KSP Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maxsimal

  1. 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 with multiple developers. KSP is unique in a lot of respects, and one of the ways is that it has a long history of iterative development within the title itself. The player learning how engine gimbal works is the reason those exist, and the difference between some gimbal & no gimbal at all is pretty significant.
  2. 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.
  3. Now I don't feel so bad I can't go out to the cinemas, something to look forward to! Can't wait!
  4. Yeah all the decouplers have a new variant that's white and yellow to match those fairings, well spotted.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Yes, the kickback has been updated, and looks really good, in keeping with the other SRB updates.
  8. @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 that push it in that direction! We have some great content that we've partnered up with the ESA to deliver, and there's also quite a few parts that are usable in a general purpose fashion, and there's still some great looking stuff coming up. (Comets!) Finally, while yes, the Bepi parts are a little specific to that mission - I'm sure some creative uses will be found. Here's one our team likes, courtesy of @Just Jim
  9. 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.
  10. 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 use was pretty obvious, so we chosen the Kickbacks for those - though yes, they're slimmer than the real Ariane 5's SRBs in relation, they'd have to be 1.4m to match perfectly - but we don't want to create odd-diameter parts. And as you already noted, we had updated the mainsail to be more like a Vulcain, both as a cool visual update and with this in mind - who doesn't like dual exhaust pipes after all? That said, we agree the fairing was too round and the 2nd's stage too long, those have both been adjusted. We aren't trying to make perfect replicas of real life craft, everything going into the game is 'Kerbalized' to some degree, but I think this new version is a good balance. Hope you like it. Btw, If you DO want more perfect replicas of real life craft though - Squad is a big fan of the mods that implement them and I would strongly recommend you check the modding scene out, I don't feel like we're in competition with modders on this front, we just have different focuses. PS: You won't have to start a new game to see comets.
  11. I'm glad a lot of you enjoyed this, but I'm surprised no-one figured out that it wasn't an April Fool's day joke. It was April JOOL's day.
  12. 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.
  13. 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. 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
  15. 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.
  16. This isn't really an apples to apples comparison. What's happening here is not just that you have the Oberth effect in play, when you're comparing to a vessel that's in Kerbin's orbit but not circling Kerbin - you also have the vessel's velocity around Kerbin itself. Think about it this way - if you suddenly deleted Kerbin when you're making your prograde maneuver from LKO, assuming you're in a 0degree inclination orbit, you would not be at 9285m/s around the Sun. You'd be at 9285m/s + your Kerbin orbit velocity - so ~ 2300m/s = 11585m/s - enough by itself to do the Jool transfer. When you make that comparison, you can see that it is still more expensive to depart for Jool from Kerbin, when you're in its gravity well - you just have a lot of kinetic energy in your orbit around Kerbin that you're leveraging.
  17. One big change we’ve made this version is the addition of some advanced control code to the blades, to help you build helicopters and quad copters that work like the real thing. This blog will help you understand what the new functionality does and how you can use it. Advanced Blade Controls When you enable Pitch/Yaw/Roll control on a rotating blade now, the blades themselves will make a decision on whether the blade needs to be in cyclic or collective mode - on a per axis basis. Image 1: Blade COM alignment For this craft above, the blades are aligned with the center of mass in the forward direction - so they’ll use cyclic mode for pitch. They’re far apart horizontally, so they’ll use collective mode for roll. And because their axis of rotation is flat, they won’t attempt to provide any control input in yaw. Cyclic mode: Cyclic mode is what a normal helicopter’s main rotor does to control the pitch and roll of the helicopter. They will change their pitch - by the limits you set in the authority limiter control of the blade - as they spin around. This creates more or less lift to one side or the other of the blade’s disc of rotation. Image 2: Cyclic Mode Pitch Collective mode: Collective mode is what a normal helicopter does when it wants to change how much overall lift is created. But as you can see in the picture below, adjusting the relative lift on the two different sets of rotors will cause the craft to roll. Image 3: Collective Mode Roll Summary and Videos: So that’s what our blades now do in a nutshell. However, understanding these topics can be pretty complicated. I really recommend checking out some of these excellent Youtube videos for further study. Smarter Everyday’s series on Helicopters - Dustin’s videos are fantastic, and these are no different: Craft Building Tips: Here are a few tips to help you build your helicopters/quad-copters/etc. Make sure to set your authority limiter pretty low. One of the potential trouble spots you can have is if the blade pitches too much trying to generate control - if it goes OVER the stall limit and starts generating less lift, you’ll get the opposite of what you wanted. 2 or 3 degrees will often be enough. Helicopters can be finicky to control. Even if you’ve got everything right, any change in a helicopters forward or vertical motion affects the lift on the blades, which generate input coupling. If flying a plane is like driving a car, then flying a helicopter is like riding a unicycle - don’t be surprised if you have to constantly adjust inputs. Chinook-style craft will generate interesting and unpredictable effects due to axis coupling effects. If you want to build a really stable Chinook style craft, consider looking into how those are actually built - they adjust their whole rotor assembly plane of rotation, rather than just using cyclic/collective. The blade controls will work well for using a tail rotor, blades rotating in any axis will respond appropriately. That said - it’s still easier to manage a helicopter with two counter rotating blades. Finally - if you decide none of this is for you and you just want a helicopter without worrying about the physics so much, feel free to just turn off the Pitch/Yaw/Roll blade controls, and use a reaction wheel to generate the torque you want - no one on the dev team will accuse you of cheating, we promise!
  18. No, I'm a cat wrangler. Community manager's job is harder. Amoeba wrangler maybe?
  19. That is clearly the first thing we'd do with such a technology...
  20. Warping isn't completely unrestricted. If your PE is too low - below the edge of the atmosphere or the highest altitude + some margin, previous warp restrictions apply, to help players avoid over-warping into a planet.
  21. Phase angle between two perfectly circular 0 inclination orbits w/Keplerian orbital motion shouldn't be a range, there's an exact value that you can get to analytically for a simple Hohmann transfer. Kerbin's is perfectly circular, and Duna's is nearly so. I believe that calculator is narrowing the problem down by assuming Duna's is as well. However, even if you did use Duna's real orbit rather than assuming it's circular, I don't think the range would be that wide - transfers to other bodies with more eccentric/inclined orbits though, you're right, it would be a wider range, and dependent on which orbit you're looking at. If you notice, neither of those places mentions which Kerbal date you should depart from/asks you for which Kerbal date to search from.