Incarnation of Chaos

Members
  • Content Count

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

283 Excellent

2 Followers

About Incarnation of Chaos

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do you know how many relay sats i have right now? Four One at Eve, One at Duna and One around Minmus and Kerbin. You know where i'm at? Jool; with full signal strength. Again; if you are in a 3 times rescale and you have not modified the Dishes and the DSN then you will have issues. For stock scales, the Level 3 DSN and Relay sats are fine. And i have also; though the only way iv'e landed larger planes is with chutes. But yeah; KSP2 needs to improve onboarding significantly.
  2. This post frustrates me, and does so despite knowing you're just trying to be helpful. Why? Because this is one of the biggest issues with even wanting to make planes in KSP! If i want to know how to do 20 gravity assists to do a grand tour of the Kerbol system; there's dozens of tutorials out there! If i want to know how to do anything but the most basic plane design in KSP? Jack excrements. I can't git gud if there's nothing for me to get better with.
  3. You do realize they had to build additional infrastructure between when it launched and when they contacted it past Pluto to accomplish this right? If they had the same DSN, and compression methods they did when they launched it then they would've lost contact with it. And the other reason this is the case is because KSP expects you to actually build out a relay network between you and the destination, and even gives you plenty of contracts to put satellites in nice convenient orbits around other bodies so you can even get PAID doing it. If you're actually trying to contact a probe directly with just the Kerbin DSN all the way out at Eeloo not only are you honestly not playing the way it was intended, but you're also setting yourself up for constant frustration as things eclipse and block your tenuous signal the entire way out. Also aren't you playing a 3.75X Rescale? That's going to make the inverse-square law hit you hard, and break the stock dishes and DSN ranges. And that's not a stock problem at that point; that's you having a modded system and needing an additional mod/patch to bring it back in line with the expected balance that you broke by using mods. Now for the real fun one here So this is filled with all kinds of wrong; first you didn't mention ANYWHERE in the OP that you were using FAR. That's important, and means that you're getting replies assuming stock aerodynamics which won't be helpful. FAR removes the fudge factor that stock KSP uses to allow such small lifting surfaces to generate enough lift to make "Kerbal-Sized" planes possible. This also means your takeoff, landing and stall speeds will all be much higher if you don't account for it. And about making the runway longer; it's not about modeling time. It's that the combination of Unity's colliders, Terrain system and the lack of FP precision actually makes getting surfaces level much more difficult than just eyeballing it. Iv'e made huge planes in KSP using FAR, and it took some time. But they made orbit; biggest issue was the landing gear.
  4. Then why waste time, money and effort to just make what's effectively a buffed Orion that doesn't have any of the unique considerations of the Rotating Detonation Engine that are brought about because of how unique the methods by which the engine must be constructed? Why not just add a upgrade to Orion that allows the use of Antimatter-Boosted Fusion Bombs which are smaller and more powerful and would provide a similar if not much greater increase in ISP, especially since the engineers and scientists working on Orion were already considering these methods for the times when they became available. I think what you're not seeing is that if you simplify a concept down this severely, then you get an end product that doesn't have anything to distinguish itself like it would in real life. Orion is a massively different drive than conventional rockets, trading the ability to throttle for immense ISP and thrust (Basically becoming a torchship) and the ability to Brute-Force it's way along hyperbolic trajectories. Metallic Space Magic isn't as powerful, but sits nicely in the middle. Allowing much easier transfer of men and materials around a local system, and even being suited for short interstellar hops. Plasma Torches provide decent thrust and ISP, and outclass both. But monumental energies and thermal exchangers are needed to tame the fusion dragon screaming from the back, and it's unlikely to work well within an atmosphere. Antimatter is the ultimate in propulsion capable without mainpulating space and time itself, being incredibly dense with fantastic ISP and thrust. This highly simplified drive you're proposing? It's Orion but a bit more efficient, and that's not enough to distinguish it from the rest.
  5. I'll admit that's it's not something that i should portray as "Typical", and it's often a sign of "Development Hell". But it's far more common than i think most people realize; why do you think most developers are very cautious about setting firm dates now? There's plenty of games that have made their way out of it, and turned out fantastic regardless though. But honestly as far as confirming/denying anything; all the sources i could provide would still be from before the move. So i think the only thing that would confirm or deny anyone's suspicions at this moment would be a decent info dump from the developers of KSP2, and at this point i think it's warranted. Because honestly? There's so much that could have changed between the last round of interviews and now, that i can't trust the information out there ATM. Even just them reconfirming the information we think we know would be better than where we are right now; which is basically the void.
