Jump to content

qzgy

Members
  • Posts

    2,692
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by qzgy

  1. I use windows mostly cause its the thing I know best. Doesn't mean I particularly like it. Has good compatibility for what I need though.

    Have tried using Linux before. Though its fine and nice I guess, I wouldn't use it probably for personal home use... Also hassle to convert my current systems over, as nice as itd be probably.

  2. 8 hours ago, richfiles said:

    I just got an Anycubic Photon Mono SE. It looks like a pretty cool 3D printer. Now if only I could make heads or tails of ANY piece of 3D modeling software! I'm giving Blender a shot, since it's open source, but honestly, it feels like overkill. There are so many features that are just not needed for a static 3D model, and it's hard to see through the clutter to the basic tools I need. I've yet to figure out how to even manipulate the starter cube, much less generate new shapes! Good Lord, I am so lost! :confused:

    I don't know if there's a more suited tool for creating 3D models on Mac, but I'm bound to eventually learn... I hope! :/

    uhh for solid modeling dont use blender. Its not really meant for solid modelling, its more for I think for mesh based stuff.  Fusion 360 is free (ish, there's like paid tiers for additional features, but the core modelling should still be there), and might work on mac? Its what I'd personally use to make just quick home project 3d models for printing.

    General usage of fusion is make a sketch extrude, make new sketches.

    There's also a funky program called OpenSCAD which is script based and open source, but I would not use that personally.

    Edit: Gonna leave a link since the autodesk site is terrible to navigate - https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/personal

  3. 7 hours ago, snkiz said:

    As of now there is no game mechanic that requires you to do resupply missions. This gives you a reason, and opens the door to more possibilities

    I dont disagree with either of those statements, but for myself personally I play almost exclusively sandbox (never really fell in love with career). So for my purposes I dont really care to do resupply missions and its more of an annoyance if I have to remember to bring some random consumable for my rover as a "backup" instead of bringing along just an extra kerbal.

    Sure leave the mechanic in, but I'd personally try to turn it off asap.

    13 hours ago, Boyster said:

    Extensive repairs should cost you something, which game mechanic you would use?

    I am guessing/hoping we will be able to repair more stuff in the future, how would you balance that?

    These feel a bit like loaded questions but whatever. I dont disagree extensive repairs should cost something and that this mechanic of consumables is a good way of both somewhat balancing and "accounting for that". In the current game thats from the engineer level which I think is fine as it is. But again, for my playstyle ehhh I'd rather not worry or be limited by constraints like "needing a consumable to fix my stuff that broke because I was dumb 10 years into a mission"

    I think there is a point to be made about similarity to life support, you shouldn't be able to leave a kerbal in a chair for 30 years, which game mechanic would you use? I dont think you can get a valuable discussion since the mechanics dont exist as it wasn't a consideration within the base game (kerbal is only somewhat realistic).

    That was a bit rambly but anyways maybe that made some sense.

  4. 21 hours ago, Pds314 said:

    Opinion: it's a hybrid aircraft if it's propelled by forward jets/props. Real helos are full rotor-propelled.

    while in principle I dont disagree, with the KSP aero model being the way it is I dont mind being somewhat more lenient with defining helicopter as "thing that uses rotors for lift" since you know,  proper swashplates and cyclic control are hard.

  5. Huh this'll be interesting to follow.  Although done with ye olde turbo prop tech, I have managed to do 40 minutes of sustained ~70 m/s flight (which itself was a challenge). Doing the math thats about 200 km That was also using afterburning panthers for speed, (at some points) though and also using (mostly aesthetic?) stubby wings so how useful of a comparison it is is questionable..

    If you do use more efficient tech, it might not be totally insane.....

    I think water hugging or not depends on the inter-fuel drop range of your craft. Let's first see though if it is possible.

  6. 1 hour ago, computercat04 said:

    PS: I also want an efficient landing technique. I one tried landing and failed 

    Well there's efficient and effective. The most efficient is a suicide burn where you basically after deorbiting freefall and wait till the last possible second to burn at full power retrograde. Efficient, but hard to perfectly pull off. If you fail you end up smacking into the ground. Easier is to first just cancel most of your horizontal velocity then do a vertical burn. Still better to wait till almost too late for those for more efficiency. I hope that made sense.

     

    And yeah echoing DeadJohn, you can probably just land the entire base in one piece.

  7. Ok sure it looks cool I guess.

    But there's no good reason for gameplay purposes to introduce these (IMO). We have the small solar panels for small amounts of power and the super large panels for more station or base sized stuff. If you need more power ona  small scale, add a couple more panels. Adding these circular panels dont add anything gameplay wise other than this neat form factor.

×
×
  • Create New...