• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brikoleur

  1. I am not most KSP players but I can still have an informed opinion of how most KSP players play the game. And as I said, I would love stock kOS, except better -- and some visual programming language would be a perfect fit for it. No argument there! No, it's not. Any educational benefit it has is a side benefit. It can teach some things about real science and a very few things about real engineering, but, again, that is a side benefit. Therefore, every other realism feature would also improve the game in the long run? That's what they call a non sequitur, my friend. I am 100% sure that making KSP a realistic rocket simulator -- which would not be a very big leap! -- would immediately cause 95% of the player base to switch off. Even a majority of the really enthusiastic fans who hang out here would drop it. Look at the number of people playing with Realism Overhaul, Real Solar System, Principia, RemoteTech with signal delay, hardcore LS mods, and so on: they're there, and they're a significant contingent, but they're not numerous. KSP is not, and should not become, a hardcore rocket simulator. Signal delay is one of several features that really do not belong in it. As @Master39 said, locking a major chunk of the gameplay behind a programming requirement is not the way to go. (And before you start on another of your "you probably haven't gotten very far then" assumptions, I personally have no fear of programming -- I shipped my first production software 35 years ago in two months, and haven't stopped since.)
  2. Mun Station "Bill Kerman" is fully operational again. It was in pretty bad shape after the incident that cost Bill's life -- and there was a most appropriate bug also, it was completely unresponsive to controls: And here it is, in its repaired, renamed, and upgraded glory -- the destroyed module has been replaced with a better, bigger one, and it has been equipped with a second, somewhat more powerful and more advanced lander. The original one is still useful for rescue missions:
  3. CNTs are coming, I'm pretty sure, but we're a looong way from practical optical CPUs. It's not even clear they'll ever be competitive with electronic ones, there remain fundamental problems to solve.
  4. Routine recovery mission on Munar orbit. Erwin undocked from MUNST-1-K8 and carefully planned an encounter at the ascending node of the vessel to recover. Started the burn. Near the end of the burn, an explosion! He had collided with the fuel tank of MUNST-1-K8. The resulting explosion also destroyed one of the habitation modules. Chief Engineer Bill Kerman died instantly. Erwin's craft suffered minor damage. MUNST-1-K8 will require a new habitation and fuel module, with a little plaque to commemorate Bill's sacrifice.
  5. Made a few routine flights, trying out a new-generation Klaw-equipped utility / rescue shuttle. As an aside I now have a roster of 24 kerbals... with two scientists, including Bob. Up to my armpits in pilots and engineers though. Will break down and hire a couple, expensive as it is. Will also start planning an interplanetary mission. This is significantly different with the extra constraints I’ve set myself - no reverts and a single SIMULATION_START save I’m allowed to use when developing new craft, no probe cores, plus having to have living space in a hitchhiker can for all crew on stations and interplanetary craft. With Sci at 40% also this makes even routine simple craft interesting to make — it’s not enough that they work, they have to be safe and reliable. I’ve had to abort a few launches and there is a certain satisfaction to doing that in a controlled manner too...
  6. Terrific, that’s one significant stress factor made a lot less stressful. Looks like 1.8 is going to be something special!
  7. Since the stars systems are the same for every game, this would just mean rote busywork. Fun the first time, tedious after that. If you have to, just link discovery of the star systems to building upgrades you’d do anyway, like unowned object tracking.
  8. Certainly. There are plenty of visual programming languages. I agree. Making features optional is also a waste of developer time - they’re spending time making things that they think a significant number of players won’t like. Signal delay still isn’t going in, or at most in some extremely symbolic, almost not there way - like, interstellar only, with autonomous probe cores and interstellar comms never allow non-autonomous probe control. It’s would change the gameplay too much, and in a way that is not appealing to most KSP players. KSP is a game first and foremost. More realistic is not automatically better.
  9. Why would this be better? More realistic, sure, but better? I'm currently doing a no-probes career. It's a different way to play. However it does effectively cut out much of the gameplay -- there's no point building CommNet because I just need to transmit back Science, and packing a powerful-enough antenna is enough for that since I'll just have to wait a bit for a connection. There is no way Star Theory would do something as boneheaded as implementing a large set of systems (probes, CommNet) and then gating it behind a programming requirement, thereby ensuring that only a tiny fraction of the player base would ever use them. There will be no time delay.
  10. Oh I would love stock kOS! I've done a fair bit of stuff with the KAL and it's severely limiting, it would be extremely nice to have an actual programming tool to give my craft more complex behaviours. I'm not categorically against stock MechJeb either, for that matter. I just do not under any circumstances want to have them be mandatory. It should still be possible to do pretty much everything by just manually flying those craft -- as I said, I don't want KSP to turn into a game of programming missions, hitting the launch button, and watching them play out, and signal lag would do that. (I think we're in agreement about this point actually...)
