.png.e9c8e4b068b5687cb21415d07cf67929.png)
Vexillar
-
Posts
264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Vexillar
-
-
Hi and welcome... though I don't understand what you're saying...
-
Yes! Thanks @SQUAD. That's a great re-work of a very useful, but hitherto sadly ugly engine.
Do we need variants? I see why not: this is definitely a vacuum optimised engine, so any aero treatment is a bit futile - IRL it would be useless additional mass.
The twin bells, I guess, are to make it realistic but still conform to the old form factor.Ninja'd by @RoverDude! -
Another fictional example from the 1960s was Gerry Anderson's Fireball XL5:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/u7LMlr9cWO4?start=31&end=50
I guess that as in that series they simply ignored the lack of gravity in space, they could also hand-wave the enormous vertical acceleration on that short ramp. (Not to mention the shadow of the exhaust on the sky...). Simpler times.
-
Welcome @Dan Kerman!
Rendezvous and docking were the hardest for me, too, at first. Landing took a bit of trial and error to get the fuel loads right, but like you I was a kid during the Apollo programme, so some of that childhood fascination for spacecraft seems to help in eyeballing a workable design. Oh - and that I grew up with Lunar Lander as one of the few computer games of its time.
-
That would be tricky... the suit packs for Texture Replacer (etc.) can only replace the textures (erm... figures...), not the body mesh for the kerbals. Hence everyone would still have the shape of the standard or vintage space suit (and helmet in EVA). So we would need something to change the mesh as well.
That must be possible - as the Space Ponies mod replaces the heads with differently shaped ones - but the bodies have lots of animation (even more now!) so all of that would have to be replicated too. Sounds like a big job.
-
When I came in to land a relief crew for my Minmus mining and fuel production base, and the base spontaneously disassembled and threw the surviving parts into orbit.
-
Hi @Turk_WLF. Welcome back.
1) Yes, the good thing is that many of the stock parts have been (and are being) re-textured to give us more options and better resolution. One of the trade-offs is that the old familiar part icons are not so instantly recognisable. Maybe that will be addressed in a future version (coloured backgrounds have been suggested on the fourms) but in the mean time, you can filter by part size.
2) Build your launch platform first - with its own probe core. Add a structure to hold the satellites (fairings with truss enabled are often good for that) and build your first one "backwards" from the decoupler upwards. The either drag the complete satellite and decoupler to the subassemblies area on the left to create a re-usable satellite for this and other lanchers, or simply Alt-Drag to copy it as many times as needed. You might want to create a little platform out of panels and/or octagonal struts between the fairing truss mounting point and the decoupler to angle you satellite and get its COM more in line with the rest of the launch vehicle. In that case, drag/copy the platform too.
-
That's unexpected... and very nice! Great to see our intrepid spacefarers being a little more animated.
6 hours ago, jagfour said:loose the heart hold salute
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.
-
1 hour ago, GeneCash said:
I even had Richard Stallman spend the week at my apartment once, too!
Respect!
-
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?
-
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.
-
25 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:
I'm pretty sure spamming of unrelated comments is verboten.
Then let's move it to the lounge, for this I would vouch.
-
Unravel the rhyme? You'll forge a curse!
-
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.
On 11/22/2018 at 7:03 AM, Sirad said:How about revamping and adding some structural Girder Parts for Starbases ?
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.
-
On 11/14/2018 at 6:59 PM, Zosma Procyon said:
I still occasionally attach decoupler rings the wrong way and end with them stuck on the craft forever
Or you can install KAS and have your kerbals unbolt the unwanted parts.
-
Welcome! Feel free to ask some more.
-
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.
-
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: https://imgur.com/a/9Oi9DYs )
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: https://imgur.com/a/5lXg4ny )
-
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.
-
21 hours ago, basic.syntax said:
Too many rivets. (Bolts!)
Too true. Aircraft carriers are so un-aerodynamic. They'll never take off.
-
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.
-
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.
-
12 hours ago, swjr-swis said:
stock 'part upgrade' mechanism
Wait... that's a thing already? Sorry, slept through that one. Point taken.
----Edit ----
12 hours ago, Snark said:Part variants are very limited. They can change the model, the texture, and the mass, but that's basically it. Notably, they can't affect the resources content. (Which is a pity, because otherwise it would be trivially easy to have switchable tanks that can toggle between LFO and LF-only, for example.)
(Feature request for Squad: could we make variants able to switch out resource contents?)
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.)?
-
So Long, Farewell, I Hate To Say Goodbye.
in Kerbal Network
Posted
Happy Holidays... and best wishes for your endeavours outside of the Kerbosphere. Look forward to seeing you around again before too long.