Kenobi McCormick

Members
  • Content Count

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Kenobi McCormick

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Nah, it has been an issue I've had with Kerbal IVAs since long before we ever got female kerbs. They've sat so low in the seat that all I can see is sky and gauges since we first got IVA in aircraft cockpits. I'm well aware that you can doubleclick the windshield to glue their eyes to it, but that's not really a solution either, because then I can't see any instruments at all. When I fly an airplane I want my airspeed, altitude, and artificial horizon visible, but I also want to be able to see in front and sufficiently below the cockpit that I could see the runway while sitting on the runway(excluding taildraggers but they're rare in KSP). If I were setting up the IVA of an aircraft cockpit I'd rig it such that the default view has the bottom third of the screen showing the dashboard, with the relevant instruments to actually flying the thing(Navball, radar altimeter, regular altimeter, airspeed indicator) positioned on said dashboard such that they'd be visible, while the upper 2/3rds of the screen is looking out the window such that you can actually taxi around, or use the cockpit on a rover, et-al. You'd be able to see ground, your relevant instruments, and the sky, all without touching any camera controls whatsoever beyond hitting the 'View' button to get into IVA in the first place. Incidentally, this is also why I don't like driving cars in real life. I feel like I sit too low in them as well. It's not as bad as KSP IVAs, but even when driving an automobile I prefer to sit quite high up in the vehicle so I can see over the nose well, and cars generally don't let me do this very easy. Usually hit my head on the roof before I get a view I like. Part of why I love my old pickup so much, sit straight up in that thing can see for days. Low as in 'I can't see a damn thing in front of the airplane, only above it'. And this isn't limited to just a specific mod, even the stock aircraft IVAs have done it for as long as we've had them. And it's annoying as hell, since I want to fly IVA and can't readily do so when the camera is so low inside the cockpit that all I can see is sky and instruments.
  2. These look awesome. I don't know if it's just a quirk of the screenshots, though, but the IVA camera is so low that it's almost useless. And that's something I notice with the sweeping majority of KSP IVAs.
  3. Those are tasks I build rovers for. I don't waste three hours of my evening trying to engineer an aircraft that can gain sufficient lift and control in Duna's paper thin atmo when I can spend 20 minutes throwing some tracks and a reactor on a sheet of structural steel to achieving the same exact mission goal. What's the point of an airplane that can only do short hops? Just build a rover instead. If the airplane can't fly continuously for distances and/or at speeds higher than I can manage with a rover and MechJeb's cruise control it's not worth a single speso. Sure, but sometimes the task doesn't necessitate a jet engine. I'm not gonna waste my time engineering a supersonic airliner to send four kerbals across to the island runway. I'm gonna dust off the ol' Cessna or hand 'em the keys to a P-47 instead. We should get the whole smattering. Then I guess we're never going to agree, because I don't see the versatility or scalability. And come far earlier in the tech tree, if not being unlocked right from the beginning. They'd let us move those engines farther down the science tree. They'd work fine if they had a dual-mode intake system like I proposed the other night. You wouldn't use an aircraft engine on a submarine anyway. You also wouldn't be using a prop powerplant on a spaceplane. The problem is their power consumption doesn't scale well. You end up needing so many batteries and RTGs and solar panels that either A: the damn thing's too heavy to lift itself off the runway or B: Your processor starts trying to get you on the hook for war crimes. Rovers are great for that. So much so, in fact, that I've been using the same design for about six or seven game patches now. Simple little craft, ~2.5 tons on two KF Long tracks, has two of every vanilla science experiment and two of most mod experiments on board. Can pull 10,000 science out of one Mun mission with that thing. Also seats two kerbals, so that's two surface samples and two crew reports on top of the rest of the science it can gather. On top of that, it's got a MechJeb AR202 strapped to the side of the cockpit and some antennae, so it can be run autonomously as well, and the MJ unit lets me set waypoints and sip a Mountain Dew while the rover drives itself wherever I want it to go. I have no use case for an extraplanetary surface exploring aircraft. Maybe there's something else at play, then, 'cause the largest payloads my processor can handle are well within the capabilities of an aircraft with four Pratt 2800s on it. I can't get an acceptable framerate on a payload too large for those engines to lift. To me that's the point of rovers. To me, props are an early science tech that's used to help gather those first five or six nodes a little quicker and with a little more variety, and then from there, for making really cheap aircraft good for doing tourist contracts and testing parts in the lower atmosphere. The use-case for recips on other worlds just isn't there to me, everything you've mentioned you'd use them for I'd use a rover for. That's precisely where I'd have them in the tree, and alongside the Juno, I'd have a larger LF/IA recip sitting there to tide players over until they got their hands on a larger jet engine. You know, exactly the way we did it in real life. The ME-262 brought us the jet engine but the super-connie was still running passenger flights 15-20 years after that. It took a while for jet engine tech to get big enough to run craft that large and that should be represented in the tech tree as well. You unlock the juno and, in that same node, you get an 18 