@CursedFlames They are both space sims so there will naturally be a lot of overlap. Our main points of focus for SR2 are procedural parts, online collaboration via craft and sandbox sharing, mobile support, and planet building to name a few.
@Wadzworth929 No, it doesn't give you a recommendation, but you can easily see where the target will be along any point of your orbit by hovering. It will show you the closest approach info. From that you can fairly easily decide how to change your orbit to get an encounter.
2. Yes you can see how an encounter affects your orbit. You can see briefly in that GIF that my orbit around Smoon is hyperbolic and my resulting orbit after exiting is highly elliptical around Smearth.
@GR00G0 Yep, there is a menu that shows the 6 orbital elements of any orbit in Map View. Yes, hyperbolic orbits use a bit different math than elliptical orbits. The Planned Burns show you exactly how long you would need to burn and you can attempt them manually, or have the computer attempt it with Auto Burn (results will vary with Auto Burn).
@arcues @AstronautPlanes Yes, with the ion engines you can burn while you are time warping. We don't have SRBs yet, but we will add them at some point.
AstronautPlanes, you must have 100 points on SimplePlanes.com to get the 100 point bonus here.
@Caveman999 Like @mjdfx150529 said, you can use time-warp. You can also use the Warp to Next Burn feature to automatically time-warp right up to the burn, which is really a nice feature. I use it all the time now.
I'm glad to hear you are excited, but we are really focusing on just getting the early access version out the door at the moment. We are not making any decisions like that regarding campaign mode yet. Also, if we decide to do a branching storyline, then that's something we would handle internally.
@mjdfx150529 No worries. Just be patient with us. It's been less than a day since you posted this. If you don't hear back from us for a few days, try tagging us in the comments or using our contact page on jundroo.com. I try to get back to players, but sometimes it just takes a while.
The campaign mode will hopefully tackle the STEEP LEARNING CURVE, NOTHING TELLS THE PLAYER WHAT TO DO, and THE GAME LACKS LIFE. I agree those are all problems.
The GOOFY BUILDING MECHANICS is a tough problem to solve. I have a few ideas that I've been wanting to try, such as grouped subassemblies and an attach point part, that lets you define the attach point for a group of parts, essentially overriding all attach points in the group.
THE ONLINE COMMUNITY IS INSEPARABLE FOR GAMEPLAY is an interesting idea.
I don't agree that PLAYERS STOP IMPROVING is true for SimplePlanes and I don't think that will be true for SR2. When players look at other crafts they can comment and meet other players on the craft's post. I think that's a more engaging way to meet other players and improve: by looking at other interesting stuff other players are making. To this day, players have continued to blow our minds with what they are building. They come up with new building techniques and find ways to do things that we would have never thought were possible.
THE GAME LACKS STUFF THAT ARE IN MODS will be true for any game that supports modding. We have to draw the line somewhere.
@Wadzworth929 I think fast forward is more stable in SR2 than it was in SR1. The ion engine requires batteries, but not solar panels. However, if you want to recharge your batteries, then solar panels are a wise addition.
@Jadenlahey No plans for prop engines at the moment, but that can change if player feedback is high enough and if we have the time later on in the development.
@mjdfx150529 That's great feedback. Can you show me which of those equations you are using to calculate the power consumption?
I will include a gravity turn in the flight tutorial with SR2. I don't know what I was thinking with SR1.
I haven't researched SRBs much yet, but I was thinking we could implement them as normal fuel tank pieces with a special SRB nozzle that is attached to the end. Perhaps this nozzle could have a way to configure the thrust curve.
@mjdfx150529 From that example, 40km/s is the exit velocity, not the equivalent velocity. I've been using the formula Isp = thrust / (mdot * gravity) and tweaking the thrust and mdot to get an Isp that is reasonable. I tried using 5 newtons of thrust, but it was excruciatingly slow to use even at 1000x time warp. I'm not familiar with the equation you used to calculate energy consumption. I'm surprised that an equation so simple could be used, since it doesn't consider properties of the propellant, such as molecular mass or energy requirements for ionization, but I honestly don't know much about the ionization process. The choice of 100kW was picked to improve gameplay, because it takes a long time to recharge batteries with solar panels so I didn't want a power consumption that was too high.
Thanks for the suggestions. We haven't put enough thought into the campaign mode yet to answer these questions, but it's helpful to have suggestions on UserVoice so we can better understand what the majority of players want.
@FalconX We don't have SRBs, but we do plan to add them at some point. They should be easy enough to add. The other stuff you mention would have to be fashioned using fuselage parts and wing sections.
@iPilot You can rotate and part with the rotate tool and then turn its gimbaling off. Otherwise, we do have in-game trim sliders for each axis, so you can just tweak those to get the craft moving in the direction you want.
@kerothehero I've been thinking about how to allow for more customizability on this cargo bay. I think it would be fairly easy to have a few different styles: zero doors, one full door, or two half doors. I think that should cover most cases.
@BaconEggs That's a good observation. The smoke is the same between all of those engines because we don't have solid rocket fuel yet, so all exhaust looks the same.
