• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vexillar

  1. That's unexpected... and very nice! Great to see our intrepid spacefarers being a little more animated. Nah, it is fine for me (and I prefer my Kerbalverse to be non-militarised). Beside, I know that Kerbal anatomy is a debated subject, but so far as I can make out, that is where they keep their orberecs.
  2. Great idea! There has to be something in this. Once a craft has achieved a stable landing on the surface, if on re-load / physics range the game logic (as it appears) needs to re-establish its position relative to the recalculated surface, then the game logic should move (translate) the parts without adding momentum or over much stress between parts. At the moment there are situations that, when loading, cause a feedback between stress and momentum, resulting in some parts trying to attain high velocity, breaking connections with other parts and colliding. If the logic knows that it is dealing with a landed object, rather than a speeding crater-buggy jumping off a ridge, things could be kept more under control?
  3. Running a space agency and conducting rocket missions doesn't only involve rockets. We have convenient short cuts in the game to allow us to build, launch and recover a rocket without (necessarily) having to build the support vehicles to move the rockets, fuel, crew and science around. But there is always the option to do some of that if you want to - either for fun, or for improved returns in currency in career mode. Besides this, on atmospheric bodies (not just Kerbin) there's nothing wrong with using aerofoil devices to get your science experiments from one biome to another or to return the samples to your lander - again for increased science returns and lower cost (even if that's only down to reduced payload mass). Hence, IMO: K-SPACE-P should have no qualms about including plenty of aero parts. If a player wants to propel Kerbals with them or not is their call.
  4. Then let's move it to the lounge, for this I would vouch.
  5. Unravel the rhyme? You'll forge a curse!
  6. Welcome Rafael! The general impression of the crisp new part treatment is heading the right way. There may be some reservations - but a big thanks to @SQUAD for sharing previews of what is being worked on, and listening to the feedback (whatever the font size )! Seeing the parts in context is very helpful to understand the artists' thinking. It would be great to have some more (and more interesting) girder parts. The new structural panels are far more versatile (and lighter) than the old square plates - similarly the present girders to me seem way too heavy and rather limited. And finally - from a PC player - great to hear a glimmer of good news for the console players.
  7. Or you can install KAS and have your kerbals unbolt the unwanted parts.
  8. It looks very much as though we're being treated to a progressive rework of all the parts. I for one welcome our alien overhauls.
  9. IRL there are different approaches to rocket construction for atmospheric/launch conditions. One approach is to make the outer skin as smooth and streamlined as possible, the other is to keep structural mass to a minimum. This is nicely illustrated by comparing the US Thor Able and UK Blue Streak: (Photo my copyright, taken at UK National Space Centre, Feb 2007; Higher-res view here: ) These show show the minimum and maximum in greebling. Thor Able (left) has a first stage fuelled by RP-1 and LOx. The tank structure is rigid and very smooth on the outside. Note that it is displayed on a support frame from the base. Blue Streak (right) is similarly fuelled (though the British didn't use the RP-1 designation, just called it kerosene) but mass was reduced by using "balloon" tanks that are held rigid by internal pressure when charged. This rocket is displayed with no support underneath - it is suspended from the roof by cables - because the thin tank walls would buckle in the absence of internal pressure. This happened a few times with Atlas rockets, which crumpled on the pad before ignition. The channels attached to the outside of the tank are there for two reasons: primarily to stiffen the lower, unpressurised kerosene tank, and also to provide aerodynamic stability (tiny elongated fins, in effect - and why they continue on the engine cover) . At this distance (about as close as we normally get in KSP play) there are some rivets visible, but a close-up view of the Blue Streak would reveal thousands of the things. (Photo my copyright, taken at UK National Space Centre, Feb 2007; Higher-res view here: )
  10. I've had some success using the new-style decouplers to attach radial parts to make a lower stage, allowing the engine of the stage above to fire through it. Not sure how far that would get you to your design intent.
  11. Too true. Aircraft carriers are so un-aerodynamic. They'll never take off.
  12. There are so many comments above I agree with... FIrst impression of the FL-5 was very positive - the new B&W texture is much better looking than the old silver-grey, taking it as a standalone object. However, what is this part in-game? It's really just a metalloid plate to make a nice interface (for looks and for the aero model) between different sized components. But for me, flat adapters most commonly serve either (a) to provide a little "realism" between two parts that could be attached directly but look better with a little extra something, or (b) as a cap over a tank end or other part (perhaps as a tanker module or a surface tank in a base). In the latter case, the half-painted flat ends on the old part bother me somewhat; but the nicely detailed ends on the new part would actually be worse - they would need a cap on the cap, (ad infinitem!). As has been said above, consider the use cases for the part. It's a little different with the FL-10 - I'd hardly ever use this without something attached to the end. The sloped surface textures are interesting, but I agree with the many comments above saying that there's still just a little too much panelling on the black-and-white variant; the orange variant is better. Agree generally with comments about the mesh-shapes, but could live with these.
