LukasKerman

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

5 Followers

About LukasKerman

  • Rank
    News Anchor

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for that, I guess I learned something! What I now however wonder is if it would be possible to record this information separately from the gameplay so that you could use it in a video editor. Games could do it for video makers so that you could add real motion blur to your game footage, while not having to bother with it while you're actually playing. That should be a thing! Like a smartphone camera that records its own accelerator data to later apply it as a post processing image stabilization. Also, does Unity's motion blur only work on camera movement or also on object movement? I tried it in Unity and it looks like the objects get blured when they move relative to the camera. However, I'm not sure if that's really the motion blur or just my sh*tty monitor xD More tests are needed I guess..
  2. I don't know how exactly the Unity motion blur works but the name post processing might be a little misleading in that case. You need vector information of an object's movement in order to blur it somewhat nicely. Otherwise you could simply post process it in a video editor and it would look the same (which is not the case). A rendered frame loses all its information about objects and movements so motion blur gets way harder! This is similar to ambient occlusion. It is not added after the final image is rendered but somewhere in between, when it still knows what individual objects are and where they intersect.
  3. No problem! I'm glad we found a bug! The other options this mod enables are great as well! The reason I need motion blur is my animations use it as well so using KSP footage alongside makes it look really weird. However, I'm not sure how well this post processing handles particles like exhausts. Adding motion blur to hundreds of objects seems complicated but they could also be ignored. I'm not entirely sure how this works.
  4. Thanks for the cool mod! I have a question regarding Motion Blur. Does it work with the game because you have not added it by default. I tried all kinds of combinations but I either don't get it right or it is not added to the parser. Motion_Blur { Shutter_Angle = 180 Sample_Count = 8 Frame_Blending = 0.15 } This is how it looks in Unity's .asset file motionBlur: m_Enabled: 0 m_Settings: shutterAngle: 180 sampleCount: 8 frameBlending: 0.15 I checked your code and I can't spot any obvious errors.
  5. I think I googled at least 15 minutes and didn't find that particular mod. I'll have a look and thanks for the reply! For now I would be happy with ANY solution! edit: THANKS MAN! That's exactly what I was looking for and it even works with 1.5.1. Unbelievable! xD edit2: I have some issues getting the Motion Blue to work but I asked in the mod's thread. I'll post the solution here in case there is one.
  6. Hey guys! So I know motion blur is not among the most requested of features out there because it is quite hungry and can be a little annoying at times. However, motion blur is extremely useful for video making. It just makes everything look much smoother and simulates a slow shutter speed on a camera as for example used in cinematic shots. I did a short google search and found that Unity is capable to provide that feature out of the box. However, I'm not sure how much effort it would take to implement it into the game. Does it only require a box to be ticked or is there more to it? I would love if the devs could add it in one of the upcoming updates! If there is a possibility to mod it please let me know! I also found this plugin which may help (MIT license) https://github.com/keijiro/KinoMotion
  7. First of all thanks for the detailed answer! You're right, Δv is just a number which is only based on the mass and engine efficiency of a craft. However, I was actually refering to the required Δv your craft needs for a mission. Sorry about that! The required Δv changes with everything you do that is off nominal. My point was since the real required Δv is pretty much impossible to predict, you can never be sure that the Δv number of your craft is really sufficient to do the burn. The indicator may show 500 m/s but your vehicle may need 530 m/s because you wobble around too much and have to steer. It would be very frustrating to run out of fuel too early despite having enough Δv on your vehicle based on what the VAB said. However, now that they put so much effort into the indicator, I agree that it makes sense to add it in that regard. If there is a Δv number on the maneuver node there has to be one in the VAB as well. No, you would still be able to do whatever you want of course. Nobody is hurt by proposing to reuse rockets. My point was there is a subassembly system right now that is fairly hidden behind an advanced menue. This subassembly menue is also not very well explained and the parts you put in there are not organized whatsoever. My suggestion is to add a basic folder structure to it and maybe put it up to the front so people can see it more easily, and maybe begin using it for things they frequently re-build from scrach like launch clamps with added light or boosters with added sepatrons and radial decouplers. Things it was designed to make easier. As I have pointed out you can replace Δv with payload-mass-to-destination by using subassemblies and by reusing rockets. Just to have a gameplay element that leads to the same goal as Δv. It's the same purpose but a different take on it. But anyways, my main reason against Δv is not the effort it takes to make it or the lack of accuracy of predicting it. The Δv discussion is as old as KSP and while I don't know Felipe's reasons not to add it, I'm certain KSP would've not gotten where it is had Δv been available right from the start for everyone. I claim had people used Δv they had known their rockets can make it and many funny failures you shared with your friends would've likely never happened. Δv is a double edged sword in that regard. I think new players lose their interest in the game more quickly, if they know their rocket can make it before they even launch. However, I can't prove it of course so it's only speculation but I'm sure Squad has the numbers and the fact they haven't added it yet at least indicates to me that there is a correlation. I could be totally wrong though so I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide it I'm just here to share my opinion on it and I know being anti-Δv is a very controverisal one to have. It's almost like being a teacher who is against using calculators in middle school!