cylinder radial with some 2,000HP to its name to build larger aircraft with. Then later on you get the bigger jet engine that renders the radial obsolete. If they were allowed to care about that they'd be working on new planets for us to visit and new methods of rendering those planets that'd make it more interesting to visit them in the first place. Yeah, and by adding one part(An LF/IA burning recip), we get a lot of gameplay options too. Where's the second part? They throw us an LF/IA recip and we only need one part to explore those gameplay possibilities. We won't need to engineer an entirely new power system for the aircraft with it, we'd just use the same exact liquid fuel tanks we've been using for jets since C7 Aerospace was a mod back in 0.14. We wouldn't need to dick around with solar panels and RTGs and fuel cells, we wouldn't need to have all that added kraken-attracting complexity...it's KISS in action. Batteries have weight. Batteries are necessary to run an electric prop in KSP. Lift is what gets craft off the ground. See the connection now? You literally said 'subs', which is bringing them up. The ability to circumnavigate the planet with an airplane that'll give acceptable framerates on a craptop isn't a valuable addition to gameplay? Or the ability to free up more fuselage room in a given plane for useful payload items? That doesn't hold value either? You could say that to the new spacesuits Squad gave us, too. Literally just a cosmetic update, zero gameplay changes whatsoever, yet we got it anyway. And far as I can tell nobody was even asking for it. And that's why they're not practical in large planes. What's the point of a large airplane that can't fly more than a handful of miles before it has to land and recharge for 8 hours? It's the same reason I don't want anything to do with an electric car. Batteries suck. They're heavy and they have a fraction the energy density that even a low grade hydrocarbon has. Something high grade and refined is lightyears more dense than the best battery chemistry we can dream up right now and that's not lookin' to change anytime soon. Only way you're getting more energy density is if you start splitting atoms... I have no problem with fuel on my rovers. Generally I either use a fuel cell running off LF/O or a nuclear reactor for that. My fuel cell rovers have no batteries capable of moving them, what little battery capacity they do have is there solely so I can set the parking brake without a kerbal in it. Never even come close to running one out of fuel either, usually get bored and RTB long before then. You might have a point if there was a reason to venture more than a couple kilometers from your lander, but as the game currently sits, there just sort of isnt'. Land within that distance of a biome border, use a rover to cross it, get your science, head back to kerbin. That's pretty much it. Large reason I don't play the game very much anymore... Yeah, mine's to add something fun to the game, whereas yours seems to be to add....what is it again? The ability to run short hops on non-O2-bearing worlds that, by your own words, can be done better with other engine types? The only panels we can use are the little 1x1 tiles, on account of everything else being too fragile to survive flight speeds. And those things are inefficient on a good day, doubly so on an an airplane where they're almost never going to have ideal tracking. Again, what's the point of an airplane that can't do that? Especially an electric one? You want to argue electric airplanes and then in the same breath argue that it's ok for them to be utterly pointless when their practical range can be bested by a space car you're just going to confuse and bewilder the audience. Whatever the hell I want to shove up the cheeks end of a cargo plane. It might be a science package, it might be a rover, or a base part or a deployable ISRU system. Hell it might be a nuclear bomb, I don't know. Half the time I don't know what i'm going to be putting in the thing while I'm building it. Every post you've sent my way has been 'We don't need ICE props just give us electric props'. IF you're not arguing against ICE props you're doin' an awfully good job of making me think you are with every word you type. My wishlist? 1: Some sort of 4 or 6 cylinder Lycominc boxer in a housing on the half meter size(Available right from game start) 2: A small single-row radial on the half meter size.(Available right at game start) 3: A large liquid cooled V-12 on the one meter size.(Unlocked alongside the Juno) 4: A dual row 18 cylinder radial on the one meter size.(Unlocked alongside the Juno) 5: a four row radial on the one-meter size.(Unlocked one node past the Juno, also unlocks dual-mode operation on all ICE engines) 6: An electric prop on the half-meter size.(Unlocked the same time we get fuel cells so players can actually run the thing for a reasonable amount of time)
  4. Monoprop tanks are tiny and have love all monoprop in them. You need far more of your craft dedicated to containing fuel than you would an LF/IA engine. Electric? If you're building anything practically large you're gonna need far more than 'a battery and an RTG/Solar Panel' to get reasoanble performance out of the thing, and if you want to be able to run it full throttle it's gonna have to be 70% generation equipment. Even then it's gonna be beat out by a big ol' Pratt R2800 every time. You could also apply a KISS approach and just set its ISP curve properly. The recips we get with Firespitter produce love all thrust above 15,000km even if you use cheats to keep them running that high up. The game fully supports engines having different thrusts at different altitudes and it'd be trivial for a skilled modder to set that curve up such that the engine just flat out stops doing anything useful above the sort of atomspheric densities required for a propeller to work at all. It's already done in the recip mods we have now. Yes. A selection. Small, Med, Large LF/IA recips, an electric, and a monoprop. No. The most versatile would be the LF/IA recips. You