Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. In space, nobody knows where the ceiling is.
  2. Well yes, because inertia is a thing. Energy will need to be expended to make mass A start moving over distance B and stopping again, and vice versa.
  3. Found the log for that session: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y70nyvl9aca2i02/Player-prev.log?dl=0 I added the link to the OP.
  4. Two ways through the Alt-F12 debug menu: In the Cheat tab, there's a button at the bottom called 'experience'. Press the button to immediate max out the experience of all the kerbals already on your roster. In the Kerbal tab, you can create new kerbals with your choice of parameters, including their experience level set to lvl 5 if you so wish.
  5. The ground anchor isn't like any of the other parts: it doesn't come available to grab and place when you enter construction mode - the placing happens through a special tiny icon in the corner of its inventory thumbnail. Iow. you can't 'build' with it the normal way. So yes, in any construct, it has to be the first part placed, or you won't be able to attach it to anything.
  6. KAL might be the stock workaround for (some of) that too: eg. you can deterministically open or close -instead of only ambiguously 'toggle'- service bay doors by assigning the door deployment to a KAL controller.
  7. Well, the only way out was by killing the game completely with Alt-F4, so unfortunately I have no savegame to offer for others to test. I had to start a new one when the game reloaded, and so far this one seems to be saving correctly (of course, now that I *want* it to happen). I will report back in this thread with hopefully something that can be replicated/analysed.
  8. Uhm, no Bill... that is not what I meant.
  9. Was your previous test also on the launch pad, or the runway? I tested out in open terrain. That may be significant - it may mean the construction system views the KSC buildings (which probably includes some of the flat ground 'slabs' around the building) as obstructions. I did notice it sees kerbals as obstructions, or other vehicles. Not empty ground though.
  10. NRE's preventing either (quick)saving or leaving an on-going game... so KSP has effectively become a rogue-lite now. Yay. KSP on Windows 10. https://www.dropbox.com/s/y70nyvl9aca2i02/Player-prev.log?dl=0
  11. Can the construction mode gizmo buttons be moved slightly to the right, so the 'warp to sunrise' button doesn't constantly eclipse 'Tool: Place' whenever we get our cursor anywhere near it? It's like those boxes with a switch that you can never keep flipped because a finger keeps coming out to immediately flip it back...
  12. You can't clip into the ground when you first place the part, but the offset/rotate gizmos have no such restrictions... parts can be offset/rotated into the ground. This is not an issue. We'll be able to clip as required to get constructs without unfashionable gaps with the ground. However: This is unfortunatelynot entirely true. They've chosen to make the 'absolute' mode of offset/rotation in construction mode relative to the ground anchor... including whatever random angle of inclination it gains from being placed on a non-perfectly flat surface (which other than the immediate vicinity of the KSC or the Minmus Flats, is pretty much everywhere). Additionally, the anchor itself cannot be offset or rotated in any way once placed to adjust or correct this. This is a very unfortunate choice, because it makes it exceedingly difficult to make whatever base part one places on the anchor to be perfectly level with ASL - we have to basically 'wing' it visually on the non-snap mode, and without any help from either surroundings or the gizmo indicator (which will have the same inclination as the anchor in 'absolute' mode, or whatever random inclination the base part had right before picking it up in 'local' mode). Since that 'absolute' mode also inherits the 'heading' of the anchor, and the anchor itself cannot be rotated once placed, we also can't align the construction coordinate system with either the real absolute headings (NSWE) or by extension, any other placed anchors. I get why making the anchor align itself with the surface makes sense from the animation point of view, but if the anchor is going to also be the origin of the 'absolute' construction coordinate system including inclination and heading, it's going to be hell for precise/level construction and to properly line up/connect separate base parts. Is there any way to make/change the 'absolute' construction coordinate system on the surface to actually be absolute, ie. leveled and snapped to the navball headings, like in the VAB/SPH? The ground anchor can only be used on a CB surface, so there would never be a circumstance in which the system does not have this information readily available.
