KSP-TV SquadCast - Release list and discussion

[AngusJimiKeith]

Has anyone thought it might be a "Game Over" screen?

-Can't remember where, but is was confirmed that there will be one

-Same source said that "experienced players might never run into it"

-Depending on how it's implemented, it could be hilarious (and therefore fun to keep doing!)

-A defined "you've lost" point helps lay the groundwork for a full blown story/campaign.

-If the "game over"point is defined by multiple things (not just running out of funds or killing a few Kerbals), it might be non-trivial to implement.

[timsfitz]

It's not deformable terrain. The game engine doesnt support it with these kinds of planets. The ground is only 1 pixel thick, the planet's are hollow. U can even pan the camera into the planet at the right angle.

[cantab]

The terrain could still be modified. Divide the terrain polygon that's hit to make a hole and splice the crater in.

[Darkstar616]

It's definitely not deformable terrain and a game over screen or cinematic wouldn't be that enjoyable played over and over again. It's something big but doesn't change gameplay all that much.

No, not a gas planet thats stupid... Hmmmm

Kerbal kustomisation? Maybe...

Better explosions? Pretty sure they're already confirmed..

An easter egg? Nope

Tutorials? Not fun enough..

I'm stumped.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Darkstar616

[Wjolcz]

I really can not think of anything but controlled freefall of kerbals as a form of abort sequence. The secret thing is def related to flying rockets or planes. I might be wrong but that's just what my spider sense is telling me.

[cantab]

More and funnier Kerbal reactions in the craft is a possibility. I can see why you'd want to do dumb stuff to see them, and it could be based on an overhauled Kerbal personality system that will in future govern more things.

[Renegrade]

Has anyone thought it might be a "Game Over" screen?

I'd considered that myself (and I sometimes suggest it as a trolly joke) but I don't think it is that. I've never seen any official sources state that there would be a game over state (I could have easily missed that as they're rather inconsistent with official info in both what is and what isn't, and also making sure all sources are well covered), and the current design trend is away from game over state anyways. You have to be utterly inexperienced and rather belligerently blind in your playstyle to even get yourself into a real rut, and even then you can just abuse the generous advances to save yourself.

Unless.. perhaps, it's some sort of amusing 'bail-out' scene. That would fit in with their current "can't ever really fail" design while meeting the other criteria...

[NecroBones]

I really can not think of anything but controlled freefall of kerbals as a form of abort sequence. The secret thing is def related to flying rockets or planes. I might be wrong but that's just what my spider sense is telling me.

I thought of that too, but there are mods that add ejection seat / personal parachute types of features.

[HafCoJoe]

I find it awesome that now I can make some kerbals more "experienced" than others! Saving what and where kerbals have been will be an awesome edition. Now I can finally make Enory and Gerbles true veterans! Think about all the new stock contracts that can be done now... tracking what monoliths you've even visited most likely.

[Walker]

Also QA started for .25 today...

That's new for me, where is a source for that?

[KasperVld]

That's new for me, where is a source for that?

Squadcast

[KerbMav]

But things like increasing the engine efficiency and decreasing drag seem a bit unrealistic. Maybe unrealistic is the incorrect word, but I don't think that having a buff that changes the way a craft interacts with the physics engine is good in a game that is rather educational. It gives off the impression that increasing engine efficiency is easy, as well as combating drag.

It is not easy, it requires research, development and money - lighter/tougher materials or hulls with reduced drag (shark skin has been proven to work in water and in air to reduce drag/friction).

The buff will likely be a perminate one to parts. The temporary part likely refers to if you choose unpid interns you are not locked in. It is basically improving parts much like what NASA did to the shuttle engines. You are finding out how to get less drag.

This, yes. For the next three (or something) launches (to accomodate crafts assembled in orbit) technologies/materials used are more advanced/expensive (paid upfront in the admin building).

The parts "memorizing" that they are special makes reusing the craft a real thing.

Although I have to agree, that a different way of implementation would be desirable.