can't scale the electric ones up very large before the weight of the support equipment exceeds the craft's ability to get off the ground, a problem that doesn't exist with ICE powerplants. You're not gonna be building any fully electric four engine propjobs that can carry several tons of payload, such a craft would be so heavy from all the batteries and such that it'd barely be able to carry itself to the heavens. Fuel cells? Well hell, you're still burning LF/O, why not cut the middleman out and just pipe the LF straight into the engine? KISS is a wonderful thing to apply when it comes to engineering, especially when you're looking at early game tech which is where these engines would fall. The whole point of giving us prop jobs is to make fixed wing atmospheric flight more viable early game. Subs don't have to worry about lift. The also don't have to worry about batteries. Submarines in modern navies haven't run on batteries in 40 or 50 years, what with them all being run straight off a massive nuclear reactor and all. The only navies still using batteries in their subs are using hilariously outdated antiques that were state of the art back when the finest fighter planes in theskies were armed with nothing but machine guns. Large electric props work here, but they'd have to come with nuclear reactors to power them. Also not the scope of our discussion, we're referring to aviation usage, not naval usage. For certain applications, yes. For general usage, no. The best prop powerplant for general aviation has remained the gasoline fuelled recip for over a hundred years and doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. If it does, itt'l be to move towards diesel, provided the tech inherent in manufacturing a reliable aviation diesel engine matures enough that they don't end up excessively heavy. They'd use a fraction of the fuel a turbofan uses and an order of magnitude less fuel than a non-turbofan jet engine uses. You'd be trading off the ability to cruise along 575MPH @ 35,000' for being able to go nearly twice as far on the same quantity of fuel. Turbine engines are LUDICROUSLY thirsty and you need only look at the M1 Abrams to see this in action. Abrams has roughly the same shaft horsepower going to its tracks that the Leo 2 has, yet needs twice as much fuel to go the same distance. Gas turbine engines are stupidly thirsty and will never match the fuel economy of a piston engine. The only reason we use them in aviation is because of the equally excessive amounts of thrust they can provide. And yet it'd be nice to have one. Would let you operate a big ol' Pratt radial on Eve. We already have one of those, in case you weren't aware. We've had it for ages, too. we already have a similar enough engine in the game. I'd rather have a Pratt R2800 and R4360 in my game. I can do far more with one of those monsters than I ever could with a desk fan taped to the front of the plane. I don't build small recips, I build big ones. Think B-29, B-36, B-24, Lockheed Super-Connie. Planes like that are too large to be practical on an electric power system. You might could sorta half-assedly get away with jury-rigging a Cessna 172 using the ludicrously advanced batteries and generation systems Kerbals have but you're not gonna get a super-connie off the ground on batteries. Not even using Kerbal batteries. Thing's just too big and too heavy. There's also another factor you're not considering that's incredibly relevant...perhaps moreso than any other point you've brought up so far...to our discussion: Part count. I don't know the details of your machine, but I know mine well enough, and I know my framerate goes to absolute horseexcrements if I have more than about 150 parts on screen at any one given time. With fixed wing flight I like to keep part counts below half that just to guarantee at least 30FPS. So, 75 parts total. That's the part budget for my aircraft. If I want to build a four engine long range prop plane, I need...let's say ten parts for the fuselage, the FAT-A55 wing parts add another ten, throw 5 more on for flaps and ailerons, three for LG, a MechJeb unit...we're at, what,28 parts already? Up to 32 for the engine nacelles, 36 with the engines mounted to those nacelles. The basic airframe comes in at 36 parts, not too shabby considering the size of the vessel, and certainly one flyable even on a potato grade laptop. But it's just a glider, so let's fit some engines... Now, let's say you get your way and all I have are electric powerplants. That means I'd have to spam batteries all over the fuselage and solar panels will need to coat every last square inch of the sun-facing side of this airplane(Which due to its size we will assume is only the top, not something generally expected to fly inverted). Ok, my part count's now hovering around 130 parts, and I haven't even begun to apply a useful payload yet. If I get my way and we get electric props and ICE props(Keep in mind I'm not arguing against having electrics, I'm arguing for having them alongside piston engines, something I think you're missing somehow), I throw a few stonkin' huge radials on the necelles, add a single 1 meter fuel tank to each nacelle, and some fuel lines to the main fuel reserve. I'm still well within my part budget...somewhere around 40-45 parts...with adequate performance in flight and room to add a useful payload! I have room in the part budget to pack the thing full of every science experiment in the game if I want to, or I can load it up with a rover, or deploy an ISRU, base parts, passengers, whatever I want. I have room in the part budget to actually do things with the vessel without my framerate going to hell the instant I spawn in on the runway. I'm still in the upper 40th percentile as far as CPU power goes. The vast majority of KSP players are either on hilariously outdated consoles that make my computer look like the CRAY Supercomputer, or they're on craptops that can barely run Firefox properly. If I can't even run such an aircraft on electric power with an acceptable framerate how the hell are they gonna do so?
