XLjedi
-
Posts
1,356 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by XLjedi
-
-
9 minutes ago, Kerbalsaurus said:
Can you guys go two seconds without being jerks about it?
I will only point out that 1) I liked your original design better and did not criticize it, and 2) accoding to the timestamp, at least 5 minutes has elapsed on this response.
The joke was intended to be, the silliness of your original design was fun. ...and if you have ever been on a real taxiway (which often times, makes you wonder "who the hell designed this?" then your silly design (ironically) is probably a better reflection of reality in the sense that that is what "real" taxiways often make you think.
-
8 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:
After some complaints about the airport, I literally rebuilt it from the ground up for 3 straight hours yesterday. Here's the result:
It's now much more realistic. The whole airport is kind of inspired by LAX, with the double runway and such, but I definitely added some of my own creative touches.
I've used airport taxiways... the other one was more realistic. LOL
-
On 7/9/2023 at 1:11 PM, Superfluous J said:
I tried Juno: New Origins but it's just not as fun as I want a space game to be. I can't exactly place WHY, but it just feels like KSP sanitized.
Agreed, it seems like it *should* be great? Just feels sterile, and the missions (at least the early ones) are tediously boring; like drive up a generic slope for an hour or two.
-
On 6/30/2023 at 7:29 PM, Kerbalsaurus said:
I’d show a screenshot but I don’t have any.
Cuz it never happened?
-
On 5/6/2023 at 8:33 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:
I'm back to Satisfactory. Total restart.
Reminded me why progression systems are important in games.
Arrived (again) at tiers 5&6. Time for the ritual upgrade and total rework of my entire factory plan.
Dawned on me unexpectedly that I was enjoying myself. Compared to having everything already unlocked and just playing Legos... I've got a scratch paper on the side and my old spreadsheets up and running trying to figure it all out again.
If you like Satisfactory; then Dyson Sphere Program is worth a look.
-
Lately, it's been a lot of Dyson Sphere Program. ...and it's pretty darn good now; with combat on the horizon.
-
2 hours ago, Jason_25 said:
For the control surface on/off bug try setting just one surface to off, saving the craft, load it in and come back the VAB and set another one to off and so on. In other words set just one control surface to off at once. That has helped me.
If this were the only thing wrong with the game right now, I might consider it. ...but given that the whiplash jet in my signature simply disintegrates at speed in KSP2, there's no real incentive to play. There is just a ton of work needed (and missing parts) for functional spaceplanes. Right now, the devs can't even get the camera to function properly for plane building.
-
12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:
In the same dialog box you use to change its properties
11 hours ago, Poppa Wheelie said:Ah! In the "Wing Shape" dialog. I was looking for something in the "Parts Manager" dialog.
Thanks!
...and it won't do either of you any good; since it's hopelessly bugged right now.
If you have more than one pair of wings on your craft every single control surface flips back to ON anytime you open that wing shape dialog.
-
I'm afraid... 5 pages in, yes.... my only reply remains the obvious.
What we have to play with thus far is extremely disappointing, in too many ways to begin to list.
-
Just now, Periple said:
OK, got it! I just haven't had my planes RUD in flight noticeably more than in KSP1, even if I have more than one wing segment on them!
Neither have I, but I also had autostrut in KSP1 to correct the issue.
-
4 minutes ago, Periple said:
Please tell me if I'm getting bothersome but I really am curious: could you post a picture of a craft that you built that is too wobbly?
(Oh and just to be clear, it's obvious that something needs to be done about joint rigidity, whether it's autostrut or some other solution!)
Any craft that has segmented wings, the wing parts will separate under force. Almost any wing design that is not the typical basic wing with a single aileron as a flight control surface might have the problem as well as any fuselage that has laterally connected parts. Unfortunately, the one plane I had is in such a sad state of disrepair at the moment that if I posted a pic, there would not be any wings on it.
After the experience, I kinda walked away from the game and posted my observations here in terms of what is missing. I can't really build the planes that I built in KSP1 at this point. So I have to wait it out a bit.
-
8 minutes ago, Periple said:
I looked and while it's a good list, it didn't have anything about rigidity or struts.
Admittedly the most complex wings I've built only have three segments but still it's clear we're doing something differently.
