But the player shouldn't get all the aids at the initial stages. The Soviet and American space programs didn't. They had to go work it out for themselves.

That sucks, I have had to deal with people like that. It's not your or your friend's fault. It's theirs. File an incident report and talk to the office and counselor. Do your best friend's parents/or guardian(s) know/believe that they wouldn't say any of that type of stuff? If trying to convince the adults is a good option, do it. Whatever you do, don't overreact. Be the bigger person. Don't go after them. You could try to probe them, but that probably won't work. I really, really, REALLY, want to give those girls a piece of my mind. Why can't people just be nice to each other?

Dude, you've still got a chance; go talk to admin ASAP!

Half-Life 2 was amazing for the time, it also was one of the most expected games of its era whilst still being retro-compatible enough thanks to its wide array of settings. It got a 96 on metacritic and an almost ubiquitous 100/100 from multiple publications. It was another momentous genre-defining game like the original. Half-Life being a super linear shooter meant the sequel was well received as just that again and a continuation of the story. In fact, I did say this before: Singleplayer shooters can get away with little to no evolution as what you want from them is a continuation to the story and to shoot some new stuff. The only thing that went wrong with HL2 was the multiplayer component, but that's because the prequel's was such a globally acclaimed giant that it's still alive to this day (and I'm confident there's at least an order of magnitude more players from third world countries that are not on Steam for reasons). As for Prince of Persia, I only ever played the DOS/Sega original, and a demo for Prince of Persia 2 on DOS, so can't talk about the trilogy.

social networking (not media) was a good idea. myspace was superior to facebook in every conceivable way, you could personalize your page, you could talk to people in your own town, you could meet new people. i got dates, nsas, discovered local bands. the site monetized itself only as much as it needed to exist. facebook in comparison is a sterile dumping ground for ideological propaganda and an engine for divisiveness. you dont meet new people, no, they demand you pony up your contacts and force feed you spam while you wait for friend requests and likes. it does the exact opposite of what myspace did and made it too corporate to boot. i only have a facebook to use my vr headset, i have 3 people who asked to be my friends and never said another word, it wouldn't be so bad, but i know two of them personally. i guess you are supposed to communicate by posting memes and ideology and it sorts you to your designated echo chamber. other platforms ive not really used. its just not worth it. i think i have a reddit that i dont use, dont have twitter, idk if youtube counts but i mostly watch it as a tv alternative. tik tok is pure narcissism and i avoid it like the plague. especially the phone screen format. i remember when they came out with the hdtv standards and proclaimed a 16:9 display optimal for human vision, so it really pains me to see people using screens the wrong way around. dont much like youtube's copycatting either. of course when humans are given multiple options for what to use, they always pick the worst one (qwerty, bluetooth, touchscreens, discord). tech companies are the worst. much of the products offered are last decade's features with this decade's bovine excrement. marketing solutions to long solved problems. oh and you need an account, a pc, and a smart phone and sign away all your personal data to use the service. even if you pony up you are still the product. a decade prior you go to a store pick the product off the shelf and pay anonymously with cash, no accounts on external servers. i really miss those days.

Yeah hard to talk about this without digging into the P word. Im just looking at total system efficiency and how the question 'who's paying?' affects what does and doesn't happen and who the real beneficiaries end up being.

Hey, if we wanna talk market share, whatever they're doing now has like 20% of the market of the previous game.

Really? I seem to recall that this was in Nate's "I'd love to do that but" bin. Do you have a source? Have any mechanics related to them been confirmed? Same thing here? I don't mean to rain on your parade but it does seem to me that you're drawing rather large inferences from a few things that have been confirmed -- to get from gravity rings to simulating kerbal bone strength and requiring medics is a pretty big leap! What I mean is -- it's fun to speculate about what might be in the game, or talk about stuff that you'd like to be in the game, but I think it's super important to keep the distinctions clear, otherwise you're just imagining a version of a game that'll never happen and set yourself (and anyone who gets drawn in) up for a big disappointment!

Talk about a precision landing.

10/10 just a great person to talk to also i am part of the ksp forums folklore lol

What's there to talk about? Blackrack's immense work for sure, but other than that? Yeah, there's gonna be easter eggs, and mountains. The rover doesn't seem to have anything new on it, or anything you could look at and say "wow they added that to the game!?!?!" The whole concept of POIs doesn't really add much to the gameplay.

Of all people, you're the one to say it Who are you and what have you done with Vl3d? This place is boiling at any sign of dev activity for the last 3 years and now there isn't much to talk about I'm speechless