  5. Mm, but LF+O is more versatile. Can get a lot more power out of it without requiring a mountain of support systems, or scale it down to something barely larger than a soda can. Atop that, it can be dual mode, just as the SABRE engines we already have, burning intake air when available and liquid oxidizer when necessary. Of course it would need a vacuum thrust of basically nil, but yeah. A monoprop engine, an electric engine, and a turboprop engine would all be nice little niche products, but the bread-and-butter oughtta be a selection of LF/IA recips with LF/O dual mode operation unlocked later in the science tree. They'd be the most versatile, and also the simplest, options here, good for general usage with the other engines available for specific missions that necessitate them.
  6. Late reply I know, but...mm, there's no reason you can't pipe LO2 into a standard recip with the right manifolds. Engine doesn't care where it gets its oxygen, only that it gets oxygen. I can't imagine the efficiency would be all that good, but hell, it at least should be better than an LF/O2 rocket engine. I 'spose that's also a valid use case for recips in KSP, but to me, recips in KSP are an early game tech that is to be rendered obsolete later on down the line by more advanced systems. Kinda like what we've done in real life, generally, recips are only used on light personal craft and historic craft that originally had them. Turboprops would be a nice addition too, I'll admit. Not quite a recip but the end result isn't much different. It costs maybe two thousand to throw a recip that'll carry 12 kerbals up. They're cheap as chips. Simple to engineer. Barely use fuel. Can just throw 'em together and generally they'll fly. I've found jets can be quite finicky at times but recips are pretty much 'throw airplane shaped boards at a washing machine and the end result flies half-decent'. If I try I can get pretty damn good performance out of them, too. Some of it might have something to do with how slow they are, though. Typical stall speeds for my recips fall in the 25-45m/s range. With a stall speed that low you really have to balls it up to crash one, and landing gets rather easy. By default they tend to be seaplanes too on that same basis, they land so slowly that they can reliably splash down undamaged.
  7. Uhh, no. I can think of three uses for recips in KSP right off the top of my head: * Early game science gathering. * Sightseeing contracts. * Cheap long-range aircraft. That's, coincidentally, what I use the recips I build using mods for as well. I don't waste my time engineering some fancy-pants expensive jet to take a tourist over to the nearby island runway, I just warm up the cessna or throw 'em the keys to an old warbird. Why spend 125,000 spesos on an SR71 flight to satisfy a contract that only pays out 12,500 spesos? I honestly think recips have a valid place in KSP right as they are and including them as options will not require a name change. If it did, then we were overdue for it when they decided to add all of C7 Aerospace's jet parts to the game back before it even went behind a paywall. Also, yes, yes you bloody well can put a recip into orbit. I might actually give it a try tonight or tomorrow, build some sort of twin engine recip that can carry enough boosters to get it into orbit. Failing that, I'll just shove a normal launcher up the cheeks end of a Spitfire...
  8. I'm not really referring to the specifics of science in career. I'm talking more in general terms, in terms that apply equally to career and sandbox. Though I'm also in favor of doing something to the science system that makes it less of a grind, as that's precisely why I don't play it. It's just grinding. Go here, run the same experiments, take htme there, run them again, unlock more parts, repeat ad nauseum.
