Helmetman

Members
  • Content Count

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Helmetman

  1. I can see it draining my battery faster then it takes me to let the dog out since KSP makes fried cpu and ram for breakfast. Maybe I can bake a egg on my glass Galaxy S6 cover while it's running hot. Then you almost finished your vessel but you forgot to save and your phone quits at which point you say to yourself "I never play this game on a smartphone again" Reading small fonts on the UI using a small smartphone screen is a no no. Swiping, tapping, multi touch rotating/moving and dragging to build complex VAB/SPH vessels Easy peasy, right? I know some people are smartphone gods and goddesses, but since most aren't the audience might be limited. So not a lot more people would buy/use it in my pov despite the TS wish that it might. How to steer the rocket? Well... You could use motion control to steer the rocket into a precise gravity turn viewing a tiny screen, or worse, tapping and holding arrow buttons on the up, down, left and right edges of the GUI to steer the rocket into a precise orbit. No mind upholding to precise maneuver node executions. My bet is that both options will be incredibly finicky, the latter more noticeably then the former. You might have moisture or grease on your screen and hands so you cannot select or swipe to kill your throttle so you go nuts but run out to much fuel at which point you'll have to revert flight having to face the problems I already mentioned by re-launching the thing again. Quick save/loading will solve the above, but there are endless commands besides quicksaving that might be similarly important to you. To which key tap, combo, swipe and/or menu setting options are these other options going to be addressed with? You would also have to add greater font to the UI so you can still read the navball but still allows enough room on your IPhone 8 screen to see the actual rocket in action. This will do better on a Tablet. If this gets done I think that actually playing will be reserved for tablets only. Which is fine, but I'm just saying. If hardware and battery capacity weren't a problem and we had good commercially integrated holographic hardware this will be a thing imho. But this is just my two cents, maybe there are less advanced ways to make KSP work on a smartphone/tablet. But I don't see this being done anytime soon.
  2. Monsieur Eiffel: Sacré bleu! formidable!! Now land it on gilly, oh no you can't, the reaking part count
  3. I choose LF/O and High thrust. The thing is, apart from some crazy LF only designs that set of options gets you everywhere, other engines do not Ultimately, I like every engine, but I had to choose ... thus I like nuclear engines to because they're efficient (I would love IONs more then I do now if higher physical timewarp were a thing, yeah there's that mod, ikr) You don't use jet engines only either, unless your only building pure LF only spaceplanes. I also do spaceplanes. I rather get a heavy lifter RAPIER or for that matter LF/O spaceplane to LKO where I will jettison a mission specific payload rather then making a SSTO to everywhere. Of course many people do try to make the most capable spaceplane out there. To me it's just to finicky to overdesign a spaceplane so it can land on laythe, jettison payload and get back to Kerbin while I can jettison a payload in LKO who gets it there and back again easier and with more payload. But that is just my style of course
  4. I like this idea very much. But I don't think it will ever get done. Making a storyline is about storytelling and storymaking. It's a skill of fictionalism, and in professional video/gamemaking it often requires said specialist to get it done properly. The fictionalism involved requires schools of thought that benefit creativity and involve a mix of creative realism and pure fantasy. People who are more into actual gamemaking and the construction and coding of which are analytical and often left brained and do not possess either through genetics or through lack of learning the creativity needed for fictionalizing a proper story. Of course there's creativity in rendering images to make them look neat. Know that this is not the only specific department of creativity, and not the one I'm trying to refer to. Making games in the first place but also on the scientific basis of spaceflight is a very left brained kind of business, so are most people on this forum I take it. But yeah, there are plenty of artists on this forum to. Many people are notoriously both by the way. For a good, proper, balanced, interactive and well rated career storyline you need artists in the Dev team. Large gaming companies have the money, resources and intel to find, hire and work the skilled people necessary to meet features of creativity like a storyline for instance. I assume, Squad doesn't have/had this. Maybe they'd tell me that they do/did, but other games often have more specialized people in service who are much better at targeting the creativity necessary for the storyline goal. On top of this comes the fact that the career system is a little bogus, or rather becomes pretty much bogus after a few playthroughs after which you install mods to fill in the career gaps. So there's a actual lack in the whole workings of a proper career system that wouldn't even fit a storyline in its current state. So before adding a storyline, I would revise the whole career. This is a subject being discussed plenty of times. Besides pondering whether Squad will ever give it a overhaul at all, there's the discussion how a new career system would look like in the first place. Multiple ideas have been presented, and we haven't had masses yet to conclude a solution. So there's that. Summup... There's a discussion in how career should be overhauled by this community. This is what keeps chunks of people away from career. A storyline seems moot in comparison to that point. There's a requirement for a career overhaul to fit any storyline since the current state is a repetition of similar actions (I'm not sure how a story would fit in such a career system, you tell me?) We need the proper people with the right professions in the gaming industry to get it done (the writers and graphics artists, not so much the coders who works the Kernel, UI or the bug cleaning) And a financial incentive for Squad to even go there.
