Jump to content

Loskene

Members
  • Content Count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

450 Excellent

2 Followers

About Loskene

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm not participating. Were this handled in a less exploitative manner I might have, since like any other long time player and fan of the game I have plenty of interesting screenshots to contribute, and digital art skills to make them stand out. But that's where the correctness ends, because it's not as simple as that. The problem arises from this not being some cutesy little community forum challenge like any of the others they've posted. This is work which will be put into a commercial product for which people contributing their labour will receive no compensation for their time. Time i
  2. No, it's not cool. How is that a contest? Entrants don't win anything, it's just the company that wins some free labour. If you want more art, pay your artists. If you want lots of art by crowdsourcing submissions, offer an actual prize for winning submissions. Doesn't have to be much, just some token to say you're not overtly exploiting your userbase's "passion" for unpaid work. This is just weak, really, particularly given the effort and quality put into some of these submissions so far. Pay the damn people, you're not exactly strapped for cash and there's no indie dev excuse to fa
  3. Fair points, but I'd have to disagree with the notion that a plane built for FAR wouldn't work well under stock. They do, and the "rejiggering" required is less significant than you'd think, often none at all depending on the craft in question. They're two different aerodynamic models but they perform the same basic function, making planes fly, just achieved via different methods of varying complexity. Once the centres of lift and mass are in the right place (with the caveat that FAR can be more sensitive to this) the plane will fly just fine in either. The small differences only become appare
  4. Yeah might be worth expanding on the little things. Arbitrary/inconsistent drag cubes and part configurations, special handling for lifting bodies that only affects a handful of parts, "cheaty" exploits abusing the simplified calculations like covering engine nodes with clipped nosecones, node vs radial attachment, determining what's shielded from the airflow and what's not, etc. Practically all of these are resolved by using FAR's voxel model, which calculates the aircraft's flight characteristics based on the actual shape of the exposed hull rather than predefined values and hokey abstractio
  5. Agreed on keeping some of the Minmus ice cream twinkles, but otherwise looking great.
  6. I mean it might have made sense if we had means of pre-programming commands into probe cores, meaning if we lose signal we couldn't tell a probe *not* to complete a manoeuvre. But we don't so... idk
  7. I would guess most people, when they read about what it does, know whether they want the FAR aero model or not. I'd say if anyone's on the fence about it or whether it's relevant with the updated stock aero, that it depends on how much of your playtime is spent in atmosphere. If you mainly launch rockets and spend most of your time in space, the stock aero model is perfectly adequate for your launch and aerobraking needs and you don't need the associated overhead of the mod, nor adjustment time to its own quirks. If you build a lot of planes, however, sooner or later the little imperfections i
  8. While stock KSP doesn't have much micro parts coverage, you can make very small rockets with the Procedural Parts mod for tanks, SRBs, structure and nosecones. Plus one of the procedural wings forks or tweakscale for tiny fins and other bits and bobs. Normally use this for custom aircraft missiles but that's basically a model rocket anyway. Or you could just tweakscale an entire stock rocket for a true "model" experience.
  9. Boooo naw I'm just playing I get you dude. I like to think of it as an extra challenge when there's little else to do, since it tests all aspects of your building and planning skills, but for beginners or people just looking to play sandbox there's no point to it, so it should be toggleable and probably off by default. I only ever have USI installed when I'm doing a semi-realism career game. I like that one because it's just supplies, waste, fertiliser, and energy you have to deal with for a complete offworld kerbal ecosystem. There's no point breaking it down into food/water/ox unless yo
  10. I hope there's something simple and effective like USI life support, with all its options for supply requirements and punishment scaling as difficulty settings. It wouldn't be the same without it and the sequel is the perfect time to bake it in to the resource system.
  11. The issue with aerobraking for anything beyond necessity is while you do have ways of knowing what orbit you'll end up in, there's a proportional tradeoff between ease of calculation and accuracy of prediction. The more you want your aerobrake to result in a deltaV vector of specific magnitude for the desired resultant orbit, the more napkin space you need to scribble on and the more babysitting you have to do with your craft's lift/drag vector during a process which may take much longer than a simple rocket burn. The trajectories mod does most of this but is limited by its assumptions and tim
  12. I'll spill the open secret: we only do aerobraking for cool points. We all do braking burns when nobody's looking because calculating aerobrakes so you don't skip out, sink low or blow up is tiresome. Mass ratio to heatshield area and atmospheric density at high altitudes and fbdbhfgh just bring another fuel tank.
  13. I'd also like to remind anyone who's not sure why the epstein drive from the expanse would be interesting to put into KSP, that the general consensus on the real drive's performance (based on what canon observations could be obtained, some assumptions and some confusing maths) would've required a fusion engine so powerful it would've vaporised any ship that tried to use it as depicted. Oh my. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#epstein
  14. Oh damn, it looks like those chamber modules are stackable too, you could conceivably make one of these as long as your part count will allow.
  15. If they don't include this hidden history holy grail of rocketry unlocked from the first tech node I'm going to be very disappointed.
×
×
  • Create New...