Jump to content

eekee

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

7 Neutral
  1. Thanks Maxsimal! And the rest of the devs too! It's been great. I started playing in 1.8. I'm glad I didn't start playing before the advanced burn time indicator was present, I don't think I could have coped without it. There was something in 1.8 I was glad of too. Can't remember what it was now, but I think some of the "moar boosters" launched my first successful orbiting craft. They definitely launched the insane rockets by which I discovered what a big difference it makes to launch with or against Kerbin's orbital direction when leaving its SOI. My first ion probe was sent on an interstellar trajectory without even using any of its own propellant! As for 1.12, I've wanted steering adjust ever since I first played. I'm sure it'll be a big help. It's also great to have a rover stability guide to refer people to, except for one point which is rather backwards, if you'll excuse me saying so. Under braking, there's this: Uh... I guess this could happen with EXTREME REACTION WHEEL! but my experience is reaction wheels help tremendously when accelerating or decelerating. When accelerating, the natural tendency of a wheeled vehicle is to throw its weight onto its rear wheels, pitching up.1 Reaction wheels or RCS respond to the same key with pitch down torque. Thus, under acceleration, reaction wheels fight the rover's tendency to wheelie and flip onto its back. They also increase traction by keeping the front wheels pressed to the ground. When engine braking (for want of a more appropriate term), the ground wheels are trying to pitch forward while the reaction wheels are trying to pitch back. Just the same as when accelerating, the chance of flipping is reduced and traction is improved. Since driving on Minmus, I never use the actual brakes of a rover except for parking or to supplement engine braking. 1. Cars mitigate this with careful design of suspension geometry; not easily done in KSP and not as effective as reaction wheels anyway. I'm also experimenting with applying roll with yaw for stability in steering; A+Q and D+E keys. It "should help", but I haven't properly tested it because I'm not focusing on rovers right now. I'm too busy with spaceplanes. Negative camber is another thing I want to test. 15o (one snap) of negative camber greatly improved steering stability of my "speed rovers", (my 2nd project in KSP, ) but I'm not sure why.
  2. The stock fairings are fine if you're fine with sharp angles or just don't care what they look like. If you want smooth curves in profile, you gotta work!
  3. I'd like a way to make a whole craft (with fixed panels) to track the sun.
  4. I'm pretty sure I once worked out that it's lighter than any other engine+tank combination of similar power, but I don't have the figures any more. I don't know if I'd use a single boar. It's great as a lightweight engine-tank combo, but I think it would be a bit naff if it lost the weight advantage. In fact, I thought the Twin-Boar was naff until I saw its weight advantage.
  5. Hahaha! Very funny video, and yes, EVA construction does have some terrible issues triggered by just picking a part up ready to place. Twice, I've had it suddenly decide not to let me place a docking port anywhere, not even to drop it. I couldn't even pause the game. I was almost surprised when it responded to F9. The first time, I didn't even have a quicksave & could only force-quit the game. However, I have successfully placed a number of struts and docking ports without these issues in EVA construction, so I still believe in it. ... I just make very sure to quicksave first.
  6. It's definitely better than nothing, but absolutely has room for improvement. I launched a small fleet of rockets in 1.11 and found just how horrible the tracking station UI is when you need to find the next maneuver of any ship. I couldn't have executed all the burns without quicksaves; had to quickload twice. 1.12 came soon after that and alarms helped tremendously for the next mass flight, but adding and especially updating the alarms was still a bit unpleasant. Maybe I should have 'just' made a monster ship which separated once it got to Jool, but as I get more ships in flight, (and with my plans, I will,) I'm going to need to know the next burn for any craft without looking through a list which puts all the burns in small text and hides them half the time.
  7. Don't forget you can fit conventional struts in orbit since 1.11. I guess it doesn't really help with docked craft unless you want to get an engineer out on EVA with every dock and undock operation. Now I think about it, adding struts might be realistic for craft docked to space stations which need to turn. Space stations aren't generally expected to turn very often AFAIK. I didn't know autostrut existed until recently, so my docking procedure included turning SAS off the moment the docking succeeded and I didn't build stations. I started to build stations in 1.11 when EVA construction made it possible to add external struts. The procedure was: dock, SAS off, add struts, SAS on. It worked fine, except for one station where one of the ships had loads of parts as cargo but carried externally, including a lot of struts. That one was kraken bait. All the same, I think I'd prefer autostrut to go through docking ports if it doesn't cause issues. EVA construction is a little bit tough.