  5. KSP doesn't model aerodynamics at all. It's just some lookalike half done twisted version of some airy/soupy goo that is actually a particle dynamics substitute that gives enough vague resemblance to allow people to utter the word aerodynamics during a full exhale. Not sure if the FAR mod adds this, or whether it's possible to mod these dynamics into the game. I do hope so
  6. This is a game, not a simulator. (besides it simulating things, that's just aside) If it were 1:1 we would need 10 minutes to get anything into orbit, which is very tedious for most people. I include myself into this category because I don't want to waste to much time on this. The Delta V requirements in 1:1 are also much greater. It requires very complex staging to do things efficiently and to get the same things done in the regular KSP. KSP has to be dumbed down so everyone with some faint interest in spaceflight can play it, not just the physicist and the aero engineer. Most people on here are, but not everyone is. If your into realism you can download RSS/RO.
  7. From which mod are those wing surface solar panels, or wings themselves for that matter?
  8. This is a terrific thing. All this time I used a ruler on my monitor to show how the markers corresponded to one another. And also in flight please as is being suggested.
  9. Yeah I noticed that
  10. There's so much to say for this. CoL as close to the CoM as possible. If you do it to much your plane will become very, how to call it, "wiggly". If that happened you did it to much. Enough rear vertical stabilizers. Panther engine!! It has high gimbal so it will add thrust vectoring. Dihedral main wings (gives more stability during roll) A tiny weeny bit of incidence on the main wings (reclined angle of wing against the cord line) not to much though or you get negative AoA at high speed, especially if it's a supersonic craft, if it's faster then that I would forget this one if I were you as it will only cause trouble with drag which this method is supposed to deduce if done correctly. Enough panthers so you have around 1 TWR in wet mode. This means you can always thrust yourself out of a stall without having to fight to get out of one even at dangerously low altitudes. Enough wings so you stay on the velocity vector even during high speed turns. To little wings and you'll steer of the velocity marker in a high speed turn causing you to stall. Play with pitch control authority. You want as much control on them so that you stay on the velocity vector when pulling hard (not to much not to little) To much of this and you might flip the plane in a sharp turn. This can be your intention. Now you know how to. CoM should be more to the middle rather then to the back, otherwise you'd need more excessive rear pitch control surface area that you (A) might not require and (B) makes the plane look bad, IMHO. Enough height and pivoting room on the main gear so you can do a hard pull from the runway without burying your rear into the ground. Make it a VTOL (if you so desire. It fits in with high maneuverability) using RCS in hover mode for extra roll, pitch and yaw control at very low or still airspeeds. Rotating with thrust vectoring can be done in a VTOL setup but it's a screwed up way to turn (not classified by me as a sound way to achieve supermaneuvering but maybe others have better experience) (PS: can also use reaction wheels but they're not my favourite choice since it's not really realistic in both the aeronautic and astronautical avenues of real life) Only saying that I care Airbrakes for a quick halt in mid air, maybe even in combination with spoiler settings on the available control surfaces.
  11. Words taken right of my mouth. In Mikes case, out of his ass... Nuff said,
  12. Didn't knew this myself. I'll keep learning everyday, thanks
  13. My idea exactly Orchestration is the word. My bet is there are communities doing the same thing for their most faved games. Let's not trail by fighting what ksp is for.