I didn't need to mention autostrut on that list, because it is here. The absence of autostrut, plus the list of significant issues I have reported, are the answer to your question. "What kind of trouble are you having with your planes?"
I can see the lack of autostrut is going to be an issue as clearly as I see the other issues I noted.
-
2 hours ago, Periple said:
What kind of trouble are you having with your planes? I haven't had any rigidity issues with mine. The biggest one I built was around four of the 5 m cargo bays so it was pretty big! The limiting factor for getting them to orbit right now is that adding more Rapiers tanks the frame rate, so I've only flown the biggest ones at relatively low altitudes on Goliaths, but I have flow mid-sized spaceplanes too with no structural issues. I don't use regular struts much either.
I'm having quite a bit of trouble with planes and parts that are currently missing. I listed most of the issues in the bug report section here filed under "Procedural Wings".
Feel free to take a look.
3 hours ago, Vl3d said:Joint rigidity applies to all vehicles. It's less of an issue now for planes because of procedural wings (fewer joints).
Unless you make very basic planes (ailerons only for instance, no flaps, split flaps, etc) there are too many parts currently missing for me to even make the plane in my signature. Complex wing shapes currently require at least 3 or 4 procedural wing segments. To have flaps, you would need at least two.
-
10 hours ago, Vl3d said:
If they make rockets more rigid it should also apply to planes.
They do not work the same way. You don't fly rockets through the atmosphere; you are more poking a hole through it on a one-way trip.
Am I correct, in that your career is focused heavily on rockets? If I heavily favored the use of rockets, I might share your opinion.
-
14 hours ago, schlosrat said:
I think you might have missed @Vl3d’s point. Either that, or I did., but I don’t think he’s saying there shouldn’t be spaceplanes. Perhaps the point was that building spaceplanes shouldn’t require you to use autostruts. Wouldn’t that be a better solution?
Sure, that might be a solution. But if that were the case, it would also mean that the autostruts are automatically being applied to the spaceplane parts anyway. So far, it seems they are using a similar approach to aerodynamics and non-rigid part connection as was applied in KSP1. Under that scenario, each laterally mounted part includes its own aerodynamic "silo" and you will see stress applied at the connecting joint. For spaceplanes, it made the airframes non-rigid and flimsy until the autostrut property (which are not separate parts, BTW) of each part was enabled to solve the problem and make our planes behave like planes.
I don't see how the VAB would be able to differentiate between a spaceplane frame and a rocket in order to treat each one differently. The option to apply the autostrut property to a given part is best left to the designer of the vehicle. My suspicion here is that those who would prefer to see the autostrut feature removed also favor a rocket-based career. If you have built spaceplanes and had to deal with segments of the fuselage flapping around unrealistically, then you would know why the autostrut is important for air/space plane designs.
I would agree that @Vl3d's point did not take into consideration spaceplanes. My point was to point out the unintended consequence of removing the part property (it is a property of parts, not a separate part) for the people who seem to favor rocket building. In my own rocket designs, I use regular visible struts where they would be appropriate, and autostruts also where they would be appropriate. It is not an unfair assumption that if two parts are laterally connected that a weld seam would exist where the parts are clipped together.
-
5 hours ago, Vl3d said:
Autostruts should not be in the game. Rockets should be less wobbly to begin with and disintegrate under aero forces.
Well, if that's the case, then spaceplanes should not be in the game.
Their purpose (IMO) was mostly related to making plane airframes stable.
7 hours ago, NaughtyMonster said:Assuming autostrut will be implemented at some point; can it please be made to add mass to the craft proportional to the extent of the autostruting?
Struts have mass, so should autostruts!
In the large majority of cases when I use them on airframes, I consider them a bolt between parts and whether or not they have mass is not terribly important to me.
-
Thank the stars we have the Steam forum as our source of wisdom to rely upon.
-
11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:
We aren't. You can disable control surfaces in the editor, and that effectively turns your wing into a static panel.
No, the panel is missing. It goes beyond just turning on/off the control surface. It's the overall teardrop shape of the wing. If you disable the control surface you still do not have a flat panel.
The wing or stabilizer still has a cross sectional shape of a wing or stabilizer (either teardrop or half teardrop) you cannot create a flat panel which has a rectangular cross section.
