T-Bouw

Members
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About T-Bouw

  • Rank
    Pointy Thingy Constructor

Recent Profile Visitors

1,429 profile views
  1. This, and it's close to what I suggested. It would reduce the part count on craft as well as what is loaded in RAM on the computer. Both will make for a smoother KSP. Your suggestion and the procedural way could both be temporarily limited in size allowance in career mode if desired.
  2. I'm a bit conflicted on this. Career is how I play KSP the most. During such a career, the science tree is an excellent way to steadily progress towards bigger rockets and further destinations. Part of why it works so well for me is every so often you unlock a bigger tank/engine to take your rocket to the next level. There's almost always a tank/engine for any occasion and I seldom have to stack multiple tanks because there's often a perfect sized one for the job. Except for RCS tanks... whereas fuel tanks have longer versions for any given diameter of which there are also several, the ideal one is bound to be there. But there's no such thing for RCS tanks. Those only get bigger and bigger and not longer. The same goes for wings. I often have to use several bits to get the perfect profile for a given craft. Oh and, for context, I play on a potato so there's that also. So you see I have two stances on this and both have merit to me. I would welcome procedural versions of things in career that won't break the progressional gameplay. Oh, I just had a last minute thought. Perhaps you could have procedural everything, but have it be restricted to certain sizes according to your tech level.
  3. I have a feeling I incited this shipping-software-(un)finished-business when I almost jumped to conclusions, all while I only wanted to know the reasoning for keeping the old part. That was never my intention. I very much appreciate the hard work Squad puts in the game. Now I know that keeping the old part(s) is to prevent braking saves and deprecating it when most people have made the switch And that is a lofty goal in my book.
  4. Posted 11 hours ago, Nestor said: "This will be the case for this revamp." So does this mean we have multiple obsolete parts being loaded into RAM for nothing? What a waste of RAM if that's the case. Resources aren't infinite. Why keep the old parts around if a replacement arrives? Don't get me wrong, I like the graphics updates you do, and this one also looks great, but I think optimizations should still take priority.
  5. Wow, that's amazing! That has to be a very stable plane.
  6. The stock landing gear has never made the game more than a little annoying for me, until yesterday. My Minmus lander can't even stand upright without the use of SAS. Without it, the lander slowly leans to one side until it falls. The gear seems made of rubber no matter what setting I use for it. Is this at least solvable or is it related to the issues most people have? I've never kept up with landing gear problem news until now.
  7. This never happens to me because the thought alone of this happening is enough for me to consistently pause the game. I even pause the game when I know nothing bad can happen, like a craft in a perfectly stable orbit. This last bit is actually annoying to me, but I can't help myself. OCD I guess...
  8. Nice, lots of improvements! The staging in the map screen was something I always wanted but always forgot to suggest. Glad it's implemented now! And you can count on me to check out the prettier planets and moons!
  9. A nice little quality of life improvement to KSP. I love it! Thanks Squad!
  10. Welcome fellow space nerd! See you around.
  11. @Simon campbell, welcome to the forums! You've got your answer(s), perhaps some might have come off as a bit harsh, but please don't take it personally. We're a bit passionate here, but we mean well. In the years we've given Squad a lot of flak when we thought they did something wrong, but also defended them when not. Squad made promises concerning free updates to early buyers and can understand how someone could interpret them a little differently. Please don't let this scare you off and let these 2 posts be your last. We'll see you elsewhere okay!?
  12. The new textures look miles better than the old ones, good going Squad! I did also notice that the Kerbal seemed to float above the surface while walking in some scenes. In my opinion, that's something I find more jarring than low-res textures. Or is it something that's hard to fix? Something to do with z-fighting?
  13. You could make a hinge section down the middle of your walker and use a separate axis to control it. This way you'll have a fair amount of precision. Another way would be to make axis-controlled-hinges at the shoulder(s) and/or hip(s) joints. Of course you could combine the previous 2 methods to have something as close to reality as possible which can make a super tight turn. I figure, the only challenge with the above methods will be to counter the slacking of the structure the hinges will give. Especially the middle section. Show us some pics! I'm curious.
  14. @Vít Salava, I'm surprised to hear that it handles better with SAS off. I just knew I made it too easy, but I can't help it. I think we all improve our craft until they perform like a dream. I'm glad you managed it! @Klapaucius, love your video! You managed a silky smooth landing on water and the second time, even though you came in too fast, you managed to save the cockpit. Good show! Thanks for giving it a spin people! I feel somewhat guilty seeing other people struggle with my craft. But that's kind of the point of this challenge huh. This challenge is counter-intuitive on multiple levels. As I said, I didn't know when to call it quits with the improvements.
  15. We West-Europeans may complain sometimes about the weather, but we never have hurricanes like that! Your post really put things in perspective for me. So many personal lives ruined by Dorian.