  14. Isn't it better to make a discussion about what we would all categorize it for, rather then categorizing it all differently? I'll await what people have to say and if they don't I just go with "Just another 5 minutes" Maybe a poll?
  15. This is a supposed enhanced ability acquired by continuous meditation. But that is a scientific category yet to be proven and officially documented. But I've already given some amount of unorthodox pre assumptions about Kerbal behaviour, so that one could be just as right also
  16. Normally the animation of the CoM isn't off. But you are burning fuel by which you are shedding mass as you expel it by using your engines. Try to drain all of your fuel tanks in the VAB or SPH and see if the CoM moves. If it does and It moves about in unfavourable areas you'll have to re-arrange your fuel tanks. If that doesn't help you can try this mod... Do pack some extra thrust for the target body, the mod will limit thrust automatically on one side to compensate for offset thrust. But that also lowers your TWR. So if you pack 1.2 TWR for your intended target I would pack 1.3 or even 1.4 just in case
  17. Fastest 4TB intel SSD. Fastest Z270 platform with i7 7700k intel CPU 64GB of ram. 2x GTX 1080 in SLI prettiest and likeliest desktop case mid/full tower casing you can find. Watercooling CPU and GPU's Asus Xonar soundcard gaming keyboard and mouse 24 inch 4k monitor Kerbal space program..................................................................? The rest on your savings account
  18. Supported It didn't cover what your suggesting... But in a ancient KSP era there was once this (v) don't necro this! I would like that and including the ideas of yours. Personally I play without sounds and just play my tracks. But that is because KSP sounds suck like a deflating hydrogen balloon. If it weren't I'd be pretty interested in playing the in game sounds.
  19. @Avery616 That seismic accelerometer is a Beer right? Meaning... That they share the same tankard... ? Or... ? That one takes a tankard for himself but that the volume hardly fits the volumetrics of his body *cough* meaning torso. Maybe the Kerbal stomach and bowels can pressurize liquids? Or maybe Kerbals are environmentalists and they just sip for several days until it's emptied By the way, they are staring like they aren't the greatest conversationalists. Meantime answer: They're meditating. Other meantime answer: You drugged them.
  20. I think somebody would have reported this already, since so many mission profiles should have already given us this warning. But I tested this. Firing engines for 5 minutes at maximum heating without exploding the capsule... Kerbals get out without exploding, I got the bar to the absolute max. (further then in the picture as I throttled a lil bit before taking the pic) I think, imaginatively that the max heat temperature of a cockpit or any crewed part doesn't transfer the same temperature to the Kerbal. Imagine a cooling system in the cockpit of some sorts. If the Kerbals heat tolerance is lower then the capsule, he's cooled internally or by his spacesuit to stay below the mortal heat damage. Bill got out and... After that Val got out, also redded out. Then I send Val inside again and then got her out after a few seconds, she's still hot. Then I tried heating the Mk 1 cockpit for a minute or two. It, unlike the Mk 2 cocpit loses its heat in several seconds and consequently the Kerbal doesn't heat up. I haven't tested other cockpits, but this means this varies per cockpit, but why? After a few seconds no more heating... And consequently, a cool Bill
  21. Then I guess I'm not used to dark side pictures of flat dessert areas giving me the impression it wasn't Kerbin My mistake... I'll check some more conditions besides the test done.
  22. @Geonovast That is a non atmospheric world? Is that planet from OPM or GPP? I did a test at the Launchpad firing 6 aerospikes at a MK 2 crew capsule with Valentina as a test subject. What I found out is that the longer heat is induced, the hotter the kerbal eventually becomes. So it doesn't just matter whether you red out to the max on the heat bar during re-entry, it also matter how long those critical temperatures are maintained. On the first pic I fired the Aerospikes for 20 seconds whereby I redded out the heat bar on the capsule nearing its max, and Val was oranged on the heat bar after getting out... On the next pic I fired the engines for 60 seconds instead of 20 (I reverted flight first by the way) Now she's hotter then before How this works under the hood is probably explained here https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Overheating
  23. What 5th horseman said. And by filtered out means- and as I said "highlighted" in the tracking station means this. Not that you should already go about it, but it could eventually be a bug. If nothing helps you should check this... But I would first wait to see what others post