Snark

Moderator
  • Content Count

    7,817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10,641 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

13,351 profile views
  1. Snark

    Visible Planets

    I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly-- my response was about software development and computer graphics, not about astronomy. I do totally get where you're coming from about the astronomy side of things-- if you want to talk about apparent magnitudes and luminosity and albedo and subtended angles and so forth, I get you. (Physics major, here.) My response wasn't about the astronomy-- you're totally right, there, and I agree with you. Yes, distant tiny objects at night are visible to the human eye. That's a matter both of astronomy and of physiology. My point is that software and computer graphics don't work the same as real life. To implement a feature such as you request is certainly doable-- after all, there's a mod that does it, and I linked it for you-- but it is a feature that would need to be specifically implemented, it doesn't just "happen" for free. Meaning that it takes time and resources and therefore would need to be prioritized, the same as any other feature needs to. Well, I kinda get the sense that you think I've missed your point, and if I have, I'm sorry about that. My impression was that you're saying you want a feature to make distant planets more visible, but if that's not it, what is it that you do want? Could you explain? Well, it's a celestial body, and KSP doesn't really make a distinction between "moon" and "planet"-- there are some moons that are bigger than some planets, for example. I was just using it as an example-- just saying that there's nothing about the SOI boundary that's special, it's not like planets instantly become visible when you make the transition into their SOI. They are, in fact, visible outside it-- just how visible depends on how massive the planet is, how far from its primary it's orbiting, etc. But certainly, I'll grant you that they're really hard to see from far away and become effectively invisible at interplanetary distances, yes. Which I get the impression is your main point, yes? Okay. It wasn't at all obvious that it was rhetorical-- it sounded like an honest question, because "why is it hard to see planets at long distance in KSP?" actually is a reasonable question to ask, and one where the actual answer isn't necessarily obvious to folks who aren't programmers or graphics developers. Besides-- even if you're not interested in the answer, other people might be, so I figured it was worth an explanation. I understand that not everyone wants to wade through all the technical discussion, though, which is why I put most of the explanation in a spoiler section so that folks who aren't interested can just skip right over it. ...Okay, now I'm kinda confused. It sure sounded to me like the feature that you wanted was to be able to see planets from far away. I mean, here are your own words, from your (edited) OP in this thread: So... if what you want isn't "I want to be able to see planets from far away", then what is it that you do want? I mean, that sounds like that would be a useful feature to have, and I agreed with you that it would be a nice feature to be able to see faraway planets, but if that's not what you're asking here, I'm having trouble understanding. Could you explain what feature it is that you're asking for, if it's not "planets that are more visible"? Hm? The way people generate changes in the game is to request features. That's why Squad created a "suggestions" forum, because they'd like to hear what their users are asking for. It's kinda the point. And the way to get interest for a particular suggested change, is to demonstrate that there's interest in it. Which players (such as myself) do by posting in the suggestion threads. Popular suggestions will be ones that generate interest and responses from lots of players. So, the more, the merrier. Well, that's an interesting suggestion in its own right-- but that's a totally different topic than "visibility of planets". So if you'd like to suggest that, perhaps start a separate thread about it? (My observation over the last few years has been that suggestion threads tend to be more effective when it's one suggestion per thread.)
  2. Snark

