• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

1 Follower

About natsirt721

  • Rank
    Dot Collector

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location M31

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    No, its always been kind of a cluster... @DerekL1963 @Fraktal this discussion is about stock science settings - DerekL is correct in saying that your personal gripes with your choice are not relevant to the discussion at hand. That being said, Fraktal's comments about being 'stuck in a gap' are indicative of imbalanced science gain in the early-mid game, a sentiment I have seen expressed in other places as well.
  2. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    I was going to wait for a few more people to respond before drawing conclusions, but this sums up both what I expected coming into this, and what I interpret from the results so-far. If that makes this poll somewhat self-indulgent, well, so be it :p. As the results have been coming in I've been formulating what a rework would entail and how to do it right - this started out mostly as a comm-net rework in my head, but my thoughts on that would involve rebalancing science gathering, so here we are. I especially agree with your distinction between transmissible and processable experiments - the current transmission efficiency model, while somewhat effective, doesn't really make sense to me. Instruments produce ones and zeros, and lossless digital data transmission is a thing, as long as you are willing to wait long enough. As you note, this simplifies a 'run all - send all' interface to mitigate the clickfest, and emphasizes multiple missions for unmanned landers, sample return missions, and crewed missions. As far as time-based mechanics are concerned, my conceptual rework will hopefully address this. I recall reading a post that said that HarvesteR was opposed to wait based mechanics, but not time based mechanics. Currently, my solution involves exponential curves, data rates, and significant EC costs, but I'll elaborate on this later once I sort out the big picture. On the surface, I don't seem to like the time-based milestone system - however it is definitely food for thought. Perhaps it could be integrated with the persistent milestone system like someone (the name escapes me) suggested previously. The tech tree could use some work. I agree with the 'wider, not deeper' attitude, and will probably sort something out based on current examples.
  3. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    You make it easier to acquire some science, but harder to acquire lots of science.
  4. My advice here is: don't land with the brakes on. Wait until your aft gear are solidly down, then active the brakes. If one wheel touches down first, with brakes that is going to apply a good amount of torque to the airframe before the other wheel touches down. Aircraft aren't nearly as stable in the yaw direction, especially at low speed, so it doesn't take much of a disturbance to induce a spin. Edit: did not check the timestamps, hope this thread isn't too necrotic.
  5. natsirt721

    Bending mechanics in ksp

    KSP Explanation: Vessel specifics (i.e. what parts are where) are stored in a file and bending is caused by the physics engine. When you switch to a nearby part, your vessel can get 'packed', which is like being in warp but not exactly. When you switch back, you get 'unpacked', where the game loads the vessel data from the file again. On packing, things like joint bending data are not stored, probably because a) a pilot seeing bending will stop doing whatever he is doing, because bending leads to breaking or b) aforementioned bending is about to become breaking. So, on unpack the vessel maintains its orientation but all the parts go back to their 'proper' places, i.e. how they are defined in the file. Science Explanation: Bending of structural components is not inherently a bad thing - in fact is is an unavoidable consequence of loading (applying a force, not saving/loading) a structure. At low stresses, the components bend 'elastically', that is, they will return to their original length if they are unloaded. At high stresses, they bend 'plastically', and will not completely return to their original length. What you are describing, plastic deformation - or saved part rotation - is VERY VERY BAD for structures, because every time it is stressed and unstressed the part gets a little bit longer (if loaded in tension) or shorter (if loaded in compression). As parts/structures are usually composed of multiple beams, forces will cause some beams to elongate and some to shrink. The beams that elongate still have the same amount of material, which means that their cross-section (and their ability to resist loadings) shrinks - this will cause even more elongation the next time the same force is applied. Eventually, load/unload cycles will cause the beam to be loaded beyond its ultimate strength, at which point it fails. Oh, and welcome to the forums
  6. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    Not a bad solution, but the difficulty lies in defining 'stagnant' in game terms without a byzantine set of conditionals. Well, that's quite the fatalistic viewpoint, but one you are entitled to, certainly. I think the one thing we all can agree on is that there is no golden hammer solution. I would also think - hence this poll - that a significant portion of the community has at least some gripes with the current system. If we can find some things that many people agree should be changed, then by all means some progress - be it by Squad or the community - can be made to better the experience of everyone.
  7. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    The problem with pure science per day is that there is nothing stopping one from setting time warp at max and going out for dinner. You should still have to work for the science.
  8. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    Something to keep in mind is that experiments have a hard cap on their maximum return. E.g. the goo has a base science of 10, but a max science of only 13. On Kerbin (0.3x) this yields 3 science, but on Minmus (5x) this only yields 13 (caveat: since reading the wiki article I have not tested this). The largest base:max ratio seems to be the IR telescope at 1.43x. The fact that these large integer multipliers exist, yet don't seem to have significant impact is another example of poor design.
  9. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    This is good for systems where you constantly earn science, but in KSP you mostly get science in chunks whenever your missions reach a new place. I don't really see the difference between 'selecting tech -> earn points -> get tech' and 'earn points -> select tech -> get tech'. The second part of your comment I like, but in order for it to be implemented I think the science points would have to be divided into classes of experiment with each tech having a number of points from each class. In this way, you could select which node you want to invest which points in, and also couple exploration more directly with the rewards you recieved. e.g.: tech nodes with structural pieces would require more points from materials studies or surface samples, whereas tech nodes with aerodynamic components would require more points from atmospheric samples and barometer scans.
  10. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    This would imply a passive science gathering method? What about a 'toggle on' at the start of the flyby and a 'toggle off' when you're done, and the actual collection is automated? I hesitate to endorse a totally passive system but I agree, the current system has too much micromanagement of sampling for my liking. Edit: by this, I mean the instrument would have an 'on/off' toggle which would automatically collect science and consume EC while it was on, and create the reports for any science gathered when it was turned off.
  11. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    Great feedback, adding to poll
  12. natsirt721

