Jump to content

lBoBl

Members
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

66 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Magrathean
  • Location
    Lying by the side of the road
  • Interests
    wen hop?

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah that is kind of what I do but basically I have to guess when during my orbit I can build a ship and every time I guess wrong my game crashes and I have to wait 15 minutes to try again. It generates some frustration. Maybe I should build a smaller shipyard instead
  2. Is there a way to increase the distance between the "spawn point" for vessels built in orbit and the parent vessel that built them? Whenever I use my big orbital shipyard to build a big interplanetary ship, the ship spawns clipping inside the shipyard, resulting in explosions or, most often, game crashes. Alternatively if I could predict the orientation that the spacecraft will have when it spawns I could be able to orient the shipyard prior to spawning the new vessel in such a way that the two don't collide. But I don't quite understand how the orientation of the spawned craft is determined.
  3. I can confirm it used to work fine in the past, worst case scenario you might have to find and download old versions of GPP and OPM, I think I've always used GPP + GEP + OPM since GEP came out, maybe just a few months after that. But out of curiosity can I ask why you're still running 1.7.2? I'm not aware of many mods that don't work with more recent releases That sounds exciting! Are we talking save-breaking revamp or most likely not?
  4. The large Atlas parts have attachment nodes inside the model, and I initially thought that at some point we would be able to use them to have the Atlas parts resting on flat surfaces, that attaching something there would shorten the physical model of the part, exactly like the inner nodes on the tundra modules do. Is that a functionality that is planned in the future or did I misunderstand what they were meant for?
  5. Is it possible via some MM patches or something else to add custom resources to WOLF for virtualized extraction and transport? For example, making WOLF refineries able to create some exotic fuel from another mod and being able to ship it via a preestablished transport route and then being able to output it the same way you can output life support or regular fuel resources with a WOLF part
  6. This is a very random post. It is kind of vague you might agree or disagree and no one might be interested at all. However if you're trying to introduce friends to KSP but they're a bit reticent, or are a KSP 2 developer who's wondering how to reach a wider audience, this could be food for thought. It's about KSP being widely regarded as a difficult game. When I talk to people about KSP I often hear things such as "Oh KSP looks fun but I don't have a big enough brain to play that game / it's too complicated for me / wow you play that game you're a living god you must be so intelligent". And while it is true that my quasi-divine intelligence is definitely something to gawk at, I think that everyone who's ever told me something like that could actually become "good" at KSP with not too much effort. Because most of these people erroneously think that playing KSP with any kind of success is like getting a degree in engineering, you need to be good at maths, understand everything about fluid dynamics, you need to have a very "scientific" mind whatever that means and be good at STEM in general. And well I think everyone lurking on this forum knows this isn't true. You don't have to do any maths when playing KSP. Most of the complicated stuff like your trajectory, your center of mass, center of drag, are already calculated for you. You can use some kind of spreadsheet to very precisely budget your Delta-V if you really want to but in 99% of cases that's pretty much all the maths you'll ever be doing in KSP, and if you'd rather not do this you can always over-engineer everything and have some dV to spare. So why is KSP hard then? Is it really hard? I think you could argue that it is both really easy and kind of hard at the same time, in the exact same way and for the exact same reason why you could argue that riding a bicycle is easy or hard. And the reason is that both bicycle physics and orbital physics are outside of our regular experience, but the human brain is also very good at adapting and learning how to do new things instinctively. If you went somewhere on Earth where bikes don't exist and tried to teach someone verbally how to ride, or even to show them, that someone likely wouldn't succeed at first. They'd have to try slowly, have someone to hold them on their first rides so they don't fall, and get a feel for how things work when you're on a bike. But in the end they'd very likely succeed and find it super easy and never loose that skill for the rest of their life. This is called cerebral plasticity, and this is what makes us awesome. And just like riding a bike is outside of our normal experience of physics when we first learn to ride, orbital mechanics are also very much outside of our regular day to day experience of physics, and as for aerodynamics, the only thing we commonly experience is that pointy things go faster. Now I'll admit, maybe, that KSP is perhaps a little bit more scientific than just riding a bicycle. But just a little. When you go to the University to have someone teach you Physics, your professor will teach you about scientific rigor, precision, a bunch of facts that you'll have to memorize, and a bunch of equations that you'll have to know how to solve. All very rigorous, not much seat of your pants feeling about how things are going to behave. (Of course if you later do actual engineering in your life you'll use a lot of that seat of the pants feeling because you'll know what you're doing by then, you'll have graduated.) KSP is all about getting that instinctive feeling for how things are going to behave, it's about instinctively raising the nose of your ship once you've passed Apoapsis and failed to circularize by that point, you just know that you're going to dip back into the atmosphere if you don't burn a bit upwards, but that you'll waste fuel if you do it too much. So how do you get someone from a state where their brain can't compute anything about orbital mechanics to that stage where they instinctively know what to do without having to formulate the thought? Quite obviously, the main hurdle is frustration. I think most if not all KSP players are very patient, and if you read through all this you definitely are, thank you, we're nearly there I promise. I think KSP 1 is quite bad at helping players overcome their frustration, on various different levels. The