  13. It does, and it is a very valid argument - one does need to be keenly aware of the axis effects and use controls accordingly (assuming a control reference pointing vertical up, pitch stays the same, but roll and yaw switch places control-wise, and yaw control is additionally reversed). Even once accustomed to this and in full awareness of it, there can be side-effects that go beyond the pilot's control, eg. KSP's SAS/control code can often, but alas not consistently, get confused about what to do with any control surfaces whose longitudinal vector pass near the CoM, as is often the case with those that normally affect roll. Any significant airflow over those surfaces will then have unpredictable effect, feeling much like the controls fighting you. This flight/control scheme is, admittedly, still only a best compromise of sorts, from the options KSP gives us. There's a number of alternatives, but they all have their own disadvantages due to a few quirks and/or missing things in the controls, capabilities, SAS, and keybinding that KSP offers. @Hotel26 and I have been having many musings on this over time, me from a purely gameplay point of view, and his from someone with actual RL pilot experience. I think we're both very keen on hearing how others a) experience this particular control scheme, and b) what other alternatives are being used to good effect in KSP. I will admit, even accustomed to the scheme as exposed here, I still at times do as you say. I haven't yet figured out what the specific circumstances are in which I pick one over the other. Also, I play KSP exclusively with mouse and keyboard, which means that control inputs are only as subtle as I can 'short-tap' the keys... which is never going to be as good or accurate as joystick controls. Note though that what you propose is also still readily available in this control scheme. The extra binding of the horizontal control reference to the [F] key is a quick way to revert to your preferred (and 'stock') hover setting with the navball focused on the horizon. Part of the compromise.
  14. When you place the last part and complete your Dyson sphere.
  15. The Readme gives you the answers: Notice the last line. Cue argument about whether the older 'Mk3' parts should really be considered or described as the same parts as the ones that replaced them.
  16. .. some of the pages haven't been updated in a while, and still refer to now-superseded things.
  17. You're asking this question in the general forum instead of the dedicated console one, so you may not be getting the attention of the people that might have a more useful answer. I'll try, but I'm a PC player. Expanding and 'splitting' a symmetric part group in the staging list, on PC: Go to the decoupler icon with the '4', and left-click the icon. The icon immediately expands into 4 individual icons numbered 1-4. All four icons have a green highlight now. Now, left-click just one of those individual icons (same action/button again). The green highlight of just that one part disappears. What that means is, whatever you do next with the still-highlighted parts, the one without highlight will not be a part of. Make a new empty stage by clicking one of the '+' signs. So now left-click and hold one of the still-highlighted parts and pull them into the empty stage. Voila, you just left the not-highlighted part of the symmetry group behind all by itself in a stage... effectively 'splitting' it so you can stage it separately. This is how it works with a PC and a mouse. I don't know how some of those actions are done on a console, with a controller.
  18. I know it's not Kerbal Submarine Program. But it could be. That's all I'm saying. It could be...
  19. And this rather not unimportant information is documented... where? Just how on Kerbin is anyone supposed to figure this out on their own? Thankfully there's always some people around that somehow (by trial and error? random experimenting?) find out such things and are willing to share.
  20. I've seen the aircraft this is based on a few times in the past and always wondered about its dynamics. Downloaded your version; you got a good rendition of it, very nice. Saw much the same performance as what you and @Hotel26 exchanged. Couldn't land it vertically though. So I tried my hand at it too, to get a feel for the aerodynamics of this type of craft and to see if I could get a landable version. Some of the drag/lift effects were as I expected, but it clearly needs a different approach than regular craft. Stock parts only allow so much, but I got pretty flyable results in the end. Supercruise at mach 1.9, wet mode mach 2.9. And I got it landed! Negatives: it's not as maneuverable as I'd hoped, and roll stability is not so good. I wonder how the RL original fared on those points. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-Coleopter-1 More pics: https://imgur.com/a/PmpP6K0
  21. I sat down with a specific nr of things I wanted to do in KSP today, opened the forum, saw a help request... and ended up sending a Crater Crawler to Duna. Sort of.
  22. With a big fairing, obviously. The 3.75m AE-FF3 should do the trick. Stick it with the back docking port on the fairing base, nose up. Docking port can double as decoupler. Maybe a struts or two to shore it up. It's a 13t payload, with fairing around 17t or so. Round it up to 20 for the added core, antenna, descent engine and fuel, chutes, etc. Should be no trouble sending it up and on its way with a fairly simple low-part 3.75m rocket. Quick slap together action, forgot to add a kerbal, few details I'd done different if it had been a career - including try harder to land it upright... but I think it makes the point.
  23. The SWiS kerbals somehow got their hands on an unused prototype blueprint for a small V/STOL jet, gave it their usual rework, and sent Valentina out to test its newly-gained long range capabilities. Valentina was already partway on her 2nd circumnavigation, when she spotted a much more fun way to spend the remaining fuel... Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Hot-Dog-2 ('2', because a rework of @Hotel26's unpublished Hot Dog)
  • Create New...