KSK

Members
  • Content count

    2866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3461 Excellent

5 Followers

About KSK

  • Rank
    Capsule Communicator

Recent Profile Visitors

4116 profile views
  1. One thing that @Kuzzter suggested, which I really liked the idea of, was a Kerbal Sail Program. Kerbals setting out to properly explore their world for the first time, lots of potential for interesting physics led boat designs, possibilities for trading based career mode, land-grab competitions with AI factions (if we're wishing we may as well wish big ). Many of the elements that made KSP so compelling just moved to a different technological setting.
  2. That's the big question. I think there's plenty of scope for a KSP2 and a number of ways that it could go, ranging from 'more of the same but with better graphics' (hey it works for first person shooters. <snark>) to an overhauled and expanded career mode to a near future KSP, to 'KSP2 - Colonisation.' Sure there's a mod for most of that but I also think there's a place for an 'official' version with everything nicely integrated and playing well together. Whether there's enough demand for that 'official version' to justify the development costs is another matter. It also depends very much on whether Squad intend to release any further expansions and what those expansions might hold.
  3. You're welcome. Just check that last assumption OK? The other folks on this thread are correct - you do need to know how long that force is applied for.
  4. D'oh. Good point - thanks. @ARS - definitely double check my working then, although hopefully the general approach to solving the problem should still help.
  5. No - as far as we know, the projectile is unpowered, so the rocket equation isn't required. We need to make four assumptions. 1. This scenario takes place on Earth and the projectile is falling under normal gravity. 2. Collisions with the ground are perfectly inelastic - i.e. the projectile hits the ground and stops. 3. The secondary acceleration applied, after 1m of travel, is applied horizontally. 4. The secondary acceleration is instantaneous and not applied over time. Equations of motion 1. F = ma - where F = force applied, m = mass and a = acceleration 2. v = u + at - where v = final velocity, u = initial velocity, a = acceleration and t= time. Turns out we don't need this 3. s = ut + 1/2at^2 - where s = displacement, a and t are as previously defined and t^2 = time squared. To solve this problem we resolve the projectile motion horizontally and vertically. In other words we can treat horizontal motion and vertical motion of the projectile separately. We calculate time of flight of the projectile by considering it's vertical motion only and then range of the projectile by considering its horizontal motion only. For question 1, Equation 1 allows you to calculate horizontal acceleration and equation 2 then allows you to calculate horizontal velocity of the projectile after the force is applied. For question 2: Equation 3 lets you calculate the time of flight of your projectile by considering the vertical motion of the projectile only. Here: u=0 (since the projectile is fired horizontally and initial vertical speed is zero) so equation 3 simplifies to s = 1/2at^2 where a = acceleration due to gravity and s = 0.2m. Plug the numbers in and you can calculate t(total), i.e the time it takes the projectile to hit the ground. To calculate the range we need to calculate time t1, that is the time at which the secondary force is applied Using equation 3 again and considering horizontal motion only. a = 0 (since no horizontal acceleration is applied between time t=0 and time t1), so the equation simplifies to s = ut1. We know s (1m) and we know u (900m/s) so we can calculate time t1. We can now break the horizontal motion of the projectile into two stages: In the first stage, the projectile travels at horizontal speed 900m/s for a time t1. In the second stage, the projectile travels at a new horizontal velocity (which we calculated in question 1) for an unknown time t2. We can calculate time t2 as t2 = t(total)-t1, where t(total) = time of flight (which we calculated above) and t1 is the time at which the force was applied (which we calculated above) Using equation 3 we can calculate the distance travelled in each stage and sum them to give the total range. EDIT. Because we assume that the force is applied instantaneously, the projectile is not accelerating horizontally during each stage. This allows us to simplify equation 3. For the case where no secondary force is applied, we simply use the same simplified equation 3 to calculate the distance travelled in time t(total). For question 3: As per question 2 but with different numbers! Hope this helps!
  6. Incorrect. I clearly said 'in my experience'. That is, I deliberately wasn't generalising. If you can point to counterexamples then good for you - you've been luckier than me. No arguments from me on your first sentence. Like I said in my last post - buy something for what it is now, rather than what you hope it might be some day. Although this notion that they're still paying for development (as I recall) is a creation of the playerbase rather than anything Squad has said. Especially with regard to 'placeholder's' - one of the development team (I forget which, apologies) plainly stated that Squad are well aware of their game assets and do not regard them as placeholders. Again, this term seems to be a creation of the playerbase as a shorthand for 'old art assets that we wish would be improved'. Which isn't quite the same thing. Not aiming this at you directly - and yes I am generalising here - but gamers as a community are notoriously self centred in this regard and have very little appreciation of the realities of implementing their 'best interests' and even less appreciation for other people's time and effort.
  7. Yes. And you've just identified the reason why. Besides, this notion that we're in any way entitled to this ongoing stream of information about an officially released product is a bizarre conceit and one that seems to be peculiar to gamers. Being given information before the official release is slightly different - it makes sense for a games company to let their early adopters know what they can expect to see once the game leaves early access. Even then, I would always advocate buying an early access game for what it is when you buy it, rather than what you're promised / hear about on the internet / fondly imagine it's going to be at some point in the future.
  8. Other than that possible science boost, I'm not seeing any gameplay advantages here I'm afraid - at least not for the stock game. As @Alshain pointed out, standard response to bad weather is to scrub the launch. Which hardly affects anything because there are no logistics involved in Stock. Launch today, launch tomorrow or launch next week - it makes almost no difference. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is if you miss a transfer window and are running that interplanetary mission on a very tight delta-V budget but even then, the worst that happens is that you need to redesign your ship - which happens outside of game time anyway. If you're running a modded game with say KCT and some kind of life support, then launch delays could become more important. Although even then they sound more like random punishments to me, rather than anything particularly fun. YMMV of course.
  9. Depends if you define 'kerbalish' as 'hur hur, moar boosterz and strutz' or not. Besides, SpaceX have abandoned propellant cross-feed as far as I recall, at least for the near future. Leaving them with good old fashioned strap-on boosters, which are a tried and tested way of launching more payload mass.
  10. That's certainly my experience on gaming forums. The more information players get the more they demand and the louder they demand it. And no matter what the developers say, it never seems to stop players reading what they want into those statements - and then pitching a hissy fit when the finished game fails to match up to their overblown expectations. In a rational world, @passinglurker's comments would be correct - but gaming forums are rarely rational.
  11. If I'm reading @Scoutman1121's post correctly, I don't think he's talking about interstellar travel at all. Just an option to either play in the stock Kerbol system (so there's your reference point for comparing achievements) or play in a single procedurally generated system instead. Sounds like a great idea to me however many times it's been requested. Throw in some kind of fog-of-discovery mechanic and suddenly you've got a decent exploration game.
  12. For giant bearings and other moving parts? Paging @Majorjim! and the rest of the artist mechanics!
  13. Yeah. I mean.... yeah. *shakes head* I don't mind snakes - corn snakes, the smaller constrictors - fascinating animals to handle. But a rattler? I ain't going near no rattler. Kissing is Right Out!
  14. Okay, this is a public safety announcement. 'Snake kissing' is an in-story pseudo expletive that kerbonauts occasionally use over open mike. Actual snake kissing can be dangerous and is not recommended in the slightest by this author. TL: DR - don't be like this person.