  9. KSP is a great foundation for space exploration, no denying that. Between the breadth of stock content and the inundation of mods that expand upon and even add new features outright, there's no shortage of parts to use, of types of craft to build, bases, et-al. And that's great! But it gets old fast when there's nowhere exciting to send any of it. I may just be burned out....I've had the game since V0.17 after all...but lately, KSP has lost my interest because there's just not anything new to discover in the game. I've been everywhere. At some point between V0.17 and V1.4.4, I've landed on every orbital body, I've escaped the system, crashed into the sun, spaghettified, got kraken'd, you name it. I'm out of cool and interesting things to catapult Kerbals towards. And that's what I think the next major update should add in. Give us something cool to go to. Land on Duna twice...once at a snowy pole once off the ice...you've seen it all. There's nothing new to be found landing in a different spot once you've landed in those two spots. Land on Val? You've seen everything there is to see, it's just the same texture tiled over and over and over and over. Anomalies? Yeah they were neat. Were. I explored them in Versions 0.18-0.21 or so, in fact I remember using the old precursor to SCANSat to find them(I forget what it's called). Same logic applies to pretty much every oribtal body, there's only a small handful of POIs on each one and once you've ticked the boxes there's just not any reason to fly past the Mun. I've even tried mod planets, which is amazing in and of itself....but they have the same problem. Once you land on them a couple times, that's it. They, like the vanilla planets, are just the same texture tiled over and over and over, and like the vanilla planets the terrain itself isn't really varied. You can tell just how 'digital' they really are when you drive across them and see how each area is a perfectly flat tile that's tilted to some degree. Sure, landing on mod planets means it's a different texture to the vanilla planets, but once you've seen it a couple times you've pretty much seen the whole thing. I'm sure I'm not alone. There's tons of people who've just got into the game recently, I'm sure, and to them they still discover new things with every launch. But there's a lot of us here who've already been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and I'm sure the vast majority of us would come flocking back in droves if the next update to the game gave us a metric -beep-tonne of new things to explore, even if they're on the planets we already have. Varied terrain, weather patterns, things floating around in the solar system that aren't planets, let the imagination wander and then whatever it wanders to that the game engine supports should go into the game. I dearly want to come back to KSP but I can't bring myself to do it. I usually load up the game, doddle around the space center for 20 minutes building a rover, launch it at a random planet, land, see nothing new, get bored, and go back to ATS or Fallout 4. Can I, and everyone else like me, get our wonderment and sense of discovery back? Can we get new places to go, new things to see on the places we've already been?
  10. Mmm. As far as the original topic goes, I have two serious suggestions for you that help me greatly: 1: Stop using the stock rover wheels. They don't slide readily and that's why you flip so easily. Mod wheels...my favorites are the tracks floating around...tend to be willing to slide a little instead of just traction rolling you every time you try to steer. 2: Get a gamepad of some sort and drive your rovers with that. It's harder to flip the thing over if you've got proportional steering as you can feed it in juuuust enough to turn without rolling it.
  11. Quicksaving isn't the problem, and as I've said countless times in Fallout 4 discussions regarding the restrictions on game saves in Survival mode, it does nobody any favors to restrict or block saving the game when the game is full of bugs, glitches, and unintended incidents. KSP isn't much better than Fallout 4 in that regard, especially when dealing with rovers. As far as NASA's rovers....they move at a snail's pace less because they can't just hit F9 and more because designing a vehicle that can bomb across the Martian surface at 50+ MPH isn't designing a vehicle current rocketry can deliver to the Martian surface. We could easily design a rover that would be able to race across at highway speeds, in fact all it takes is just one phone call between NASA and anyone running in the Baja 1000, but the resulting vehicle would be too heavy and too power hungry to be feasible to deploy. Lastly...what's so virtuous about taking it slow in a game where there's nothing noteworthy to explore nearby? You land on a planet's surface and, unless you land RIGHT ON TOP of a biome divider, there's nothing any different 200m from your lander as there is right between the landing legs, or 2 miles out. Being able to haul ass in a rover isn't a matter of convenience, it's a matter of spending less time staring at the same texture tiles waiting for a new biome in which to run the same exact experiments for the 95th time.
  12. S'all good, homey! Honestly thought I'd just not seen the right link or something, haha.
  13. Am I missing something here? Title says mod supports 1.4.x, I'm on 1.4.2, but the only download links in the OP are for game version 1.2.
  14. Is there any way to turn off the version checker? I'm on 1.4.2 and FAR keeps telling me I'm not on 1.4.2.
  15. I don't have any major cracks in my runways, either, but I'll keep that in mind. 1.3.0 has the San Andreas Fault running through it. Got ya!