Jump to content

GKSP

Members
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

107 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    High orbit around Kerbin
  • Interests
    Majoring in Aerospace Engineering
    KSP is to thank.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,286 profile views
  1. The Poodle should only have one bell. Bringing back the one-bell with the quality and style of the new one would be nice. LV-909 needs an option for the legacy gold foil version without needing to use depracated parts. Yes, the new one looks better for streamlined near-future style, but the old 909 has its own style that I don't like seeing fade into obscurity.
  2. For the EVA Fuel Transfer mod, I added these lines to the part config in order to make it usable with the vanilla inventory system. It was copied from the vanilla fuel line. MODULE { name = ModuleCargoPart stackableQuantity = 4 packedVolume = 10 } However, I seem to be unable to pick up the transfer line. Any potential fix? I don't mind re-writing configs, but I'm not familiar with the structure of them in KSP to figure out a fix on my own. It only seems to happen after I use the vanilla construction menu. Before opening it, (using an editor placed part), I was able to pick up the line properly.
  3. I have Waterfall and I absolutely love what it does with jet engines! Hope it's like that in KSP2 I don't remember exactly which configs I'm using but it looks like this https://imgur.com/a/z9qpdqy
  4. Forgot about this mod for a while! Is it known if it works in 1.12.3 by any chance?
  5. I've had to surface attach missile rails and then attach ordinance to those, and then offset the rails a little into the bay so the wings of the AMRAAMs stick out a minimal amount. Kinda frustrating since having a mixed 2x JDAM 2x AMRAAM loadout fits better in the inner-outer positions opposite that of real life.
  6. Kind of like the screen that shows up with the money and science counter when you recover a vessel currently, you could be given three options after hitting the main "recover" button instead: 1. Recover This adds all parts to your available stock of parts (you don't need to pay for them in the future if they're in stock) 2. Store This adds the recovered vessel to some sort of storage system 3. Scrap Converts the vessel to funds like current system in KSP1
  7. Not sure that it would be the one you found, but I recently downloaded Astronomer's Visual Pack and the 8K sky textures and it looks amazing
  8. kerbal heads actually rotating in IVA. Would be cool if a multiplayer IVA was implemented with things like RPM-style screens
  9. My (somewhat unorganized) two cents on the topic. Whatever Take Two decides to implement, there should only be one stock aero model. On the dev team, and on the players, that would make everything easier to facilitating development, creation, usability, and sharing of crafts. That being said, the aero model should not be what's implemented in KSP1. I've only recently dabbled in FAR, but one of the things that stood out to me was the drag model. At a minimum, KSP2 should have a more realistic drag model that gets rid of weird exploits and doesn't force you to think about drag in a non-intuitive way. An example of what I mean about the drag model: When making replicas, there is often the need to clip parts everywhere to get a shape just right or for whatever reason. Or it could be a customized cargo bay for a spaceship, where parts that should be shielded from drag are experiencing drag. This causes things like people creating rather OP engines (BDA Saturn) when in reality, instead of extra thrust, there needs to be less drag. As a side note, I'm pretty sure this is what the node attachment drag thing was meant to fix, but obviously people surface attach things too. On the OP engines such as the Saturn from BDA, by countering excess drag (that shouldn't even be there) with thrust, the thrust makes other aspects of the craft which rely on TWR very unbalanced. I, for one, tend to believe that more realistic = more balanced. Not only that, but enhancing realism should make some things intuitive for new players (attaching parts to a backwards node and flipping them around is one example of something new people would not think of, and is only done as a workaround/cheat of the physics system). With all I've said about realism, I don't think that the FAR-level realism is necessary. Sure transonic flows and whatnot may be an interesting read, but most people will be interested in going to space. They'll probably experience it for a couple seconds when their rocket with 50 boosters first launches on a Mun speedrun challenge. Worst comes to worst, the aero model is like KSP1 and a FAR type mod will come out for KSP2.
  10. This came to mind because I was thinking about how parts like the Science Lab have three sections and a ladder, but the IVA is only in the middle one. It would be kinda cool to be able to move around corridors and the like or have more control of the spacecraft from IVA. This would probably be complicated but I wonder what others think about how the IVA experience could be improved for KSP2.
  11. I'm excited for the automation and regular flight routes. My main wish is that they use the ships you brought there, and you can interact with them and the like, instead of being simulated by say just transferring fuel from a surface base to a station instantly.
  12. For one thing, I'm not a fan of the "everything magically gets better when you add another satellite" idea. It could encourage players to just plop a bunch of sattelites into an orbit without any thought into it. With the KSP1 CommNet, you need to pay attention to the type of relay you have as well as the position, so you can do things like prevent deadzones or put them in spots you know you won't be going e.g. the opposite side of Duna from where you're landing. It's also why I've started experimenting with setting up surface-based relays as well. (I usually play with vac occlusion 1.0 and atmo about .95 or so). While I'm not sure I'd like implementing directional antennas without an attitude-keeping mechanic, I do enjoy the (variable in settings) LoS occlusion that we currently have which still adds a challenge for setting up relays. This idea seems a little too magic-y to me. Just having a satellite enter high Duna orbit shouldn't be able to give my surface base enough signal range if it's occluded by the planet.
  13. Anyone remember the very old "in stock: 999" in the part window? How about recovering costs a little money, but adds recovered parts to their respective stock. If any are in stock, you don't need to pay. Allows for a part "pre-order" function as well.
  14. Getting ToolbarControl working was indeed a proper fix. Now that I have FAR working, I'm happy to see my f-15 replica is behaving somewhat like in dcs, so I'm hopeful venturing into FAR. (gotta love high alphas)
×
×
  • Create New...