  6. Honestly at this point if KSP just had wheels and landing legs that acted in a predictable manner it would be perfect for me. And yes, that's my biggest gripe about KSP.
  7. We've seen multiple disruptions to the Star.Theory staff and facilities, and i don't even know if they're still the ones developing ATM or if they've just been absorbed into Private Division. And with the current chaos the world is undergoing; it's little surprise that the ambitious timeline fell apart. Especially given that they already delayed, and whoever you are, wherever you are have my sympathies. I'm just beginning my adventure into Software Development (Academically; not working), and learning the hard way that sometimes you can't make it work by just throwing people at it, you can't just brute-force your way past the issue, that there's no trick or magic wand to make it work. You just have to put on your pants and wade right into the swamp of suck, and wrestle whatever issue you're having down to the muddy bottom until the solution shakes loose from it's jaws. So to all of you developers, i want to say one thing above all. For every person that's loudly asking you to slap something together, to release early or otherwise deliver a sub-standard product. There's a number more like me; who just want what's best for the game. In short; Thank you for delaying KSP2.
  8. Also flaps and other similar control surfaces don't really work in KSP due to it's terrible Approximation (Can't even bring myself to call it a model) of aerodynamics. So actually mechanizing a plane to the point where you feel some degree of control over is difficult (Not impossible....but....at that point rockets look simple). Combine that with the questionable wheels and dampers that sometimes become reactionless propulsion whenever they feel like it (Seriously these things crack me up sending me from a dead stop to flying in a hyperbolic trajectory at 30m/s on the mun) and 9/10 times your only viable option is just to say **** it and plaster on dead weight in the form of chutes whenever you want to land. That all said; there's a fantastic dev blog buried somewhere that details why making the runway longer/wider is a hell of a lot more work than it sounds. BUT i'd say fixing the buggy wheels would make all of this far less painful, and should be a priority. The aero model-but-not-really-model of KSP is also a massive problem, along with the lack of a reasonable selection of aircraft parts. But we all must remember; KSP was a rocket sim/sandbox well before it was dabbling in planes. My janky workaround with ancient KSPWheel patches for stock gears + FAR + about 4 plane part modz is satisfying my needs ATM.
  9. There's two problems here though #1- They've already said that KSP2 will be a complete rewrite on a software level. #2- They Never mentioned what was the ultimate cause of the delay. It could be completely unrelated. And as for the Game Engine, nothing is built for KSPs gameplay and that's not even mentioning KSP2 is going to scale everything up. So they're not going to benefit from moving to another. And if they were to write one from scratch a year delay wouldn't even begin to give them enough time for it. So I don't see anything here which supports your hypothesis. It's just game development being game development.
  10. Also I'm surprised you're the first person to point this out tbh; i could find dozens of screenshots of people in KSP that have more "Realistic" additions to their ships including Centrifugal rings, Radiators and etc. But unless they're running a modded game it's all for looks. Also the OP has been making thread after thread about implementing more "Realistic" features into KSP2, and therefore is biased towards seeing these things where they might not be. He's persistent though; I'll give him that. I skimmed thru your first few posts tbh, so that's my fault.
  11. Neutronium? The stuff that freaking neutron stars are made of? That a tablespoon's worth would punch a hole straight thru the earth like it was made of paper?! T H A T ' S what you're proposing working with?
  12. If you're already using fission-fusion, then there's no need to store raw Tritium. You could produce it from Fission of Lithium (Yes; it can undergo fission even though it's such a light element) if you can tank the dry mass penalty. No idea about the rest of this stuff, but i wanted to chime in on this xD.
  13. On earth it's not, but on a interstellar ship that will be continually operating the reactor for decades or even centuries one must consider the effects of neutron activation even if we discount the health effects and lost energy. Whatever materials your magnets are using won't likely remain magnetic after being constantly transmuted by neutron flux, and even your automated maintenance robots won't likely appreciate the hard gamma radiation emitted from the daughter products as they proceed along their decay chains.
  14. It really just depends how much the developers want to trade performance for allowing novel craft designs. Even allowing multiple "Trees" to exist would increase the computational complexity significantly, then adding the physics LOD and acceleration on top would complicate things and introduce bugs. The tree structure is staying for a reason; there was a dude in another thread who put it much better. Hopefully they drop in
  15. It's extremely likely the crafts will still follow a "Tree" structure, but will have more logic to handle edge cases like multi-docking.