Jump to content

AVaughan

Members
  • Posts

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

389 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So the science update seems to finally get KSP 2 to a state where I'm considering buying it. Before I do, I just want to double check what sort of copy protection KSP 2 has, and whether there is any difference between Steam and Epic Game Store version. I haven't been paying much attention to KSP 2 after the disappointing state of the game at early access launch. One of the things I like about KSP is the fact that it will run without internet access, and without needing Steam to be started first. It will also run if I copy the KSP install outside of the the steam directory, and run it from there. This has advantages for modded playthroughs (no risk of KSP updates breaking mods in the middle of a playthrough), and also means the game is playable even when I'm without internet access. (Note that when they added the launcher to KSP about 12 months ago the launcher itself wouldn't run properly without internet access, but it was still easy enough to just start KSP.exe directly, so I don't consider that a problem). So does KSP 2 work if you copy it outside the Steam/EGS install directory? Does it work without needing Steam or EGS to be started first? Does it work without internet access? (Bypassing a launcher by launching the game directly is fine, and what I would normally do when starting KSP anyway). How are mods installed in KSP 2? Is there something equivalent to CKAN, or are they hosted on Steam workshop or some other service? Also are there any differences between the Steam and Epic versions that affect any of the above, or that might affect which store I might wish to purchase from?
  2. Are you sure that they can afford thinner steel? Wouldn't the fuel tanks still be pressurised to the same pressure? Wouldn't the aerodynamic loads on launch likely be similar? (Admittedly aero loads might be lower with no flaps, but hoop stress for the tanks would be the same, if the internal pressure is the same). Don't you still need at least one centre SL engine with it's gimbal for control during burns if one of the 3 vacuum engines fails? (With 6 vacuum engines, you could shutdown the opposite engine instead, but all the same I'm not sure SpaceX and NASA would choose to make design changes from a standard starship in a way that might reduce redundancy in the event of an engine failure on the Lunar lander). Do you really want to make the lunar lander taller? Isn't the CoM already going to be uncomfortably high? (Yes that can be managed, but why would they choose to make the lander even taller)? I haven't done the maths, but wouldn't refuelling the lander in Lunar orbit (at/near gateway), then letting the fuel tanker aerobrake into Earth orbit, (or more likely re-enter directly from the Moon) be more fuel efficient than using fuel for the lunar lander to capture to LEO, especially given that under your proposal you need to land that fuel on the Moon, then launch it back into Lunar orbit? Can't one stretched tanker make an LEO to Lunar Gateway trip with enough fuel in lunar orbit to refuel the lunar orbiter, and still have enough fuel to return to earth. Possibly even with enough margin for a small cargo hold and some supplies/cargo. And doesn't refuelling at Gateway allow the option of significantly heavier payloads to the Lunar surface? If you are going to do an in space cargo transfer or in space resupply/refurbishment, then I'm not sure that LEO is enough better than gateway to justify the disadvantages? Other than shorter round trip comms for any remote controlled operations controlled from Earth, what advantages does it have? Doesn't anything that needs to replaced still need to wait for a launch from Earth? (Ok yes, sending something to lunar orbit needs more than just a launch from Earth, but if you are already supporting Lunar Gateway with regular supply runs via starship, isn't it just some extra cargo next launch to Gateway)? I'm sure SpaceX is aware. (In fact today was a pretty good reminder). Why do you think their Lunar lander proposal seems to have small landing engines mounted high up.
  3. Noting the location of a celestial body against the stars gives you more than orientation. Each such observation gives you a vector from that body to your position at that time. Two or more simultaneous observations of different celestial bodies in different areas of the sky should give you a point where the vectors intersect (or their closest approach to each other, since no measurement is error free).
  4. If an engine has failed for an unknown reason, all the other engines on the same aircraft might also be susceptible to the same issue. (What if the cause is fuel contamination, or something else that is common to all the engines on the same plane).
  5. Assuming you have a decent clock and decent optics, then measuring the position of the Earth/Moon/Venus/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn against the stars should be enough to triangulate your position. (You can also cross-check and calibrate your IGU's orientation against the stars the same way).
  6. Just watching the livestream now. One quick takeaway. https://youtu.be/L5QXreqOrTA?t=953 So looks like it is still possible that some early starships might still get landing legs, rather than SpaceX attempting to catch them. (Worth mentioning that 30 seconds earlier he was talking about landing on the Moon/Mars, and so maybe he was referring to Lunar/Martian versions).
  7. I think you miss understood what I was saying. A piece of my post you didn't quote. I am suggesting that proc tanks enable you to replace multiple smaller tanks with a small number of larger tanks. That can be done without changing the amount of fuel, or the TWR (assuming that tank mass scales with tank volume, which is true for KSP 1 tanks, and not considering the impact of possibly adding an engine plate).
  8. Assuming that semi-proc parts let you build longer/bigger tanks than are available in stock, then part counts for many large rockets would shrink. (If the tanks were twice as long, then you only need half as many tanks for the same amount of fuel. If they are twice the diameter and twice as long, then potentially you could cut tanks by up to a factor of 8). Optionally you could also add optional switchable nose cones and engine plates as part of the tanks, further reducing both part count and unity joints. If the optional nose cones were the same as the existing nose-cones, then you can actually retain most of the lego style rocket building. Yes there will be cases where the part count remains the same. Some of that will be because players are building curved structures from the existing parts, and a simple semi-proc tank implementation probably isn't going to help with curved structures. There are potentially also players who will build as big a rocket as they can, perhaps limited by the performance they are willing to tolerate.
  9. If you like a challenge or a more realistic KSP then I can highly recommend playing RSS+RO+RP-1. It is virtually a complete game overhaul, and as such it is incompatible with many mods made for stock, but it adds so much more to my KSP experience.
  10. I'm not sure how the install works on linux, but no possibility you are running out of disk space somewhere? Possibly in some tmp directory where it tries to unpack everything?
  11. I prefer the first one. (With the disclaimer that I am just from viewing the full scale images. I'm not sure whether/how much the rescale to 50x50 would affect that). But ultimately it is your project Arrowstar, so pick whichever one you think is better.
  12. Atm there is some discussion on the Kopernicus thread about recent Kopernicus versions breaking BG surface features.
  13. I'm not associated with restock development, but the tutorials tend to break with mods, so don't use mods until after you have done the tutorials.
  14. Is Kerbin still the same distance form the Sun? I wonder if that is calculated automatically to keep a Kerbin year at the same number of days? (Is it 400 days for a stock Kerbin year? I'm not sure. I almost never play stock).
×
×
  • Create New...