Ember12
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Ember12
-
-
40 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:
Maybe, but Laikanaut is talking about purchasing other players' time, which is a stickier wicket than folks might realize on the surface, especially if it spawns a black market and gold farming the in-game currency. You've in some ways turned other players into your employees... which is... kinda gross? I just think making KSP a transactional environment in that way is a bit dangerous, and probably makes the game much less enjoyable.
In practice this might be hard to prevent. There's nothing stopping someone from saying "If you launch my probe to Jool then I'll land 10 units of uranium at your Mun base." I totally agree that this sort of exchange has the potential to turn foul, but I don't see a good way to police or prevent it: no computer program can tell if things are getting ethically murky, and preventing this outright would make any joint mission much harder.
-
I didn't see a Mac support place, so I'm posting this here. I've been playing stock KSP on my Mac M1 Catalina for a while without issues, but when I tried modding it (with RP-1 and associated mods) it didn't work. What I'm wondering is, has anyone gotten these to work on an M1? I haven't seen anything on the internet to suggest someone has.
If you have, I would really appreciate help in resolving the issue. Of course, I can share the details of the failure and the log file if needed.
-
6 hours ago, Jacob Kerman said:
Something that I would like is a release of part sizes and shapes, as well as mass, on a wiki or just a list on here. I am the kind of person who likes to plan ahead, and I think it would be very useful. Anyone else agree?
Can you help me understand, what is the difference between your suggestion and the current KSP part menu?
-
1 hour ago, BowlerHatGuy3 said:
There were warnings in the first game, but they were in the engineering report that nobody uses. Would be better if there was a panel where you could see the warnings or got a notification before launch.
I use the engineer's report quite a lot, thank you very much. Anyway, if nobody uses it, why would they use a different thing with the same functionality?
-
50 minutes ago, poopslayer78 said:
When you say "git tree" it seems like you're actually talking about a "directory hierarchy" where you can have folders and sub folders with different variations of your design. When I used the term "git tree" I meant the directed flow graph that gets generated when you do forks & merges on a single file/craft over time... which now that I think of it isn't really a "tree" it's more of a DFG but I digress.
I may have misunderstood what you meant by git tree. What I am thinking of is an organizational array of manually saved files. Going back to my rover example, for instance, there could be branches for high, medium, and low gravity, each of which has sub-branches for power generation method, each of which has sub-branches for scientific payloads.
I agree though that trees can get messy quickly. An alternative/supplement might be tags for crafts and sub-assemblies. So if you are looking for a rover to send to Tylo, you could search for "rover non_solar mid_gravity" or whatever.
-
2 hours ago, poopslayer78 said:
For single player, I think a git tree would be overkill and version numbers would be preferable.
I disagree with this. One way I see a git tree being useful is for my launch vehicles; especially in career mode I have a standardized system of launchers, for different payloads and destinations. I've had to label them as things like "Universal Launcher 2-8-1" meaning a 2.5 meter core with 8 1.25m side asparagus stages. (Don't even get me started on what I have to do with SRBs.) A tree organization would be a far better way to organize them. This would also apply to rovers, where they often (at least for me) have the same basic design but vary in terms of experiments carried, power generation parts, number of wheels, etc, and you want a good way to find the one you're looking for.
-
1 hour ago, zeekzeek22 said:
Do we know if they are making changes to how atmosphere tapers off? It's such a big part of KSP to be able to drop a spacecraft in LKO and not worry about it...it would really increase the challenge if it used consumables over time for stationkeeping. Maybe cutoff-at-60-km is default and there's difficulty settings options for bringing it closer to reality?
This could be done, but I'm not sure how enjoyable it would be to have your low spacecraft fall down after a while; especially with time-warp it would be easy to lose track. Also I'm curious, about that cutoff-at-60-km thing, did the KSP2 people say that the atmosphere would stop there? In the current game it goes to 70 kilometers, and if they said that was changing I didn't hear about it.
-
18 hours ago, Xelo said:
Maybe the side pipes are for cooling the (superconducting?) magnet rings, I'd imagine itd still get pretty hot from the exhaust even its not touching it. :0
I also see the rings having thinner pipes on them, which could be fed from the aforementioned side pipes.That's possible, but I don't know where the heat would go, because I don't see any radiator fins or anything. Maybe it would dump the heat into the fuel before it it lit (however it is lit), or maybe you need to attach your own radiators.
-
Rotational stability would be a useful feature. But it's quite possible to set up just three fixed panels so that al least one always faces the light source.
-
According to the Next Gen Tech video, when designing the metallic hydrogen engines they consulted a Dr. Uri Shumlak at the University of Washington, who is an expert of things like plasma confinement. So there's probably some good reason for the star-exhaust, although I have no idea what it might be.
-
16 hours ago, Nazalassa said:
If they can kill all the krakens, I'll consider it to be true.
Perhaps it would be more apt to have a Kraken, with a whole bunch of harpoons sticking out of it, but still very much alive.