    Visible Planets

    Hello, and welcome to the forums! Well, it's a behavior. Whether it's a "flaw" is a value judgment, based on whether someone thinks it's a problem or not. I don't think it's that people don't notice, but rather that they don't especially notice it much (I sure don't, for example)-- i.e. they care more about other stuff. No, because they're too small to see, generally speaking. Or pretty close, anyway. They're actually visible considerably outside the sphere of influence. For example, Minmus is easily visible from Kerbin's surface, and you're nowhere near being in Minmus' sphere of influence. Because reality is not the same thing as a computer game. Technical details in spoiler, for people who may be interested. TL;DR: "Because physics." If I might offer a suggestion: when asking for a thing, it usually works better to ask nicely, because if you insult the people you're asking, they tend to stop listening. Speaking as a software developer myself, I'm pretty sure that "laziness" is not why this hasn't happened. More rambling in spoiler, for anyone who may be interested. TL;DR: "There are reasons." Basically, my understanding of what you're asking for, here is this (please correct me if I'm wrong): You'd like to see Squad add a new feature to the game that artificially boosts the visibility of planets so that they will "stand out" on your screen and be easy to see even when they're far away. Yes? Well, that's not a bad feature suggestion. I can see how that would be useful. I expect that there are other players who would like to have that, too-- heck, I'd find it useful myself. But it does have to compete with all the other features that people are asking for and that Squad is working on. So in general, the best way to ask for this kind of thing? Just lay out the request, plainly and simply, and skip the accusations of laziness and so forth. In the meantime: I realize that "there's a mod for that" is not the solution to wanting a feature in stock. But, now that you've asked for the feature in stock, I imagine you might like to have a way to address the problem while you're waiting. So... ahem... in the meantime, there's a mod for that. Perhaps you may find it useful?
  3. This is the problem. Because if you do that, then what will happen is Here's an illustrated docking tutorial I put together a while back, which you may find helpful.
  4. Snark

    Removing On-Screen Information

    Looks like that info's coming from some mod. So you'll need to figure out what mod it is, then figure out whether it has a setting that allows turning off the display (or, if there's no such setting, uninstall the mod.) Sorry, no clue how to help you beyond that, since whatever mod you're using, it's not one I've ever used.
  5. The Wolfhound will beat the Poodle on "big" ships; the Poodle will beat the Wolfhound on "small" ones. Exactly where the break-even point is, though, is not a simple answer but rather a line on a graph, since it depends on both the wet and dry masses of the craft, and those are independent of each other. About the only way to answer the "which is better" question, for a particular craft, is to try it both ways. Solve the rocket equation (or look at a dV tool) with a Wolfhound in place, and then do the same thing with a Poodle substituted, and whichever one wins is "better" for that rocket.
  6. Snark

    Steam Transfer and DLC?

    Moving this to Kerbal Network, since this is about websites and stuff, rather than about the KSP game itself.
  7. Snark

    Unable to download KSP through website

    Moving to Kerbal Network, since this is about websites rather than about the game itself.
  8. Snark

    If I ever make it back from Eve

    One thing to bear in mind is that the ascent profile really matters. You'll want to go pretty much straight up for about the first 20 km, then start a gravity turn. But even "go straight up 20 km" isn't enough to know-- it really makes a huge difference how fast you're going. In particular, you get the ideal efficiency (i.e. least amount of wasted dV) if your ship is traveling right at terminal velocity the entire time. If you're going too fast or too slow, you'll waste a lot of dV. Too fast (i.e. faster than terminal velocity) and you'll waste lots of dV to aerodynamic drag. Too slow (i.e. slower than terminal velocity) and you'll waste lots of dV to gravity losses. Don't get me wrong, big aero and gravity losses are inevitable when climbing off Eve, which is why it's so hard. But "be right at terminal velocity the whole time" gives the optimum tradeoff between the two. Unfortunately, knowing "what's the terminal velocity" is a tricky problem, since not only does it depend heavily on the aerodynamics of your ship, but also it changes (a lot) as the atmosphere thins out with altitude (and also changes every time you stage something away). So it'll take some tinkering and probabl some trial-and-error to work out the "Goldilocks" speed during ascent. The main takeaway point, here, is to understand that there exists an optimal speed, and simply "floor it and go as fast as I can'" isn't necessarily the right answer. (This is usually never an issue on Kerbin, because the atmosphere is so much thinner than Eve, and drops off more rapidly with altitude. Unless you have a seriously overpowered rocket, you'll never "catch up" to your terminal velocity on Kerbin, since the terminal velocity rises faster than your rocket's speed does. Therefore, on Kerbin, the "right" answer almost always is "floor it and go as fast as possible". But on Eve, that's not the case.) Also... make sure your rocket's as streamlined as you can make it. Because that lowers the aero losses, which raises your terminal velocity, which lets you climb faster, which lets you reduce gravity losses as well. And if you can land somewhere significantly higher than sea level, that will also take a large chunk out of the amount of dV needed.
  9. Snark

    KSP 1.6+ visual packs?