  8. I'm not going to comment on KSP 1's future, but I'd like to relate the story of the survival of Transport Tycoon Deluxe. It has something in common with KSP: it doesn't dumb things down very much. Newbies can easily get stuck and it's easy to find very hard challenges. I remember one time, a guy who'd played Railroad Tycoon avidly from version 1 to version 10 (how many years is that?) came on TT-Forums looking for help because his train network wasn't working. He'd got his trains into a mild form of deadlock - something natural to train networks. It was a thing every Transport Tycoon newbie quickly learned to deal with, but... well, Railroad Tycoon wasn't that real, Transport Tycoon was. In those days modding wasn't really accepted by game publishers, but nonetheless a modding patching community got going and "TTDPatch" got a large number of improvements and extensions. TTDPatch was very much alive 10 years after the release of Transport Tycoon Deluxe or 12 years after the original Transport Tycoon - many years after the publishers had stopped selling the game. In those days, games didn't really get updated. They were released, maybe had a few variants, and if they did well, maybe sequels. Transport Tycoon had 3 or 4 versions which were more art changes than program updates. Deluxe has some extra train signals over the original and some different terrain generators; that's about it for code changes. So I guess its last release was probably about 1996, but TTDpatch was still going strong in 2004. By 2004, another fan project was ready for prime time: OpenTTD. With all new code, OpenTTD is a clone of Transport Tycoon Deluxe, a faithful reproduction but not bound by the same licenses. Until about 2005 or so, you had to have the original graphics data to play it, but as the coders matured they got uncomfortable with that. They started a project to get open source graphics; compatible but looking a little different. Some of the many "NewGRF" artists were willing to contribute, so OpenTTD was soon able to include a complete set of open-source graphics. It's still going strong; you can today play Transport Tycoon Deluxe much like it was originally (but with much better pathfinding), or with almost all the extensions from TTDPatch and many more. In short, fans of a complicated, technical game had the technical skill to make sure it survived and to make it better than the original. It's still going strong today. I'm almost certain the same will happen to KSP 1. For reference of the sort of activity level I mean by "still going strong", here are links to OpenTTD's news page and TT-Forums.
  9. Good to know! I had to check out this thread because one of my early-ish plane ideas was simply to go as asymetric as possible. I never tried it because I got distracted by another weird and wonderful idea, but my basic plan for asymmetry was a long wing on one side with a stack of 5 or 6 strakes on the other. I don't think I could build it with the unique-part limitation. I think the rule change could lead to a different aesthetic because I see planes here tend to look like scrapyard builds, but mine would probably come out looking like something from an alien civilisation. (I tend to build neatly even when I'm building wierd stuff.) Up to you if that's what you want or not. ... but now I'm wondering if I could build such an alien plane with unique parts. Ooh... I've learned a trick since I last thought about this; a top secret trick! Edit: Looks like I missed a few posts. I'll have to get busy building... if I can find the time between all my other planned builds and in-progress missions!
  10. I missed that one, but now I'm super-curious! If... if they allow launching new craft, and if they can be taken to other bodies and incorporated into bases, I will be a very very very happy kerbal! I was thinking of a mod, if it exists or if my skills were up to making it: Honest Harry's Construction Company, in which you take parts to a location and build your base, then tell the mod to make it a site, optionally with launch facilities. If mobile launch pads are what I hope, then between them and the ground anchors we won't need a mod to do this. But would it work for launching planes... Yes, with a little ingenuity.
  11. I'm not one for weapons as such, but this news makes me grin like Jeb driving too fast!
  12. If it is the game and if it's applicable to every wheel, I'll be very sad. My ranger Carragorn already needed 20 wheels to get around in moderate gravity, and I already had most of the workarounds I needed for rover stability.
  13. I have so many craft in my SPH, the game stalls for a moment, or sometimes almost a minute, when I click Open. I build a lot when my health isn't good enough for accurate piloting and the craft just build up. Got some junk, some craft development revisions (especially for the really weird designs), a few bug tests, and some surprisingly fun planes. (It's super-easy to build planes in KSP if you've got a very basic grounding in planes and aerodynamics plus just a little practice. I'm really happy about that. Oh hey, OP's title: More of an Atmosphery Guy; nice!) I haven't had time to look at the folders yet, but I'm super-happy KSP has finally got this basic feature (*cough cough chuckle*) and very much look forward to using it.
  14. I know this agrees with the in-game description (and I know it's been nearly a week), but I have to disagree. I've used the Convert-o-tron 125 continuously, unmanned, without serious problems. However, it is extremely slow if unmanned, and producing liquid fuel and oxidizer together isn't workable. (I forget why.) When producing a single liquid at a time, it will trickle along at about 96% efficiency. (This is with ambient temperatures of Kerbin or Minmus.) As for speed when unmanned, it takes somewhere in the region of a whole Kerbin year to fill two Rockomax Jumbo-64 fuel tanks. Those are the largest 2.5m tanks. When controlled by a maximum-level engineer, it took about 2 weeks if I remember right. (I can't find my notes.) I can't remember if it can produce lf+ox together when manned. A note on cooling: Radiators don't have to be physically near the part to be cooled. They do have to be attached to the part itself or the part which it is attached to. In 1.8, I found ore tanks wouldn't pass heat, but this seems to have been fixed by 1.11. For my vehicle on Minmus, 2 small radiators attached directly to the converter are quite enough. The only time the radiators heat up is if I time-warp while 'flying' the vehicle. That must be a bug because they don't heat up at any other time. The bug is with the radiators themselves; the drill's radiators heat up too.
  15. For wings, I want precise fitting with the shape of my craft. Procedurally building them out of parts wouldn't work. I want to place panels and trim them to fit. Otherwise, I agree with your post. Thinking a bit more, what I really want for fuselages is to place lengths of generic fuselage and divide it into sections with different purposes: Passengers, fuel/ox, fuel only, cargo bay. However, this really would conflict with the found-parts theme described by Single stage to ocean above.
×
×
  • Create New...