UI is not simple enough for new players and doesn't have enough information for psychos like me who want to get their geostationary orbit precise to a hundredth of a second. The in game tutorials have pages of text that you must read while the game is paused (or sometimes when your rocket is flying, good luck with those), and this is where KSP 2 comes in. Honestly from what little I saw of the animations they may or may not be better. They're (slightly) trying to be funny which is good, because keeping people entertained is a good way to make them learn. But it does not help that much which the average impatient gamer who's just bought a brand new game and wants to try it. No one wants to read pages of texts or watch lengthy videos explanations about how the game works (and if they do they can just go on YouTube like people did with KSP 1), most gamers just want to game. I think the in game tutorials should be in-game at least 99.99% of the time. They need to be that friendly person that holds your back and keep you from falling while you take your feet of the grounds to put them on the bike's pedals. It's about getting that first experience, about showing your brain how things work without getting hurt. I never recommend MechJeb to new players because by only using the autopilot some players end up never learning how to fly the rocket and how orbital mechanics work, because MechJeb can literally do anything for you except design the rocket. But I must also acknowledge that for a lot of people MechJeb has been the thing that allowed them to play the game at all, because just trying something over and over without any guidance on what to do or how to do it is very frustrating, and if you don't have the patience to sit through lengthy in game tutorials or go watch Scott Manley's tutorials you'll likely just give up. Mechjeb offers that guidance, that helping hand, but without explaining what it does or teaching you, which is kind of a shame. I think KSP 2 tutorials should be in game, and they should be helping, forgiving, and encouraging. They need to tell the player he's doing great, that it's not that hard, it's just like driving a car, anyone can do it. It's all about getting players past these first moments when their brain doesn't understand the first thing about orbital mechanics, and letting the experience teach them. I don't know if others are more convinced than I am by what we saw of KSP 2's planned tutorials, and if you'd agree that (not to brag, honestly) KSP is objectively not that hard as long as you're patient and ready to make a lot of very frustrating mistakes. And honestly I don't know if it's even possible for KSP 2 to reach a much wider audience if I'm right and the main quality required to succeed at KSP really is patience. But given my mitigated results when it comes to introducing some of my friends to KSP, I might be wrong about everything I just said...
  7. Try Ugress. It's really weird sometimes good sometimes not and sometimes feels very space-y
  8. @OhioBob there are a few issues with GSC in the latest version After updating to 1.6.6 I noticed that the space center island had had its topography modified, because roughly half of the KSC++ stuff was buried under ground. I opened the KK GUI to try and figure out by how much I needed to raise things up, and I noticed two things : One, all the KK stuff is not really compatible with 1.6.6, because the terrain has changed by a Lot. I would have to raise the scaled up runway tens of meters up to have all of it above ground, which would then look silly. Two, even without Kerbal Konstructs, most of the default GSC is just floating up in the air. It's not immediately obvious when you launch a rocket because the launchpad itself and the runway are fine, but basically all the other building are just floating above terrain and you can walk under them. This is with KK uninstalled, at the junction between GSC You pretty much have to get down there to notice but this could have negative consequences for people who like to do a lot of ground operations, although admittedly I might be the sole member of that group. This is all on default scale by the way, I'm pretty sure the issue is just baked into the mod but if I did something wrong with my installation or if you think that it could be caused by something else like KK I'm happy to provide more information about my modlist or logs if needed.
  9. I have the same problem with the mod just removing spacecraft sound entirely in 1.12 I updated from 1.11 keeping most of my mods and not adding any new ones, so I don't think that it's a mod conflict. EDIT : weirdly, restarting the game fixed the issue.
  10. I haven't had this exact problem but it is usually one of three things : 1. It could be an installation problem. Make sure that you have unzipped everything in the correct folder, make sure you have no GameData folder within your GameData folder. Sometimes mods come zipped with a GameData folder that you are supposed to merge with the game's GameData folder but sometimes if you're tired and installing 200 different mods you can make a mistake and extract it inside your GameData instead of merging it. It happens, even if you're pretty sure that you did everything right, never hurts to check. 2. Configs conflict. It could be that another mod is trying to push configs for scatterer after GPP and it breaks everything. Make absolutely sure that you don't have some obsolete scatterer configs lying around, and that you don't have any other mod that comes with bundled scatterer configs. GPP should be capable of overriding the stock Scatterer configs but any other mod trying to do the same thing could cause this issue. Rather than looking at the KSP.log file, you might find more information about this in the ModuleManager.log file which should be located in the Logs/ModuleManager folder. Also make sure you don't have any extra EVE config files anywhere in your GameData folder. 3. Version mismatch. Make sure that all the mods versions you are using are compatible with each other and with the version of KSP you are using. Make sure your Kopernicus version matches your KSP version. Make sure your Scatterer version is compatible and is the latest version available for your KSP version. Same for EVE and every other visual mod you have installed. It's supposed to be sort of weirdly radioactive but heat is the only stock mechanic that can approximate that. Upgrading the Astronaut Complex in GPP will make your Kerbals suit more heat-resistant, allowing for longer EVAs on Thalia. And also it is supposed to be a mean angry planet and I don't think you're really supposed to be fully aware of its dangers when you get there, meaning don't worry we all got cooked the first time too.