@Johnnyboy No, stuff in the cargo bay (or fairings) won't affect drag. We have really improved the drag model in SR2 and drag is recalculated during flight as your craft changes. We also apply lift forces on parts, not just drag.
@WeSeekANARCHY We don't plan on adding weapons, but anything is possible if enough players ask for it. We did add car engines and wheels to the plane game, so it's conceivable we'll add weapons and prop engines to the rocket game if enough players want that.
@CursedFlames They are both space sims so there will naturally be a lot of overlap. Our main points of focus for SR2 are procedural parts, online collaboration via craft and sandbox sharing, mobile support, and planet building to name a few.
+5 6.2 years ago@Wadzworth929 No, it doesn't give you a recommendation, but you can easily see where the target will be along any point of your orbit by hovering. It will show you the closest approach info. From that you can fairly easily decide how to change your orbit to get an encounter.
+1 6.2 years ago2. Yes you can see how an encounter affects your orbit. You can see briefly in that GIF that my orbit around Smoon is hyperbolic and my resulting orbit after exiting is highly elliptical around Smearth.
@bjac0 @Nooneoone I appreciate the feedback. What would you do to improve the UI?
6.2 years ago@GR00G0 Yep, there is a menu that shows the 6 orbital elements of any orbit in Map View. Yes, hyperbolic orbits use a bit different math than elliptical orbits. The Planned Burns show you exactly how long you would need to burn and you can attempt them manually, or have the computer attempt it with Auto Burn (results will vary with Auto Burn).
6.2 years ago@SecretGmG No, you don't have to earn it. You can use the Auto-Burn right from the start.
6.2 years ago@arcues @AstronautPlanes Yes, with the ion engines you can burn while you are time warping. We don't have SRBs yet, but we will add them at some point.
AstronautPlanes, you must have 100 points on SimplePlanes.com to get the 100 point bonus here.
+1 6.2 years ago@Caveman999 Like @mjdfx150529 said, you can use time-warp. You can also use the Warp to Next Burn feature to automatically time-warp right up to the burn, which is really a nice feature. I use it all the time now.
+3 6.2 years agoI'm glad to hear you are excited, but we are really focusing on just getting the early access version out the door at the moment. We are not making any decisions like that regarding campaign mode yet. Also, if we decide to do a branching storyline, then that's something we would handle internally.
+2 6.2 years ago@mjdfx150529 No worries. Just be patient with us. It's been less than a day since you posted this. If you don't hear back from us for a few days, try tagging us in the comments or using our contact page on jundroo.com. I try to get back to players, but sometimes it just takes a while.
+2 6.2 years agoThe campaign mode will hopefully tackle the STEEP LEARNING CURVE, NOTHING TELLS THE PLAYER WHAT TO DO, and THE GAME LACKS LIFE. I agree those are all problems.
The GOOFY BUILDING MECHANICS is a tough problem to solve. I have a few ideas that I've been wanting to try, such as grouped subassemblies and an attach point part, that lets you define the attach point for a group of parts, essentially overriding all attach points in the group.
THE ONLINE COMMUNITY IS INSEPARABLE FOR GAMEPLAY is an interesting idea.
I don't agree that PLAYERS STOP IMPROVING is true for SimplePlanes and I don't think that will be true for SR2. When players look at other crafts they can comment and meet other players on the craft's post. I think that's a more engaging way to meet other players and improve: by looking at other interesting stuff other players are making. To this day, players have continued to blow our minds with what they are building. They come up with new building techniques and find ways to do things that we would have never thought were possible.
THE GAME LACKS STUFF THAT ARE IN MODS will be true for any game that supports modding. We have to draw the line somewhere.
+9 6.2 years ago@JohnnyBoythePilot No plans for aerospike engines at the moment. Make sure you leave a suggestion if that's something you want to see in the game.
+1 6.2 years ago@Buntfalke123 Yes, we will have manuever nodes that you can plan in map view.
+1 6.2 years ago@Nooneoone I'm sure we will add more engines over time.
+1 6.2 years ago@Diver You need Xenon gas as well. We're trying to do a better job of obeying the laws of physics in SR2.
+4 6.2 years ago@Roswell I think the install size will be bigger than SP. Probably around 850MB on initial Early Access release.
+5 6.2 years ago@tinypoo Yes, there is support for building your own custom subassemblies.
+1 6.2 years ago@Wadzworth929 I think fast forward is more stable in SR2 than it was in SR1. The ion engine requires batteries, but not solar panels. However, if you want to recharge your batteries, then solar panels are a wise addition.
+2 6.2 years ago@Tessemi We are planning a campaign mode, though we still need to work out the details quite a bit.
6.2 years ago@Nooneoone No plans for different fuel types at the moment, but feel free to leave a suggestion.
+1 6.2 years ago@Jadenlahey No plans for prop engines at the moment, but that can change if player feedback is high enough and if we have the time later on in the development.
6.2 years ago@Nooneoone We currently have RP-1, Xenon, Monopropellant, and Battery fuel types.
+1 6.2 years ago@DunDuns Sorry, we don't have any at the moment.
