Suedocode

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About Suedocode

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rather than crashes, how many Krakens have ya'll run into? I haven't started a new career yet because I'm waiting for KCT to officially update, but I'm a tad worried after seeing this reddit post since the main thing I was looking forward to in 1.2 was more stable large station construction. I had "station death wobbles" all over my last game before I was forced to use KIS/KAS to weld it in space rather than use docking ports.
  2. Even with USI-LS, having fertilizer to last months isn't that hard and it's pretty easy to generate 500+ science per month with them (iirc, I only tested it once in a cheated science mode and decided it was too OP to use).
  3. This would go a long way in balancing it. Each sample should have 3 segments: Transmission for partial credit Return for full credit (really depends on what you base your scale on, but semantics) Process in lab before returning for bonus credit. (Note, should not have to return the lab itself; the sample only needs to dock with a vessel that has a lab at some point) OR boost to 100% transmission Of course, these bars are global per sample type. To me, the labs should be something you bring to the Mun for extra science or to Duna for a remote science base that can analyze the samples there and just send the data back.
  4. Update after 1.2: You mentioned that the mechanics of the synergy stuff has changed, however the wiki page still hasn't changed its descriptions. Are they still out of date? It sounded like you were going to change the percentages, but perhaps not the mechanic itself. If that is true, my questions from before are still unclear to me: Do the percentage boosts apply to both parts, or just one? If just one, then which? If applicable, how they apply to the recycling bonuses of Aeroponics? is it x4 more Kerbals affected? Cause that'd be supremely awesome since large Kerbal populations would have such huge staff overhead for support. Am I mathing correctly when I determine that these boosts determine the optimal ratios of parts? For instance, you should have 4 Nom-O-Matic 25000 to every MKS/OKS Aeroponics for optimal output.
  5. The physics is done on the processor, not the graphics card (for this game). It should be noted that 1.2 is very noticeably much faster as well; I had a 700+ part station without much issue until I slammed it into the ground. Also, it's important to specify which generation of i7 you have.
  6. The issue is not your graphics card choking (or it really shouldn't be), but rather KSP trying to simulate very large objects. If it were just rendering the object and doing nothing else, it'd be no problem. Case in point, there's a mod that allows you to construct whatever craft you want, and then weld it all into one giant physics object. It completely breaks alters all of the physics dealing with it, but you get buttery smooth performance. The physics, not graphics, are generally what chokes your machine. There are some mods that include clouds and distant object rendering that do hurt performance, but mods tend to do that. Never thought I'd see someone use NMS as a positive example, but how exactly does KSP not have seamless transitions? I would say KSP's transitions are even more seamless, because you don't just burn right through the atmosphere into the land section. NMS has a space mode and an atmosphere mode. KSP does that, and everything in between. Both have model resolution refining details as you get closer. It is true that KSP models are a lower polygon count than NMS, and NMS is a lot more prismatically colored. The latter is a design choice, but perhaps the former could use some work. Honestly though, I think the graphics fit the Kerbal universe just fine. I'd bet you'd get way more bang for your buck if they added clouds (mod available), (graphical) waves (mod available), fauna (NMS abuses this one), and more interesting bump-mapping on rocky surfaces (would just be visual; rovers are hard enough to drive straight). Making higher polygon-count planets and parts I think is not necessary (although re-texturing the oil-barrel fuel tanks would be nice, but there's mods for that too).
  7. Use this mod, nerf your science in career mode to 60%, and don't use the MPL ever because it's OP as hell no matter what you do. Personally, I think the MPL should boost the maximum transmission value of science to up to 100% (as in get 100% of the possible science via transmission), depending on scientists aboard. Maybe one day when I learn to mod... but for now, MPL is game breaking and it's much more challenging without it.
  8. Here's the steps of my attempts to build it in orbit: Step 1: Assemble. Looks good so far Step 2: There's one minor issue, but this is to be expected since multi-port docking isn't a thing. Step 3: Begin merging! I merged the section with the janky edge first to get it out of the way. So far so good. I used cubic octagonal struts to get your ports to be pseudo-surface attached. Step 4: Merge the next section. Uhhhh...? The port severed completely from the edge section, and now the node section is free-floating. Step 5: MAYHEM!! I merged in order just to see what the end result would be. It's quite amusing. Interestingly, my RCS controls trigger on all of the separated pieces (notice the RCS puffs). It still seems to think it's all one big station (controls are linked), but individual sections are free floating. There's some super weird joint things going on as well.
  9. It's an equilateral triangle: My issue is that during the docking procedure itself, no matter how carefully I insert, the magnetic pulls are too strong and wobble my accuracy a bit before slamming into each other. It'd be nice if they could pivot after docking at least.
  10. The only way to construct this station would be to use multiple ports at some point (I think?).
  11. I ended up asking this question in General when the second half should have been asked here. Will you be able to weld multiple ports together? In order for that to work, there would have to be an option to replace the ports with a fuselage instead of offsetting the new part over the gap. I guess multi-port docking would also have to work in stock, but I think it's supposed to?
  12. I would really like to make a hex station, but I'm having issues connecting my joints. I lined this up as best I can, but I can't seem to lock onto both ports simultaneously. As you can see, the green circle docked just fine but the red circle is all janky: Is there a way to get both ports to dock?
  13. Interesting how you guys have exact opposite methodologies. I can't use a 55-60km re-entry because I'll end up skipping off the atmosphere. I can't target a landing destination very well like that, and spending more time is expensive because I play with life support. I'll try the 0 altitude periapsis when I get home. My spaceplane usually enters at about 45 degrees from prograde and keeps it that way for as long as possible until the atmosphere forces it into prograde flight. Despite all that, the cockpit really heats up even as soon as I hit 50km. I've had a ton of landings with the cockpit still at nearly critical temperature, where all other parts are fine. I'll try to post images to give an example (although I don't know how to embed images on this website).