    Moving to Add-on Discussions.
  10. Seems to work just fine. Here's what I did to the config: @Atmosphere { //needed for proper engine ISP on Bin. staticPressureASL = 101.325 enabled = false oxygen = false } ...i.e. I ditched the pressure curve and changed it to "enabled = false", but I kept the "staticPressureASL" as-is. Engines worked fine in atmosphere. The only wart I noticed is that the "escape the atmosphere" contract still appears (and is kinda confused looking, "Breach the atmosphere by flying to an altitude of meters"), but that's pretty minor and I can live with it (though perhaps could be fixed with more config jiggery-pokery not to appear). Yeah, I noticed that the "launch first vessel" got confused, too. Nope, haven't gotten around to trying that one yet. Tylo's one of my least favorite places to go, in stock-- I find it inconvenient without actually being interesting (I'm talking about without an atmosphere). After I've gone there a couple of times for the variety and the design challenge, I tend not to go back. Glad it's available as an option here, and I'm sure folks will be interested. Just not my thing. Laythe looks interesting, I expect I'll get around to that at some point.
  11. Hello, and welcome to the forum! Moving to the Lounge, since this isn't about real-life science & spaceflight.
  12. I installed the mod, left it set to false, and tried playing a Minmus game. Minmus has an atmosphere. I'd like it not to, I want to have a Minmus space program that is the same Minmus I'm used to, i.e. no atmosphere. Since I happen to be reasonably versed in Kopernicus-fu, I was able to edit the relevant .cfg file to take the atmosphere away. But I'd like not to have to spelunk to be able to do that-- plus, I don't have an easy way of knowing whether any other celestial-body atmospheres might be modified in some way. Would love to have a single big global "Don't tinker with stock atmospheres-or-lack-thereof, at all" toggle. (Unless what I'm observing is unintended behavior, i.e. a bug? In other words, if "AspRealisticAtmospheres = false" is supposed to be the toggle that I want, then I guess this is a bug report rather than a feature request.) Well, for that matter, why Minmus, then? If anything, Minmus is a lot lower challenge than the Mun is. And I contend that Mun would be a challenge, if for no other reason than lack of atmosphere means no easy-landing-with-parachutes. Why not indeed. Don't really care all that much-- somewhere on the equator, preferably in a reasonably level spot that gives a nice view of Kerbin. East Crater, perhaps?
  13. No, because we have decided not to allow that, as a matter of forum policy. Otherwise people would be changing their names all over the place and it would be hard for everyone (including moderators) to keep mental track of who's who. That's why this thread says "WARNING! ONE TIME ONLY!" loudly, right there in the forum title.
  14. Really enjoying the mod. Thanks for taking this on! A couple of things that would be high on my wish list, if you're ever inclined: Would love to have the Mun available as a homeworld. Would be great to have a simple toggle in the HomeWorldSetting.cfg (fine if it defaults to false) called "UseStockAtmosphere" or similar. If set to true, ASP would leave stock atmosphere settings completely alone for all bodies (e.g. don't add an atmosphere to Minmus, etc.)
  15. No way to know for sure why they placed the CoM as they did. Bug? Perhaps. Or maybe they figured "this is a dedicated lander part, let's make it lander friendly by giving it a nice low CoM," for all I know. In any case, I think any fixes for the MEM are outside the scope of this mod. MissingHistory is about filling in gaps, not rebalancing the game. @Tyko kindly provided a nice link above, for anyone who may be interested. As for myself: another reason I'm not inclined to "fix" this part is that I never, ever use this part myself. It's completely useless to me. I'll concede that it's kinda neat looking and does a pretty good job of evoking the Apollo LEM, but that's about it. I find the design singularly useless in my gameplay, and I object to its design in game terms (rationale would be a lengthy rant not germane here). The point, though, is that since I don't use the part myself, I'm singularly ill qualified to be doing any tinkering with it to "fix" it. The closest I've come to "fixing" the part is to write a little MM snippet to delete it from my game, so that it's not cluttering up the parts tab in the VAB. Which is obviously not something I'd do in a published mod!