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    That is an interesting observation. The implication with the stock cycle is new parts -> more accessible locations -> mission -> science returns & research-> new parts etc. The problem is that the cycle is that the following usually occurs: mission start -> new place -> science & research -> mission end, new parts, wait for a while for the next mission. It looks like the disconnect is that between missions, nothing is actually being accomplished - the only way to progress is by perpetuating the cycle and constantly doing missions. This to me implies that some sort of science over time mechanic (based on your achievements) is necessary to make it seem like the time between missions is actually worth something. @DerekL1963 Those are some good points, and I agree wholeheartedly with your comments w.r.t the poll options - the beauty of this game is that you can play it how you want. However, more than any other 'problem' (perceived or real) with KSP, this one seems to be the the most ubiquitous and the easiest to implement a fix for. This isn't a poll about 'what do I do to make the game fun for me', it's a poll about 'what is fun/not fun out of the box'. The issue I see is that the career mode in its default state is both a) restrictive for new players with little knowledge of space mechanics but want a sense of direction in their gameplay and b) not challenging enough for veteran players without self-imposed restrictions. This to me is the exact opposite of how a 'career' mode should operate - it should provide a challenging experience for players across the board, and meddling with science/cash/rep multipliers seems like a quick and dirty solution on the devs' part. Some tweaking is of course necessary - I don't expect a one-size fits-all solution to single-handedly revitalize career mode - but the current distinctions between easy and hard are almost negligible. Maybe hard mode should ship with a 30% science multiplier, I don't know. Either way, thank you for the feedback.
  13. Over the years, there have been many airings of grievance regarding the science system in career mode. With this poll, I hope to collect a sample (albeit a limited one) of the community's misgivings with the way the science system functions. With this data, I and/or others may attempt to pose a satisfying solution either to be created by the modding community or posed to the development team as a stock mechanic rework. This poll was created based on my own experience with career KSP and about two hours of googling. If you think I have left out a grievance leave a comment, and I'll add it to the poll. Edit 10/25: Adding 'things are fine' and 'other' options.
  14. natsirt721

    Body-Fixed Reference Frame

    Ooh, that is very nice, I'll have to take a look. I maintain that it should be stock behaviour.
  15. natsirt721

    What crimes against Kerbin have you committed?

    Botching a Munar return aerobrake and disintegrating a pair of NTRs in the upper atmosphere. That was bad PR...