Also, refer to my first comment about the bug that is constantly flipping the control surfaces back to ON.
-
ON/OFF Control Surface Bug
If you have more than one (symmetrical grouping) of procedural wings on a craft and you set the control surface toggle to OFF and then select the procedural wing edit tool for a different part, it sets all control surfaces of every procedural wing on your craft back to ON. Therefore, if you have 3 or more (symmetrical groups) of wings on your craft, it is impossible to set 2 or more of them to the toggled OFF condition. They are constantly being flipped back to ON every time you open the procedural wing settings window.
Missing Procedural Panel
There are procedural shape options for: Wing, Stabilizer, and Control Surface. Each of the procedural shapes has either a teardrop cross section or half-teardrop in the case of a wing. We are missing a Procedural Panel, which would be like the old panels in KSP1 which would have a rectangular cross-section. Currently, the thought seems to be that wings replaced panels, but panels were used in a LOT of situations that a wing shape would not be appropriate. For instance, the hull of a boat to go in that dock area the devs added for us. Or flat decks, parts for space stations, etc. The structural panels are also ill-suited for many tasks because the thickness is just too thin, they are flimsy, and typically explode on any attempt at re-entry. We need to have a Procedural Panel as a fourth procedural part option.
Connecting Procedural Wings End-to-End
...is currently just a nightmare. There should be a connector node at the end of each wingtip that will allow you to attach the next wing segment. Currently, it seems that complex wing shapes that involve flaps and ailerons on different procedural wing segments was never contemplated.
Independent Flaps and Ailerons are Missing
We no longer have access to separate independent parts for control surfaces that can be embedded in a wing and used as a "Split-Flap" or "Fowler". Split flaps were particularly useful in my KSP1 designs for increased lift during takeoff, and bleeding off speed for landing.
Symmetry Cannot Be Disabled on a Part-by-Part Basis
There is no option to disable symmetry. This can cause problems if we use the mirror symmetry option and want flaps on each wing to behave like a flap (both deploying in the same direction). Granted, the part manager has an invert option that might suffice in many cases, but not all.
No Adjustment for Leading or Trailing Edge Thickness
This results in the trailing edges of wide wings looking as thin as a razor.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
17 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:
I've enjoyed it myself so far. I tried re creating a few of your KSp 1 designs yesterday but I'm not anywhere near as good at is at you are lol
Kind words, thank you.
My first attempt at porting a craft from my KSP1 hangar will be the FE-03 in my signature below. There are a couple interesting new parts that I am looking forward to incorporating (nav lights for instance) but we are missing a LOT right now.
I think my biggest concerns at the moment are related to:
- control surfaces with no ability to turn-off symmetry on a piece-by-piece basis
- we have no control surfaces that can function as flaps or fowlers
- procedural wing bug where if you pull up the dialog to adjust the shape of any wing part, it sets the control surface back to ON for every part on the craft. Therefore, if I have 3 or more wing parts it might be impossible to set 2 or more of them to OFF.
Spaceplane construction is just woefully bad right now.
-
Just now, RayneCloud said:
Then I am at an absolute loss Xl, sorry,
I wasn't really expecting a solution, so no need for apology.
We are just missing procedural panels right now.
Connecting procedural wings end-to-end (to approximate segmented nodes for more interesting wing shapes) is also a nightmare.
-
Yeah those are not what is used in the video for the sidewalls of the vehicle. I noticed pretty quickly the texture seemed related to a wing.
-
1 minute ago, RayneCloud said:
Try that? It might work. Let me go take a look myself.
Structural panels have always been weaker than wings and would blow up on reentry, so I doubt they will have heat shielding of any sort. I tend to associate those parts with craft/bases that are either on the ground or in orbit, but not safe for transitioning between the two.
-
1 minute ago, RayneCloud said:
OH, that's what you meant... I got confused. Yeah, a panel of some sort would be nice, I agree.
So the question remains, how did they get those "wing panels" to look like that in the video you shared? The sidewalls of that little car appear to be thin and perfectly flat wings. ...or maybe those are just little structural panels painted white?
What have you been playing recently? (Other than KSP)
in The Lounge
Posted
I truly miss the early days of flight sim where you flew missions and there was a storyline and campaign... and the war situation would adjust to your mission outcome.
We have truly lost something wonderful.