  8. The main issue I assume is that your crafts Δv changes all the time. Not only by burning but by how much throttle you use, how often you steer and so on. How efficient is your transfer? It's a very unreliable number! However, they added it and now they have to also finish what they begun I guess. To me it would make more sense to instead guide the player towards developing rockets which are used multiple times. Away from developing a new rocket for every payload. That's essetnially why you need the Δv number. Because you launch a new rocket pretty much all the time and you have no clue what it can do. If you would instead save every rocket without payload as a subassembly and note how much mass it can get to LKO, you could simply mount an existing rocket that you know can bring your payload to orbit without having to guess. A beginner would accumulate more and more rockets in its fleet and could maybe update them with new versions over time. I made a video a while back, where I show how you can develop a rocket in KSP, find out its capability and then keep reusing it. You can not only develop rockets like that but also upper stages (as part of the payload) which can push a certain amount of mass to the moon and so on. You can go on developing landers for each body, return ships and more. You end up having a rocket module library in your subassemblies you can stack together to get anywhere without having to calculate anything. What KSp needs in order to make this more intuitive is a better subassembliey UI where you can really organize things and not get lost. Here the video that I mentiond:
  9. KSP always used all my CPU cores. Each just never went to 100% but stood at around 60%. I suspect that is Windows shifting the game's threads around the cores for an even load and core wear.
  10. I don't want to spoil the messages you get as you get there which gives away what my score is^^ (or was when I made the mission) However, the max score you can theoretically achieve is 2600 which is GOLD++.
  11. If the ship explodes you probably run into one of my triggers. For example you can't take longer than 20 minutes otherwise the fuel warms up so much that the tank explodes. There should be a message telling you that though. If you run low on fuel (under ~130 I think) it also explodes because the fuel pump pipe sticks too deep into the tank and the turbo pump runs dry.
  12. Hey guys, so I am working on my first mission and thought to create a rather oldschool mission to reach a stable orbit as efficiently as possible using a specific craft, the "Efficiency Star". There are still some bugs like messages not showing up in the end graphic. It could be a mission builder bug but I'm not sure! My workaround is to work with dialogs that pop up next to it! The way I have designed the mission is quite complex because there are some nodes missing yet. For example a node that returns a resource number so that I could directly turn that number into a score. I hope that will be implemented! So right now the score can only jump by 100 points when you reach certain milestones. To achieve GOLD you have to reach 2400 points which is for the pros! You need the latest KSP Making History Expansion to play this. All you have to do is to unpack the zip file into your KSP/Missions folder. Example path: Steam\SteamApps\common\Kerbal Space Program\Missions\Efficiency Star Challenge I hope you enjoy and post your result here! Remember, this is not as easy as it looks. Mission Download (I get a possible virus alert on my browser but it's just the exported zip file) --- edit: I fixed an issue where it would show a success allthough the player ran into a fail condition. Explosions are not bugs! ;P You should always get a message when something went wrong.
  13. It would be cool if these could only be spawnd whereever you have placed a new launch site. In career mode you could for example define a region you want to place a new launch site and then you had to deliver a certain amount of raw materials. Once finished a new location would be build. These raw materials could be simply new parts. A stack of steel, a stack of cement and machine parts. You could of course do the same on other planets. That would actually be quite cool thinking about it. Each planet had a unique launch site style and building rockets on other bodies you also had to feed them with raw materials for the sake of balance. To make it a little easier it could just be a new transformer that turns ore into metal instead of fuel. So either you launch some off Kerbin or you mine it. More asteroid mining <3 I think it would really be a much bigger motivation to mine resources to actually build and launch rockets off other bodies.
  14. It's only my "theory" but I would say a Δv readout can potentially bypass a lot of gameplay. Where you would normally fly a few missions that fail and maybe lead to new missions and adventures (stranded etc.), you now pretty much know for sure that you have enough Δv to reach the Mun and return before you even launch. Besides that a Δv readout is also everything but correct. The moment you throttle for example or do other things you lose Δv. In order to make any use of the number you also had to follow very specific routes. For example knowing that you need 4000 m/s Δv to land on the Mun (made up number) you must fly exactly the same trajectory that was used to calculate the requirement. The moment you pick another starting orbit or destination orbit it's all meaningless to know that number. Δv is only really necessary if you want to plan out a mission in every detail on paper beforehand. I think that is exactly the realm of mods especially since the readout is so unreliable when you think about the endless possibilties you can build a rocket. What I would do is to completely get rid of Δv even from the maneuver node. I would also replace the maneuver node with a virtual orbit you can set up in the map even if you have not yet launched similar to how it's done in the new mission builder. That would give you an idea when and in which direction you have to launch but finding out what kind of a rocket you need to achieve it would be part of the gameplay. A good method to play KSP somewhat effciently (without building huge rockets that are way to capable) is to develop rockets that can lift a certain mass to LKO and then move on from there. Imagine you have 3 rockets one able to lift 10 tons, one 20 tons and the last 30 tons. Having these you never have to think about building rockets anymore just use these as subassemblies. Now you build spaceships that are 10, 20 and 30 tons in mass. With each spaceship you try to land on the Mun without payload. The amount of fuel you have left touching down on the surface is the payload they can deliver there. So what you do is remove that spare fuel in the VAB and replace it with a payload. You can repeat this process with more rockets and spaceships to other destinations of course. You will gradually develop a fleet of vehicles that you exactly know the mass delivery capabilities of. So if you ever want to land a 10 ton payload on the Mun or on Duna you can pick a certain rocket, a certain ship and go without the need of Δv. Developing such a fleet is at least for me a very entertaining process but everyone is different. I just noticed how people often build a new rocket for every payload they fly. It's of course not wrong but that makes using Δv and Kerbal Engineer almost a requirement. What I would like to see added as a number is the total thrust of the current stage. Adding up the thrust to eyeball the TWR is really tedious on some rockets. They could for example add the total thrust number of all eninges that are currently free to fire with a slider for the atmospheric pressure. On the slider there could be symbols for vacuum, Kerbin and other bodies with an atmosphere. In career mode these symbols could be unlocked by landing on such a body for the first time. Not knowing how much thrust you will have launching your lander off Eve is incredibly annoying. There is no way around manually calculating it. You can bypass Δv as described above but not your thrust. We can't trust the thrust, the only thing Kerbals live for.