Maxsimal
-
Posts
281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Article Comments posted by Maxsimal
-
-
1 hour ago, panarchist said:
Thanks for some AMAZING work, and herding all the cats to get it there. Best of luck to you in your next adventure!
Thank you, I'm just glad I got to help move forward Kerbal for a while.
-
Just now, UomoCapra said:
Great devblog, as usual! It's been an honor having you on the team @Maxsimal. We certainly had some of our best releases with you. Good luck with you're future endeavors!
Thank you so much, it's been a pleasure working with you !
-
2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:
I think you should default the automatic IVA Kerbal mass to off, not on, otherwise it's going to break literally all parts mods with command pods without adjustments. And not all of them are continuously maintained.
The adjustment is applied automatically to all modded parts, based on their crew capacity and whether or not they're a command part, and the modder has the option to turn it off if they don't want it, so unmaintained modded parts should generally be just fine.
-
On 12/17/2020 at 7:41 PM, eberkain said:
Multiple mentions of Snacks... is this a hint of a future expansion adding a stock life support system?
That would be great by the way.
Or maybe I was hungry while I wrote this post
-
Yes, everything is reflected in the dV readout in the VAB - loading/unloading Kerbals, changing their inventory, changing the craft's inventory, etc.
-
18 hours ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:
You are blowing my mind right now.
I get what it means, and that it works (I've only been learning about proper collective and cyclic since, well 1.8.1 really).
But you'd think that all those 'this is how helicopters work'-video's, which specifically mention 'no, no plane change, it actually works using this really intricate mechanical device', could be bothered to mention "cept chinooks, those are WACK!" I think this isn't even properly stated on the Wikipedia page about chinooks.
Which reminds me of this little tip: if you have a high level probe part, facing that probe upward, 'target Anti-radial', in surface mode, the craft will (try to) keep its pitch and roll zero. Very useful if you want to hover.
It's the only way I can manage to land a helicopter on any pad smaller than the lvl3 runway.Glad you found some of this helpful, and that's a great tip!
Helicopters are complicated, and I'm impressed with how much of the community has figured out how to work with them. In many ways I'd say they're more complicated, at least physics-wise- than rockets - more force interactions and coupling.
-
16 hours ago, dok_377 said:
Yeah, I used trim and it flies surprisingly well even without SAS, you guys did a really great job in that regard. Trims are just not so convenient to use (because they need constant adjustments), and they are really slow to set up.
I understand it changes with changing airspeed - one reason I think most players will prefer to use SAS - but not sure about why you think it takes a while to set up? You don't have to use trim tabs or something like that, just use the keyboard-based trim adjustment.
-
14 hours ago, dok_377 said:
It looks like you guys missed a pretty essential part of helicopters that should be compensated for automatically: the dissymmetry of lift.
I think you're thinking that we should have linked some not-necessarily symmetrical blades to have them somehow manage themselves, across different parts to balance your lift, through feed-forward control system?
That's just not something that works well with the lego-style functionality of kerbal parts - any unaccounted for configuration is going to cause more problems, and require further dev effort, and possibly interfere in something else the player is trying to do. We avoid that when possible.
Instead, and much more simply, players can either trim their roll with mod-Q/E, or use SAS to balance the forces through a feedback control mechanism. Another advantage is neither of those required new work
-
2 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:
Is the precession accounted for?
We actually did investigate having precession something the control system would account for, and messed with some stuff to deal with it- until we realized that PhysX does not actually simulate precession at all.
So no, the blades don't deal with it because it's not a thing in our physics engine.
-
On 7/18/2019 at 12:27 PM, 5thHorseman said:
No you just need to bring other rotors to spin up and act as fans.
Hahah sorry all, fixed the issue. You knew what I meant
-
36 minutes ago, Foxster said:
Let's be a tad more honest here...
The MH engines were made OP to sell the expansion. Now no one is buying KSP for the expansion, they have been made more realistic.
If that was actually the case, wouldn't we have made all of them better than base-game engines?
-
30 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:
Wouldn't mind seeing this corrected as you mention... but only after we get landing legs that work like they're not composed entirely out of nitroglycerine, and a few sets of legs large enough to use safely with the larger engines and cross-sections.
Yeah - crash tolerances are crazy vs real world equivalents - which, let's face it, you couldn't ever set down on an engine bell and expect to use that engine for anything in the future - just check out the damage pictures of the Falcon 9's recent 'soft' water landing. So in this case it's more of 'staying true to base game tuning' rather than reality. And I don't see that changing even with bigger lander legs. There are some great mods out there though if you like realism though... (and even they allow for higher-than-real crash tolerances)
3 minutes ago, Jestersage said:What is weird with the new Wolfhound is that it actually have worse actual efficency when compared to Poodle according to KER. With a direct swap on various Apollo-type clone, there is an actual loss of delta 20m/s to even 200m/s. However, it's TWR (when compared to Poodle) is better, but for a vacuum engine it's not much of an issue...
Have not test out the cub yet, will check later.
MH Acapello, while looking like a Saturn V, doesn't really have a lot of the same mass ratios. I mean, first it's basically an SSTO given Kerbin's low LKO orbit requirements. So the 2nd stage becomes the trans-munar injection and Munar orbit stage... etc. While it is a concern, it is definitely the case that the Poodle should be used if you don't have a lot of fuel mass to push with your dry mass, and the Wolfhound should be used if you want a more efficient stage with a longer burn time. See! Tradeoffs! That's a good thing.
-
56 minutes ago, Fraston said:
Oh my god the devblogs haven’t died!
”small changes” *almost doubles the entry and general cost of the wolfhound and gives it only a little more than 2/3rds TWR*
Hey, I’m not complaining, I really disliked how OP the wolfhound was.
Mostly small changes. Mastodon costs went down by a factor of 3x as well. But yeah - Woflhound, Mastodon & Kodiak were the reason these changes were a priority. Glad you're happy to see the blogs back.
14 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:The last column of 'New Kodiak' seems to contradict itself: it is coloured green as if it's an improvement compared to 'Current Kodiak', but its entry cost is more expensive.
Had some issues with formatting copying this over, there were a couple of other highlight errors - should be all fixed now, thanks! Thanks you and & @Snark for spotting them
So no, the blades don't deal with it because it's not a thing in our physics engine.
1.12 Wheel Devblog, and Special Note
in Developer Articles
Posted
Thank you! I'm very proud of the updates we did, but it was a team effort, both from the people who worked on these versions, and from the people who built Kerbal up into the awesome game we could add on top of.