seanth

Members
  • Content count

    715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

1 Follower

About seanth

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. I'm with @daniel l. here: if Kopernicus works with 1.3, TBG should work unless Kopernicus radically changed something
  2. Dearest Koogie, I'm been pretty quiet lately, mainly becuase I've been working on other things. I certainly have _not_ been playing Factorio. Anyway, the end of the semester is here and I thought I'd send you something talking about the roadmap for getting to TBG 0.4 First, I wanted to point out that the latest branch on github is "Janet" (https://github.com/kjoenth/To-Boldly-Go/tree/Janet). All the planet related work will show up there and get merged into the main version as we go along. I encourage people that are interested to go ahead and jump in to help. Here's the current plan for getting to 0.4: 0.3.0.1: DONE! Planet and "astroid" generation streamlining. We move all the planet generation code to a sub in a separate file like @bunjatec did for astroids, but we don't touch any of the "how". Just streamline things to remove the repetitive code. Again, thanks to @bunjatec. 0.3.1: MOSTLY DONE! Planetary discs. Each star has a plane, and the planets orbiting it will be in that plane (with some variation). There can be a few planets with oddball orbits (rogue planets that were captured, but they will be rare. This will cut down on the crazytime looking systems. 0.3.2: MOSTLY DONE! Unique/custom planets. This will be the first release with unique planets being placed. Code for it can be worked on before this, but this will be the first official announcement. We should probably have some video tutorials showing how to do it. Planets still being placed using current semimajor axis calc system. If this is done correctly, it should be possible for people to download planet/star packs, edit a few text config files in TBG, and it will generate a procedural universe that has those planets/stars. The code for doing this is more-or-less already in place, but needs closer testing And now the hard stuff: 0.3.3: Better placement of planets. Start trying to have smarter placement of planets based on their qualities. Make sure planets are in locations that makes sense (habitable worlds in habitable zones, etc). This will be complicated, mainly because QBasic is not a language I am fluent in and I keep thinking in python and need to mentally translate it. 0.3.4: Better placement of moons. Take the work done on planet placement and apply it to moons. Make sure there is some smarter calculation of relative mass of moon:parent so the moon isn't so be that you have a binary planet system. 0.3.5: True procedural planets? @daniel l.has some existing code for this, and I think it would be great to get it into the main code. It sounds like some people are using other mods to travel to these stars. It might be time to include some things that will improve gameplay with telescope mods. The biggest problem I am encountering is that I do all my work on Mac OS. The QB64 software lets me make a binary application that works on (at least) Mac OS 10.12, but I cant easily make a version for Windows. I need to get this worked out. Yours, -seanth
  3. That makes sense to me. My understanding is that boats with aircraft jets on them tend to run bow down. This is something I've seen a lot in my hydroplane designs. https://books.google.com/books?id=8NsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=aircraft+jet+boat+nose&source=bl&ots=wNAszTls7P&sig=vTnP825-t13QcyPEk186rTrx9nY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO48PNi5rUAhWE2YMKHbV4CsYQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=aircraft jet boat nose&f=false It seems like your design compensated for this tendency with the mass toward the back.
  4. Finally updated the waypoint, mechjeb, and google earth files to include @gilflo points. Congrats again! Amazing run. I need to find some time and try to update a craft to incorporate the "wing-deck" idea. @life_on_venus: did you ever end up trying this out?
  5. Really excellent job by @gilflo! Here's the score breakdown: Engine type: J-33 "Wheesley" Turbofan Engine, so it's a "level 2" entry Distance: 2998000 meters Time : 1 day 3 hrs 50 min 29sec = 35429 seconds Total crew: 10 Flags placed: 10 (Distance/Time)*(flag placed/crew) = (2998000m/35429sec)*(10flags/10crew)= 84.62 Which is the current highest score regardless of entry level. Well done! On a related note, I like the idea of using specific range. Let me play with some numbers and see if there's enough info from previous scores to recalculate them. Edit: I'll incorporate your waypoints and kml points into the file available on github soon. Any chance of getting the craft file for inclusion on github for other people to improve on?
  6. Duh. You're correct. Math is hard apparently. Need coffee
  7. Isn't it 9hrs and 50min? 1day 3hrs 50min 29sec = 6hrs+3hrs 50min 29sec = 32609sec. I'll update the main thread in a few minutes. Very excellent job!
  8. I've been thinking about this. You are absolutely correct that you could double the distance and double the time and get the exact same score. Really the point is Go far Plant flags on the way Come back Maybe the time aspect just isn't needed. The only ship I have in the same scoring class as @gilflo's Gliding Dolphin is The Kitty Wine. The Gliding Dolphin is easily an order of magnitude better than my hydrofoils in how it performs, so it's score should reflect it. I just did the calculation for it's current score. The old (dist*time)*(flags/crew) scores are: Gliding Dolphin: 89 Kitty Wine: 6.53 (lol) Even if I had placed a flag for every crew member, my max score for the Kitty Wine would have been 36. This illustrates the problem. The Gliding Dolphin will have gone 10x further than the Kitty Wine did, but it's score wouldn't reflect that if I had placed all flags and got a score of 36. That's not fair and is missing the point If we just do (dist)*(flags/crew) we get Gliding Dolphin: 2562 Kitty Wine: 48 ( possible max score: 267) Put another way: if you place all possible flags, your score is the distance you traveled. Thoughts?
  9. Tourists on board are not a problem. I think it would be silly to say you couldn't count tourists. Besides, I think tourists would be encouraged by the organizations organizing the contest. But you'd said before you had 10 kerbals on board, and your craft looks like it hold a max of 10.
  10. My new max range calc is 2960km, so wooo! Go go go!
  11. Excellent start. I'm following along on a map a have, and I am very impressed. I made some estimates on your ranges based on the images you posted, and I get a max range of around 2120km, but it's based on only three data points . I'm hoping you'll be able to squeeze an additional 900km out to get back home. That range completely blows away the ship that I had that is closest in fuel capacity to the "Gliding Dolphin". My "Western Nosebleed" had 11,125L of fuel and only had a range of 1,219km. That means you doubled the range with less fuel. Super cool. Looking forward to the next leg of the trip, and am _really_ looking forward to playing with the craft file. That is a great design and I'd love to include the cargo bay ability mine have to transport submarines and runabouts.
  12. Yup. Still alive. Just juggling AFK stuff and trying to think about planet code
  13. I'm really looking forward to your trip report, plus all the new nav points you'll make and name