swjr-swis

Members
  • Content Count

    2,189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,571 Excellent

8 Followers

About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

9,488 profile views
  1. In conjunction with 'control from here'? One of the valid and frequent use cases of docking ports: as additional latching points for cargo in a cargo bay/fairing. You want the code to automatically find and very quickly enable and dock such pairs as soon as the craft loads on the launchpad or runway, to secure the cargo before it has the time to misalign as gravity and possible other forces are eased in. A very similar situation would be space stations that use multiple docking port pairs to latch station sections together (a stock way of aligning sections), although the savefile preserving docking status may already prevent the issue there. As for control from here: this is not always used when docking. I make, fly and dock craft that have the intended docking port in the 'wrong' place or orientation for it to be the controlling part during a docking maneuver. I want to continue to be able to do this.
  2. All I wanna know is... does it have glowy lines on the surface?
  3. It's okay to say it: I was simply wrong. I corrected my post on the matter.
  4. Unless that's an extremely tweakscale-enlarged craft, that's way too tiny to be Jeb Atol. Please ignore my initial reaction; you did in fact find the place, as far as I can judge (Klapaucius would render the final verdict). For some reason I can't explain now, and even after looking at it for a bit, that screenshot looked like it was taken just a few meters off the surface, like the plane was hovering right over it. It is quite obviously not, and the imgur album clearly shows I was wrong (not sure why I didn't immediately look at it).
  5. Are you asking where the file is? <KSP main folder>\GameData\Squad\Localization\dictionary.cfg
  6. The irony. The best example that popped into your head, and it's a game that has been and still is in early access since 2016. According to the developers themselves: In development for over 8 years, 4 years for sale on Steam for what they consider to be (from that same message) its final price, and having sold 1.8+ million copies. Let that sink in a moment. 45 million bucks of revenue while doing 'a few finishing touches'. I challenge you to name me any kind of job in any other industry grossing that kind of money just for polishing up the product... while still not delivering the finished end product. Most people get hassled for not finishing their hour reports by the end of the frigging week, for a lousy weekly or monthly salary. So spare me the sob stories about poor 'indie' game developers. Heck, I'll 'stand by my product' for 20 years under those terms. Where do I sign? All that said, you will not hear me say that no good games have ever come out that used an early access type of program. I did not say that in my earlier reply here either. I am just very strongly opposing the statement that early access is in any way a necessity or requirement to get a good, reasonably polished product delivered any sooner. If anything, even in the best cases, you either end up with an unfinished or unpolished (if not outright abandoned) product, or it takes years to ever leave early access. The biggest counter-argument to the 'simple argument' for early access, is early access itself.
  7. How did that work out for KSP1? How 'bugless' is it today, after how many years of the 'mass of the community' looking for them in the 'final stages'? Whether it's a formal early access period with the actual (hash)tag on the product, or an 'early-access-pretending-to-be-release' that tries to hide the fact, it's effectively the same thing. They will still ask for a full-product price, and "there will be bugs". Early access as a concept has proven to be little more than a way of getting paid before delivering a reasonably finished product. At the same time, it seems to have the effect of removing developers' worry about stuff being broken or unfinished or unpolished in their product, or their urgency at fixing it.
  8. No thank you. RO/RSS/RP-1 offer some interesting diversity to the KSP game, the effort that goes into them is appreciated, and I've enjoyed playing a few saves with those mods; but they are exactly where they should be: as mods. KSP in its core is not about 'realism', it's a game with its own set of rules that favour entertainment. It dabbles just enough in 'reality' to acquaint players with the physics, math and risks/consequences of aeronautics and space travel, but it always errs on the side of playability, and it should stay that way. Plenty of stuff keeping to that philosophy that could benefit from DLC funding if we really can't get it any other way. Realism features way way down that list, if at all.