But - someone said it, but I lost the post, sorry - using tweakables to change e.g. the materials a part is made of (which changes e.g. weight, thereby TWR/ISP/dV of a part/vessel) would be the better way, making the part a lot more expensive in the process. This would also ensure that the "buff" applies proportional to the costs/parts of the whole project, for small rockets and large IP cruisers not costing the same upfront "upgrade fee".

If it's a graduated damage system for parts (instead of working perfectly -> exploded), I'd be very happy. Definitely agree we're going to be destroying something.

Hmm ... which would plunge every part mod(der) into a serious redesign ... might invite to much backdraft from the modding community to be considered by Squad?

[Red Iron Crown]

Hmm ... which would plunge every part mod(der) into a serious redesign ... might invite to much backdraft from the modding community to be considered by Squad?

Might be as simple as overlaying a partially transparent "damaged" texture to damaged parts and some config values for how the part behaves when damaged.

It certainly would mean some work for modders, but I think most would want to support a damage model. I don't think Squad should hold back progress for fear of breaking mods, and I doubt they will.

[Wjolcz]

I thought of that too, but there are mods that add ejection seat / personal parachute types of features.

You're right. There was. But it was just "bail-out and pop the chute out". And nothing else. I was thinking about actual kerbal animation of skydiving and having full control over it.

[Superfluous J]

You're right. There was. But it was just "bail-out and pop the chute out". And nothing else. I was thinking about actual kerbal animation of skydiving and having full control over it.

That would seriously be stretching the "no mod has ever done this" truth to the limit. It'd be like if they added a full resource system (I'm not suggesting nor requesting this. It's just an example) where you don't mine it but vacuum it off the surface and then saying "well, sure but Kethane had mining. We have this vacc-u-suck thingymabob here so it's different."

[problemecium]

Since (as far as I saw) nobody else brought this up, you know what's a thing that no mod has ever addressed?

THE KRAKEN.

Perhaps they're going to implement a random event where there's an actual model of the Kraken rendered on the screen to tear apart your ships. ;P

[HafCoJoe]

Since (as far as I saw) nobody else brought this up, you know what's a thing that no mod has ever addressed?

THE KRAKEN.

Perhaps they're going to implement a random event where there's an actual model of the Kraken rendered on the screen to tear apart your ships. ;P

That would be super cool . Noting.

[HafCoJoe]

Re-posting this here. #theplotthickens...

---

I just found this interesting chain of responses.

The same guy said these two messages:

Kerbal Space Program responded saying:

All 3 of these are listed as being from "2 hours ago"

...

TO WHICH QUESTION ARE YOU SAYING YES!!!

[Aethon]

It's the air scoop.

https://twitter.com/kerbalspacep/status/506586450448510976

[HafCoJoe]

It's the air scoop.

https://twitter.com/kerbalspacep/status/506586450448510976

yeah. I hope that new fuselage doesn't replace the old engine nacelle. I like it's design way to much to give it up without dispute.

[CaptRobau]

I doubt it. It's mentioned as being a new type of fuselage. Not a nacelle and not a replacement.

[HafCoJoe]

I doubt it. It's mentioned as being a new type of fuselage. Not a nacelle and not a replacement.

Yeah. Maxmaps was busy releasing like 3 new images on Twitter and I asked him about the Mk2 vs. the Mk1 and 3 bottoms. He seems to have answered the same thing twice? I asked 2 questions but about different things. I'm happy with my responses though and I won't be taking up the black bottom anymore . ALSO updating pictures on front spoiler.

[KerbMav]

Removing the black on the underside of re-entry vehicles - my money is on scorch marks now.

[CaptRobau]

That would be cool!

[Renegrade]

It's the air scoop.

Ugh, under stock aero, airscoops need to be as light as possible, since they propagate a 2.0 drag coefficient across their entire mass (this was even true under FAR prior to 0.14)... I hope they've either fixed intake code or made that very, very light. Preferably the former.