Jump to content


KSP Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maxsimal

  1. It helps that Kerbals have psychic powers that let them teleport a jetpackfrom an inventory on a craft to thier back, from a few meters away, so you don't have to try to dock a Kerbal with a ladder anymore.
  2. It automatically applies to all parts that can contain crew, with the option for modders to not have it apply.
  3. Kerbal weight is accounted for in dV now. There's some retuning this generally won't negatively impact craft
  4. You can node-attach parts, similar to the editor. Yes, you can use compound parts, and yes only between parts on the same vessel
  5. To answer a few questions in this thread: 1. It adjusts the existing system - Engineers don't need to be level 3, you just need the part repair kit 2. This applies to other parts that are breakable, like solar panels and antennas. 3. It uses the inventory system that was released with BG, and there will be storage options available in stock.
  6. You mean you don't want another hundred more light parts and that's it? *Goes back to the drawing board*
  7. They have large, efficient internal batteries, so that they can run for *very* long stretches without solar exposure: That's why they clock in a little heavier than your average work lamp.
  8. That's right, you won't need those parts from BG to use these.
  9. Yes they're deployable like the BG parts. The inventory system released with BG has always been part of the stock game code (in case modders wanted to use it), it was just not turned on in the UI because there weren't any stock parts that'd go in an inventory before.
  10. Wasn't around when rationale was given - but dV was put in in a way that helps highlight how it works with the stage stack, and TWR is only shown when you click on the stage stack to get more info, something people do as they get comfortable with the UI. Maybe at the time the developers were reacting to the way mods like KER and Mechjeb present the info which can be a bit of information glut for the unprepared. Games like this have a life cycle where you learn what's needed, and where to put those needed items for better and better UX. For most game genres, this occurs over multiple games
  11. Keep in mind too that Kerbal is still a game for players with a variety of different skill levels. Having similar sized engines that fill the same niche but with slightly different stats sounds great to a veteran. For a newer player, it can be confusing, and the poodle is fairly early in the tech tree. Plus, once that design decision was made, we'd then have to carry it through, making dozens more engines, and figure out how to add them without having some engines that overshadow others.
  12. Now I don't feel so bad I can't go out to the cinemas, something to look forward to! Can't wait!
  13. Yeah all the decouplers have a new variant that's white and yellow to match those fairings, well spotted.
  14. There's a competing standard here then, I suppose. Not sure there's more to comment on that than I have already - we made the Ariane 5 the most reasonable possible given the competing concerns - but we're not asking modders to follow our lead on this. Mods I play use the actual real world part sizes for historical recreations, for instance and if you want to keep using .625:1, go for it, and I think you'll be able to rescale the parts pretty easily.
  15. As many people have speculated, they're physicsless parts that can be surface attached to a variety of things, with conformal shapes the player can select. So they have minimal impact on game performance. So if you're asking are they technically decals, as far as graphics engine technology goes, then no, they're not decals or projected textures. They serve the same purpose though, and you can even attach them to fairings.
  16. Yes, the kickback has been updated, and looks really good, in keeping with the other SRB updates.
  17. @Streetwindis right on here. If the Ariane 5 in game was a 3.75 core, it would end up throwing 60 tons into LKO, no sweat. The 2.5m one puts up a little over 20 tons - which coincidentally is how much the real Ariane 5 ES lofts to LEO. More over, the Bepi and Rosetta spacecraft I feel would have been out of scale to other probes at 3.75. 4 ion engines on that size of probe would take a heck of a long time to slow it down, for instance. So there are other concerns besides just getting the perfect part size ratio. KSP isn't a historical recreation game, but we're very happy to see mods t
  18. Actually, since this update is for everyone, we didn't want to use 1.875m parts from Making History, and we didn't want to add a one-off diameter parts to stock or move parts out of Making History into the stock game. Also - those would look too wide in comparison to the core. Scaling down 5.4m to 2.5m is a 1 to 0.463. Scaling down the 3.06m boosters by the same amount yields a diameter of 1.41m. Using the 1.25m kickbacks is closer than using 1.875m solids.
  19. Hey all. We've made some updates to the Ariane 5 since that screenshot was taken. I wanted to share them, and also explain how certain choices were made. First - we choose the 2.5m size because we didn't want to make the Bepi/Rosetta spacecraft too small relative to this craft and had in mind what sizes we wanted for those. Also, 2:1 on the diameter for the real craft vs the KSP version lines up well with some of our other Kerbalized craft. For instance, the Acapello, our Saturn V-like craft, is a 5m diameter core while the real one is a 10.1m core. With that chosen, the SRBs we'd
  • Create New...