MiffedStarfish
-
Posts
1,470 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by MiffedStarfish
-
-
10 minutes ago, Earthlinger said:
I can imagine
But who else is up for trying out underwater warfare? (Submarines vs underwater bases)
Sure! I’ve been meaning to build some subs for a while now, seems like a good opportunity.
-
Looks good, I’m really excited for the DLC. It would be nice if the blue EVA suit was added to the rotation as well though, so you can use both.
-
-
Welcome! The had part of docking is rendezvous, after that it’s fairly simple. All you do get within a few hundred metres of the craft, target the docking port, point towards it. Then switch to the other craft, target the docking port, point towards it, and with one of them burn at around 1m/s, and they will connect, no RCS required. This works at a wide range of angles, as when you get within range the magnetism will pull it to the right axis, I’ve assembled entire stations with no RCS using this method.
-
What amused me was this. I’m tempted to print out a craft file and post it now.
Dear TakeTwo,
Root Part: StructualI-BeamPocket
Offset: 2.475822
Rotation: 89.0837Part: LiquidFuelTank
Radial Offset: 4.9574739
Rotation: 6,8397Unit: LiquidFuel
Amount: 400Another thing I saw in EULA was that it is now illegal to have KSP on a hard drive. You have to keep it on the disc that it never came on.
-
When you are plotting manuever nodes, the readout on the side of the navball shows how much D/V the burn shall take, and how much you have done. This works fine when you have one node active, but if you have multiple, it only shows the closest, which can be annoying when you’re planning a transit to Jool, but you can’t see how much D/V you’ll need to capture because you have a correction burn of 2m/s active as well. I suggest a way to cycle through which manuever node is active on the navball.
-
36 minutes ago, Spaceception said:
??
Both seasons are on Prime, I had to wait for like a year for the 2nd season to get there, and I finished like a week ago.On topic; cool! I haven't read the books, and I'm not really sure what it's about, but more sci-fi is always nice, I'll check this out.
Slightly off topic; I heard somewhere they were also looking at ringworld too, right?
In America yes, but sadly not in the UK.
The books are really good, I’d say the best is Excession. Not sure how well Culture ships will adapt to TV though, considering they’re literally perfect black-body completely smooth ovoids, with no engines trails.
I haven’t heard of Ringworld before.
-
14 minutes ago, Steven Kerman said:
How many parts do these ships average out to!? I want to make a ship, but I'm worried about melting my laptop.
Depends on the ship, and on people’s different classifications. I’m running a PC that can handle 1500 parts, but @Earthlinger has made some really nice low part ships that function just as well as my higher part count warships, so it’s not much of a limiting factor.
-
Great! I just started re-reading the Culture series, I can't wait to see an Orbital on TV!
Even better, its on Amazon Prime, the one streaming service I have, so I can actually watch it, and not have to settle for clips and trailers like The Expanse.
-
10 hours ago, quasarrgames said:
That is a beautiful ship. What painting mod did you use? I tried to get DCK to work with no success.
Thanks! It looks better when it isn’t being ripped apart by kinetic energy.
The mod was the newest version of DCK, though, so not sure what was breaking it.
Those ships look really nice, I like the wings on the Bullock Class.
I had a bit of time to test the MCS-14 Albion, (previously Materis, but abandoned after finding out that was a paint manufacturer) and thankfully it seems fairly resistant, at least to 0.65m phasing Missiles like the G3. The main issue was the repeated destruction of the 2.5m fuel tank, so I’ll have to try and move it into the fuselage more, or at least single point it so it doesn’t take the other main fuel tank with it. I’ve also developed a missile about half the size of the G3, called the G7, which seems to have roughly the same or slightly less the damage than its older brother, but much lighter, allowing for 8 of them to be stored, using the same method panzer used with the mk2 bays. The main problem with the Albion is it’s weight, at around 30t higher than I’d like. The bulk of that comes from the main fuel tank though, so maybe I should make an ion version.
I need to test panzer’s new ship as well.
-
Well, slightly ironically, I noticed one that made everything half invisible. I pretty much stopped testing after that and went back to my main game.
-
Are you playing stock? Or are you making a mod?
-
16 hours ago, Spartwo said:
First upgrades since may.
That ship looks great! What gravity was that tested at?
-
Delete malfunction.
Noting regains excellent hero.
