T-Bouw
-
Posts
328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by T-Bouw
-
-
Marooned on a moon after a botched landing yet again, the Kerbals huddle together around the Poodle engine (that doubles as a BBQ) and sing their version of "Jingle Bells":
Dashing tru the regolith,
In a one-engine lander,
Vertical speed negative,
Giving the ground a gander;
Bells on Bob's visor,
Chiming without sound,
Hit by a geyser,
Rolling along the ground;Jingle bells, jingle bells,
Joyriding commander;
Oh what fun it is to ride,
In a one-engine lander.Yesterday I determine,
I thought I'd take a ride,
And soon Valentina Kerman,
Was seated by my side.
Jebediah certified badS,
Misfortune seemed his lot,
His rover too low mass,
And then he got upsot. -
Accessibility is the feature I'm most thrilled about;
As a father of a 2 year old, I can't wait to use KSP2 to play together in a way that I did with my dad.
At first with him spectating, playing with the controls and watching the animations.
Then, after a few years, learning from the animations and make the first attempts at building and piloting his own crafts. All while guiding him.
And finally playing together in multiplayer, him guiding his old man.. -
I'm a bit late to the party, but what a surprise!
As far as I know, you never once mentioned the revamp of Kerbin. I must say, it looks stunning! The sand especially looks amazing!
The cyclic and collective additions are also very welcome.
Good job as usual Squad! -
The only downside is, this is one of those parts that, when you need it in an emergency, you forgot to bring along...
-
Yesss, a new part and function. Thanks Squad!
Now we can purge that pesky fuel if needed.
-
3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
I feel like there's a worry with overpopulating the parts and there's a lack of want by the devs to make procedural parts. So how's a modular system sound?
Instead of having 4 mk 1 fuel/ox tanks, 4 mk 2 fuel/ox tanks, etc etc why not have 1 mk1 tank and once clicked on you select a 100,200,400,or 800 variant... Then you select what you want in it fuel/ox, just liquid fuel, etc... Then you select a skin and it's primary/secondary colors
This would make the parts screen more navigatable in the fuel section, wouldn't add parts that devs don't want you to have yet in career mode (as procedural tanks would do) and finally, we would have better pure liquid fuel tanks
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. -
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. -
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. -
11 hours ago, Starwaster said:
Can't say for sure, but SOP for Squad has always been to deprecate the old parts by hiding them rather than actually replacing them.
The new parts usually have the same name but with _v2 appended and the category set to something non-existent.
The Stayputnik for example: The old one is still there somewhere as probeCoreSphere with category = none
The new one being name = probeCoreSphere_v2
"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. -
49 minutes ago, AHHans said:
Well, I also used to be like this. But Breaking Ground powered propeller aircraft are extremely physics-warp unfriendly. So flying longer trips can take really long times. I mean really long. I actually had a shower while one of my planes was traversing Eve.
Wow, that's amazing! That has to be a very stable plane.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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! -
A nice little quality of life improvement to KSP.
I love it! Thanks Squad! -
Welcome fellow space nerd!
See you around. -
@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!? -
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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. -
Well, I posted here earlier about playing Final Fantasy VIII after having started another session for like the sixth time in the 15 years I have it.
Yesterday I finally completed it!
I think a big factor in the completion this time is the fact that I have the game installed on my PSP. This way I could play it everywhere, take every little opportunity I could spare. And I did, on the couch, in bed, on the toilet...
It feels better than any other game I've finished, maybe because of all the quits and restarts. I slayed that personal demon by slaying a virtual one. -
That gave me a thought. I would love to have a space colony with a VAB. A spacedock!
The possibilities! -
This challenge is right up my alley!
@Vít Salava, your entry looks so retro and clean. I'll try to fly it this evening if no one else beats me to it.
And for my own entry, I immediately had a design in mind when I read the OP's post. Whatever happens, count me in!Edit: Alright, I've pushed myself to the limit today with this challenge!
For part 1, my submission:
https://kerbalx.com/T-Bouw/TailSittart
SpoilerThis is TailSittart II, an improved version. More Liquid and less RCS fuel.
https://kerbalx.com/T-Bouw/TailSittart-II
It is a design inspired by the weird experiments done with VTOL's in the old days. The design was once used by me in a career out of necessity as I hadn't unlocked the wheel gear parts and needed a VTOL for survey contracts.
This particular plane was especially made for this challenge and thoroughly tested, and crashed...
The difficulty comes from landing the thing. Transitioning from horizontal to vertical flight can be difficult and the descent can't always be controlled by the SAS. Oh, and there's not a lot of fuel. You've been warned!
Just to show that it can be done.
Spoiler
Part 2: MeatFly-B is really unstable. @Vít Salava wasn't kidding. The craft sometimes just rolls or pitches heavily upwards out of nowhere. I haven't been able to maintain a stable hover or flight for more than a few seconds!
Quite the little devil it is.
Proof:Spoiler.
I did have a blast doing this challenge. Good one!
-
In career I'm also at the point of designing a lander to go to Minmus. Once I have a good working design, I'll post it here. In the mean time I did a quick search on KerbalX and found these 2 that might be right for you. But as steuben says, some more design details would help.
http://kerbalx.com/?search=minmus -dlc ~stock ~vab ~just_craft -dlc ~ksp_version:1.4.3 ~include -by:part_count ~all_time
I would go for Mun (Basic) II. It's for an older version of KSP but should still be relevant, if you have the parts.
But that's kind of the point of this challenge huh.
KSP2 Sale Alerts
in KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Currently 25% off on Humble (Steam version) until februari the 5th.