KSP Weekly: A Titan’s flyby and making history!

[regex]

Rather than parachutes that are pod-specific I'd like to see stack-inline parachutes. Would really expand the building possibilities.

[StrandedonEarth]

55 minutes ago, regex said:

Rather than parachutes that are pod-specific I'd like to see stack-inline parachutes. Would really expand the building possibilities.

Oh yes please. In 0.625m and 1.25m cans at least. 2.5m might be getting excessive. 

[Superfluous J]

15 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

Interesting post which raises another question, if you have to bail the pod in the atmosphere like IRL, how would KSP handle this? The way it is now you'll either lose the Kerbal, or the Pod when you 'recover vessel'

If the pod survives, why would you eject the Kerbal?

[regex]

10 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

If the pod survives, why would you eject the Kerbal?

Because Vostok, yo.

[Superfluous J]

32 minutes ago, regex said:

Because Vostok, yo.

I'm just going to admit it: I have no understanding of the need to recreate a historical mission down to that level, where not being able to recover the capsule that the Kerbal ejected from is considered a failure.

[passinglurker]

14 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm just going to admit it: I have no understanding of the need to recreate a historical mission down to that level, where not being able to recover the capsule that the Kerbal ejected from is considered a failure.

And thats why the soviets hid that detail for the longest time, but consider the practical ingame implications... 

It's a sphere... 

With a spherical collider (according to what RD said on EJ's stream)...

There are no reaction wheels (also said over stream/because history)...

spheres roll...

And most of kerbin's land mass is more than a bit hilly...

Edited April 23, 2017 by passinglurker

[regex]

33 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

 I have no understanding of the need to recreate a historical mission down to that level

Then don't.  The option is there, however, for people who want to.

FWIW I don't play the game to recreate either. While I enjoy building replica launch vehicles in RO (on occasion, and man is Angara-5 a fantastic LV) my motivation is not to recreate payloads and missions in exacting detail; I'd much rather explore different concepts or my own ideas.

OTOH, I very much enjoy part diversity.

26 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

And thats why the soviets hid that detail for the longest time

Those pesky early-game contracts...

Edited April 23, 2017 by regex

[KSK]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

And thats why the soviets hid that detail for the longest time, but consider the practical ingame implications... 

It's a sphere... 

With a spherical collider (according to what RD said on EJ's stream)...

There are no reaction wheels (also said over stream/because history)...

spheres rolls...

And most of kerbin's land mass is more than a bit hilly...

Hills - pffff. Anyone want to start a sweepstake on how it takes for the first wrecking ball crane to appear?

[Skylon]

32 minutes ago, KSK said:

Hills - pffff. Anyone want to start a sweepstake on how it takes for the first wrecking ball crane to appear?

As soon as KAS updates!

Thinking about it again, how LEGO will the Vostok be? The pod is spherical and the SM has an umbilical protruding forwards. Or are these parts JUST for mission recreation? I do love the models and texturing, and those separate tanks are very nice.

[RoverDude]

5 hours ago, Skylon said:

As soon as KAS updates!

Thinking about it again, how LEGO will the Vostok be? The pod is spherical and the SM has an umbilical protruding forwards. Or are these parts JUST for mission recreation? I do love the models and texturing, and those separate tanks are very nice.

That's not a service module   And the answer is very.

[mattinoz]

9 hours ago, passinglurker said:

And thats why the soviets hid that detail for the longest time, but consider the practical ingame implications... 

It's a sphere... 

With a spherical collider (according to what RD said on EJ's stream)...

There are no reaction wheels (also said over stream/because history)...

spheres rolls...

And most of kerbin's land mass is more than a bit hilly...

Sphere is heavily weighted on one side so that falls in one direction. It shouldn't roll too much unless hits side of mountain. 

 

The other design 'feature' I loved was they had 10 days supplies on board it case retrorockets failed. The orbit would decay enough in 10 days to return on own. 

Edited April 23, 2017 by mattinoz

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Ugh, fine, you talked me into it, I'll buy the DLC

[monophonic]

8 hours ago, KSK said:

Hills - pffff. Anyone want to start a sweepstake on how it takes for the first wrecking ball crane to appear?