6.2 years ago@DPSAircraftManufacturer We do have prices and plan to do a campaign mode, but what exactly we are going to do is still up in the air.
+1 6.2 years ago@mjdfx150529 That's great feedback. Can you show me which of those equations you are using to calculate the power consumption?
I will include a gravity turn in the flight tutorial with SR2. I don't know what I was thinking with SR1.
I haven't researched SRBs much yet, but I was thinking we could implement them as normal fuel tank pieces with a special SRB nozzle that is attached to the end. Perhaps this nozzle could have a way to configure the thrust curve.
+1 6.2 years ago@mjdfx150529 From that example, 40km/s is the exit velocity, not the equivalent velocity. I've been using the formula
+4 6.2 years agoIsp = thrust / (mdot * gravity)and tweaking the thrust and mdot to get an Isp that is reasonable. I tried using 5 newtons of thrust, but it was excruciatingly slow to use even at 1000x time warp. I'm not familiar with the equation you used to calculate energy consumption. I'm surprised that an equation so simple could be used, since it doesn't consider properties of the propellant, such as molecular mass or energy requirements for ionization, but I honestly don't know much about the ionization process. The choice of 100kW was picked to improve gameplay, because it takes a long time to recharge batteries with solar panels so I didn't want a power consumption that was too high.@WeSeekANARCHY We currently have a designer tutorial, but we need a tutorial for flight as well.
+1 6.2 years ago@Venus
. Is the engine powerful enough for leaving lunar orbit?
Depends on the size of your craft.
. Will the broken parts continue to orbit?
Yes, but not always.
. How many bugs left currently?
Too many to count!
. We will able to put flags like KSP anytime soon after the release?
No
. If the idea of science instruments votes was higher, would you start to work in it?
+2 6.2 years agoToo early to start working on something like that.
@DerekSP No astronauts yet. The command chip is just lighter and cheaper and doesn't have a gyroscope or built-in batteries.
6.2 years ago@SpaceWC They can't turn, so you would need a gyroscope or RCS.
6.2 years ago@Mattangi Some do use Argon. Some use hydrogen. Most use Xenon.
+3 6.2 years ago@Mastercrafter429 We plan on releasing for iOS next year.
6.2 years agoThanks for the suggestions. We haven't put enough thought into the campaign mode yet to answer these questions, but it's helpful to have suggestions on UserVoice so we can better understand what the majority of players want.
6.3 years ago@FalconX We don't have SRBs, but we do plan to add them at some point. They should be easy enough to add. The other stuff you mention would have to be fashioned using fuselage parts and wing sections.
+4 6.3 years ago@JollyMac Yes, if you don't secure the stuff in the cargo bay, it will slide around and bang into stuff.
+1 6.3 years ago@MrTaco That's a good point.
+1 6.3 years ago@Zi7ar21 No, that won't be until next year.
6.3 years ago@ThePilotDude That's just black paint, though there is a heat shield part available in the game.
6.3 years ago@Daniel320 We probably will include the shuttle as a stock craft.
6.3 years ago@ColonelStriker The space shuttle cockpit is custom built. There's a real command pod hidden in its nose.
+1 6.3 years ago@iPilot You can rotate and part with the rotate tool and then turn its gimbaling off. Otherwise, we do have in-game trim sliders for each axis, so you can just tweak those to get the craft moving in the direction you want.
6.3 years ago@kerothehero I've been thinking about how to allow for more customizability on this cargo bay. I think it would be fairly easy to have a few different styles: zero doors, one full door, or two half doors. I think that should cover most cases.
+2 6.3 years ago@Jerba I'm really not even sure what is inside the cargo bay. It's just a few golden blocks with solar panels on them. It's just some space trash.
It's hard to support those older version of iOS. Apple makes it difficult to write new software for their older OS versions.
6.3 years ago@GINGER01 Yes, the fuel tank (aka fuselage part) has 12 texture options that you can cycle through in its part properties.
6.3 years ago@Blue0Bull We will have mod support (after EA launch), but a lot of the functionality of fine tuner is baked into the game already.
6.3 years ago@AN2Felllla We don't have any plans for that level of detail yet, but Nathan has been excited to try that out if we can find the time.
6.3 years ago@BaconEggs That's a good observation. The smoke is the same between all of those engines because we don't have solid rocket fuel yet, so all exhaust looks the same.
6.3 years ago@AN2Felllla We would like to at some point after EA launch, but it's just a matter of time and player demand. No new nose part, just fuselage parts.
6.3 years ago@Wadzworth929 It's a hidden command pod in the nose of the shuttle.
6.3 years ago@Johnnyboy No, stuff in the cargo bay (or fairings) won't affect drag. We have really improved the drag model in SR2 and drag is recalculated during flight as your craft changes. We also apply lift forces on parts, not just drag.
6.3 years ago@WeSeekANARCHY We don't plan on adding weapons, but anything is possible if enough players ask for it. We did add car engines and wheels to the plane game, so it's conceivable we'll add weapons and prop engines to the rocket game if enough players want that.
+3 6.3 years ago