  11. Thanks! You should check out the other craft ITT which gave me the inspiration:
  12. Yeah. Since you can stick a probe core on anything, this would change KSP gameplay from "build rockets and fly them" to "build rockets, program them,* press "Launch," then watch them fly." I think I can safely say that most of us would not find that appealing. I know there are some that would -- hence, kOS and other mods -- but they are a pretty small fraction of the player base. *Pre-planning manoeuvre nodes and setting up launch and landing sequences using packaged auto-take-off and auto-landing scripts is still programming, even if kOS or something like it isn't involved.
  13. I never said it's not possible to do it. Of course you could add autolanding features or any amount of other autonomy (that's not automation anymore btw, it's autonomy which is something that's a lot more complicated). But it would drastically change the gameplay, and it would change it in a way that I'm pretty confident in saying would only appeal to the tiny minority of hardcore realism enthusiasts playing KSP. In other words, it's not gonna happen.
  14. Hehe, I'd even venture to say that if it's doable by assembling a swashplate out of provided components then it's doable in mod, so it's doable in stock. I'm quite certain it'd be possible to mod a part that does what, for example, this assembly does:
  15. No, you can't sync the pitch to the phase of the rotor. That's what the swash plate would do. It is possible to make a swash plate that does it -- people have! -- but they're mechanically quite complex and bulky.
  16. I don't think the issue with n-body (or some limited approximation of it) is the difficulty of computing it, it's the gameplay complications. You'd need to re-think trajectory and orbit planning, have some way of automating orbit keeping and/or finding stable orbits, and that sort of thing. It would basically introduce another layer of complexity into an already complex game. That could be a real problem, introducing frustrating busywork or making it unreasonably difficult to do stuff that's currently already pretty difficult, like planning orbits in the Jolian system. I did not originally like the idea at all, and in fact would still not like it in a single-solar-system game; however with the interstellar dimension it would be a shame if there aren't binary star systems or similar things to find and explore, and those really are difficult to make at all convincingly without more than 2-body physics. I think some fudged/simplified version of it could be the best solution, e.g. where only systems where the relative masses are big enough get extra computations. So the Kerbol system would still work more or less as it does now except maybe with Lagrange points (except maybe Duna/Ike?) but Rask/Rusk, binary stars, and other cool stuff would get extra computations.
  17. That wouldn't work on any body with topography and/or an atmosphere, i.e any of them. It would simply not be possible to plan the nodes precisely enough -- you'd crash into a mountain or screw up your descent because of aerodynamics. The only way you could make signal lag actually work, in terms of gameplay, is if you introduced new autonomous probe cores that you could fly by taking command of them as if they were crewed -- which would make signal lag something of a cosmetic thing; it wouldn't matter at all in the Kerbol system, and you could always time-warp through it for interstellar missions (if you even cared about the Sci at that point). My money is on this not happening. It would either break the gameplay or have to have workarounds that trivialised it like that. There's another thread about this btw, maybe these ought to be merged? @Snark
  18. There are mods for KSP1 that do this. It drastically changes the gameplay. Basically, probes are right out unless you're comfortable programming in KOS. So KSP wouldn't be about building and flying spacecraft anymore, it'd be about programming them, and that would have a much more limited appeal. I probably wouldn't bother and I am a programmer. So no, this isn't going to happen. I expect it will be moddable, however, so realism fans will be able to make an overhaul that has them waiting eight years for signals from their interstellar probes.
  19. Yes I do think it's worth spending some computer resources on graphics. Unmodded KSP1 looks pretty spartan and I should hope KSP2 looks better than that. Whether and what kind of VFX that'll involve is a different matter, but it is IMO frankly silly to rage at a specific selection of such VFX. That's like raging about the specific shade of green they're going to make kerbal skin -- it's a creative choice, and therefore to a great extent a matter of taste. You've made your personal preferences clear, but ultimately that's all they are -- like... your opinion, man.
  20. Suggestion, if you don't mind -- read up on transfer windows. Using a transfer window calculator is not considered cheating by the way.
  21. A slightly better day for BAK Moderately Hardcore Space Program. No major accomplishments, but ran one simulated mission which turned out not to work, due to the bouncy landing legs again. I made a base design that uses hydraulic cylinders for legs, with the idea that I can also use them to level it. Bad idea. It just bounces like mad whenever physics kick in; also when adjusting the cylinders after returning to it, they may randomly extend to full length, which doesn't exactly help keep it stable. Back to the drawing board with that one...
  22. A comet's tail is incredibly diffuse. If you went through one your spaceship would only collect a handful of molecules, nowhere near enough to ice up anything. (I just checked and to give you an idea, we've flown spacecraft through cometary tails, and they experienced on average one dust impact per second. So a little more than a handful of molecules: in the 20-minute traversal it would have collected 1200 grains of dust. Still nowhere close to frost up a window, although some of those would leave micrometeorite marks...)