  11. Hi, I unfortunately I never got it finished, mostly because I realized that Space Dust collectors didn't work in the background when the craft is unloaded and that was a bummer so I kind of lost my motivation to do it. I also went down a fascinating rabbit hole when I started wondering where to put the antimatter and how much of it. And I mean it truly is an interesting question, like, as most people do I used to think that in the real solar system you'd find the most antimatter near Jupiter, where the planet's super strong magnetic field would magically turn sunbeams into antimatter, but turns out, that is probably wrong. Specialists guess that you'd actually find more antimatter very close to Saturn, precisely because Saturn has a very weak magnetic field and that this would let more high energy solar particles interact with the exosphere and upper atmosphere, which is what causes antimatter to actually get formed. But turns out you can still find good quantities of antimatter near Jupiter, more specifically near Io, where ejected particles from that hellish volcanic moon are caught within Jupiter's Van Allen belts and all kinds of interesting things happen to them (interesting meaning probably lethal for humans if exposed). But keep in mind that some of that is speculation, enlightened guesses and scientific predictions, because of course we don't get many occasions to send orbiters with antimatter detectors near these gas giants. So then I had to translate that in terms of GPP and keep it balanced and interesting for gameplay. So there are three gas giants... Otho is in my opinion the most boring one, because its moons although pretty are nothing to write home about. I initially thought I should put not that much antimatter there because it is also the easiest one to go to and usually the first one you visit. But on the other hand having antimatter there would perhaps give you a reason to go there at least a couple times, make it overall less boring. So I'm undecided. Gauss is supposed to have the strongest magnetic field, so that would probably mean less antimatter there... But wait... there's Catullus. A big old semi-gas giant with a super THICC atmosphere, and then presumably some sort of exosphere, that orbits Gauss presumably outside of its magnetosphere. Meaning lots of antimatter just above Catullus' atmosphere could be interesting? And then there's Nero, which is like the super pretty and badass one and it has lots of interesting moons, I guess players will want to spend lots of time there, and it's the furthest one, so in terms of gameplay it would certainly make sense to have usable quantities of antimatter there, but more or less than near Catullus I don't really know. So yeah antimatter is a bit of a rabbit hole. Other resources are a bit easier to deal with usually, if you're having doubts about what resources should be present where, you can always check the GPP configs for Community Resource Pack which are in your GPP folder, and if needed also check the stock solar system configs for Space Dust and Community Resource Pack just to see how both mods handle resource concentrations. As to how to do it, it's as simple as creating new text files in your gamedata folder, changing their .txt extension to .cfg so that KSP takes them into account, and writing stuff in them. You can use this file as an example (it however needs some changes, the concentration values are not ideal). It's pretty self explanatory. I'd recommend that you make a new folder called GPPSpaceDust or anything you want inside your GameData folder, and put all of your new config files inside that folder. Also you'll need to have this file which will prevent Space Dust from trying to load its configs for the stock planets and getting confused by their absence. Without that the mod will just refuse to work and basically shutdown. Remember to test everything you've written once in a while, just start the game and see if everything shows correctly. You can set the alwaysDiscovered and alwaysIdentified values to True just for testing purposes on every resource you add, this will let you check that they show up in game much more easily since you won't have to send a detector to the location, just open the Space Dust GUI in the app menu or toolbar. Once testing is done, revert it to false. So yeah, that's basically it, if you decide to go through and do it then good luck and don't hesitate to ask if you need advice.
  12. I'm still having the same issue of the game freezing when I try to build a craft with the orbital shipyard. I had managed to launch it last time by reorienting the shipyard craft and removing a part from the ship I want to build. But the ship had an aerodynamics problem since the root part was a cargo bay, parts inside that cargo bay generated drag when they weren't supposed to (that's a stock bug apparently). So I re-rooted the craft and reverted to a save I had made prior to building it. And the freeze is back again, when I click on build I go to the loading screen and get stuck there forever. Here's the log file, I've put a comment when the ship is launched you can search the keyword "SEARCHME" to get there quickly. There are so many vague error codes that I can't make anything of it. Hope someone more clever might find what causes the problem. Edit : I can confirm that just re-rooting the craft allows me to launch it once again. Here's an issue that's going to be hard to reproduce without any other mods
  13. @FleshJeb was right, it was apparently because the cargo bay was the root part (I was quite sure I changed it but I must have reverted that change at the last minute). When I re-root the craft to the plane's cockpit the issue goes away. Problem solved, thanks guys!
  14. What bothers me the most is that when it's working, it's definitely one of the best planes I've built in 3000 hours of playing KSP... It flies really well and really stable at any speed, it can reenter at any angle like it doesn't even care, and it's so easy to land that it's almost impossible to crash, you can slam it down and it's just fine
×
×
  • Create New...