Moss

Members
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Moss

  1. If they're going to add this they'd need to add fuel slosh and ullage mechanics to complete the realism. Maximum fuel flow rate dependant on how effectively the engine turbo-pumps are primed. Which would be cool. While they're at it, different fuel types, etc.
  2. Huzzah! FL-T series revamps. Almost feel like I owe SQUAD an apology after complaining about how horrible the current ones look.
  3. Seems like a reasonable explanation to me, and is similar to my own theories on the matter. However, much as I'm grateful to the modding community and their dedication to addressing stock limitations, I'm still not satisfied with having to resort to mods. Not because they're poor quality, far from it; I just don't like having to rely on someone who could stop updating the mods at any time for no reason without warning. To the point where I've considered learning Unity and Blender for this exact contingency, so at least I can always be sure of being able to address these things myself.
  4. Thanks @Snark for your reply and fantastic mod. Making History was released on March 13th and as far as I can tell you put your mod together a day later. I find it bizarre that Squad couldn't put in the same effort. It makes me suspect that they don't possess the IP for Porkjet's work and they'd need to negotiate with him some kind of arrangement, since they'd be adding it to their game which they charge money for.
  5. Are the 1.25m parts going to get a model / texture update like the Rockomax ones did?
  6. Would Squad be allowed to make these models stock? Or do there exist legal peculiarities? All the fuel tanks and the Mk-3 Capsule got an overhaul in 1.4, now the old engines (LV-T45 etc.) look sorely out of place.
  7. Wonderful series, good to see it through to the end.
  8. Thanks for continuing to update, Hotaru! My favourite thread on the forums. When it's over do you think you'd be willing to compile the whole thing into a PDF and make it available for download?
  9. Man these are great. Would be nice to have something like them in stock though, so I don't have to worry about them being discontinued or abandoned.
  10. Can we please have an option (or an entirely new part) to have elevator-style doors on service bays? Ones that let you have a part that's flush with the rest of the stack regardless of whether or not the doors are open? Ever since the original ones were added I always hated how the doors swung really far open on both sides, often clipping into things that were radially attached to whatever stack the service bay was part of. Also, the big stock service service bay looks horrible; it's got big comical cupboard handles and it's textured like a corrugated bin. 1.4 added new service bays but these new ones have doors that explode off. A bit of a step too far in the other direction, I think.
  11. Is there any chance of this being fixed in the next version?
  12. Still looks better than the current stock rocket tanks. 10/10
  13. Gets an STD Inserts some soothing ointment.
  14. One thing that bugs me in KSP is that a rover, or any vehicle with rover wheels, will tend to keep rolling after being given a short burst of throttle, because the wheels are allowed to turn when the throttle is not applied. I'm not sure if this is the case with real extra-planetary rovers, but I'm under the impression that they have some kind of stepping motor for their drive power that allows for more precise control. I think it would be nice to have the ability to toggle the motors on KSP rover wheels to some kind of "stepping" mode- where the wheel is only allowed to rotate when throttle is applied. To me it would just feel a bit more "robotic", for lack of a better word. Thoughts?
  15. I've got no problem with having both procedural and pre-fab wings in the game. Same goes for fuel tanks. Just make each pre-frab part a procedural part with "locked" parameters, such as it's length, nodes and internal resource, with the ability to unlock fully procedural parts later in the career tree.
  16. Better parts to facilitate heat-shielding. Hinges or deployable attachment nodes would be grand. Also agree that the rocket tanks and capsules need an art pass. For goodness sakes, the service bays look appalling. Bring on the streamlines fuselages.
  17. Someone else on the forums has said something which I'm going to shamelessly paraphrase because I think it's quite valid. SQUAD needs to internalise the fact that this is not an early access game anymore. The updates they release need to stop breaking existing designs or changing the way people play too much. KSP is a finished game now. The new heating and drag mechanics seem like a real blister for everyone at the moment. I personally haven't played much for that very reason.
  18. Those are lovely mods. But I'd be happier if stock was as nice. A number of people have mentioned that an art pass for the rocket tanks (and other stuff) is coming in a future update. Does anyone have a source for this?
  19. Goodness me, do all the rocket fuel tanks need an art pass. So do all the rocket adapter parts. Remove all those bulbous rims and lips. Make adapter parts follow a consistent incline. For goodness' sake do something about the 2.5m service bay. Bring on streamlined rocket fuselages, I say! We already have nice looking spaceplane parts, please SQUAD, do the same for their rocket brethren.
  20. I support this idea, however it can never be implemented due to a fundamental underlying problem with KSP. Most fuel tanks, science parts and capsules do not often sit flush against other parts with the same sized node. This is because most of them have a bulbous lip on their node, or protrude out slightly. The most egregious examples of this include the FL-T100, the avionics package, the Mark 1 Lander Can and the abomination that is the 2.5m service bay. Even most of the "adapter" parts don't have a consistent grade, joining together multiple adapters to form a large nose-cone results in an uneven and ugly cone. I respect SQUAD's decision to keep the existing models for the sake of aesthetics; it's their game and they can do what they want with it. It does however, inhibit the construction of streamlined looking rocket fuselages. The new spaceplane parts are aesthetically delightful, as each part fits flush. So if you ever wanted the Mk1 Cockpit to have it's nose replaced with a tiny node, you'd want to make sure that all parts able to fit to it have a cohesive body shape and texture. Is this an issue that procedural fuel tanks would fix? To say nothing of how much memory could be saved on models and textures were this the case, my answer is yes. But unfortunately it will never happen.
  21. "Why haven't they fixed this yet?"