-
I’ve heard of it, some friends have it and have reccomended it. I don’t really like the block building in games like it and minecraft and to some extent Space Engineers when compared to KSP’s system, though it seems like a fun game. Though it may be a different game better suited to naval combat, I really enjoy pushing KSP’s boundaries. Plus, it costs money and I’m skint.
Anyway, I’m trying to construct a smaller, single Abrams, single goliath, patrol boat, so I’ll update when I get it finished.
-
31 minutes ago, Sidestrafe2462 said:
cool! my record is 350 direct hits (and at least 20 indirect missile strikes and 5 direct hits with aim120) and still combat operational with the Titan 2
with beta bda
makes armor so much more useful
It might actually be worth double or triple armouring with new beta. Though I’ve heard there are some issues with damage output balancing, I’m looking forward to the new system.
-
8 minutes ago, ShadowGoat said:
I feel like one of the best weapons would be a landing gear gun, but my testing has revealed a few problems.
Firstly, while the shell can fire at excessive speeds, mine was actually pretty weak but still, it tends to put the shell on a deorbit trajectory that curves so sharply it often missed the target entirely.
Secondly, with a high quality one, phasing is going to almost always be a problem.
Sigh. If only KSP calculated collisions better.
Most of the speed issues can be solved by lowering the spring strength. I’m sure with testing and knowledge of the projectile speed, you could probably work out a formula for offset from the target for distance. I’m going to be doing some more testing soon.
-
Recently, I’ve been experimenting with ship mounted railguns. After spending a bit of time getting a prototype working, I fitted one to my latest warship, the MCS-14 Materis, and fired on one of my stations. There were a few problems. Firstly, the recoil forces tore the ship apart.
Secondly, the slug exploded shortly after leaving the barrel, for no apparent reason. I suspected this was because the way of the slug had been stacked together and offset into one length, looking fine on the outside but stretching and applying uneven force when fired. I’m not sure if that was the problem, but using a 0.65m heatshield as a base for the gear pushers solved it. With this fix in place, I fired it at my station again.
Unexpectedly, the heat shield plate increased the projectile speed by an order of magnitude, from about 720m/s to 8.8km/s.
Mutual destruction. In a happy coincidence of tick rate physics, the slug actually registered hitting the station, causing large explosions. The slug itself continued undamaged, travelling along its merry way out the solar system.
After this great success, I set about trying to minimise recoil, increase accuracy, and decrease the speed to reasonable levels of phasing avoidance. Setting the dampers and springs to a tenth of their previous strength brought down projectile speed, while also bringing recoil down to non-damaging levels, and I’m currently working to increase accuracy.
I think these have a lot of potential, as fairly light, 0.65m weapons with much more power than I-beams, and much easier to use and build than other specialist weapons like MAC cannons. Once I have a single shot variant working perfectly, I’m going to try and build a reloading system.
-
Turns out I was completely off about the part count of the Castellum. It's actually 254 parts.
-
3 hours ago, Earthlinger said:
Looks great
Your hulls are very nice and streamlined. What's the part count?
Also, can it withstand direct hits from Abrams cannons, because the few prototypes I've made in the past can't tank more than one direct shot
Not sure exactly, but probably around 400 parts. I haven’t done extensive testing with it yet, but the older models could take a few to the superstructure. The Arx once tanked 5 direct hits though, before sinking.
-
Haven’t posted here for a while, so I’ll show what up I’ve been up to recently with ships.
(Uploading link because the embedded image is tiny)
The Castellum has gone through 7 major versions at this point, and this is probably one of biggest. To squeeze more range out of it, I replaced the main cargo bay with a fuel tank, and spread the critical components out. This vastly improved the hydrodynamics, allowing me to push about 5m/s more speed, more than doubled the range, and cut costs by 15k. Taking advantage of the new price, I rearmed some sections of it, replacing the HARMs with dual sidewinder turrets, leaving it still 8k less than the previous version, but superior in every way.
-
-
Excellent idea, sounds very handy for space battle cleanup.
-
8 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:
Ah yes, time to pull "press 'o' three times to bail out" from my CFS3 muscle memory.
I spent literally months pressing “0” three times, and wondering why nothing was happening...
Naval Warfare
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Yup, F-Tech is a handy prefix to seperate my craft from downloaded ones easily. Role-play and corporations though are banned on the forums.