-
15 hours ago, t_v said:
This is sort of what I meant, that the differences would be small enough to be worth not simulating. I'd like to know of what sort of oceans you would see in space that are either highly compressible or have strong gradients of other materials in them. I'm sure that there are some and I don't want to pressure you to find them, I am genuinely curious.
I'm not an oceanographer, so all of this just represents my brief (non-Wikipedia, but still) internet research. Apparently, the salinity of the ocean at the surface varies between 33 and 37 grams per kilogram of salt. Two factors that influence that are a) precipitation and evaporation, and b) proximity to freshwater sources like rivers. High-salinity water, being slightly heavier, sinks, so lower layers of water are usually slightly denser than those above them.
If I had to made something up that would increase this difference, I'd say that if you had a watery world with a lot of salt, humidity and precipitation, the surface water would be continually freshened while the large amounts of salt would concentrate deeper down.
EDIT: I just realized that, obviously, there have to be large amounts of evaporation somewhere to keep up a lot of precipitation. So on a world like this, there would be places where lots of evaporating surface seawater would decrease the salinity differential.
-
41 minutes ago, t_v said:
I definitely think that having better buoyancy values and calculations is better (something that a voxel based model would help with), but the density of the oceans should not change with depth.
The density of Earth's oceans do change slightly with depth, because of small differences in salinity. This difference is only on the order of centigrams/cm^3, so it doesn't effect buoyancy much, but alien oceans could potentially have much steeper changes.
-
I agree. I've flown many missions where I forget to run science at some point, and this would be a great way to solve that issue.
-
3 hours ago, Fletch4 said:
it is set to default in the settings, all crews will respawn and be able to be hired back from the astronaut complex in two gameplay hours
I stand corrected, this could very well be in KSP2. But could a nuke do anything that a "terminate" can't?
-
3 hours ago, Fletch4 said:
wrong. imagine this: you have a fricking massive base on a planet that you no longer have any use for, but you want your kerbals back from it. as long as you have crew recovery still on, you can nuke the base and get all your little kerbal clones back.
I don't know what this "crew recovery" thing is, but I doubt it will be in stock KSP2.
-
12 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:
orion drive -pusher plate
I don't understand how having a single nuke part would help with this. You need multiple nukes to get a good delta-v, and a whole bunch of stuff to eject the bomb at the right time, detonate at the right time, etc.
14 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:Blow things up,
I'm not very enthusiastic about that, but yeah, you could definitely blow some big stuff up. This is probably would be why it would be an easter egg, because the part has no real use within the game.
-
It would be fun, but the physics would be problematic; with a launcher 100 meters in radius, just getting to Minmus orbital velocity (150 m/s) would mean that before release, whatever you're firing would be under 225 m/s^2 of centripetal force, or about 23 g's, which is certainly more than a human can handle for a reasonable time, and probably beyond the ability of many (human-made) rocket parts as well. Launching from the Mun with the same 100-meter spin launcher would exert 308 g's, and something like that on Kerbin would exert over five thousand g's. Right now KSP is okay with absurdly high g-forces on many parts, but that's a big hit to realism which I hope will be addressed in the second game.
This force could be reduced by increasing the radius of the launcher, but 100 meters is already pretty big for something that has to spin so fast. While these would be workable on tiny worlds like Gilly, producing a mere 2.9 g's with 100m radius, given how easy it is to orbit tiny worlds like that by conventional means, I don't think that spin-launchers would be worth the effort of including.
-
2 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:
you get access to a part that is just a nuke.
What exactly would you do with this?
-
22 minutes ago, Strawberry said:
there's nothing to suggest that the ksc will be upgradable (afterall theres several things that points to there not even being money in the game and more of a resource economy
My personal hope is that the KSC will be expandable, with choices about where to position stuff and new stuff costing resources, to act as a sort of colony practice.
-
5 minutes ago, RandomWatermelon1 said:
maybe we will have some planets with very thick atmospheres where SSTOs could be more useful for re-supplying than traditional rockets
I think maybe you're getting SSTOs mixed up with spaceplanes? They are different things. Spaceplanes would indeed be useful on worlds like those, but SSTO rockets wouldn't be particularly effective.
-
37 minutes ago, Strawberry said:
Space may be cold, but its also a vacuum. There is basically no conductive/convection cooling in space due to it being a vacuum. Machinery and humans generate a lot of waste heat, and if this heat isn't dissipated through radiative cooling this heat can easily cumulate. There's a reason why the ISS has such large radiators.
I don't dispute this at all. My only point is that you wouldn't learn an especially large amount about cooling tech in the outer solar system.
-
4 minutes ago, Strawberry said:
Considering there's trees, the rocket visits the mun, the style of the center doesnt match anything we have seen from colonies etc, yes.
Ah, I hadn't noticed the trees. Also I stupidly posted before I knew where that image came from.
-
Are we sure that's the KSC? The terrain looks pretty non-Kerbin-like. It could be a colony.
Nuclear Thermal Rapier engine
in Prelaunch KSP2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Of course this also applies to NERVA's and Orion drives.
I think that in addition to this nuclear RAPIER, a nuclear turbojet would be great as something that can run for weeks or months without a refuel.