Hey, the runway seams are fixed too! So... what to use as bowling pins?

[Benjamin Kerman]

On 4/21/2017 at 3:42 PM, SQUAD said:

Part Upgrades will now show all stats updates in the SPH/VAB and TechTree.

Thank god! I never knew what changed...

[LoSBoL]

13 hours ago, regex said:

Because Vostok, yo.

Don't forget to grab te science on the way out

[Waxing_Kibbous]

11 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Don't forget to grab te science on the way out

Nice, I think I get the reference because I was just looking into the Vostok last week and came across this:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1961-012A

Oh look an experiments link

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=Vostok 1

 

Edit: or it could just be a KSP gameplay tip....

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Waxing_Kibbous

[CoreI]

5 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Sphere is heavily weighted on one side so that falls in one direction. It shouldn't roll too much unless hits side of mountain

Is it confirmed that the KSP Vostok will be weighted to one side? Because even if real Vostok was weighted asymmetrically, is KSP capable of supporting non-center CoM?

I personally love the idea of a capsule rolling if it lands in the wrong place. It adds a bit more realism while not making the game super hard.

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, CoreI said:

Is it confirmed that the KSP Vostok will be weighted to one side? Because even if real Vostok was weighted asymmetrically, is KSP capable of supporting non-center CoM?

I personally love the idea of a capsule rolling if it lands in the wrong place. It adds a bit more realism while not making the game super hard.

the offset of the center of mass of a part is something that can be set in a part config file so I'm sure they can strike a good balance between "flies stable" and "lands unstable" if they wanted to. My point from earlier was from my perspective when using the pod it would probably be advisable to take advantage of the ejection seat before the pods lands, immediately rolls away with the kerbal inside, and accelerates to speeds exceeding the crash tolerance.

[Darkstar616]

Been dealing with the mediocrity of American-style spacecrafts for too long.
After I get my hands on the Vostok, I don't think I'm ever going to go back.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, CoreI said:

Is it confirmed that the KSP Vostok will be weighted to one side? Because even if real Vostok was weighted asymmetrically, is KSP capable of supporting non-center CoM?

Yes, KSP supports offset CoMs for individual parts. Try placing one of the stock jet engines by itself and see where the CoM ends up. 

[Daniel Prates]

Is the mission builder a feature that is going to be available in carreer mode? If not, please consider it. I would love to make science/money on missions and goals I have set up for myself, instead of relying only on the missions automatically generated. Some of them are good, but some come in unconvenient times and in a bad order.

Shouldnt be a hard feature to tailor into the game! You click and drag the mission specs, and the harder they are, more money is generated.

[Chris_2]

9 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Is the mission builder a feature that is going to be available in carreer mode? If not, please consider it. I would love to make science/money on missions and goals I have set up for myself, instead of relying only on the missions automatically generated. Some of them are good, but some come in unconvenient times and in a bad order.

Shouldnt be a hard feature to tailor into the game! You click and drag the mission specs, and the harder they are, more money is generated.

This. It would create a mixture between sandbox and career. Create your own goals and challenges, but still earn money and science.

[John FX]

On 21/04/2017 at 11:42 PM, SQUAD said:

But we’re here to talk about everything Kerbal and this week was full of advancements, so let’s switch to the topic you came here to read about.

Thank you. You do love us!

Looking forward to part upgrades, hoping they require some science to be spent as well as funds (to give science more of a use later in the game).

[klgraham1013]

11 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Is the mission builder a feature that is going to be available in carreer mode? If not, please consider it. I would love to make science/money on missions and goals I have set up for myself, instead of relying only on the missions automatically generated. Some of them are good, but some come in unconvenient times and in a bad order.

Shouldnt be a hard feature to tailor into the game! You click and drag the mission specs, and the harder they are, more money is generated.

Unfortunately, not.

On 4/4/2017 at 9:20 PM, JPLRepo said:

Mission Builder is not Contract Configurator. Nor does it generate or use contracts.

[monstah]

On 21/04/2017 at 7:42 PM, SQUAD said:

0.38m monopropellant tanks

Should be stock!