  13. If there are concerns about changing the role of this part (for career progression/game balance or backward compatibility), then I get that... but please, pretty please, @SQUAD give us a tank as a separate part.
  14. Wait... that's a thing already? Sorry, slept through that one. Point taken. ----Edit ---- Or... does Snark's comment re resource content mean that the number of Kerbals cannot [yet] vary between variants (which kind of makes sense, given the needed seating reconfiguration etc.)?
  15. Because to keep the game balanced, the three "Russian" pods are introduced at different points in the Tech Tree, and their mass and other characteristics are different.
  16. As @Geonovast already posted, Texture Replacer provides the "engine" to replace the textures of suits and faces - though not changing the shapes. There's a fork of that called Texture Replacer Replaced, but AFAIK that's not yet been updated for 1.5.1. With that (those) mod(s), you'll also need a suit and/or heads pack to get what you want - either a suit that has an opaque visor, or use the reflection options to obscure the faces (at the cost of heavier graphics processing. With the new kerbal/suit model introduced in KSP 1.5.x, none of the old packs will work. Try these as a start:[1.5] *New* Class color suits for Texture replacer and colored suits for KSP 1.5 Alternatively, the Space Ponies mod can be found here: Space Ponies . They're cute, but IMO even more cartoony than kerbalkind. Enjoy!
  17. Hi, and welcome, @Huita Kerbals are... kind of built into... KSP. The stock parts, planets and buildings are all scaled to our little green chums. Yes, there are plenty of mods that replace the planets with the real Solar System, tweak the physical parameters to suit, add multifarious new parts and even change the colour and appearance of the Kerbals' heads, suits and visors (and even a Kerbal Space Ponies mod that ... well... does what you think it would). In stock, of course, you could just stick to un-kerballed missions...?
  18. Great to see that this part is receiving some attention. There were certainly things that needed to be addressed: Fit with other parts - the top diameter needs to be made uniform with the other parts. Function: Either it should be a tank (even if empty by default), or it should be able to be filled with parts such as batteries, reaction wheels, small tanks, etc., etc. and provide aero protection. (If it is argued that we can now use fairings to provide inter-stage equipment bays then, OK, this part should simply be a conical tank.) Texture: The old texture was lacking - too little detail, colour artifacts, obvious "scratch" patterns that are fine for the primary use case (a single adapter on a large stack) but look odd if there is a need for multiple adapters in larger kontraptions. I can't tell if #1 has been fixed from the pictures; others clearly think not. #2 does not appear to have been addressed at all. #3, the new texture is much better defined, for sure, and addresses the multiple-parts-in-one-ship issue (even without using the variants for difference). The detailing on the cross-bars is much better. However, I think the outer surface is over-greebled. It looks like there would be significant surface drag [yes, I know that appearance doesn't really affect performance], especially from the horizontal ridges [and I also know about the golf ball effect]. My tuppence (2 cents) worth: Remove the row of large rivets. The small ones are fine. Remove at least some of the horizontal ridges. Tone down the vertical ones. Do my eyes deceive me, or are there some of the "handles" (as discussed on the lander can) lurking in the black stripe? I don't see why they would be there... unless the part has opening panels... I would accept there being another corrugation ring down there for stiffness, again if it wasn't too deeply defined. The orange stripe on the variant looks like textured insulation, rather than simply the "Russian orange" paint. Although I'd echo comments asking for an all-orange-insulated-tank variant, it seems odd to insulate a purely structural part?
  19. Hi Geeb! Welcome to the forums. Like you, a lot of us here have learned a lot from KSP, usually the hard way . The fun is in finding out! (And I'll say to you what I say to the Project Managers I work with, who often feel that their very good English needs apology... No, I am very sorry that I cannot adequately converse in Deutsch, Nederlands, Svenska, Norsk, Magyar Nyelv, Polski or... basically any other language. You're doing fine!)
  20. Something that has attracted only a couple of comments: a big thumbs up from me for the new hatch design. The overall look is a great improvement on earlier stock hatches (is this basically the new standard hatch for non-aerodynamic parts?). For me the roof hatch (that can be covered by a docking port if required) is a good solution. I understand the comment about the green light, but to me a green light makes sense... hey! hatch here! Safety! The only reservation is (as has already been mentioned) having the four handles: that does seem a little redundant. My Kerbals are a little clumsy, even when not wearing gloves, so I'd hate to think of them fumbling to enter the pod to escape a marauding Kraken!
  21. Thanks for posting this! I'm hoping I'll be allowed to stay up late again to watch it again 50 years on. I can't believe it's that long since I sat, glued to the screen watching the grainy, contrasty B&W images, cocoa in one hand, teddy bear in the other. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...
  22. Less mass, better visibility, and way more versatile. Great work on the revamp. This was a part I always tried - unsuccessfully - to love. Generally I like the styling and the larger windows, though I can understand the comments. But I can't wait to try out the new version!