  9. For me personally, time is often the main decision factor. I don't have an endless supply of playtime anymore, so I find myself getting as much as I can out of every single launch I do. There's always need of fuel and resources in orbit. So I launch megasized depots into LKO as soon as funds and tech progress permit. Resources and their tanks are cheap, it tends to be more efficient to launch bigger tanks, and bigger tanks mean less total parts and thus better performance/stability. As far as I'm concerned, the question is not why go big, but why go small? Playing your cards right, you can even make contracts pay for it. Yes, they're asking for a relay, or a science station. Nothing says I can't add a heap of fuel as well and use it for my own purposes later. So it's a huge frigging tank... it has a thermometer and an antenna on it, it can science. <shrug> I do at times enjoy manually assembling station parts that have been brought up separately, but mostly it's a trick I've already mastered and feel no need to repeat. I prefer to just send them up pre-assembled if at all technically feasible - which sometimes is a fun challenge in itself that I like tackling. Those are the practical considerations. The flip side is that I cannot help myself, and I end up over-building. It's a game, we can do pretty much what we want. There's enough limitations to real life already. Live a little - build big.
  10. Just in case I was unclear, and because I realize I can come off grumpy about this subject: I like a lot of what has been done and added to the game since 1.3.1. I do test every single release, and do spend (albeit very limited) playtime in the latest version, just to stay up to date on where we stand. I want to make the move and make some of the awesome new stuff part of my general KSP experience. This game is an amazing concept with this huge potential to be simply awesome on every level, still capable of making me waste so much time playing it, even in pure stock, dealing with odd design decisions and bugs, foregoing new features and sticking to an old version. I guess the level of issues/annoyances just don't fit with the rest of what I get from this game. It's like getting home and unpacking a bag of amazingly smelling warm food, stomach growling, digging in and ... finding out they forgot the sauce you asked for and added the wrong side-dish instead of the one you like. Yes, I can eat, I can still enjoy what is there and I won't be hungry when I'm done. But it still missed the mark, and I'm gonna mutter and maybe even pout. This meal is not going into the books as my 'reference point'. Maybe next time.
  11. You know you've launched something *really* heavy when it warped time into an entirely new era...
  12. I have no sentimental attachment to 1.3.1. The 1.3 line really needed a stabilizing patch or two more before I would've willingly moved on from 1.2.2. The marked performance improvement was welcome, and finally being able to run entire evening-long sessions without needing to restart anymore did it for me. I'm still regularly annoyed by issues (re)introduced in 1.3.1 though, and obviously having to miss out on a number of QoL additions of later versions is no fun. I would love to have an objectively better version to get stuck on, with all the QoL toys added since then. But every single version since then has come with significant issues that just keep me from moving on. Basically every version since has been: Yes feature A and B are nice and bugfix C would be welcome, but I would have to live with new or worsened or reintroduced issues E through H... I'll wait for the stabilizing patches. Except they keep moving on to other big changes before stabilizing a release and so rinse and repeat, with a changing-yet-not-diminishing list of points. To make me move on it's going to need to have less issues than 1.3.1 has, not more. As of 1.8.1 1.9.0, I'm still waiting. Tl;dr: at this point, new features are unlikely to entice me. I can get new features anytime I want even now: it's called modding. What I *am* waiting for is a new baseline version regarding stability and lack of bugs. I'll jump on that in a blink.
  13. Probably not entirely what you had in mind, but my first thought at reading this challenge was 'I wonder if I can do all of that with a single 2.5m service bay?' I present the RoverBase 2.5: Surprisingly stable rover even on Kerbin, works well within the usual safeguards of lower gravity bodies. Easy to deliver to Mun or Minmus with a single 2.5m rocket stack. Anyone else get a distinct 'Machines' vibe from this? All the comforts of home. Well, some of the comforts of home. Oh stop complaining or we'll dig out the Soyuz again. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/RoverBase-25 More pics: https://imgur.com/a/VYf1L3U
  14. @Hotel26 for mayor (and lighthouse operator)! (position contracted in nonnegotiable terms of 4x50 years. harbor and/or lighthouse may be haunted visited by souls lost at sea under terms of former mayors. lighthouse nonrefundable. enquiries at the beach café.)